Burn in and peer reviewed brain research

hilde45 

chest-beating ... dishonest ... tendentious or simply uninformed ... I now judge it as trolling.

It's interesting that you introduce a scientific paper, but become so emotionally attached to it that your objectivity evaporates and what remains are ad hominem attacks, the laziest of all logical errors.

Emotions don't really have a place in science. 

@cleeds You introduced the ad hominems. You decided not to engage the substance of the post and attack its form. Descriptions of your posts are not ad hominems, they're descriptions of what you're writing. Anyone who cares can look back and see that and I’ve justified my position. We're done.

hilde45 

You decided not to engage the substance of the post and attack its form.

Noting limitations inherent in a study are part of the scientific process. For some reason, you are emotionally invested in this study. Sometimes, things aren’t as easy as they look, and that can include science.

There’s nothing at all personal about this, @hilde4. I'm not here to hurt your feelings.

Another amalgam that merits unpacking is that of price / cost / value on the one hand, and sonic improvements on the other. 

The accepted dogma goes like this:

- It is known that the more expensive a component is, the better it will sound in your system; and that is how it should be, for you get what you pay for.

And the response goes something like this:

- People who spend significant dollar amounts on components whose ability to affect sound quality is controversial and fails basic scientific scrutiny are fools.

But in reality, the two are not linked in any logical way, and both are false. If a person wishes to spend $2000 on an Ethernet switch because it is beautifully carved of solid aluminum ingot and looks gorgeous on the component rack, that’s perfectly fine; it ought to be okay with everyone; and criticism and mockery are inappropriate and unwarranted - that is, until the owner of the switch starts attributing stunning sonic improvements to their switch (which, naturally, will get even more pronounced after 200 hours of burn-in).

And that goes back to the earlier behavioral psychology-based argument. Depending on why we do things, expectations and stakes can change drastically. 

- If I buy an expensive Ethernet switch because it is reputed to improve the sound quality of my system, and I hear no difference because Ethernet switches are physically incapable of affecting sound quality, then that makes me the guy who essentially just threw good money out the window, and I’m not that guy, no way no how, therefore that switch ought to sound amazing because I spent all that money! That’s a tough spot, because now I have to make up value to justify the price tag, as opposed to the other way around.

- But if I buy the same switch because I find it beautiful and I feel that it will complement my meticulously curated system, I’m only interested in its symbolic value - which is entirely mine to determine - and if a naysayer manifests, I only need invoke my prerogative to spend my money as I wish, and that’s an easy argument to win.

Not every object has to do something in order to hold value, and it’s silly and counterproductive to pretend otherwise. Look at jewelry; we’ve been buying jewelry for tens of thousands of years. What’s wrong with audio jewelry?

I can't say that I've noticed differences after burn-in for electronics or cables. I do, however, believe that other people are hearing it.  I would never buy gear that didn't sound good out of the box with hopes that it would get better. 

I have heard differences in tubes after break in.  In one case, the sound did not get better.