Reviews by hodgjy

I recently took delivery of the Schiit Vali 2+ headphone amplifier. After giving it a good workout, I'm happy to share my impressions of it.

TL;DR
In the audiophile world, we often equate price with audio quality. We can spend thousands of dollars to gain those last few percentage points of improvement. I've even gone down this road myself. Well, the Schiit Vali 2+ is a $149US amplifier that destroys this belief system. I'm sure some people have crossed it off their lists simply because of its price, but it is a masterpiece and should not be ignored.

Pics Or It Didn't Happen

Audio chain: ALAC --> Pure i20 dock --> optical --> Musical Fidelity V90-DAC --> Schiit Vali 2+. The Teac HA-501 is my other main amplifier currently in use.

Amplifier Basics
The Schiit Vali 2+ is a hybrid tube amplifier. Much has been written about it here and elsewhere. It takes a single tube with a 6922 pin layout and 6V. It can utilize other near equivalents as long as they draw no more than 600 mA of current. The 6N1P is one such possibility.

My Listening Preferences and Background
I have long loved tube sound. There's something about it that I have difficulty describing with words. "Warm" is a cliche when it comes to tube amps, and that's not what has really drawn me to them anyway. For me, tubes have a certain texture to the notes that solid state often cannot duplicate. They also have a holographic image that even the best solid state amplifiers fall short of. For lack of better terms, to me, tubes sound like realistic "performers" and solid state sounds more like "reproducers" of the performance.

I have had various tube amplifiers in my collection, including the Woo Audio WA3, Schiit Valhalla 1, and Trafomatic Head One. As much as I love tubes, they've given me some problems and I have difficulty keeping up with the maintenance of them after several years of enjoyment. My WA3 developed a hum that I cannot pinpoint the source of, and the same can be said about the Trafomatic. The Valhalla 1 wasn't to my liking so I moved on from it.

If you've read many of my older posts here, you'll remember that the Trafomatic is my absolutely favorite amplifier. It has wonderful texture, linearity, imaging, tonality, and a holographic nature. If you're familiar at all with the amplifier, there's virtually no options to roll the signal tubes because it's based around a specific Soviet-era Russian tube. You can roll different years and modern reproductions, but the sound doesn't change significantly at all. More on Soviet-era Russian tubes later...

Since my tube amplifiers are often down for the count with noises and hum, I invested in the Teac HA-501, which is a solid state amp. It comes as close to "performing" instead of "reproducing" that I have come across in my price range (I have a hard time willing to spend over $1000 on a solid state amplifier when better tube amplifiers could be had for less). It has a musical tonality, smooth mids, relatively wide sound stage, just enough warmth, and overall pleasing sound. However, it comes close to, but never quite matches, the texture and holographic sound that even the most modest tube amplifiers cast. As much as I love it, I always long for that seductive tube sound.

Enter the Schiit Vali 2+. I thought I'd take a chance on this amplifier to help cure my itch for the tube sound for which I've been longing. For $149US, it's an easy choice, considering I have single tubes that cost more than the Vali 2+.

I was hoping the Vali 2+ would accomplish two specific goals for me, in addition to achieving the texture I love: 1) drive the Audeze LCD-2 adequately and 2) take some of the sizzle off the top end of the Philips Fidelio X2HR. I have several Sennheisers in the HD 600 family, and they are great pairings with the Teac. I don't need to take any more treble off them, their mids stand on their own, and their three-headed blob sound stage isn't overly enhanced by tubes, in my experience. On the other hand, the Philips isn't a great pairing with the Teac because the treble can be a bit much at times and the mids could use some tube love.

To make a long story short, this amplifier has completely surprised me. I came into this with very modest expectations, but I have been completely blown away. Both goals were achieved far better than I thought was possible for this little, inexpensive amplifier.

Tube Rolling
I've read various posts about tube rolling the Vali 2+, fully ranging from no difference in sound to drastic transformations. I entered tube rolling with an open mind.

