Pro 'Burn in' time.

[Hifi_swlon]

Overall, I think my stance could be summarised as: if one hears a difference, and it can't be measured or explained objectively, then it's most likely in one's head (which is of course still real).  Corollary: I don't feel the need for any as-yet-unknown-to-science effects to explain differences in what people hear.

I'm with you. Problem is (IMO) 100% of it would be measurable with the right kit, people, time, and carefully designed experiment. But pretty much none of us has acess to any of the required tools, generally we have our ears and the playback equipment. Hence it's easy to get stuck in a 'is it or isn't it real' with the usual stalemate positions.

Personally I'm fascinated by it and would be up for being a guinea pig in any experiment or blind test, whatever the outcome. I think some people might be scared (wrongly) that the scientific outcome might prove then wrong (either way). I'm a very open minded person so would just be interested to see what was in my head and what was real. Of course, if we were forced to take mind altering drugs as part of the process, so be it (in the name of science).

Assuming we believe in burn-in, do they need to be thrashed at high power/load. My problem is speaker sensitivity. I did once wire my speakers out of phase and sit them opposite with a duvet over them, but that was a different point in my life and that just seems a step too far now (and impractical). Otherwise I guess music with lots of deep, hard, bass uses the most power?

[just to add I changed very little since getting the 250. I tried to keep SAM, bass, and treble as set previously, but I've found the need to adjust more often than on the 200. I've changed the toe-in angle on the speakers slightly too - which is far easier I can actually visualise the 3D much more easily with some music, the 200 was a bit 'foggy' in that respect. I had recently added the SR3 so I can't do much about that]