Grado RA-1 amp is a piece of crap! - Page 2  

(struggling to contain laughter!)

raymondlin: lol!! I hope you were...um, kidding

beagle: now THIS is funny stuff

Neruda, and others.....are u just going along with this joke - because it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell, whereas beagle's posts did have some hints to their intended sarcasm

Psh who cares if the Grado RA-1 is neutral or not... it costs $300 more than it should... I think that is the entire point...

And I don't know about you but my goal in audio is to get the best SOUNDING system, not the system that is most true to the signal.

I am serious.

It's true what I said about High end gear do not have tone control and people have HiFi don't use a EQ. Why? you ask. Because if you need an EQ to tune the sound to your liking then you've bought the Wrong gear in the first place. That's why Audition is very important, it allows you to listen before deciding on a particular one.

I am not saying having character in music is a bad thing, but slating it is wrong (for those who are serious). Tubes amps are really bad in terms of science, but it produce a sound that many people adore (me included). But Neutrality is the Ultimate goal in most Audiophile, it is this that makes us the urge to continously want to upgrade. To have a better system, have the musican themselves in our own living room when listening to your favourite music.

I'm not sure what beagle was hoping for, but if I bought the RA-1 I would hope for an improvement in soundstage, impact, clarity, transparency, what have you that was worth the price. If it's not making in any improvement (or a small improvement) then it's pointless having it, isn't it? Othwise it's just GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE SIGNAL as you said.

I am talking about neutrality, but if he think that the RA-1 doesn't do anything, using it is the same as not using it at all then IMO it's no point having it then.

raymondlin, I think the point is that poorer headphone jacks do do things to the sound -- bad things.

Of course I was being very sarcastic, I think some of you got that.
For those of you who didn't, oh well...

if they did, then the power supply would cost way more than the actual amp. and batteries put out cleaner power.

some people here believe that the RA-1 beats out many amps in the price range. others believe that they can design a much better amp for a hell of a lot less than the price of the RA-1. and i'm sure that both groups are right.

some are pissed that for $350 you get $15 in electronic parts and $50 of wood. if you feel that the $65 amp outperfoms $600 amps, then go ahead and pay $350 for it. you made a great deal. if you feel that your $50 amp design outperforms the RA-1 then go ahead and build one. that's a great deal too. or you can get someone to build one for you (though quality does vary from builder to builder, and with the parts and layout they use... so i can't speak for anyone who's selling DIY amps. choose the builder wisely, and make sure they know their stuff). so i don't see what the problem is.

Beagle and Neruda:

I do not necessarily agree with your intended meanings but I do appreciate well thought out sarcasm! Touche.

Are you supposed to plug something into to the RA-1? I thought it was just a beautiful piece of mahogany sculpture to be admired. Man, now I gotta get me some batteries and try this thing out.

I think you people have discovered the essence of all things capitalist.

There is no such thing as a good deal. In the end your paying hundreds of dollars for a vague perception of worth and a few bucks for the tangible aspects. You know it's that weird itchy feeling that the more expensive version is a lot better.

Here is an anology: It's like going to Burger King and buying a burger and enjoying it. Then going to a sit down restraunt and ordering the "steak" burger and enjoying it just a little more. Then you go home and make your own, like it, and find out their really isn't much of a difference between any of them. It was just your perception of the places and the idea that the higher cost would imply a greater return that changed the flavor of the burgers.

You know it's kind of like finding out that the "secret sauce" on big macs is basically thousand island salad dressing that is readily available at just about every grocery store in the country.

Hmmm ... if the Grado RA-1 came with a secret sauce I would probably have bought it Naaah! Not really.

"There is no such thing as a good deal." A pretty severe generalization. But even if you choose to believe this, there are definitely "better" deals and "worse" deals, and the Grado is a worse deal (in terms of the quality of its parts) than many competing headphone amplifiers.

1. There defintly were NOT this many people bad mouthing the RA-1 before this whole scenerio. So, that means either a) those who are badmouthing it now are just letting the exposition of the schematic phase their opinions of its actual sound or b) they lied or based their every opinion of the amp on hearsay and not personal reference. I defintly have a problem with either of those situations, and I've noticed a great deal of the second.

2. Ever since I discoverd headroom, then headwize, and then here, I've always thought that the "audiophiles goal" was kind of rediculous. I've always said that I'd rather enjoy my music then scrutinise it. If opting for coloration, crossfeed, amps that alter the sound, bass boost, filters and all those other things that allow me to enjoy my music more means I'm not an audiophile, then I'm not an audiophile, and I don't ever wanna be one.

3. Even by the most strict of audiophile definitions, if you are saying nothing should be altered by the amp, just what purpose does the RA-1 serve for ANYONE? Everybody knows that Grados add their own distinct coloration, so why is everyone being a hypocryte in defending an amp that was meant for an already inaccurate headphone? Why don't you guys go get some notoriusly accurate phone and bash Grados for adding THEIR seasonings to the signal? If it is in fact true that the RA-1 adds very little to none improvement to the sound, and that you are justfieing that as its audiophile purpose, then how can you consiously sit there and DEFEND this thing for the price of $350? What about the already noted inferior headphoen jacks, wouldn't that disrupt or corrupt the signal?

4. On a semi related note: with this post and particulary the "AMP" one, the problem I'm having here is with a major lack of dis-honesty. There are people not being honest with themselves, and not being honest with others. There are VERY few people here that I sense would be willing to argue with themselves and reason for the sake of what is truth and not just plain compromise or their personal bias. What I see now are people deviating from what should be argued and what should be discussed in fear that what was previously argued could be proven wrong to them. And I ultimately see people who just wanna be the right and all knowing little bastard, not realising that the use of knowledge just to be the right one and to elevate their status amongst people just makes them a lesser person and certainly less respected by those who are truly honest in geneal.

And, on that note of pseudo wisdom by the dis-honest one himself (me), I gotta say...

FRESH FOR THE YEAR 2001... YOU SUCKAS! PEACE!!!