Do we break in our componets or do our componets ?

Whether it is in my head or not, I perceive break in when I buy new components. That is what is, hence it is an issue. I do not perceive the same effect with a system that is simply unfamiliar. Based on this experience it is sensible for me to not make hasty judgements about equipment that is new - yet fast judgements are more sound when the equipment has been "broken in", whether familiar or not. Therefore I behave accordingly, because to do so makes sense. If you Pbb do not perceive break in - then that is your reality and it is sensible for you to act accordingly. Whether our differences are due to me deluding myself into believing something, just for the sake of it, or whether it is due to your closed little mind refusing to believe the evidence of your ears, neither of us will ever know for sure. I have stated what I believe. You have stated yours. Your stooping to denigrating others to support your point of view only succeeds in diminisjing yourself.

Just one point about "believing one's ears" as opposed to trusting electrical engineering science.

I fly airplanes, sometimes in the clouds. When flying on instruments it is quite common to have a very strong feeling that you are turning left or right, climbing or decending. The feeling is very real, but a trained pilot knows that it is an illusion, and he trusts his instruments which tell him what the plane is really doing.

Optical illusions are well known. There are times when one cannot believe their eyes.

So too there are times when you should not believe your ears, unless, of course, you like what you hear. In that case, dream on and enjoy it, but don't insist that it's reality.

I won't insist its reality, if you don't insist that because something is not explained by exixtsing knowledge, then it cannot be reality. No real scientist would be so closed minded. The history of science is littered with bad scientists that insisted their theories were the truth only to have them disproven. I don't find your analogy Eldartford to be a terribly good analog of the issue at all. But how about the analog of those that insisted the planets revolved around Earth. Are the claims that there cannot be component break in any different? If so, please explain how? It was more open minds that were prepared to accept observations that were more consistent with a new theory, that led to progress, not the closed mindedness of the bad scientists that insisted that everything was already known and anything inconsistent with that had to be heresy.

Redkiwi, I have been having this discussion with the "measurement people" since the day I started on this board.(and long before) It doesn't matter what you say, if they can't measure it, they don't think it exists. Very simple, and I have come to accept that they will never think any other way. Even though you could have 2 tubes that are (different brand)exact replacements for each other, and test exactly the same, they have different sound. Even though you could have 2 capacitors that have exactly the same capacitance, and they sound different. Etc. Etc. Until the day that Triplett makes a meter that has a "Sound Quality" setting on its dial, these guys will never believe it. It's because they don't know how to go about measuring what needs to be measured, so they blame it on others' "psychological perceptions". This is not new, it was going on in the 70s, when these same guys all told us that any amp with .00001% measured distortion(like a $199 Sansui) sounded as good as a $10k audiophile amp(or even better because the $10k amp didn't measure as well). The measurements proved it, and we were all "out to lunch" for spending $10k on our amps. Whoops! They screwed up on their measurement procedures, didn't they? All that global feedback actually did screw things up, didn't it? But boy, it measured good, and that was all that mattered. I would have thought that after 20+ years, people would have woken up, but apparently that is not the case. Meter in hand, they are still preaching the "Bench Tech Gospel". Now, to be fair, there are some worthwhile measurements, and I use them for what they are good for. They can tell you some things. But that's all. When I want to hear what equipment sounds like, I listen to it, I don't plug it into an oscilloscope.

As you say, and as is evidenced by "real scientists" like quantum researchers, there are things that are beyond our ability to measure, but are real. The problem is not with the existence/non-existence of these things, but our ability to measure them. Science lags behind, and is nothing more than an attempt to measure and explain things that we percieve. To state that something cannot exist because we lack the measurement skills to quantify it, is turning science on its head, and is very unscientific, to say the least. When they say that it is like "instrument flying" with need to rely on instruments, they are being genuine, and really think that it is the same thing, and are really trying to be helpful.

I don't expect any of the "measurement people" to agree with me on this, because it is sort of like any other "epiphany" experience. Until you realize it, you think people who have, are nuts.

So I just accept these people at the level that they are at, and don't expect them to understand. They are operating at a level that many here have surpassed years ago, and not everybody in this hobby operates at the same level. Of course, there is some "snake oil" out there too, and most experienced people can "sniff that out" without much trouble. I try not to argue too much about this, because it is useless, for the most part, and non-productive, and generally just gets people pissed-off. Ocassionally, like today, I'll post something about it. I don't really blame anyone for taking this position, because they actually think they are right. So it's up to us to make sure others know that there is more to this than meets the meter's needle.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but my opinion is as good as the next guy's. Unfortunately, we don't have an "opinion meter" to measure which is correct.

Twl --

I don't think you'll get flamed. I think you've made a nice
argument for your position. But, as I read the thread, I
don't see anyone taking the positions you are arguing
against. It seems that someone mentioned "instruments" and that was close enough for you to project your "measurement" opponent onto him. So, while you make a cogent argument, it seems you had to set up a straw man to do it. Other than that, I sense
some typical audio one-ups-man-ship in your post. It
seems you really want us to know you can hear things
that can't be measured. And, this is the typical response to the measurement types -- the claims of
"golden ears." I am skeptical of both sides in the
argument. Finally, there is the infamous study where
they gathered a group of audio reviewers with "golden ears" and had them listen to a sound system. Next,
they showed the group different speaker cables. As
each cable was substituted for the previous, the group
marveled at how different each set of cables sounded.
The problem was that thye cables were never changed.
It was 16 gage zip cord all along. So, there are charlatans everywhere. People who claim to hear things others can't and people who deny the existence
of things that cannot be measured. IMO, anyone trying
to navigate around this field should approach ALL claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.