The stock tube supplied was the one of Canadian origin. I understand there are also US stock tubes in the wild. The bottom of the tube was uneven, so it didn't seat very securely in the socket. This wasn't much of a concern, but the sound of the tube was. There's nothing egregiously wrong with the tube, but it was dull. It had a wool over it, voices were recessed a bit, and the bass was a little uncontrolled. So, due to the seating and sound issues, I decided to roll in a different tube.

Going back to the Trafomatic, I loved the sound of the Soviet-era Russian tubes. Many of those tubes are known for their tight specs, excellent linearity, low noise, and overall tonality. In fact, several amplifiers are now using the same tube as the Trafomatic, notably a couple offerings from Woo Audio. So, the secret is out.

Anyway, I wasn't able to use that particular family of tube in the Vali 2+, but I did explore other highly regarded Soviet-era Russian tubes. I settled on the Voskhod rocket 6N1P-EV. Once rolling it in, I immediately noticed changes. Voices popped and the bass was more under control. More importantly, the texture I have long been missing from the Trafomatic was back! Maybe it was the tube. Maybe it's the circuit design. I don't know, I'm not an engineer. But it doesn't matter to me in the end because the sound I love was back.

The Actual Review
Where am I going with this review? The long build up is basically the review.

The Vali 2+ comes eerily close to the Trafomatic Head One, provided you use the correct tube. They are very different designs and drastically different prices. The Trafomatic is a true tube amplifier, using three tubes and an output transformer. It's also quite expensive, retailing for more than $2000. The Vali 2+ is a hybrid utilizing a single tube. Despite these major differences, they share many characteristics.

For me, the biggest takeaway from the Vali 2+ is the texture. It has all of the textural characteristics that seduce me into long listening sessions. It is more holographic than my Teac HA-501. The Vali 2+ also has an incredibly low noise floor, which is important to me because my other tube amplifiers have developed noise issues that prevent me from using them (at least until I can diagnose them and/or get them serviced). Simply stated, it sounds wonderful.

Bass has excellent slam and texture. It's not one-note and reproduces what the artist intended. If the recording has lingering bloom, the Vali 2+ reproduces it. If the artist wanted fast bass transients, the Vali 2+ has no issues with that. I threw my usual torture tests of Big Head Todd, Brian Eno and David Byrne, and Rush at it, and it never broke a sweat.

Mids have just enough bloom to make you realize there's a tube in the circuit, but it's not overdone. There's nothing overly warm, syrupy, or smokey here. The mids sound very believable and will satisfy mid lovers.

The treble is ever so slightly rolled off, which I have come to expect from many tube designs and the Schiit house flavor. It maintains all the necessary details, but it takes off the unnecessary edge.

This is definitely a tube amplifier without the usual headaches from a tube design. You know there's a tube in the signal path, but it doesn't have the noise that plagues many amplifiers.

The Vali 2+ drives the LCD-2 and Fidelio X2HR with wonderful control and musicality, addictively so. The LCD-2 needs power to open the image. Without proper power, it's more of a wall of sound instead of a 3D image. The Vali 2+ lets the LCD-2 breathe. The Fidelio X2HR doesn't require much power, but it needs the amplifier to take control of the drivers, especially in the bass. Its bass can be out of control and bloomy at times, but the Vali 2+ adds the proper control and texture, providing a very enjoyable experience. Also, the Fidelio X2HR has some sizzle in the treble, and the Vali 2+ takes this edge off, making for a more balanced and linear experience throughout the sound spectrum.

Is this a Trafomatic Head One killer? Well, no. The Trafomatic pulls a bit more detail out of the recording, is slightly more holographic, and has a touch more of the texture I crave. But, the two amps are close. Maybe too close for comfort. In fact, I feel that I might fail a volume-matched blind comparison when using certain tracks, mainly rock songs.

Recommendations and Conclusions
The Vali 2+ gets a yes. A big yes. If you're able to get past the stigma of price and the hybrid design, this amplifier is simply a triumph. It's a hidden masterpiece in plain sight.

