New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CanJam@RMAF 2011 Listening Impressions Thread - Page 28  

post #406 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericohgb View Post

 

Dear Headphone Addict,

 

Thanks for your impressions.

I do agree with your WES / BHSE impressions towards 009 and 007. Also glad to hear about the CLL since mine will be #1 according to Alex.

By the way, do you recall which tubes were being used for the Liquid Fire?

 

Regards,

Erico



On the 6922 tubes in the Liquid Fire, Alex told me they were the JJs when I talked to him about the ability to tube roll with the CLF.

post #407 of 678

Wish I coulda made it out there, I have to admit, I'm very psyched about the LCD-3.  If it's a noticeable improvement over the 2 (and I've only heard Rev. 1) then it could be worth the price

post #408 of 678

On page 21 or so there is a nice discussion of this recent trend of "exorbitant" prices for recent high-end gear. When people compare the price of an older generation of $350 high-end headphones with the current one at $1500, there is no mention of all the inflation in the 10/15 years between the generations and the fact that this stuff does not benefit from cheap labor in China. Add in the low volume sales these products have, the limited distribution etc.
Not that I disagree that bling sells, and it is sad to watch this trend progress. Hell, even venerable B&W is selling expensive toys of brushed aluminun and stitched (not sure) leather in every Apple Store. They even changed the logo, from classic "B&W" to the pompous "Bowers & Wilkins".

By the way, nice article on Wired about B&O: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/ff_bando/

 

 

post #409 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post

What amps did Craig Uthus bring?

 

 


He had a few, the new super 7 and the BA at his and the 2A3 at the Audeze table. His new stat amp did not make it. He also had the phono amp  - picture reposted below ..dB

 

6b78aa70_rmaf2011010.jpeg

 

post #410 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by dBel84 View Post

He had a few, the new super 7 and the BA at his and the 2A3 at the Audeze table. His new stat amp did not make it. He also had the phono amp  - picture reposted below ..dB

 

6b78aa70_rmaf2011010.jpeg

 


Thanks for the information.

 

Can anyone comment on the 2A3 with the Audeze cans?  I sure would like some feedback on this amp and combo. Thanks

 

post #411 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post

Thanks for the information.

 

Can anyone comment on the 2A3 with the Audeze cans?  I sure would like some feedback on this amp and combo. Thanks

 



Assuming the 2A3 is the amp on the right, I spent about 20 minutes with the LCD-2s and the 3s and that amp.  I was quite impressed with the 3s although I felt the amp was struggling a bit to drive them (and the 2s).  I am basing this on the fact that the volume control was at 2 o'clock or so for the 2s and maybe 3 o'clock for the 3s.  However the sound was still very nice.  The clarity of the 3s is significantly greater than the 2s.  It is not a subtle difference.  And, while there is a bit more high-end energy in the 3s, they are not bright at all and that is not its most outstanding difference from the 2s.  Again, it is the increased detail across the frequency spectrum.  I am unfamiliar with the amp (I use a Leben with my 2s) but even so, switching back and forth between the 2s and 3s revealed 2 very different sounds.

 

 

post #412 of 678

It was tricky for me. The 2A3 sounded great at the Audeze table - it was rigged up to a decent transport and I could play my own music. I tried the LCD3 - LF hooked up to an ipad and couldn't get a feel for it as the music was not familiar and I didn't want to spend a long time hogging the 2 stations. Alex R graciously let me take the LCD3 to the other LF hooked up to a transport so that I could play the same tracks and this is what I ended up feeling had more synergy with the music I was using. I believe JP had the exact opposite impression to mine and based on conversations in the room , there was no doubt that most found them both formidable performers. 

I did not listen to the RWA - I have past experience with it and it too is a great amp but my interest was mainly in the 2A3 and LF. 

 

..dB

post #413 of 678

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicostein View Post

On page 21 or so there is a nice discussion of this recent trend of "exorbitant" prices for recent high-end gear. When people compare the price of an older generation of $350 high-end headphones with the current one at $1500, there is no mention of all the inflation in the 10/15 years between the generations and the fact that this stuff does not benefit from cheap labor in China. Add in the low volume sales these products have, the limited distribution etc.Not that I disagree that bling sells, and it is sad to watch this trend progress. Hell, even venerable B&W is selling expensive toys of brushed aluminun and stitched (not sure) leather in every Apple Store. They even changed the logo, from classic "B&W" to the pompous "Bowers & Wilkins".

By the way, nice article on Wired about B&O: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/ff_bando/

 

 


It's likely Bowers & Wilkins was not being pompous in changing the name, but, rather, avoiding the confusion when saying "B&W," which sounds a lot like "BMW."  And the P5 is a good headphone, in my opinion, and, as a whole package, worth the price.

 

Also, some great gear is made in China.  That said, the Sennheiser HD 800 is hand-assembled in Germany.  The Audeze headphones are, to the best of my knowledge, made in the U.S.A.

