Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Mini-review: Schiit Lyr
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mini-review: Schiit Lyr

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

Intro

This mini-review covers my thoughts on the Schiit Lyr vs HeadAmp GS-X in balanced mode, specifically for the Audeze LCD-2 r2 (with additional comments on the Senn HD800 and Audio-Technica AD2000 as well). Why these two amps? Because I already had the GS-X and was curious to find out what sort of sonic difference could be expected from triple the output power - the GS-X is rated at up to 2W @ 32 Ohms in balanced mode (1W per channel), and the Lyr is rated at up to 6W @ 32 Ohms.

Listening for this mini-review was done over about a week, a lot shorter than my typical listening for full reviews which are usually done over months. Primary reason for this is general lack of time available, along with general lack of motivation for a prolonged review period - i.e., there are other things I'd rather do with my time nowadays. Standard disclaimer hence applies: the below impressions should not be considered final and subject to change. I also don't typically trust even my own impressions on 1-2 week review periods. The best way I'd describe my approach for this mini-review: informal & short-term but critical listening.

 

Note: the review Lyr unit is one I bought. I usually write reviews on stuff I buy, as I'm averse to manufacturer loans - IMO this removes any manufacturer expectations on the review, and it allows me to take as much time as I want as well (though the time factor was certainly ignored for this review).

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (Signal Cable Silver Reference power cord, directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval RCA & XLR
- Tubes used on Lyr: 6BZ7 and 6N1P pairs supplied by Schiit Audio
- Headphones: Audeze LCD-2 r2 w/ stock ADZ-6 cable and Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3 XLR cable (for balanced operation), Audio-Technica AD2000, Sennheiser HD800

Both pairs of the Lyr tubes were "burned in" for 2 days each before listening started for this mini-review.

Evaluation Music

- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Lonely Runs Both Ways, Paper Airplane
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition]
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7
- Helloween - 7 Sinners
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Leftfield - Leftism
- The Crystal Method - Community Service II, Legion of Boom, Tweekend
- Trifonic - Emergence

Assessment

Regardless of which tubes were used in the Lyr, I ended up concluding it was the inferior amp to the GS-X in balanced mode, despite having the power output advantage. I also concluded that maybe the LCD-2 doesn't really need very much power to sound great, because while it sounded good on the Lyr, it actually sounded better on the GS-X - it sounded awesome!

I didn't compare the tube pairs to each other, which was impossible with only one Lyr unit (would have needed a 2nd one to do a tube comparison), but I did compare each to the GS-X in a "which tube set is better than the GS-X?" kind of way and neither comparison went very favorably for the Lyr. The GS-X beat both tube pairs to me, in the same way, as described below.

(From here on to the end, assume that my Lyr opinion applies to both of the tube pairs.)

I'll begin by stating that the Lyr produced really good sound on the LCD-2 (and HD800) and probably very few people would have any complaints unless they compared it to something a lot better (like I did for this mini-review). In the classic "ignorance is bliss" scenario, the LCD-2/Lyr combo could be considered bliss, as long as you don't hear anything else. It was obvious the Lyr capably drove the LCD-2 - plentiful bass & mid-range, keeping the LCD-2's overall tactile sound intact. More mid-bass & mid-range than the GS-X in fact, which could be a good thing for those who don't care about anything other than that. Lots of "substance" and "body", in other words. The Lyr also consistently compressed soundstages (depth & width), removing quite a bit of the "open air" element and tended to make music sound closer and more upfront - sometimes even in-head, depending on the recording. This kind of thing can be considered a good thing for certain music types like rock or metal (even jazz) but far from ideal for others, like classical.

But the more comparing that I did with the GS-X, the more it revealed shortcomings to the Lyr, enough that I couldn't help but conclude that the GS-X essentially crushed the Lyr in almost every key sonic aspect. The Lyr bliss went out the window every time I switched over to the GS-X - it really was that much better. And considering I think of the LCD-2 as merely above-average (and not the "excellent" pedestal that I place the Stax OII MKI on), that actually says a lot for the LCD-2.

