Glad it came around. The Coda is on my list of amps to try. Enjoy!
Amplifier Break-in - It's Real
I just completed a major amplifier upgrade from using the power amp side of a NAD 375BEE integrated to a Coda No. 8 and can swear to reality of a necessary amplifier break-in period and the need for a great degree of patience. For the record the 375BEE is a great integrated and the power amplifier side is very good. I replaced the preamp some time ago with a Freya+, a significant upgrade. Regardless, the 375BEE has some limitations and I "needed" an upgrade. I have severe space restrictions for my gear/rack, so size mattered, and final candidates were Bryston and a latecomer in the Coda 8. The Coda had such great reviews/comments I went with it.
Days 1, 2 and 3 were pretty frustrating and I was concerned. My NAD setup had a very good sound stage and rich bass, neither of these were evident early on with the Coda. I thought it might be an impedance mismatch with the Freya (75 SE or 600 balanced ohm output) and the Coda. Some online specs show the Coda at a very low 1K Ohm input impedance, however before I bought I checked with Coda and they confirmed it is actually 10K ohms. Still I swapped out the new balanced cables for RCA's, no significant change. For the first few days I was turning on the amp in the morning and running it all day, but off at night. I decided to have patience, accept the need for break-in, and just start running 24/7. Lo and behold about three days into that process, during which I found some new respect for electronica, the sound stage and bass started to appear and have only improved. It was uncanny. IMHO there was no way I was imagining this change because contrast was so great from the NAD when I first plugged the Coda into the system. I know my system well and changed nothing else, aside from the noted interconnects, from one amp to the other. I realize I am mostly preaching to the choir, but am writing for the next person that plugs a new amp in and does not hear what they expect right away.
In case it matters, the rest of the system is KEF LS50, Gumby DAC, REL 7i sub and Pi 4 with Allo DigiOne running Moode.
Days 1, 2 and 3 were pretty frustrating and I was concerned. My NAD setup had a very good sound stage and rich bass, neither of these were evident early on with the Coda. I thought it might be an impedance mismatch with the Freya (75 SE or 600 balanced ohm output) and the Coda. Some online specs show the Coda at a very low 1K Ohm input impedance, however before I bought I checked with Coda and they confirmed it is actually 10K ohms. Still I swapped out the new balanced cables for RCA's, no significant change. For the first few days I was turning on the amp in the morning and running it all day, but off at night. I decided to have patience, accept the need for break-in, and just start running 24/7. Lo and behold about three days into that process, during which I found some new respect for electronica, the sound stage and bass started to appear and have only improved. It was uncanny. IMHO there was no way I was imagining this change because contrast was so great from the NAD when I first plugged the Coda into the system. I know my system well and changed nothing else, aside from the noted interconnects, from one amp to the other. I realize I am mostly preaching to the choir, but am writing for the next person that plugs a new amp in and does not hear what they expect right away.
In case it matters, the rest of the system is KEF LS50, Gumby DAC, REL 7i sub and Pi 4 with Allo DigiOne running Moode.
