"Burn in" Are you serious?

If burn-in exists, I have no proof or indication. My psychological state seems to have more of an effect on how my system sounds than any burn-in. After the second beer my system sounds much better. If burn in exists, it is likely to be very subtle and gradual. With all due respect I am not convinced by any of those above who argue that there is a huge burn-in effect. Opening or closing a cabinet door neer my room reflection points, changing the position of the blinds, etc. has a much bigger effect on the sound than burn-in could possibly have. Do you have an anechoic chamber ? Then I may be convinced that you can detect burn-in.

I suspect your hearing is not sensitive to it Joe. This is not implying you don't hear well, because the effect is not gross, is not like the difference between having the blinds shut or open, or like the difference between two components. It is a quality that flattens images, takes a feeling of weight out of bass, adds a mechanical/electronic quality. And I don't care if you are convinced or not. I don't visit this forum to win arguments (which is not to say I don't fall into the trap of becoming embroiled in them from time to time) - just to share experiences with others - and your experience (and that of others) of not hearing components burn in is interesting and perplexing. But I feel no need to require you to prove that burn in does not exist. I cannot quite understand your concern about proof.

We KNOW our system's sound: We KNOW how does the system sound compare with live sound, we KNOW where the shortcomings are and we also KNOW burn-in is for real.( Inside that is. Outside we might brag whatever)

I agree that not everyone is equally influenced by the effects of burn it. I unfortunately, am one of the more sensitive to this problem, and really have to exercise caution when testing. This is not a new or revolutionary thought within the audio industry. Even in the early 1980's, people such as Steve McCormack, Bill Lowe (Audioquest), Jim Aud (Purist) and Richard Vandersteen, among others, advised us about the existence of break in. These manufacturers have more recently been followed by a majority of the high end community, in recognizing the fact that this is a real part of the evolution of the sound.

Hi Waldhorner, Yes I think I would expect a difference between an old receiver and a new high end piece. Would you expect a different ride from a new Mercedes when compared to a 78 Chevy? Of course. But that would not prevent me from acknowledging any aspect that might turn out to be superior in the Chevy. Over time and thanks to a few unusual experiences of mine I have learned to trust my ears before trusting my eyes. I know this is hard to do. One example: 28 years ago my band was making our first album in the studio at the top of Radio City Music Hall (same one where Toscanini conducted the NBC Orchestra). I had a "name" producer and one of the most experienced and sought after engineers at the time. The pressure of performing and of being surrounded by "more experienced" ears than mine did not stop me from complaining constantly about something being wrong with the sound. I did not have the tools to describe it but I insisted that they pay attention to my feelings. After a few hours of recording the engineers reluctantly checked into it and found that a 5 hertz tone was being put on tape unbeknownst to them. This discovery prevented problems later on down the reproduction chain, and saved us from losing many takes... I began to trust my ears and my hunches after that and hundreds of similar experiences. It was also a lot of fun watching the Rockettes run around the changing room next door! I would be interested in a clear scientific explanation of break in, but I would not deny its existence in light of my personal experience and the thousands of testimonials here and elsewhere. Objective testing has as many flaws as subjective listening.