On the GS-X, the LCD-2 sounded substantially clearer, while it was muddy-sounding on the Lyr with either tube set. This significantly improved the perception of detail throughout the spectrum - bass was more distinct and treble more precise. The improved clarity made instruments sound more "raw" and "existential" as well - the Lyr just muddied & smoothed over things too much. There was also more balance towards the treble, which helped to add to the clarity. The GS-X also vastly improved the soundstage, rightfully shoving elements away so they didn't sound too close and had actual dimension, depth, & width. There was substantially more "air" between instruments on the GS-X so it didn't sound nearly as compressed & suffocating as the Lyr. Even the HD800 with its large soundstage still sounded almost in-head on the Lyr - going out-of-head only on the GS-X. Speaking of the HD800, I also found that the Lyr outright robbed the HD800 of its clarity. Definitely would not recommend it for anyone who likes the HD800's clarity.

There was simply no loss in anything else on the GS-X - no obvious detractions from treble, mid-range, or bass, or from impulse response. The GS-X may not have had the Lyr's up-close & filling sound, but it more than made up for it with vastly improved clarity and soundstaging, and it powered the LCD-2 just as well as the Lyr. At really high volumes it showed absolutely no sign of distortion or loss in dynamic range.

There was another setback with the Lyr and that was driving the Audio-Technica AD2000, which developed a weird treble gnashing along with a loss in bass & mid-bass. And the AD2K picked up an electrical hum from the Lyr as well (as expected for its sensitivity rating) which was distracting except during loud music (it was audible during quiet music).

If anyone is curious at this point, yes I changed the tubes 6 times for Lyr/GS-X comparisons with 3 headphones. This got annoying, because the tubes were tricky & frustrating to remove.

At the end of the day I'd call the Lyr a decent value for what it is, an amp for driving inefficient headphones, but at the same time I really wasn't impressed sonically by it (next to the GS-X) and the best I can give it is a neutral impression. IMO, it's at around the minimum level of acceptable sonic performance - but for its price range, I can't really fault it either. Not to take anything away from Schiit Audio though - I always like American companies building products in the USA providing exceptional service & support, which they're doing, and I applaud them for making affordable products.

My recommendation for LCD-2 (or LCD-3 even?) owners: if your source is good enough, spring for something better than the Lyr. The HeadAmp GS-X is just one option and IMO it's a great amp for it, but only in balanced mode (so a balanced source is also required). Plus, owners of true-balanced sources with dual-differential DAC configurations will potentially yield even better results than mine, as mine isn't dual-differential. I'll add that amping the LCD-2 with the Lyr undermines the LCD-2's potential, and if you're buying or own the LCD-2, which isn't exactly a cheap headphone, why cheap out on an amp and subtract from its potential?

I learned from doing this mini-review that more power output isn't always better, and that the GS-X has what it takes to power the LCD-2 and make it sound awesome. I'm also looking forward to Schiit's upcoming statement amp, which I hope will be awesome. I'm optimistic that Schiit will make an amp that will impress me. smile.gif

Related Reading

Previous reviews that I've written that will help provide additional context on my opinion of the LCD-2 r1, including on the Schiit Asgard:

- Audeze LCD-2 multi-way review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/548875/review-audeze-lcd-2-hifiman-he-6-stax-sr-507-stax-oii-mki-bhse-et-al/
- Schiit Asgard comparison review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/531228/review-schiit-audio-asgard-avenson-audio-headphone-amp/

 

Note: Also see post #12 (in this thread) for a comparison to the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite.


Edited by Asr - 11/27/11 at 12:21am
post #2 of 22

Some may see this as an unfair comparison considering the cost of the GS-X in relation to the Lyr. However, your review of the Lyr is still in line with my own even when comparing it to the similarly priced NFB-10SE.

 

On initial listen the Lyr's weighty and dynamic presentation is incredibly engaging, but critical comparison (with the aide of a SPL metre) reveals the Audio-GD to be just as capable. The greater clarity of the solid state edges it beyond the Lyr though and highlights the extent of smearing that occurs through the Lyr (even with the much hyped Lorenz Stuttgart tubes installed).

