Quote:



What's that old saying? Oh yeah, Misery loves company!

http://www.fuchsaudiotechnology.com/...amplifier.html

Andy Fuchs is local to me and I do intend to audition this at some point, probably next year. After the chaplain pronounces your wallet DOA you might as well send him over to me.

I've had my RKV for about two weeks now. I ordered the RKV with the intent to instill some bass into my very detailed but bright A-T ATH-W100 headphones. Prior to the RKV I had been using a Grado RA-1 which was OK but nothing special one way or the other. The RKV added a substantial amount of lush bass and small amount of midrange to the W-100s. Since the W100s are so bright to begin with, any treble rolloff that others have reported I didn't notice and if it was occuring probably helped to tone down the W100s. I was pretty happy with myself and the amp with what I had achieved. But then I made the mistake of listening to a buddy's setup using a Headroom Cosmic and Sennheiser 580/Cardas setup. I was blown away because it had the sound I'd been looking for all along. I immediately ordered a Senn. HD-600 with Cardas cables. I'm about 20 hrs into burn-in with this new setup and let me tell you, with the RKV, I can't imagine how it could get much better. The bass is punchy with great depth, the mids are velvety smooth, and the highs are tingly (without being piercing like with the w100s if the volume was up to high). I realize that every headphone amp review is also indirectly a review of the headphones used to audition the amp. And while I may have come off sounding too critical of the W100s, I should remind everyone that they are still very, very good headphones- just not the right ones for my music preferences. (My analogy of the difference between the W100s and Senn 600s is like the difference of the 70's era AR speakers vs JBL speakers: ARs were great for classical and some jazz whereas JBLs were great for rock music.) As far as the headphone amp goes though, the RKV absolutely made both headphones blossom. Compared to the Grado RA-1, the RKV is in an entirely different league and as such excels at everything with the exception of maybe portability. I'm sure there may be certain things that a good solid state amp will be able to do better, but as far as having a big lush, open sound, with excellent detail, the RKV is a hard one to beat. And there might be other tube amps that can better it (Cary, EAR, Twin Head, etc.) but in the under $1,000 range, in my opinion, this one's king of the road.

Well said. I was very grateful to Kelly for loaning me his RKV/HD-600/Cardas combo. Doesn't get much better than that.

Quote:



Whoever posted this has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. The first part is true, the RKV/HP2 combo is outstanding, and may prove to be even better with the impedancer. The High Frequency extention being better than the Grace 901 with the HP2 is patently untrue and could only be claimed by an individual with either no ears, a hidden agenda, or perhaps they were imbibing on some amber liquid. Judging by the magnitude of the misstatement it probably had nothing to do with hops.

Seriously, after removing the scottish tweek and listening to the same material I have found that I like the sound of Joshua Redman's sax better on the RKV because it sounds slightly more 'fleshed out'. This has nothing to due with high frequency extention and is more the product of tube flavor IMO.

A little more of my flesh is burned in these forums each time I say things like: I don't believe in "tube flavor."

I believe syrup is better on pancakes than on my recordings and if that is what you'd enjoy on yours, there are a number of amplifiers and tubes that will give it to you--but I don't believe the RKV is one of them.

The RKV strives for clarity and neutrality. Where it misses, the flaw is of the generic kind, not a bid for "euphonic coloration." The RKV is NOT flawless.

I am taken aback a little when people, even people I otherwise like and would have whiskeys and bourbons with, decide to attribute realism to the category of coloration. It may be more worth considering that solid state equipment is also not flawless and that in some instances the removal of the colorations solid state components provide may result in a sound that is simulateneously pleasant and true.

I sometimes feel that the very idea of something being both pleasant and true is heresy to the audiophile. In this I am fortunate to have denounced my membership preemptively rather than having it plucked from me in excommunication.

But I digress.

Kelly,

Up until 1 year ago I was in the solid state camp without ever hearing a tube amp (other than instrument amps which I feel is different). When I use words like 'tube flavor' and 'euphonic' to describe a sound I hear in a tube amp it is because I know of no other way to describe it. It is because of my previous experiences (or lack of them) that I search for words to describe the sound of a Class A, OTL tube amp as compared to solid state.

Because solid state is my reference point it is entirely possible this 'tube flavor' and 'euphony' (is that a word?) is actually closer to the reality of the recording and the lack of these qualities can be attributed to a fundamental flaw in solid state design.

The RKV is not syrupy, and my use of the words 'tube flavor' was not intended to suggest this. If this tube sound I'm trying to describe is in fact more correct to the original recording, then maybe 'tube flavor' should be changed to 'non solid state flavor'.

None of the amps I have are perfect, but the EMP & the RKV have an amazing quality that I'm attributing to their tube design that have a non solid state flavor. This is the part of these tube amps I love and in fact think is amazing. However the EMP and to a lesser extent the RKV are not as fast as a good solid state design, and the good solid state designs don't sound as good on some material because they have a non tube flavor.

Clarity & neutrality are not mutually exclusive to my definition of tube flavor. Is it also possible that an instrument being recorded with a microphone and miles of wire and solid state devices loses something by the time it gets to you on your favorite CD? Is it possible that tubes somehow restore some of what was lost and therefore sound more like the real thing? If these premises are possible couldn't this restoration be reffered to as 'euphonic distortion' as it relates to the recording?

I'll take you up on that drink now.

88Sound
My disagreement with you lies within the division itself of solid state amps versus tube amps. Do you not think there are solid state amps that sound sluggish compared to the RKV? Don't make me name them.
The EAR is considerably faster sounding than the RKV, by my memory, and yet it is also composed of tubes.

When people talk about tube sound, they typically ARE referring to a thick, syrupy warm coloration that some people seem to prefer. There is a market for such products--I'm simply exist outside it.

Your definition of tube versus solid state seems that it would be more accurately described as: Grace 901 vs. RKV II. I would be hesitant to draw or apply generalizations based on what you gather from this one comparison alone and even more hesitant to expect those generalizations to dependably lead me to truth.

If you'll bring the Grace with you, I'll be happy to supply enough fermented corn and grape to be sure that we give it high praise in the forum.

Kelly,

I don't know what the truth is, or the answers to the questions in my last post, and if it wasn't for that damned plane ticket I'd love to get together to get your opinion of the 901.

As far as speed goes you are correct, I was only referring to the EMP, RKV, and the 901 and because of this may have made the incorrect assumption that in amps of similar cost a solid state design will always be faster than a tube design. This may be ignorance on my part that as of yet has not been proven wrong to me by my admittedly limited experience.

Peace.