36 responses Add your response
Some here believe that solid state gear should be left on 24/7 for optimal SQ. I leave my preamp powered on and turn my amp off when I stop listening for the day. My tuner stays on 24/7 because I listen to WUSF 89.7 FM college radio throughout the day/night. My CD players are turned on and off only for listening sessions. |
Solid state can take days to stabilize and should always be left on. Just leave it on for a week or two, then turn it off one night, you will see. That is my next test. I have been assuming that I am witnessing break-in and not just the need to warm up/stabilize. If the amp has to be on for days to sound right it may not be the right piece of equipment for me. I live in a cold climate, but still not comfortable leaving a power amp on 24/7 as a space heater. My previous amp would take about 30-60 minutes to get to a good place, I am sure it improved with more time, but it did not take days. |
@millercarbon. Talking to Constantin @atelier13 in Nashville the same is true though to a lesser degree for tube amps. Iron is iron and the transformers need heat cycles through the iron as do capacitors and valves or tubes. I have a AH Qualiton X200 arriving this coming week and have had many discussions about tubes and tuned equipment with him. He has a very interesting background and is another great resource for data on Tubes and Tubed equipment. He is on scale with Dave @ Raven and Kevin @upscale. https://www.atelier13-usa.com/about-atelier-13-audio |
My SS AMPS sound so much better when turned on 24 hours before listening. If I listen on Friday or (and) sat night, I will power on Thursday morning at 4 am before I leave for work, they are on all day Thursday, and Thursday night, for jamming on Friday and sat, the sound is night and day for me. The laser beam sound is so distinctive, compared to listening cold. Amp, preamp, CD player, all powered on this way. there is a massive difference between cold listening and the warm up sound. Same with my 2nd system, they need a bit longer, the Odyssey amps do need a good 48 hours+ to warm up to sound their best. I remember the initial odyssey warm up, it did take well over 4+ months of program , Was really odd,....I remember listening on several occasions to many cds and pls’, and the sound,.... it was so different, sometimes, weak midrange, sometime in your face midrange, treble sometimes, super bright, other times relaxed and warm, Same with the bass, deep, not deep, tight, muddled, It did take a long time, was nice to. Have my brothers system to listen too while those odyssey’s did break in. Been through a lot of amps over the years, these odyssey amps are the only ones to honestly sound so different at so many times of break in. Very strange! They do sound amazing now, only takes a couple days now to warm up, maybe 3 days. They do sound amazing! some of the best I’ve heard. Warm up is real, I love the sound signature between the cold sound and a 24-48 hr warm up. There is a laser beam effect I get when warmed up, music just flows naturally from my speakers. I like the difference, even the wife notices the music difference after a warm up, especially with her fav albums, ,...hysteria, the wall, holy diver, there is a massive difference. |
You, and everyone who thinks they hear equipment breaking in, need to read my articles about this topic at Dagogo.com; Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In and Audiophile Law: Burn In Text Redux The community needs to gain some perspective on how much of a range of perception humans have from day to day while listening. It's complete nonsense to think that we are more consistent than electronics, or that we can definitively assess changes to systems over days, weeks, etc. A great deal more humility/experience is needed in the audiophile community. :( Enjoyment/perception of an audio system can change significantly, while there is no change in actual performance. This should be obvious as a result of establishing a very pleasing system and hearing more music on it over time. I have this experience perhaps two dozen times each year as I set up discrete systems and adjust to their performance. :) |
it was so different, sometimes, weak midrange, sometime in your face midrange, treble sometimes, super bright, other times relaxed and warm, Same with the bass, deep, not deep, tight, muddled,Thanks for your post, I am experiencing some of the same. I do want to note that none of this is a knock against the Coda, it has delivered a lot of what I hoped for, just taking a while. |
You, and everyone who thinks they hear equipment breaking in, need to read my articles about this topic at Dagogo.com; I read, admittedly skimmed, your first article. It's a good article, but just one test of one class D amplifier. It could be that these are less prone to showing change with use. I am not doubting your conclusions, but it is a small data set. The purpose of my post was to add my perspective to the conversation and report in the most objective way my personal results. This is what I heard, and I worked hard to keep all the other variables the same. My conclusion is that there is a break-in period needed for this amplifier. Is it measurable and does it make sense at an engineering level, probably not, but nonetheless my humble opinion is that the need exists. |