 

This is single ended. Balanced out of the 10SE is no contest.

post #3 of 22

Bravo. Its refreshing to see another *view* of the Lyr, especially in comparison to the GS-X.

post #4 of 22

It's a well written and thorough review and I don't doubt your conclusions for a moment, but have we really broken new ground?  The Lyr is inferior to a balanced amp costing over 5 times as much?  Shocking.  While I certainly agree with those who consider the Lyr to be an outstanding value, it's not better than my RWA balanced Isabellina HPA.  I would have been delighted to find that it was better...I could have used the extra $3,000 in many places. From my experience, the LCD-2's benefit from a balanced configuration even more than most 'phones do.  Not sure if it has to do with the planar needs, but it's there.  Every balanced version of the same amp that I've heard always sounds superior. 

 

What might make an interesting comparison would be the Lyr vs. a Gilmore Lite with DPS.  That's the same amp module as the GS-X...just one of them rather than the 2 used for the GS-X.  I know we're going back to 'only' 1W, but unless you're pushing the volume to very high levels, it should be enough.  I had a G-Lite and recall that it was very clean with the LCD-2's, but lacked the next level of emotional involvement...it would have been interesting to hear it side by side with the Lyr for a price relevant single ended comparison. 

post #5 of 22

Upon initially reading the OPs review I was about to mark up his conclusions to the fact that he is powering his digital source component w/ "wall current" that was'nt allowing his "noise floor" to drop low enough to where he could hear the fine treble detail from the Lyr. I still think running his Plinius through a "serious" power conditioner (PSAudio., Audience ,etc) will yield better results than his current system, but you know what ? his findings pretty much echo what conclusions I was coming to listening to SACDs through the Lyr.(So I'll leave my thoughts on power conditioning for another discussion). I was pretty pleased w/ CD playback through the Lyr, but while my playback of SACDs is better than it's been through my previous players(a second generation Sony player (a SCD-333ES) & a Marantz(SA8001) SACDs were'nt sounding much better (different is the better description) than my CD playback. DSD encoding has a different sound to it than PCM it has more "analog characteristics" to how the attack & decay of notes sound(it's a bit more layered). I could'nt put my finger on why SACDs were'nt displaying characteristics I recall hearing through my Magneplanar loudspeakers(which I hope to be able to set back up one of these days). Then it hit me , tubes "tone shape" the sound. To see if my guess was correct I ordered the Beyerdynamic A1 headphone amp as I had a sneaking suspicion that once the extension of the upper frequencies was restored the layering of sound would also return . It has, I think the Lyr will be relegated to use with a tuner as a bedroom system. The unfortunate thing is I just spent about half what I did on the Lyr on a matched pair of NOS tubes. Oh well, late night FM will sound pretty good ! I really need to get off my butt & get my Maggies back up. The Beyer amp is actually pretty decent. Let's see which Mahler SACD do I want to listen to now?

post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowhatimean View Post

Upon initially reading the OPs review I was about to mark up his conclusions to the fact that he is powering his digital source component w/ "wall current" that was'nt allowing his "noise floor" to drop low enough to where he could hear the fine treble detail from the Lyr. I still think running his Plinius through a "serious" power conditioner (PSAudio., Audience ,etc) will yield better results than his current system, but you know what ? his findings pretty much echo what conclusions I was coming to listening to SACDs through the Lyr.(So I'll leave my thoughts on power conditioning for another discussion). I was pretty pleased w/ CD playback through the Lyr, but while my playback of SACDs is better than it's been through my previous players(a second generation Sony player (a SCD-333ES) & a Marantz(SA8001) SACDs were'nt sounding much better (different is the better description) than my CD playback. DSD encoding has a different sound to it than PCM it has more "analog characteristics" to how the attack & decay of notes sound(it's a bit more layered). I could'nt put my finger on why SACDs were'nt displaying characteristics I recall hearing through my Magneplanar loudspeakers(which I hope to be able to set back up one of these days). Then it hit me , tubes "tone shape" the sound. To see if my guess was correct I ordered the Beyerdynamic A1 headphone amp as I had a sneaking suspicion that once the extension of the upper frequencies was restored the layering of sound would also return . It has, I think the Lyr will be relegated to use with a tuner as a bedroom system. The unfortunate thing is I just spent about half what I did on the Lyr on a matched pair of NOS tubes. Oh well, late night FM will sound pretty good ! I really need to get off my butt & get my Maggies back up. The Beyer amp is actually pretty decent. Let's see which Mahler SACD do I want to listen to now?


