Petre,
This is not an argument, this is fact. This is the reality of how science proves what is real and what is just perceived as real.
I never doubt that you believe what you heard. No one ever wants to think that what they immediately see or hear is wrong, but our brains are easily fooled and easily biased by things as simple as how you felt that day, or what colours you have on your walls, etc. etc. What i question is that you even know what bias your mind had before coming to a conclusion regarding the phenomena you report. The mere statement that you made regarding playing the speakers, w/o llistening to them, in order to break them in says that you were expecting already to hear a difference following a break in period. Once the perception of a speaker requiring break-in has been planted, you will always believe that all speakers need break-in. This is the very nature of human thought and experience, but it doesn't mean it is a fact.
If you have some measured difference, by all means, share the data with us. Tell us how you measured, what you measured, where was it done, what were the controls, what were the variables.
I have yet to come across a single published paper that has valid scientific proof of speaker break-in related to perceivable and human heard observations but if you have proof, let it be evaluated by your peers.
I always find it so amazing how so many ppl can conclude the speaker is the source for the cause of changes in sound with break-in and yet bringing them another possibility, that it is their own auditory response to new sound which makes a temporal difference, they just cannot accept it.
