Port Sound Quality

I think it’s best that this thread be closed.  This has been most unhelpful and now appears to be devolving into something worse.  It’s clear that I must be completely wrong in thinking the Port’s sound isn’t as good as the Connect.  It couldn’t possibly true.  Clearly, I’m being influence by something I read.   

Thread closed upon request from OP.

The “burn-in” discussions that I read are flawed because there is more to this discussion than simply the number of operating hours post production. On most electronics production lines there is an operational test sequence spanning many hours. This should satisfy any “burn-in” considerations (if any) before the unit is approved for shipment.

I recall an older electrostatic speaker that needed about 72 hours for the membranes to fully charge -- every time the unit was powered-up. Best practice for this thing was to purchase on a Friday, power-up, don’t listen, then leave for the weekend. On Monday it will sound as expected -- then don’t power down. To me this is not “burn-in”. A “burn-in” would be a one time event. I’ve seen other high end units that looked like they were thrown together by a teen who knew nothing about design and physical construction best practices. These components are extremely temperature sensitive, required many hours to stabilize after power-up and didn’t react well to temperature change.  (I’m speaking as a former teen builder who noticed better results from the same circuit as I learned more best practice details) Some high end speakers are packed with a graph showing their frequency response. If this speaker requires “burn-in” by the user, how could this graph be valid proof of performance -- unless perhaps this is a performance comparison to a pre “burn-in” lab sample that later proved to exhibit the desired post “burn-in” performance. At best this would be a production quality control test, not a proof of final (post “burn-in”) performance.