douglas_schroeder"You, and everyone who thinks they hear equipment breaking in, need to read my articles about this topic at Dagogo.com;Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In and Audiophile Law: Burn In Text Redux " It is strange, odd, and unusual that you claim to be an independent, unaligned, objective journalist on matters pertaining to Music Reproduction Systems and yet you promote and advertise you’re columns, opinions, and thoughts here is it that no one read’s your blogs? |
clearthink, to clarify for you, I do not believe you would be able to provide any evidence wherein I claim to be "independent, unaligned" as if unassociated with any magazine. I have disclosed consistently that I write for Dagogo.com. Objective - I believe the community would see that to be the case, given the impossibility of any of us to rid ourselves of personal biases and preferences. "promote and advertise" - Promote, certainly. Advertise. No, sir, absolutely wrong. I have no involvement whatsoever with anything associated with advertising, either with Dagogo.com, or any entity in the industry. If you have the perception that I have any involvement in advertising, or have conducted any activity remotely associated with advertising, then please correct that misperception. I do not have an audio blog, so you are correct, no one reads a blog that does not exist. I have no clue whether Doug Schneider (note the spelling difference) is as you claim, and this is yet another case of mistaken identification. Perhaps that is why this all strikes you as strange, odd, and unusual. If that has been the case, then perhaps it will all be resolved now. What I find strange, odd, etc. is that for all these years in the industry, I have never met Doug Schneider. Finally, it is ironic to me that articles that I was not commissioned to write, nor were solicited, but were written simply as informative guides based on work done for my own benefit, experience, are questioned in regard to my motives and association as a reviewer. :( |
Just to wrap this one up, after a month or so of continuous play I have to say the Coda 8 is a spectacular amp. I still feel strongly that there was a break-in period, not just a case of warming it up for few days. I can now shut off my equipment for a couple days, turn it on and get good sound immediately and great sound within the hour. Not something I could do when it was fresh out of the box. No doubt it improves if left on for longer. Thanks for your comments! |
The community needs to gain some perspective on how much of a range of perception humans have from day to day while listening. It's complete nonsense to think that we are more consistent than electronics, or that we can definitively assess changes to systems over days, weeks, etc. A great deal more humility/experience is needed in the audiophile community.@douglas_schroeder A long time ago we documented the apparent 'break-in' phenomena that we were clearly experiencing in the shop. It turns out that you can measure it- over the break-in period distortion drops off and bandwidth opens up as the filter capacitors form up. We also documented small changes in the power supply voltages, which seemed to correlate with the form-up time of the filter capacitors. We've noticed also (some of this anecdotal correlating our own experience) that if the electronics is stored over a long enough period, the filter caps will lose their form, at which point the unit will appear to need to 'break in' again. However, not wishing to go down the rabbit hole, we did not document if/how other parts might be affecting this process- part of the problem being how to test something like a resistor for such a phenomena (which on its face to me sounds ridiculous). But capacitors forming up is well-known. |
break in is definitely real (and the human psychological element is present too, no doubt... both can be true simultaneously) but for different types of gear, the degree of change over time can be quite different... as different techincal elements may take shape differently as used hours accumulate trust your manufacturer’s info on this topic |
The community needs to gain some perspective on how much of a range of perception humans have from day to day while listening. It’s complete nonsense to think that we are more consistent than electronics, or that we can definitively assess changes to systems over days, weeks, etc. A great deal more humility/experience is needed in the audiophile community. This cuts both ways. Just because you can’t hear something is no reason to arrogantly assume no one else can. A great deal more humility/experience is needed. |
atmasphere, thanks for the reasoned input! I conducted my comparisons, which satisfy my quest to discover whether break in is a real phenomena. Perhaps more accurately, it should be discussed as whether it is an audible phenomena. In my articles wherein I compared several products that were broken in to identical ones that were not - simultaneously, the outcome was not good for break in. YMMV and it’s fun to explore such things! :) |
