They're rules of audiophilia, which operate outside the laws of physics. They may make the break-in phenomenon seem suspiciously like the user is simply getting used to the sound of a new component, but that's just a coincedence.

I used to find arguements about break-in interesting. However, the arguements usually take on the feel of a discussion about religion (from both sides) rather than a discussion about a hobby one enjoys.

I am willing to accept that someone may or may not hear a break-in in any component in their audio system. Why? 1.) As a scientist I know that our knowledge at any given time is only a partial representation of the truth. Hopefully, our understanding of the world around us (and our ability to quantify it) continues to improve. 2.) We now routinely measure things in audio which were not even considered important 20 years ago (i.e. CD playback and jitter) 3.) At least my enjoyment of audio and HT is not purely a scientific endeavor.

Again, as a very wise man once said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein.

Actually, that is not really true. There are really no measurements that would apply to things like "break-in" on audio equipment that we have now that we didn't have at least 50 years ago.

Things like jitter measurments used on digital audio equipment have existed for decades, but have just been applied to other areas of electronics. The jitter measuement wasn't invented just for measurement of CD systems.

The mechanisms of change in the characterisitcs of circuitry over time have been known almost since the beginning, and solutions found for cancelling them - if they were'nt, reliable electronics could not possibly exist as they do today. Just think how unreliable things like aircraft would be if the electronics constantly underwent "break-in", changing their characteristics at the whim of the magical silicon's mood.

Another fact that that is not mentioned and often misunderstood about modern solid state electronics is that it uses, almost without exception, massive (and I do mean massive) amounts of both local and global negative feedback. One effect of negative feedback is to cancel any changes in the circuit's characteristics. The result is a stable and rock steady circuit, which does not change over time (i.e. "break in").

This is not true of some vacuum tube circuits such as my single ended triode amplifiers, which do not make use of global negative feedback, but only small doses of local negative feedback. In circuits like these, the characterisitcs and sound of the circuit are at the whim of the aging of the emmissive coatings on the cathode of the vacuum tubes. However even given this, any actual change in the sound of these amps is so gradual and subtle that I cartainly cannot hear it. Obviously, this does not apply to solid state electronics at all.

No, certaian fields are vastly more understood than other areas of science. You can't compare the understanding of one science to another directly.

Audio electronics is vastly simpler than other areas. Things liks analog to digital conversion existed long before digital audio did. There are'nt any magical mechanisms going on just because the electrons represent music.

i totally agree with soundhound (sigh) that there is no "break-in" period with solid state electronics.

things like speakers do change slightly with time though due to their movement.

the only kind of break you will experience with solid state is broken.

See, that makes you exactly like me, which I'm sure is a never ending source of annoyance to you.

Fortunately, the reverse is not true.

I understand that jitter measurements were available long before the CD player became common place. The point is that no one at that time (the big-hair 80's) considered digital jitter to be important so it was not measured. It took a minor paradigm shift to get beyond the "perfect sound forever" mythos.

My point is simply that I have no doubt that there are many things, even in a simple field like electronics, that we do not understand completely. If our understanding of electronics is complete and cannot be improved, then our universities are wasting a lot of time. money and effort in their engineering programs. In an audio system where you have complex interactions among the source material, electronics, transducers (animate and inanimate) and the environment the probability of unmeasured effects seems more than likely. There are certain basic aspects of all science that transcends disciplines and one of those is that the knowledge in the field is always imperfect unless we assume that we have all the knowledge in that field that exists. No scientific endeavor today has, or claims to have, perfect knowledge.

Also note that I never said I believe in break-in for non-mechanical components as an important phenomenon. I simply refuse to dismiss it out of hand and can accept the fact that some people hear a break-in. Whether it is the system or the user breaking-in remains, in my mind, to be seen.

Hmmm .... is this a good thing SH?

How would you explain the fact that audio circuits seem to be the only ones that "break in" compared to other industrial equipment? Are audio electrons really all that special? It's easy to throw an opinion out there on a subject, but I wish you would back up your position with some technical facts from direct experience.

Note that I am specifically not talking about electromechanical equipment like speakers, phono cartridges, microphones etc. Things that involve moving parts always wear for better or worse.

Again, I never said I believe or have experienced break-in of non-mechanical devices, so I do not see what facts you want. The fact that break-in has not been found in other electronics may mean that it does not exist but depends on whether it has been looked for. If you do not admit that something is possible then it will not be examined.

I am simply not so rigid or presumptuous to believe that we have total knowledge in the field of either electronics or audio electronics. Therefore, I am willing to entertain the possibility of break-in (or change over time) of electronic components. This is not the same as "believing" in break-in since that would require an act of faith, not science.

If you feel confident in dismissing break-in of electronic components based upon your knowledge and experience, then I respect that. I also expect the same courtesy from others.

Again, let me be clear. I AM NOT ADVOCATING A POSITION THAT BREAK-IN OF NON-MECHANICAL DEVICES OCCURS OR DOES NOT OCCUR. I AM SIMPLY MAINTAINING AN OPEN MIND ON THE SUBJECT.

A routine phase in design in any electronic system is to be aware of the areas that can cause drift due to tolerances, heat, time or other effects, and design around them. It is standard practice in any field to compensate for possible variables, your's included I would imagine. Geez...