Tubes can be large influencers in the sonics, but tube among can also be among the most neutral, detailed and revealing amps on the market.  The Lyr may not offer the utmost in fine detail retrieval, but that's not an indictment of tube amplifiers in general. 

 

post #7 of 22

I made no indictment about all tube amplifiers,only that the actual tubes are "tone shapers". Tube amplifiers work in improving sound because they are counteracting common deffiencies that exist in many sound systems. It is almost unheard of that most people don't have a flaw or incompatability somewhere in their sound system that a tube amplifier won't act like a "sonic bandaid" in making general improvements to the overall sound. However it's not because of their neutrallity that they are successfull & this could be the reason they are'nt succesfull as the amps characteristics may be changing the existing balance of the sound. Am I a sayng a tube amp can't be neutral, of course not, but it is highly unlikely that is the reason that amp works well in a particular system. Tubes may work exceptionally well, I just don't particullarly tend to think of  them as the Holy Grail of superior sound that many people seem to assign to their use, no topology has proven worthy of that status that I'm aware of.

post #8 of 22

Asr.. thank you for your mini review.. have you ever owned the Gilmore lite or GS-1btw?? perhaps a comparison between them would also be useful.. thanks in advance

post #9 of 22

 

 

Certainly a technical analysis using lab instruments would yield interesting results for all units tested.

 

Baring a series of lab tests, it seems to me that the best test would have to a blind test where the listener was listening to

 

high quality new music, same source, same headphones , different amps.

 

Blind testing is how I purchased all of my equipment at Audio Associates in Wheaton, MD years ago.

 

I think the question may still be open, How does the Lyr sound?

 

I hope the $2000-3000 units sound better and have more features.

 

 

 


Edited by Bubo - 11/20/11 at 1:13pm
post #10 of 22

Man... you make it hard not to buy the 10SE... especially at the incredible intro price... Are you using the 10SE as a DAC out to Lyr when you're doing your comparisons?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post

This is single ended. Balanced out of the 10SE is no contest.



 

post #11 of 22

The HeadAmp GS-X is base on the Dynalo circuit. They can be DIY for less than the price of the Lyr. wink_face.gif  There are also other production amps using the Dynalo circuit that retail for less then the Lyr.

 

Side by side critical comparisons are all good to weed out amps with major problems. Many times I'll reach for the less clean and neutral tube amps for their easy listening and euphoric harmonics. redface.gif  o2smile.gif

post #12 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowhatimean View Post
Upon initially reading the OPs review I was about to mark up his conclusions to the fact that he is powering his digital source component w/ "wall current" that was'nt allowing his "noise floor" to drop low enough to where he could hear the fine treble detail from the Lyr. I still think running his Plinius through a "serious" power conditioner (PSAudio., Audience ,etc) will yield better results than his current system, but you know what ? his findings pretty much echo what conclusions I was coming to listening to SACDs through the Lyr.(So I'll leave my thoughts on power conditioning for another discussion).


I've heard plenty of treble detail from my Plinius CDP through other amps and headphones. I also dissent with your statement that the Lyr has fine treble detail (with either tube set). And in my experience, most equipment with a proper toroidal power transformer (like my Plinius CDP, and the HeadAmp GS-X) tend to have no audible noise (at least for transistor-only equipment - in my experience tubes tend to add noise of some type, whether it's hum or hiss). Also, I don't think I need a power conditioner to have an inaudible noise floor.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redwarrior191 View Post
Asr.. thank you for your mini review.. have you ever owned the Gilmore lite or GS-1btw?? perhaps a comparison between them would also be useful.. thanks in advance


I owned both of those in the past and actually have a GL right now. On the subject of the GL w/ DPS, I wrote this review a few years ago: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/225178/comparison-review-gilmore-lite-dps-vs-elpac

 

Addendum to mini-review: Gilmore Lite comparison

 

I formally compared the Lyr w/ 6N1P tubes to my Gilmore Lite w/ Elpac btw and my conclusion is: the LCD-2 r2 exhibited obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL. The GL actually sounded worse than the Lyr.