I would be interesting if someone bought a new pair of monoblock amps and burned in one amp and then compared the two. I bet the sound difference would be very audible between the two amps.I had a pair of Benchmark AHB2 monoblocks that were used everyday for a year. I got another brand new AHB2 and could not tell a difference from the older pair. However, I do remember reading the designer of the amp stating the AHB2 does not need any break-in. I bought a lot of gear in the last 12 months (over 10 items, integrated amps, DACs, preamps, amps) and all of them except the AHB2 required break-in. |
invalid, that is precisely the comparisons I have done, not only with an amp, but with several components together! Read my articles "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In", and "Burn In Test Redux" at Dagogo.com, and you will see that even multiple components and tweaks were unable to cause change to the sound quality. I subjected all these items to what I call the Imbalanced System Test, wherein IF there is a significant change, there will be damage done to the soundstage, tonality, center image, dynamics, etc. Example; I recently had a niggling issue with the sound of a speaker system that influenced the entire presentation. I discovered that one of the small discs I place under the rear footer was not in place. Once put in place, the presentation was normal. Similarly, if there was, as claimed by so many�, significant improvement in sound quality, then when multiple products that are broken/burned in are used alongside the other channel where they are not, there should be a noticeable, significant difference resulting in poor sound quality. There was not, which leads me to the conclusion that all the machinations and concern about break in is a waste of life. :) |
"Read my articles "Audiophile Law:" = "TRUST ME!" * Many (if not most) of us are familiar the fruits of Atmasphere's aural acuity, experimentation and creativity. What significant offerings, for the furtherance of our listening experience (ie: equipment pleasing to the ear), have you generated, outside of your opinions? Awards won (presented by other esteemed ears)? My own lengthy experience and gleanings from the study of certain MODERN electrical theories aside; I'm much more disposed to accept Atmasphere's viewpoint, based on actual accomplishment. But: that's just my opinion. *The Naysayer Church's credo |
In my articles wherein I compared several products that were broken in to identical ones that were not - simultaneously, the outcome was not good for break in.@douglas_schroeder You just about have to pull the equipment off the test bench after its been built to understand how this affects things. Any manufacturer worth their salt will put some time on the unit prior to shipping. Knowing the provenance is important. |
invalid, that is precisely the comparisons I have done, not only with an amp, but with several components together! Read my articles "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In", and "Burn In Test Redux" at Dagogo.com, and you will see that even multiple components and tweaks were unable to cause change to the sound quality.Are you trying to tell me that you are some sort of expert? I must tell you I have great hearing. So there is that to consider. |
"I must tell you I have great hearing. So there is that to consider." BUT- according to the Naysayer Church's, "Laws" (commandments); "Thou shalt not EVER trust your own twisted mind, lest you be deceived." Obviously- we all need their guidance and counsel, lest we fall into the deceptions that actually listening for ourselves CERTAINLY would entail. |
For a couple reasons I broke in three Audio Research Reference 160s amplifiers. Each time the sound differences were obvious and followed the same sequence at roughly the same time… just generally starting out bright for the first 10 hours (new large tubes usually do this)… the bass not being fully solid… overall good sound but uninspired. At around 100 hours greatly improved naturalness, tightening of bass, then at around 120 hours they would waver back and forth between the original sound and really natural. Then after 150 hours they stabilized and the noise level dropped, sounds separated and for the next 300 or 400 hours slowly improved getting more magical and engaging. What was striking was how each followed the same path. I wasn’t trying to hear it… I was trying not to. But it was really obvious. I would frequently look up from my reading and notice the current status of the sound. |