 

The fact that there are extremely expensive flagship supercars out in the world doesn't change the fact that there are great car values to be had at much lower prices.  The fact that there exists a Ferrari 458 Italia doesn't mean I have to buy it (even though I think it's a beautiful car, and I love Ferraris).  I drive a Honda Fit (called the Honda Jazz in other parts of the world), and love it.

 

Decide what you're willing to (and/or can afford to) spend on a headphone (or anything else you're shopping for, for that matter), and choose the best for your needs at or below that price.  I may not be willing to spend over $200,000 on a car, no matter how well it performs, but I am willing to spend $1945 for a headphone that performs like the Audeze LCD-3.

 

I want companies like Audeze and the other headphone manufacturers to keep trying to advance the state of the art.  When it comes to dynamic headphones, the LCD-3, in my opinion, does that--and it's certainly not just bling.

 

Now let's get this thread back on topic.  (And I'll post more impressions later.)

post #414 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post

Thanks for the information.

 

Can anyone comment on the 2A3 with the Audeze cans?  I sure would like some feedback on this amp and combo. Thanks

 


I only heard the 2a3 with the LCD3s. Here are my notes and comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla 

33) iPod (then Luxman D-05), Eddie Current 2A3, Audeze LCD3
Not enough power. At maximum it was just barely loud enough to listen to. Sound is passive. This setup just doesn't sound good at all. (later Alex changed sources after my comments to him) Now Luxman D-05 - Much much better probably as good or better than Liquid Fire now. Could still be volume limited for some people, but I doubt it.

My first sit down with the LCD3 was with a really poor choice of setup. Apparently with the speaker room and the CanJam setup, Audeze didn't bring enough sources so they made do with an iPod. This was a mistake that persisted all day Friday and most of Saturday before I mentioned it to Alex. Soon after I walked back by and the iPod had been replaced by a Luxman. The sound was dramatically better due to the higher output voltage allowing for proper volume. At this point this was the best LCD3 setup at the table or at least tied with the Liquid Fire.
post #415 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminches View Post

Assuming the 2A3 is the amp on the right, I spent about 20 minutes with the LCD-2s and the 3s and that amp.  I was quite impressed with the 3s although I felt the amp was struggling a bit to drive them (and the 2s).  I am basing this on the fact that the volume control was at 2 o'clock or so for the 2s and maybe 3 o'clock for the 3s.  However the sound was still very nice.  The clarity of the 3s is significantly greater than the 2s.  It is not a subtle difference.  And, while there is a bit more high-end energy in the 3s, they are not bright at all and that is not its most outstanding difference from the 2s.  Again, it is the increased detail across the frequency spectrum.  I am unfamiliar with the amp (I use a Leben with my 2s) but even so, switching back and forth between the 2s and 3s revealed 2 very different sounds.

 

 



The amp on the far right is the Balancing Act. The 2a3 is second from the left end.

 

I swapped out the stock tube in my BA with a Mullard ECC35, which has higher gain (afaik) than the stock tube and I can drive the LCD-2 well past comfortable listening levels. Craig isn't using the stock tube in that photo either, however.


Edited by GMF2010 - 10/18/11 at 10:54am
post #416 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMF2010 View Post

The amp on the far right is the Balancing Act. The 2a3 is second from the left end.

 

I swapped out the stock tube in my BA with a Mullard ECC35, which has higher gain (afaik) than the stock tube and I can drive the LCD-2 well past comfortable listening levels. Craig isn't using the stock tube in that photo either, however.


Are we talking about the amp positions at RMAF? If so there was only one EC 2a3 in the room and it was on the far right of the Audeze table.
post #417 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMF2010 View Post

The amp on the far right is the Balancing Act. The 2a3 is second from the left end.

 

I swapped out the stock tube in my BA with a Mullard ECC35, which has higher gain (afaik) than the stock tube and I can drive the LCD-2 well past comfortable listening levels. Craig isn't using the stock tube in that photo either, however.


The amplification factor of a 6SL7 is 70 vs. 20 for a 6SN7.  It is not a direct substitute for a 6SN7 but i assume Craig has said it is ok to use it.

 

post #418 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post


Are we talking about the amp positions at RMAF? If so there was only one EC 2a3 in the room and it was on the far right of the Audeze table.


Ah, I'm mistaken then. I'm not sure what the second amp from the left is. The far right is definitely a Balancing Act, though.

post #419 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMF2010 View Post

Ah, I'm mistaken then. I'm not sure what the second amp from the left is. The far right is definitely a Balancing Act, though.


The amp you are referring to is the Super 7 prototype.
post #420 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post


The amp you are referring to is the Super 7 prototype.


You beat me to it (: I just looked up the Super 7 thread here and realized what it was.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dminches View Post

The amplification factor of a 6SL7 is 70 vs. 20 for a 6SN7.  It is not a direct substitute for a 6SN7 but i assume Craig has said it is ok to use it.

 



Thanks for the info, I didn't know the exact amplification values. Craig did say it was ok to use a 6SL7 in place of the 6SN7 (and I definitely recommend trying it).


Edited by GMF2010 - 10/18/11 at 11:11am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked