SR009 / WES / BHSE / LL hit the mainstream - Page 20

Originally Posted by johnwmclean 

For me mwilsons impressions typify the problems inherent with the 009, with the BHSE highlighting and LL masking. Short answer 007 Mk1. 

Originally Posted by arnaud 

Mwilson, many thanks indeed. So, there's not a single music style in your collection where you preferred the "hold no barrel" resolution of the BHSE?

Originally Posted by arnaud 

Additionnally, it seems the conclusion for you is to get neither amp. You mention this is because of speakers but could there be some other reason such as fear of getting frustrated with the LL apparent lack of resolution over the long run (I am projecting my own audiophile nervosia here though)?

Originally Posted by arnaud 

Your analogy with photography was interesting but I have a concern. Indeed, there is so much more to overall picture sharpness than lens performance (and I agree lenses pretty much don't matter at this time). Yet, I personnally hate pics that lack sharpness unless this is intentional (for instance I like to take pics of my young babies with some overexposure / softer focus to give it some smoothness and angel like qualities, they're monsters in reality  kidding).

Originally Posted by arnaud 

Last, a question, where does your source fall along the scale of resolution vs musicality? Not saying you can't get both with a great source but unfortunately extreme detail retrieval / sharp transient source often seems to come at the price of making some recordings less listenable. For instance, I personnaly haven't found a resampling (software or hardware based) player that I like, it somehow always sounds hard and I prefer playing material at native rate. Another thing is the bass / authority / foundation of the source as not all sources are created equal in that regard. In other words, I wonder what the cantata aims to get right and how much that influenced your impressions of the gear downstream?

Originally Posted by mwilson 

 

Not from the ones that I've listened to; if anything, there is some material such as Tool which sounded much more enjoyable - albeit less technically accurate - when played back on a dynamic setup such as LF+LCD-3

 

Originally Posted by SoupRKnowva 

 

Its so weird for me to see people say stuff like this. Tool was probably what impressed me the most when i got to listen to the Sr-009s. Though i guess the difference is taht Tool is probably some of heaviest music that you listen too, whereas for me Tool, is some of the least heavy music i listen to, along with having more dynamic range than almost anything else i listen to.

 

But i loved the 009s for even the heaviest music i listen to. Everything from Adele to the black dahlia Murder sounded fantastic.

 

Just another thing thats cool about the hobby, that we all have to many options.

Originally Posted by MorbidToaster 

While Tool isn't as hardcore as something like BDM they're one of the heaviest bands lyrically I've ever heard. That's why I love them so much. 

 

And while I'm a bit surprised to hear that, it makes sense. They're heavy handed and heavy handed stuff works really well the Audeze cans. Tool is incredibly well recorded though and you're right about it having more dynamic range than most everything else within the genre. So it still sounds really good on the 009s. 

 

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=tool&search_album=

 

Originally Posted by mwilson 

OK, I finally did it. Courtesy of a fellow head-fi'er and Alex Cavalli, I finally had the opportunity to audition the BHSE and the LL at the same time, using a SR-009, all in the known environment of my home. What follows are some highly subjective and lacking any measurement data impressions.

 

Bias alert: none that I'm aware of. I paid for round-trip shipping on both the BHSE/009 and the LL; I don't own any of these fine devices at the moment, nor do I have plans to enter long positions on either anytime soon. I've owned the LL and 009 before, and am hence arguably more familiar with this combo's sound signature, but I wasn't rooting for either. In other words - I have no vested interest to see one outperform the other.

 

The setup was identical, Apple lossless files -> Resolution Audio Cantata Music Center DAC -> balanced Q Audio interconnects -> amplifier -> SR-009. Music choices ranged from jazz to classical to rock to electronica, and I used the same material to which I usually listen when evaluating new equipment.