I'm not denying atmasphere's discussion of measured differences. In fact, I have heard of it before. No surprise. The question is whether those differences are resulting in audible differences, and whether that can be demonstrated. If it could be shown that the measured differences in the internal parts affected the measurements of the component, then that would be strong evidence that an actual change has happened. Do we have such a study? If not, why not? If the community is so hot to prove break in is real, then wouldn't we think that those with the equipment to measure should have already done so? What's the delay? And, what if it turns out that the changes to internal parts do not change the overall measurements, or do so in such a seemingly insignificant way that it does not support strongly the contention that the components sound has changed? I'm open to discovery by measurements. I'm also open to discovery by actual system building. :) You guys disdain as if 1. measured differences in internal parts must verify perceived changes to prove the gear sounds differently. That is not demonstrated until my above criteria has been met. 2. Perception of break in proves the gear is really changing. That also is not demonstrated. It is quite possible, given that I have discussed in my articles the very strong possibility that "break in" is a subjective process, that the measured changes to internal parts is not audible/measurable, and that my comparison which shows no perceptual difference between multiple pieces of gear, some broken in and some not, is upheld. I have said all along that anyone can do the comparison. Go ahead, mockers, do it. See, I mean, hear, what happens (or not). Just be prepared to be humbled. Your big, major, sizable, etc. break in changes when actually compared in a more controlled setting are imperceptible. You can apply your own golden hearing to assess. :) BTW, some of you can't help yourselves in applying cynical religiously related analogies. I'm not so soft that I can't take it. But, remember, it can go both ways. I hope you will show the same grace if the tables are turned sometime. :) |
"BTW, some of you can't help yourselves in applying cynical religiously related analogies. I'm not so soft that I can't take it. But, remember, it can go both ways. I hope you will show the same grace if the tables are turned sometime. :)" If I'm found religiously putting my faith in measurements and theories. developed in the 1800s and found sorely lacking, in the early 1900s, to explain what was so commonly being observed in the universe, or- dogmatically claiming: what I hear (or don't) with MY ears, in my room, with my system and sources, CERTAINLY MUST also apply (ie: a LAW) to another's ears, room, system and sources: Feel free to flame! I've always valued constructive criticism as a learning tool. If I'm wrong: I want to know about it and correct my error. Happy listening and enjoy the journey! |
rodman99999, by your comment, " If I'm found religiously putting my faith in measurements and theories. developed in the 1800s and found sorely lacking, in the early 1900s, to explain what was so commonly being observed in the universe," that is a mischaracterization (intentional or out of ignorance I cannot tell) of the state of the scientific debate. I put a great deal of weight in current science. You seem misinformed. The bulk of the scientific evidence supporting my faith has developed in the past fifty years in sciences such as Information Theory, Astrophysics, and Molecular Biology that were in their infancy half a century ago. Perhaps you are unaware of books such as "Carved in Stone," which use data from the oil industry's drilling in another developing science, Lithography (pertaining to study of the Earth's rock layers) to create a coherent model of the Flood. I suggest you take a look at Michael Behe's "A Mousetrap for Darwin" to see how the playing field has shifted in molecular biology. I'm not flaming you, I'm informing you. When I was a more ignorant, arrogant audiophile I had extreme confidence that I was indeed hearing changes to gear. Time and experience - well, actually, building hundreds of systems - taught me that I needed to test, albeit informally, received wisdom of the community. I discovered many of the things in regard to system building that are deemed to be true simply do not advance audio systems all that well. Some, like belief in break in, actually are disadvantages to building better systems. I'm not interested in explaining it all here, but persons who wish to contemplate it will realize the strength of my assertion. I conclude that one of the reasons break in is so much defended in this community is because it is a primary way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable hubris of audiophiles. There are few things more arrogant in this hobby than declaring you can hear changes to gear over long periods of time and being unwilling to accept evidence that disproves it simply because YOU did not do so. :) If your pride is so fragile that you will only believe it if you hear it for yourself, then by all means go ahead! Be precisely like those cable deniers, with the same arrogance and skepticism, who won't believe unless they experience for themselves. If you have no interest in such a comparison to demonstrate to yourself, then I would be wasting my time to continue to debate it with you. :) |
"The bulk of the scientific evidence supporting my faith has developed in the past fifty years in sciences such as Information Theory, Astrophysics, and Molecular Biology that were in their infancy half a century ago." ETCETERA, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.* Which has what to do with modern Electrical Theory (to which I specifically referred), or the hubris you exhibit (ie: LAWS)? My higher education was in Physics, QM and QED lectures (circa mid 60's). I've made a point of keeping up with newer developments and discoveries, ever since. "I'm not so soft that I can't take it" Yet: you seem so triggered! *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JHH6iwgIek |
