I just can't understand why I find the sound of the Rev1 so good. After all these improvements it should sound like crap by now.
Does anyone remember (or still read) the English mags like What Hi-Fi?, Hi-Fi Answers etc. Don't know if they're still the same, but back in the old days every time a new amp came out it was always better than the last by a significant margin. I can remember when I bought the Marantz PM4000. A while later What Hi-Fi reviewed the PM4200 and found it a definitel improvement. It had greater focus, or whatever. They would tell people in the Advice page not to buy the PM4000 but to wait for the PM4200. In later years I've had a chance to audition--thanks be to Ebay--a myriad of amps from those days and there's hardly a whit of difference between them. Even amps that were condemned at the time sound very decent next to those that were praised to the skies. In many ways it was a total con, and many of us bought it.
Not saying, of course, that Audeze's improvements aren't genuine; clearly they are. Just pointing out that because an "improved" model comes along it doesn't make the superceeded model sound any less great than it did before when everyone was praising it.