 

Look and feel - in my opinion, the BHSE wins hands-down. While I appreciate the LL's minimalistic design, the BHSE is in a different league. From a practical standpoint, the LL was the winner - all-in-one unit, smaller, easier to place and blend in. In my particular setup, I could simply not accommodate a BHSE given its two-unit design, though the LL was somewhat of a challenge as well in my three-post rack, and I ended up placing it on the top shelf while I owned it. The BHSE runs hot, the LL cooler, though I wouldn't place anything on top of it. The BHSE has a very nice glow in the dark, the LL has a cold blue pair of LEDs. To each his or her own, but I prefer warmth over koolness

 

Based on my listening, the BHSE is a bit more resolving than the LL. However, resolution isn't everything. In another hobby of mine, photography, there's a similar pitfall when comparing lenses, always at the ready, to distract obsessive photographers from the greater picture, and it's called "pixel peeping". Said trait will concern a user so much with the sharpness at pixel level, thinking that it's an end-all to what constitutes ultimate image quality, that he or she will stop seeing the forest for the trees; there's so much more to the overall photo than the pixel sharpness that it's not even funny. There is saturation, micro-contrast, pop, fringe and color aberration control that ultimately all go towards giving a photo a life-like dynamic. Much in this sense, the BHSE outresolves the LL to a degree... does this mean it's more enjoyable in giving life to the recording? Not in the least. Wire with gain is an oft-repeated and in my opinion vastly overrated characteristic of an amplifier. An amp is but one component tasked with bringing the recording to life; the whole chain needs to be synergistic enough that the output has that lively sparkle, that captivating edge making the listener want to get lost in the music. Make no mistake, the LL is one very revealing and detailed amp; it's just not to the degree that it will flaunt such; it's the refined and understated elegance that gives its details a confidence rooted in a very dynamic presentation. To put this another way - the LL presents details in a way that they're there should you choose to register them; the BHSE gives them to you should you like it or not - and this aspect I found to be distracting.

 

Ultimately, they're both excellent amps, and once again I'm glad I had the opportunity to listen to them side-by-side. As far as I'm concerned, the LL/009 is simply unmatched by the BHSE/009, and neither can raise to the level of a good speaker system (though in fairness such a setup will cost a WHOLE lot more than a BHSE/LL/009 system).

Originally Posted by mwilson 

I like Tool, especially Lateralus, and no, it's not too heavy for me. In fact, as a middle-aged former headbanger, I've enjoyed stuff that would make Tool look like Kenny G by comparison 

 

What I meant by preferring a dynamic setup for Tool is for the pure delicious experience, which, while less technically accurate, to me it was more involving. Kinda like having beer with chicken wings, to keep with my food analogies. It's not Stax and sushi, and it's quite more greasy, but damn it feels right.

Originally Posted by mwilson 

Right now, my everyday listening source is a textbook definition of a terrible two toddler. This source sounds very dynamic though very shrill and bright at times. On a good note, no amp needed.

 

Edit: Hi Peter, long time. I guess you can relate somewhat to this ^

Originally Posted by mwilson 

^ ha. On a diff. note, still no 009 for you? Was supposed to be a few weeks iirc

Originally Posted by mwilson 

Wire with gain is an oft-repeated and in my opinion vastly overrated characteristic of an amplifier. An amp is but one component tasked with bringing the recording to life; the whole chain needs to be synergistic enough that the output has that lively sparkle, that captivating edge making the listener want to get lost in the music.

Originally Posted by SoupRKnowva 

 

Not to go to far off topic, but im sure youre aware i wasnt talking about the heaviness of the lyrics

 

And youll have to agree that its something that tool used to do at least, the sound quality on 10000 days was awful :<

 

But i also dont agree that we should have different headphones for different music, i feel one headphone should do music properly, and if it does music properly, that it would do all music properly. But i dont begrudge others who want multiple cans, thats just my opinion.

Originally Posted by johnwmclean 

 

Do we compensate with the amplifier for a bright for dull headphone? As a benchmark the “wire with gain” works, you may not like the net result, but hey that’s honesty. Sure you can willy nilly match for best synergy, I’ve hoped off that merry go round long ago, I’ll take a neutral amplifier and match the headphone to taste any day.

 

Thanks for your impressions, much appreciated.