Break in time that extends to months or maybe even years!!


On another thread, we have a well known and well respected piece of gear ( and great sounding too, IME) that according to the member who is reviewing it, needs in excess of 1000 hours to fully break in!! 

While we have all heard of gear that needs immense amounts of 'break in' time to sound its best, usually gear that involves teflon caps, I question whether this very long break in time is the job for the consumer? Is it reasonable for a manufacturer of audio gear to expect the consumer to receive sub-par performance from his purchase for potentially several months ( years?) before the true sound of the gear in question can be enjoyed? Or, is it ( or should it be) perhaps the job of the manufacturer of this gear ( usually not low priced) to actually accomplish the 'break in' before releasing it from the factory? Thoughts...
128x128daveyf
fundsgon
Albert Einstein could predict the orbital precession of a star around a black hole, but not even he could predict the break-in period of a pair of bookshelf speakers.

>>>>His prediction was all the more remarkable as Einstein didn’t believe in black holes until his death. He became a strong believer of black holes after his death.
mahgister
Albert Einstein once wrote on a blackboard: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

>>>>>Nope, sorry. Einstein would never say something so trite. It doesn’t mean anything.
Geoffkait,
true enuf. He did however, predict orbital precession. His calculations perfectly predicted mercury’s orbit, which is subject to a higher degree of precession than the outer planets. Orbital dynamics using classical physics are not able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, Einstein’s Gravitational physics is needed for that.

recently, a star orbiting the milky ways central black hole was shown to be behaving as Einstein’s calculation predict. Astounding. 

Anyone know what music Herr Einstein listened to? 

Okay, now we’re light years off topic. My fault.
@fundsgon 
Hockey, maple syrup, and ballet......
Throw in the occasional Walleye dinner with a Canadian lager and you have a sort of cold weather utopia

fundsgon
Geoffkait,
true enuf. He did however, predict orbital precession. His calculations perfectly predicted mercury’s orbit, which is subject to a higher degree of precession than the outer planets. Orbital dynamics using classical physics are not able to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, Einstein’s Gravitational physics is needed for that.

recently, a star orbiting the milky ways central black hole was shown to be behaving as Einstein’s calculation predict. Astounding.

Anyone know what music Herr Einstein listened to?

Okay, now we’re light years off topic. My fault.

>>>>You’re getting warm. It was Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that explained Mercury’s orbit. Ironically perhaps it’s inaccurate to use the term gravitational physics as that’s a classical physics term. That was the whole point of the Mercury orbit anomaly, that it couldn’t be entirely explained by gravitational physics.