Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Schiit Mjolnir headphone amplifier
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Schiit Mjolnir headphone amplifier - Page 39

post #571 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstaken View Post

I want to make it clear that I said "drier" than the Peak, my statement was purely relative. I do not find the Mjolnir to be even close to as dry and etched as some of those vintage solid state pieces can be. It is not fatiguing in any way to me and there is plenty of life in the music. That said it's not a romantic amp either but then neither is the Peak. It's very clear, transparent and revealing so that you can hear your source fully. Use a crappy source with this amp and you're going to hear it sound crappy. The Peak is technically the same way too but it has a tube in it that does romance the sound just a little bit and changing the tube changes the sound. Full tube amps will definitely romance the sound more.


+1 in conjunction with my statement above yours, this is where the Mjolnir amp settles in the current market. Mjolnir = No brainer purchase under $1,800


Edited by brunk - 8/8/12 at 12:20pm
post #572 of 3222

I agree with this completely. The only thing I find with the Mjolnir that makes it a tricky recommendation is that it is balanced only. If you're actually a headphone enthusiast that makes it a little difficult to serve as your only amp. Trying different headphones on it before you're committed to them isn't really possible in cases where the cable is either hard wired or after market cables aren't readily available. Also some headphones that only have a 3 conductor cable can't be balanced at all without major surgery to the headphone it self. Fortunately that's rare with high-end headphones but it is a problem for some midrange ones.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post

Yeah...you guys that don't own the Mjolnir are WAY overreacting on the term dry. If it was a major downfall for the Mjolnir, I would've said so. The Mjolnir does revel in showing off detail and transient information in the recording. For example, you can easily discern if a "live" or "hi-res" recording was just a vinyl rip. You can also hear that ever-so-faint tube hum in guitar amps, even while they're playing soft music, not just a short pause. You can also clearly discern a soloist breathing before singing and moving their tongue and lips beforehand too. To sum up, the Mjolnir has body, PRaT, dynamics, sound staging with the only "sacrifice" being a little on the dry side so it can bring these qualities out. For $750, it's a steal. In the current market, it's worth about 3x it's price tag IMO.

post #573 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post

dry 1) Describing the texture of reproduced sound: very fine-grained, chalky. 2) Describing an acoustical space: deficient in reverberation or having a very short reverberation time. 3) Describing bass quality: lean, overdamped.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by m2man View Post

It's certainly not lacking in body, nor is the bass lean or over damped. I can hear what Brunk is talking about...I think it's just the detailed mids/highs. He didn't say it was a dry amp, just drier than other high end amps. It's not a bad description but I think you are reading too much into that comment.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstaken View Post

I want to make it clear that I said "drier" than the Peak, my statement was purely relative. I do not find the Mjolnir to be even close to as dry and etched as some of those vintage solid state pieces can be. It is not fatiguing in any way to me and there is plenty of life in the music. That said it's not a romantic amp either but then neither is the Peak. It's very clear, transparent and revealing so that you can hear your source fully. Use a crappy source with this amp and you're going to hear it sound crappy. The Peak is technically the same way too but it has a tube in it that does romance the sound just a little bit and changing the tube changes the sound. Full tube amps will definitely romance the sound more.


+1 in conjunction with my statement above yours, this is where the Mjolnir amp settles in the current market. Mjolnir = No brainer purchase under $1,800

 

 

Perhaps "clinical" or "hyper-detailed" would be a more accurate description than "dry" for the Mjolnir?

post #574 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

 

 

 

Perhaps "clinical" or "hyper-detailed" would be a more accurate description than "dry" for the Mjolnir?


Sure, as long as readers get the point. But now you're going to create a vicious cycle all over again by recycling the madness rolleyes.gif

post #575 of 3222

Oh no - not clinical  

 

 

 

1000

post #576 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoupRKnowva View Post

I hope that you're right, its just that the mjolnir is doing to give like 1db of additional headroom which doesnt translate to much. But maybe the far more beefy power supply of the mjolnir will let it shine.

Ive just been having lots of doubts that this or the Audio-GD master 8 can power the HE-6 the same way a good speaker amp can

That is the $40 million question. Just how much power is the minimum needed to get the best out of the HE6? When I first got the Lyr I thought...yeah...this is it. But since hearing other combos I know that it isn't quite enough. It does a great job but for a headfier obsessed with the last 5% performance then...hmmm...how to reach perfection.

We will need someone like Skylab who has played with many amps and had lots of listening experience with the HE6 to perhaps draw a line in the sand and say....this is the least power that can provide perfection. 6watts, 8watts or perhaps even more.
post #577 of 3222

The term I would use is transparent. I would definitely not describe it as clinical or even hyper-detailed as those imply that the amp is significantly coloring the sound which I don't think it is. It's definitely not artificially emphasizing detail, the detail is coming from the source, the Mjolnir is simply scrubbing less of it away allowing you to hear more of what the source is providing. The Peak does a good job of that too but the tube is coloring the sound a tiny bit more and adding a little bit of bloom which is why the Mjolnir sounds drier in comparison but ONLY in comparison. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

 

 

 

Perhaps "clinical" or "hyper-detailed" would be a more accurate description than "dry" for the Mjolnir?

post #578 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kremer930 View Post


That is the $40 million question. Just how much power is the minimum needed to get the best out of the HE6? When I first got the Lyr I thought...yeah...this is it. But since hearing other combos I know that it isn't quite enough. It does a great job but for a headfier obsessed with the last 5% performance then...hmmm...how to reach perfection.
We will need someone like Skylab who has played with many amps and had lots of listening experience with the HE6 to perhaps draw a line in the sand and say....this is the least power that can provide perfection. 6watts, 8watts or perhaps even more.