 

The LCD-2's obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL: very weak bass & mid-range overall. Severe lack of directness to sound. Slowness in note attacks. Music sounding like an unorganized blurry mess. Percussive impacts lacking impact. Lack of actual volume increase when turning up the knob.

 

If I didn't know better I'd actually call the GL a slow amp based on its performance with the LCD-2, but I know better (because it's not slow, it's actually one of the fastest amps I've ever heard when driving far easier headphone loads) and my conclusion is that the GL simply lacks the power output to properly drive the LCD-2. The GL is not an amp I'd recommend for the LCD-2 at all - it really sounded that bad to me. The Lyr, on the other hand, would be my recommendation as a minimum amp.

 

Considering the identical Dynalo "architecture" of the GL and GS-X, I'd make another conclusion: it's not the circuit that's to blame, only the power output difference, because the LCD-2 sounds way better on the GS-X (when balanced) than it does on the GL. Considering the GS-1 has the same power output spec as the GL, I wouldn't recommend it for the LCD-2 either. The GS-X in balanced mode is the only Dynalo-based amping that I'd recommend for the LCD-2. For better unbalanced amps I'd recommend either the B22 or Dynahi. The LCD-2 r1 that I previously owned performed better on a B22 than it did balanced on my GS-X.


Edited by Asr - 11/21/11 at 2:57pm
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post


I've heard plenty of treble detail from my Plinius CDP through other amps and headphones. I also dissent with your statement that the Lyr has fine treble detail (with either tube set). And in my experience, most equipment with a proper toroidal power transformer (like my Plinius CDP, and the HeadAmp GS-X) tend to have no audible noise (at least for transistor-only equipment - in my experience tubes tend to add noise of some type, whether it's hum or hiss). Also, I don't think I need a power conditioner to have an inaudible noise floor.

 


I owned both of those in the past and actually have a GL right now. On the subject of the GL w/ DPS, I wrote this review a few years ago: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/225178/comparison-review-gilmore-lite-dps-vs-elpac

 

Addendum to mini-review: Gilmore Lite comparison

 

I formally compared the Lyr w/ 6N1P tubes to my Gilmore Lite w/ Elpac btw and my conclusion is: the LCD-2 r2 exhibited obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL. The GL actually sounded worse than the Lyr.

 

The LCD-2's obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL: very weak bass & mid-range overall. Severe lack of directness to sound. Slowness in note attacks. Music sounding like an unorganized blurry mess. Percussive impacts lacking impact.

 

If I didn't know better I'd actually the GL a slow amp based on its performance with the LCD-2, but I know better (because it's not slow, it's actually one of the fastest amps I've ever heard when driving far easier headphone loads) and my conclusion is that the GL simply lacks the power output to properly drive the LCD-2. The GL is not an amp I'd recommend for the LCD-2 at all - it really sounded that bad to me. The Lyr, on the other hand, would be my recommendation as a minimum amp.

 

Considering the identical Dynalo "architecture" of the GL and GS-X, I'd make another conclusion: it's not the circuit that's to blame, only the power output difference, because the LCD-2 sounds way better on the GS-X (when balanced) than it does on the GL. Considering the GS-1 has the same power output spec as the GL, I wouldn't recommend it for the LCD-2 either. The GS-X in balanced mode is the only Dynalo-based amping that I'd recommend for the LCD-2. For better unbalanced amps I'd recommend either the B22 or Dynahi. The LCD-2 r1 that I previously owned performed better on a B22 than it did balanced on my GS-X.


