Break In Question?

Wow, our break in enthusiasts need to be cautious, as it seems the evidence is mounting that their equipment is not performing consistently! 

Ever had one of those days when things didn't sound right, good? Well, according your own belief that your ears are more stable, consistent than electronics, it means that on that day or week, the equipment is regressive, literally sounding worse, in performance decline.  

What that means, according to your break in worldview, is that your gear has no consistent performance. It fluctuates, sometimes becoming better, but sometimes becoming worse sounding. It could not be that your perception is fluid. No, as with break in where you are absolutely sure that the equipment is changing its sound, so with bad listening sessions. It's not your ears! You are exonerated! It's your system, it's going retrograde! 

It's really a shame that some of us have to suffer inconsistent performance from equipment. Logically, it has to be your equipment varying in performance, because you proved to yourself that your ears are more consistent than electronics. Wow, that's too bad. I wouldn't want to be in that situation!   

No Doug once again I think you entirely missed it. 

@larsman You are missing the point entirely. Namely, a pair of cans that sound good after break in sound bad once a different reference is used. It shows the major effect of brain habituation (rewiring if you want to call it that way) in how sound is subjectively perceived. 

Of course it is your choice to ignore science. I prefer to understand my experiences and assess ear witness reports based on scientific knowledge. It helps me to separate fact from fiction. That is my bias as an actual STEM/MINT research scientist.

@oberoniaomnia - No sir, I think you are. That statement 'a pair of cans that sound good after break in sound bad once a different reference is used' makes no sense to me.

How do you know what they'll sound like with a 'different reference' (whatever that means; is it the same as a different source)? I'm sure you're an excellent scientist, but you've not been to my house. You have not heard my gear and you don't know how anything sounds here so you are reaching conclusions with no data. That doesn't sound very scientific to me.

I'm explaining my experience and you are denying it. I'm not ignoring science, but I'm also not ignoring what I know to be true and you've not given me one reason why 150 hours playing to a chair back has anything to do with 'brain habituation'.  

Anyway, enjoy yer weekend! 

I love the way scientists and engineers think their profession adds any credibility. It hobbles you and you become a victim of your education as well as the way you choose to view the world. 

Of course the cans which were a past reference are no longer your current reference when you find something that sounds better. They dont sound bad, they just dont sound as good. Or if you are referring to the new reference as the source then they sound exactly the same as they did with different formats or music. The music changes nothing intrinsic about the cans.

I respect your views, but you actually dont understand and I think this may be my point. When you absolutely know then why bother to grow or keep an open mind.