Does a new cd transport require break-in time?

I wasn’t supposed to send a tracking number.  All I was supposed to do was paste the label they sent me onto the package.
Evidently there was a tracking number on that label that would have started the return process.
 FedEx probably covered the label with their own and assigned a different tracking number that Schiit had no knowledge of.

As a one-time experimental psychologist working in perception and cognition I suspect I am one of few people in this forum to actually do  human experimentation for a living. I have no time for the double-blind crowd because there are just so many things wrong with their claims. At the outset, experiments  proceed by demonstrating that there are differences between conditions not that there are no differences. In statistics this is called rejecting the null hypothesis.   However accepting the null hypothesis is not proof of no difference, rather it is a statement of failure to find a difference and such results are rarely even accepted for publication because they are inherently suspect on the grounds that any fool can botch an experiment. The auditory judgments underlying high fidelity are subtle and complicated and not going to be teased out without major work meaning many experiments.  In any case I have not heard heard of a single item of audio equipment which has been evaluated and then sold on the strength of scientific testing of its sound quality.  This is not because some equipment is not better than others but rather  the difficulty of doing such work. Like it or not, we rely on the golden ears of designers.

I completely agree. I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for years. Blind tests are the threat made by naysayers in an attempt to win an argument over some controversial audiophile concept, device it tweak. "Controlled blind test will demonstrate that power cords all sound the same, all fuses sound the same, or that product X is a complete fraud."
in some cases intricately and "trap" style blind tests can be devised that no one can possibly pass. As in $1 Million Dollar Challenges. Plus ANY blind test protocol or procedure can be discredited as being too intricate or not intricate enough, or unworthy system, unworthy participant, errors in the procedure, unexpected or unaccounted for variables, etc.

Double blind tests are only part of the argument, of course. Starting point is that there is no existing physical theory that can explain such 'night and day' differences. The next part of the procedure is to look at measurements. Since these do not show anything of potential significance either, the listening test is the last part. Here, expectation bias is an amply documented problem, hence the preference for double blind. It is true expectation bias is only one of many potential issues, and it is of course true that there are many ways to mess up a test procedure/be dishonest. However, there is ample opportunity for those who believe that there is a difference, to do their own tests, document their methodology and demonstrate that there is difference.