 

The NFB-10SE I have provides 6W and I max out the volume to get it up to a good listening level. It's not a simple number game though. 

post #579 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kremer930 View Post

We will need someone like Skylab who has played with many amps and had lots of listening experience with the HE6 to perhaps draw a line in the sand and say....this is the least power that can provide perfection. 6watts, 8watts or perhaps even more.

 

Super easy to answer.  Take what ever number you think the Audeze cans need and multiply it by 20.  So if you are asking me... 20W.  Which to me is why its just a silly headphone, err speaker for your head :p

post #580 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstaken View Post

The term I would use is transparent. I would definitely not describe it as clinical or even hyper-detailed as those imply that the amp is significantly coloring the sound which I don't think it is. It's definitely not artificially emphasizing detail, the detail is coming from the source, the Mjolnir is simply scrubbing less of it away allowing you to hear more of what the source is providing. The Peak does a good job of that too but the tube is coloring the sound a tiny bit more and adding a little bit of bloom which is why the Mjolnir sounds drier in comparison but ONLY in comparison. 

 

 

 

I agree with the characterization as "transparent" rather than "dry" or "clinical" or "hyper-detailed." I have the GS-1. It has a deserved reputation as a highly transparent amplifier. Just a little bit more comes through with the M. A tad less veil. One way this is noticeable is another layer of bite or edge to notes. Notes sound more closed off or trailed off, as opposed to dying off. It is subtle, but it is there. The M also is also a bit more vibrant and energetic than the GS-1, which suggests to me a bit more detail at both frequency extremes is getting through. (One question I am asking myself is whether the differences I am hearing are more a function of the M's virtues, or differences between a full single-ended signal path from DAC to GS-1 as opposed to a full XLR signal path from DAC to the M.)

post #581 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffA View Post

I agree with the characterization as "transparent" rather than "dry" or "clinical" or "hyper-detailed." I have the GS-1. It has a deserved reputation as a highly transparent amplifier. Just a little bit more comes through with the M. A tad less veil. One way this is noticeable is another layer of bite or edge to notes. Notes sound more closed off or trailed off, as opposed to dying off. It is subtle, but it is there. The M also is also a bit more vibrant and energetic than the GS-1, which suggests to me a bit more detail at both frequency extremes is getting through. (One question I am asking myself is whether the differences I am hearing are more a function of the M's virtues, or differences between a full single-ended signal path from DAC to GS-1 as opposed to a full XLR signal path from DAC to the M.)

I should have said in the parenthetical the differences between a full single-ended signal path from DAC to HD-800 with the GS-1 vs. a full balanced signal path from DAC to HD-800 with the M.

post #582 of 3222

     Quote:

Originally Posted by elwappo99 View Post

 

The NFB-10SE I have provides 6W and I max out the volume to get it up to a good listening level. It's not a simple number game though. 

 

Yeah but we also all know its not just about getting it to the right volume level, ive heard powerful headphone amps get it loud, but they dont sound as good at that volume as a good speaker amp, im starting to think i need to just give up on finding a headphone amp that will make it sound as good as a good speaker amp....or i need to start liking the LCD-3 instead, that would make my life alot easier biggrin.gif

post #583 of 3222
Well, use the SE connectors on the Mjolnir! It's only a matter of time before someone declares one easily superior...
post #584 of 3222

Skylab is slated to get a review loaner.  Not that his reviews are the gospel, but his interpretations compared to other amps will be helpful.
 

post #585 of 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kremer930 View Post

That is the $40 million question. Just how much power is the minimum needed to get the best out of the HE6? When I first got the Lyr I thought...yeah...this is it. But since hearing other combos I know that it isn't quite enough. It does a great job but for a headfier obsessed with the last 5% performance then...hmmm...how to reach perfection.

We will need someone like Skylab who has played with many amps and had lots of listening experience with the HE6 to perhaps draw a line in the sand and say....this is the least power that can provide perfection. 6watts, 8watts or perhaps even more.

 

More like a $750 question wink_face.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kstaken View Post

The term I would use is transparent. I would definitely not describe it as clinical or even hyper-detailed as those imply that the amp is significantly coloring the sound which I don't think it is. It's definitely not artificially emphasizing detail, the detail is coming from the source, the Mjolnir is simply scrubbing less of it away allowing you to hear more of what the source is providing. The Peak does a good job of that too but the tube is coloring the sound a tiny bit more and adding a little bit of bloom which is why the Mjolnir sounds drier in comparison but ONLY in comparison. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

Perhaps "clinical" or "hyper-detailed" would be a more accurate description than "dry" for the Mjolnir?

 

Thanks, I like transparent much better. It seems to jive with the listening impressions that I have read. To extrapolate from that:

 

Whether you have a clinical, hyper-detailed source or a lush, romantic source, the Mjolnir will deliver that sound characteristic directly to your headphone.


Edited by grokit - 8/8/12 at 2:53pm
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) › Schiit Mjolnir headphone amplifier