Originally Posted by Evshrug
Typhoon, your 2nd narrative paragraph got away from me a bit.
1. I don't recall stating the freq response as being cold. Out of the box, by ear, I thought it sounded restrained, the detail was a smidgen held back compared to my brighter tube amp, so instead of cold I thought I was describing a signature erring on the side of dark. I'm newish to finding the vocabulary others use to describe sound (plus I'm really tired at the moment), but I'm more familiar with bright, emphasized mids/highs and dry anemic bass (which I heard with AD700), than I am with a dark, thick bass with recessed highs, type of sound (which I heard with my V-MODA LPs and woah!
someone's Sony XB500), and with my Ety's, AKGs, Audio Technicas, and what I learned from other headphones, I call the Mont Blanc, overall and after burn-in, neutral because it imparts little coloration consistently noticeable between different headphones.
2. The revised E12 boost is basically in the middle between the E11's mode 1 & 2.
3. Where do you see recessed mids in the amp charts? The freq response mostly levels out after the boost effect, if anything it bows upward at the center.
Anyway, the end all result is I like my Mont Blanc.
1. "Lastly, when I first got the amp, I was honestly a little disappointed. It sounded technically very accurate, but there was a sort of "coldness" to the sound and I wasn't feeling very emotionally involved. Like the amp was holding back somehow."
That's the comment I was referencing. Now as to your response here on that matter, now YOU have lost me, because the descriptions you are giving are essentially exactly the opposite of what makes sense. And well, I mean, it's as you stated; you're still getting familiar with the jargon. The most potentially relevant/accurate description of the sound you are perceiving is in the text that I quoted from your review. I could go into detail as to specifically what the things I'm talking about are but I don't feel there'd be a point to that as it'd only come off as belittling.
2. Was I confused about that? I pretty much stated my conclusive standpoint on what I now understand the graph is actually showing. So like I said, I'm not actually happy about the revision. It creates more of an unbalance whereas the original, as you yourself mentioned, conforms to the very common roll-off that many cans have, including closed ones actually like usually ones which have a neutral signature (like the Brainwavz HM5's for instance).
3. Did you look at my list representation of the charts? Relative to 1 KHz and higher, the lower mids are curving downward.
I never tried to tell you that you thought otherwise of the amp - that you didn't like it. That is something nobody can do anyway. I didn't even say that there was anything especially bad about it as not to like it. In any case, I will probably like it too if I get it. Overall, I'm just looking for something better for my personal needs at this point, that's all. That's honestly probably also the reason I'm getting into such detail about it as well.
Originally Posted by J Bones
I have found in the few hours I have used it that the bass is too much for majority of my IEM's or lower impedance phones, but for my Q701 it's just right and I wouldn't want it any other way. I really purchased the E12 for the gain since my A/V receiver on max volume wasn't really all too audible. Honestly, a desktop amp would obviously be best for the Q but buying a portable is much easier on my wallet for right now, so I'll stick to that lol.
That makes sense that this would happen. It's less to do with the amount of boost itself than it does on how it's implemented, and as you said, the effect it has on low impedance headphones/inputs. Furthermore, you also said it all right there. I may be in a similar position as you are at the current moment, unfortunately. I've just been using the E17 as it stands thus far. It's still OVERALL better than any crap I've ever come across, including studio gear (BS studio gear, but nonetheless...).
Originally Posted by Chris J
Where did you get these numbers from?
A lot of these numbers are low enough to be tolerance and calibration errors.
While that may be true, if I were doing the testing I would've taken that into account and otherwise not have posted, believe me, but, those numbers are actually just based off of the charts provided by FiiO. I think it's the projected frequency response and it's likely in favor of what the goal is rather than true measurements of the result. It's way too smooth for that. BUT REGARDLESS OF THE CASE, the bumps and dips in frequencies line up WAAAY too well with the effects that such an amp design would have so whatever tolerance for error there may be, it would probably be more accurately represented with even more emphasis of those curves. There could actually be many causes for it but one of them in this case is odd-ordered harmonic distortion. There are more audible characteristics to a reproduction of a sound (due to an amp in this case) than just frequencies, and that's just one of the things I was trying to hint at. May have been too subtle...
Originally Posted by SteveSatch
Would this amp be a good match for Brainwavz Hm5 headphones? I use a C421 now.
I'd wager that yes it would be. The Brainwavz HM5's are largely what I have been thinking about this amp relative to, just because of its incredibly neutral and revealing signature. If you want an amp at home though for casual listening purposes, I'd strongly recommend pairing the HM5's with a low impedance output TUBE amplifier. I have yet to do the research to find one that fits the mark and is reasonably priced. If you would like, whenever I may do the research, I can get back to you. PM me if you'd like that (no promises as to when that may be though because I don't even know for myself).
Originally Posted by jiminy
Anyone going to comment on the bass boost remark?
I think what's happened is a couple of people who don't own the amp complained about the lack of boost so it has been changed.
From what I have read, everyone who has this amp likes the current bass boost and does not want it changed. I've tried to buy v1 because it looks like the superior option, to no avail.
Maybe James fiio should have a vote as at the moment this change seems to be turning people of this amp.
I would say the same. Hopefully that happens.
Originally Posted by campj
Say what? Sounds like plain bigotry to me.
Not that I typically care to take sides in stupid headphone arguments, as I think it's a silly thing to argue about, but this comment irked me.
Really? Out of all the statements, THAT'S the one that irked you and came across as bigotry? That's pretty much the only one that was based most off of the reality of how it actually is. Before I knew anything about headphones (probably about 8 years ago), before I even had a decent pair of anything, even then it smelled fishy to me when people were raving about the $10 SkullCandy IEM's that had "amazing bass for the price", which at the time I bought and used btw.
There are many things though which go behind the entailment of what it means to be a "bass head", none of which at all have anything to do with any sense of "bigotry". There's nothing wrong with liking bass. I love it! At times I may really be in the mood just to be bombarded with it. A "bass head" where more bass is the overall preference for all there is when it comes to sound implies much more...
Originally Posted by Bill-P
Well, I maintain my previous position: the current bass boost is good enough. It should not change. It's addressing the low-bass roll-off of certain headphones and systems quite elegantly while keeping frequency response elsewhere even and balanced.
I hope that if Fiio is changing the bass boost, then they at least offer the old version alongside the new version. Maybe call the new version E13, or E12B, or something.
I've agreed and now the only quirk I have is that, well, being the high end of their line and all, I can't imagine that there would especially need to be a major trade-off to have built in a multi-step switch option for the bass boost, to the likes of which I described in my original post (the one where I listed what the charts represent when thinking in relative terms). If there is a trade-off, what was it then like in the example of the E11?
Edited by Typhoon859 - 2/15/13 at 3:56pm