So...if I follow correctly...an audio stand experiences mechanical break-in which signficantly improves the sound of the equipment sitting on it after 4 days because:
1. Automobiles experience break-in
2. Cables burn-in
3. The End Pin for a Cello caused a perceived change in performance after 30 minutes.
Gotcha...all clear now...thank you!
BTW, I did some testing myself and found that my rack is not broken in yet because I haven't heard a significant difference attributable to its micronic movement. It's been almost 6 months, so it must really suck...On a lighter note, I found that my butt mechanically breaks-in to my listening chair after only 3.2 minutes. More "scientific" testing similar to you guys to follow...
Seriously, not to pick a fight, but I just think you guys are both jumping to conclusions and ignoring much more plausible and obvious factors - not the least of which is mostly subjective human factors.
For example, is it possible to play an instrument EXACTLY the same indefinitely? Perhaps the instrument sounded the same for a few minutes after changing the pin because it was being played the same. However, as more time passes, many subjective human factors could easily cause the sound to change simply by the way it was being played.
In Stehno's case, was the material being played the same, was the volume the same, was his head in exactly the same spot, was the noise floor in the house the same (i.e. A/C running, fans, appliances, cars passing in the street, dogs barking in the neighborhood, etc)? I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are many factors to consider before jumping to a conclusion - especially one that has no basis in logic, science or common sense. Does this statement/conclusion REALLY make sense -- "inneraction of pin and cello settle into some type of mutual relationship in transmission of vibrational patterns that are sympathetic for a certain amount of time"?
Since you guys like analogies...think about those people who believe in that clown who claims to speak to the dead. Just because he knows one letter in the dead relative's name, do you jump to the imediate conclusion that he is a psychic??? Or....do you ask...."If the he can give you the letter "J" in the name of your dead father, why can't he give you the "O" and the "E"?