I have to side with Dennis when he says "…sound reproduction is a science". We are all entitled to our opinions and we all have the right to report our opinions and observations. But it seems wrong to me when an opinion or a personal observation describing amplifier break-in is reported as if it were a scientifically determined fact. I don't believe the poster meant his words to be taken as scientific fact, but his choice of words can make it seem like that to some readers. In a forum like this, there are many readers with backgrounds and experience that vary widely. It is easy for less experienced readers to believe that an opinion is actually a widely recognized fact.
Here are several examples from Big Red Machine. I'm not picking on you, but I am using your words to illustrate my point:
I'd say the sound after 72 hours is about what the sound was at 24 hours.… It sounds about the same as I can remember 48 hours prior.
BRM states this as one man's experience rather than as broad fact. That's a step in the right direction, and it is much better than some earlier statements. Still I wonder how well he or anyone else can distinguish differences in what he heard in two sessions separated by 48 hours. There are scientific methods that can help determine this. They can be time consuming and boring and I doubt if BRM did them. I know I don't want to. The best thing to say is to state that it is personal opinion, which he does here.
On the Regina Spektor track Fidelity, when I first listened to it my chair didn't vibrate and the room wasn't full of bass as I was accustomed to; now my chair practically levitates and the room is chock full of deep bass notes. Something changed. Don't know what but I certainly like the fullness now.
This is better. It is clearly worded as personal experience – except for the "my chair practically levitates" part – but I'll let that go
. I've heard of room resonances, but maybe chair resonance is a first
.
The top end is about the same as it was at the beginning. This tune and all the tunes I have repeating I am very familiar with so when improvements occur I can pick them up.
How reliably can you or anyone else pick these up? Again, this is measurable, but unless you’ve done those measurements, don't say what improvements you can pick up. It would be better to say, "the top end seems about the same as it was at the beginning, but I can't say this for certain".
I think you get my drift here. There are easy ways to say, "This is my observation" or "This is my opinion based on my own experience" that avoid misleading unsuspecting readers into believing that something is scientifically determined and accepted as fact by many others.