Just make sure you ditch the stock tube. I recommend rolling in a Soviet-era Russian Voskhod rocket 6N1P-EV and calling it a day. In fact, this combo driving the Fidelio X2HR is about as a pleasing experience for rock that I can remember. I don't have any immediate plans to interview and do background checks for service technicians who could potentially repair my beloved Trafomatic, but I'll get to that eventually.

If you want to rock out on a budget, you could do worse for much more money.

Background:

If you've read any of my recent reviews and posts, you'll see that I've been on mid-fi journey during the last year of our pandemic. I've been seriously procrastinating when it comes to re-padding my headphones (although I just sunk $70 US into my Sennheiser HD 650 to re-pad the ear cups and headband) and I have been investing in mid-fi headphones with those diverted funds. I like trying out new sound flavors and rediscovering my music collection.

Also, as price goes up, my reviews become more critical. I gave some extremely favorable impressions of lower-priced Sennheisers and Philips, but these Emotivas have a lot of competition in the $300 US bracket, so I am more compelled to discuss some nits and picks. While this review may seem to have more nits and picks than praise at times, I really do like these headphones. They are solid performers and worth the asking price. I'm conveying my honest impressions to hopefully better inform people shopping in the price bracket because there is intense competition here. Anecdotally, I purchased the Sennheiser HD 560S and returned them after one day of listening. They weren't for me at all. These are much better and I really enjoy them. (This is also why I don't make a very detailed comparison to the HD 560S below--I didn't have them long enough).

The latest edition to my collection is the debut offering from Emotiva, and I have to say it's a very solid effort. They checked a lot of important boxes when it comes to my listening enjoyment.

Emotiva's OEM:

There has been some chatter over the interwebs about how Emotiva contracted an OEM to make these headphones for them, and all evidence points to the company that makes Sivga headphones, among others. This bothers some people, but I suggest that it shouldn't. Do you honestly think Apple makes their own iPhones in-house? Exactly.

Aesthetically, these are gorgeous headphones. They look and feel premium.

Pics or it Never Happened:

My listening chain: ALAC -> iPod Classic -> Pure i20 dock -> optical -> Musical Fidelity V-DAC II -> Teac HA-501 amplifier (more on the DAC choice later in this review).

Overall Impressions:

These are a $300 US headphone, and they sound like a $300 headphone. I mean that in a good way. They aren't flagship, nor were they ever meant to be. They also aren't "giant killers," but, once again, they were never intended to be. They are a very solid offering from a company that is known to give great value for the dollar, and these are no exception. I hate using the term, "fun" when it comes to headphones because, for some people, nails on a chalkboard are fun. However, if you adhere to the fun sounding dogma, these certainly qualify. They are meant to sit back and listen for enjoyment while getting lost in the music and not trying to determine if the third trumpet is 5 cents too flat or if John Bonham cracked his stick. These are audiophile $300 headphones, not anything of the likes of Bose, which I do own, or Beats, which I have auditioned.

I'd put these exactly in the middle, in terms of performance, between something like the Sennheiser HD 560S or Philips Fidelio X2HR and the Sennheiser HD 650. In that regard, they are priced correctly and you are getting exactly what you paid for. This alone is an accomplishment because at one point the Sennheiser HD 650 was their flagship headphone before the technicality and price war intensified.

A possible sonic drawback is they have a small sound stage to my ears, and it's not intimate like the Sennheiser HD 6-- series. It's a little cramped.

Transients have decent speed. They are what you'd expect in this price point. The Emotivas don't have the dynamic volume swings the Sennheiser HD 6-- series has. Perhaps this is due to the difference in impedance, but I'm not an engineer and can't say for sure.

Overall, these have a slightly synthetic tone and ever so slightly lack an organic feel. Maybe this is due to their graphene drivers. I guess I've truly been spoiled by listening to the Sennheiser HD 650 and Audeze LCD-2F for so long. For lack of a better analogy, consider the Sennheiser HD 6-- series as a soft white light bulb and the Emotiva Airmotiv as a regular white light bulb. Both will illuminate all of the details very effectively, but one is warmer and more natural than the other.