Thank you very much Asr, I was interested in the GL vs Lyr for the LCD--2 before..  If I'm not mistaken, the dynalo is supposed to output 1watt into 32ohms, right?? i thought the dynalo would be the bare minimum for an LCD-2..So it really is true that orthos, even the more efficient one like the LCD-2 need quite some juice to be driven well.... thanks for your impressions, Asr..

post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

 

I formally compared the Lyr w/ 6N1P tubes to my Gilmore Lite w/ Elpac btw and my conclusion is: the LCD-2 r2 exhibited obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL. The GL actually sounded worse than the Lyr.

 

The LCD-2's obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL: very weak bass & mid-range overall. Severe lack of directness to sound. Slowness in note attacks. Music sounding like an unorganized blurry mess. Percussive impacts lacking impact.

 

If I didn't know better I'd actually the GL a slow amp based on its performance with the LCD-2, but I know better (because it's not slow, it's actually one of the fastest amps I've ever heard when driving far easier headphone loads) and my conclusion is that the GL simply lacks the power output to properly drive the LCD-2. The GL is not an amp I'd recommend for the LCD-2 at all - it really sounded that bad to me. The Lyr, on the other hand, would be my recommendation as a minimum amp.

 

Considering the identical Dynalo "architecture" of the GL and GS-X, I'd make another conclusion: it's not the circuit that's to blame, only the power output difference, because the LCD-2 sounds way better on the GS-X (when balanced) than it does on the GL. Considering the GS-1 has the same power output spec as the GL, I wouldn't recommend it for the LCD-2 either. The GS-X in balanced mode is the only Dynalo-based amping that I'd recommend for the LCD-2. For better unbalanced amps I'd recommend either the B22 or Dynahi. The LCD-2 r1 that I previously owned performed better on a B22 than it did balanced on my GS-X.


Given all that, are there any amplifiers of which you are aware that outperform the Lyr with the LCD-2's given budgets constraints of <$500 for an amp? <$1,000?

 

I ask because you were fairly harsh in your critiques (ie "LCD-2...was muddy-sounding on the Lyr with either tube set.") but I haven't heard a better performer for the LCD-2's nor the HE-6's in it's price range.

 

I know you ask "I'll add that amping the LCD-2 with the Lyr undermines the LCD-2's potential, and if you're buying or own the LCD-2, which isn't exactly a cheap headphone, why cheap out on an amp and subtract from its potential?"

 

My answer would be that in a world with no limits and no budgets, you are correct.  However, people DO have various budget limitations and $2,000 for a headphone setup (source>amp>phones) is a substantial investment to all but a very few.  Given that limit, I would rather spend $1000 on the LCD-2's and 'Cheap out' with $900 for the Bifrost/Lyr combination than buy a more expensive DAC/Amp combo and be faced with a lesser transducer.  I am confident the better sound can be had by placing the greater percentage of the budget on the 'phones than on either of the other parts.

 

I'd be genuinely curious to hear your opinion on that matter.

 

 

post #15 of 22

Thanks for the honest review.  I had the Lyr first then obtained the W4S DAC-2 + LCD-2.  So while I understand your comments of bypassing the Lyr for something higher end probably a lot of us are pretty happy with the Lyr and debating if/when to make the jump to the next level amp.  I am waiting for the statement Schiit amp and may throw in a SS amp somewhere in between.  I've actually never heard another headphone amp other than what I own now (Lyr) and my past amps (Valhalla, uDAC-2).  So I always assumed it could get better than the Lyr but just haven't been ready to pull the trigger because overall the Lyr is engaging.  More so with better tubes.  I've rolled maybe 15+ tube pairs and concluded one's experience and joy with the Lyr can be tube-dependent.  The tubes you used are good but not great.  Greatness does cost money so I understand why people don't want to pay $100-300 for tubes to be put in a $450 amp.  In the end it's like I could be happy with utility and moderately priced Honda (Lyr) but I really want the more expensive and sporty Dodge Challenger (Apex Peak/Volcano).  It's great to have so many headamp choices nowadays.  In any case, the Lyr is an excellent starter tube amp.  It's also a good finishing amp if one doesn't plan on getting deep into this hobby of sound and wants a moderately priced amp that's going to for the most part keep one engaged with the music for a long time.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Mini-review: Schiit Lyr