rodman99999, thank you for the correction, that you were specifying electrical theory. I appreciate the clarification. Ok, I'll "untrigger" on that topic. In regard to physics and QM, take a look at Spephen Meyer's "Return of the God Hypothesis". My guess is you would chew through the math pretty easily. Now, when it comes to my term "Law" as applied to my principles for audio system setup, who's triggered? ;) I use it tongue in cheek, obviously, because my testing is informal and not measurement driven, not strong enough to produce real laws. However, when I have set up dozens of systems and they all react the same with my methods, then I have much more happening than coincidence. Ergo, laws. You certainly have principles you espouse here, with some force (pun!), I add. So, lighten up, too. :) Decades ago, I was an overconfident audiophile, and I would have argued vociferously the exact opposite, the popular perspective, on break in. It's stunning how building many systems opens up discoveries and allows one to dismiss misnomers. I do not expect anyone who has not built many systems to discover such things, and I expect the average hobbyist to vehemently disagree with me. They simply do not have the means - without a direct comparison - to gain the one thing they will trust, their own experience. They choose to accept their own thought process over reported results. Everyone determines the authorities they will or will not accept, and that determines much of one's results. Certainly sensory adaptation plays no possible role in it. :( I guess audiophiles have never experienced wearing Blue Blocker sunglasses, and over time adapting to them so thoroughly that they no longer are weird in terms of their effect on the environment. We all know that the chemical structure of the glasses is changing, the color is shifting. Nothing like that could possibly be happening in terms of adaptation to sound over time. No, we are much more consistent than electronics. You wills say that changes to internal parts are the cause. I have made challenges to that argument. To consider the influence of sensory adaptation to have no involvement is circular reasoning. It changes because I hear it! I hear it, so it's obviously changing! I used to be like that. :) |
"My guess is you would chew through the math pretty easily." Funny, you'd say that! It was the Math that chewed me up, in Physics. I pretty much suck; as regards remembering formulae. Still: figuring out how and why things work, was always a fascination. I found QM and QED much easier to grasp. Slippery as they both are, they still always made more sense, to me. When it comes to such as frequencies, particle nomenclatures/behavioral study, etc; no problem. I find the explanations easily digestible*. After all: virtually every new invention, that we've enjoyed for the past century, has been a result of QM/QED study. HEY: they work! Most have trouble, when trying to figure out how all this craziness functions, because they want it to make sense. That's been the scientific debate, since the 1927, Solvay Conference. So: we're in good company! The basic premise of QM is: almost nothing really makes sense. (Fits my psyche, perfectly!) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/419117a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics When I encounter seemingly abstract, but (to me) audible, phenomena such as electronic burn/break-in, whether cables and fuses can make a difference, etc; I realize that there are a plethora of things, still not defined, let alone measured, in our MOST complex musical signals and a multitude of possibilities, based on what I know (or don't, yet). *Ditto: the workings of General and Special Relativity (again: minus the Higher Math). Happy listening and enjoy the journey! |
"...Nothing like that could possibly be happening in terms of adaptation to sound over time. No, we are much more consistent than electronics. You wills say that changes to internal parts are the cause. I have made challenges to that argument." "To consider the influence of sensory adaptation to have no involvement is circular reasoning. It changes because I hear it! I hear it, so it's obviously changing! I used to be like that. :)" Isn't it interesting how our understanding of the senses has been evolving, based on further study? ie: Seems our noses may actually hear the frequencies, generated by the chemical bonds in molecules. It's probably why Cyanide and almonds smell the same. Though their molecules are completely different; their frequencies are identical. https://physicsworld.com/a/a-quantum-sense-of-smell/ https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21150046 Click on the thing about, "birds hijacking quantum physics" (in second article), also. https://phys.org/news/2011-01-quantum-robins.html#:~:text=In%20a%20forthcoming%20article%20in,levels.... Fascinating stuff, all around us! |
@millercarbon Yes indeed, things do cut both ways, and maybe a third: just because you hear it doesn't mean anyone else will. |