To put things into further broad and loose comparisons in terms of what people may have previously auditioned, the Emotivas have a little less bass, more tame treble, and a smaller sound stage than the Philips Fidelio X2HR. Compared to the Philips SHP9600, the Emotivas are more refined, slightly more metallic and closed in, but without the midbass hump.

These are essentially a semi-open headphone, so you get some of the extra bass found in many closed backs, but you lose the wider sound stage of truly open headphones.

Treble:

Treble is nicely rendered. It's brighter than the Sennheiser HD 6-- line, so listening to these takes a little time for adjustment. It has clarity, but never approaches sibilance and I couldn't hear any noticeable hot spots. It's not without grain, but whatever grain it has isn't offensive. There is a little metallic timbre to the treble, which is obviously in contrast to the Sennheiser HD 6-- line. I did appreciate that the treble of the Airmotiv is a more tamed than the Philips Fidelio X2HR. The Philips when paired with certain DACs playing specific tracks could be a murder box at times. The Airmotivs never remotely approached any possibility of treble discomfort.

I don't have a measuring rig so I can't confirm what I think I'm hearing, but there seems to be a slight depression in the treble somewhere between 5k-10k, but it's not an omission worth worrying about, and may actually be pleasing. Overall, the treble sounds pretty detailed and balanced, which adequately meets its price point.

Midrange:

Midrange is nice, free of shout and honk. Voices are upfront and electric guitars have the appropriate crunch. There might be some recession somewhere between 1k-3k, but I can't for sure say. I've seen some reviews suggest these have a slight V-shape to them, so this would certainly make sense and would be believable. Timbre is pretty good, too. The sounds we expect to hear in the midrange sound realistic. My only real complaint here is they can sound a little crowded during specific passages, with different tones and voices sometimes fighting for attention.

The midrange, in terms of frequency response, is more in-line with the Sennheiser HD 600 than the HD 650, but obviously missing the liquidity and romance found in either of the Sennheisers. Drums sound a little more metallic and hollow than woody and throaty, which better headphones can render more appropriately.

Bass:

The bass is probably these headphones' major selling point. In a nutshell, it's fairly tight, not overly done, and lacks the midbass hump that plagues many headphones, including the Sennheiser HD 650. It has more bass presence than the Sennheiser HD 6-- line in that it extends deeper overall, but has less bass overall than the Philips Fidelio X2HR. Also, the bass is less controlled and has less texture, but oddly is less one-note the Sennheiser HD 650; the bass of the Airmotiv is less boomy and more in control than the Philips. Bass is pleasing, has decent punch, but it's a little rounded off. Bass guitars have good volume and presence, but lack the bite and texture found in better headphones.

I did appreciate that the bass seems to actually remain in the bass and limits its bleed into the midrange. Midbass isn't too bloomy or bloated. It's a nicely rendered bass response with decent speed and decay. While the Sennheiser HD 650 has better bass texture, they are known for midbass hump and distortion. The Emotivas were very well behaved and controlled despite being a little rounded off.

Sound Stage:

I never thought this would be possible, but I consider these to have a smaller sound stage than the Sennheiser HD 6-- series. I contribute this to the semi-open design. These lack the three-headed blob, which is good, but the sounds are almost exclusively in your head. The sound extends to the end of your ears, the top of your head, and to the bottom of your C1 vertebrae. That's the extent of it. Things can get crowded at times and imaging isn't precise like I've grown accustomed to with the Sennheiser HD 6-- line. Headphones with small sound stages can be intimate, but due to the slightly metallic coloration to the sound, this isn't intimate. It's just small. There isn't the same layering and depth (front to back is pretty narrow) that is found in the Sennheisers. Again, I attribute this to the semi-open back design.

Is the sound stage bad? No. It's just not large and don't expect your amp or DAC to perform miracles here. Don't expect to figure out the specific musician in the orchestra who accidentally banged their instrument on the sheet music stand at the start of a 10-bar rest or how far back on stage Dave Matthews migrated while at Red Rocks.

I found no issues with the sound stage for studio recorded rock, however.

Dislikes:

The ear cups are small and will cause ear fatigue for people with medium and large ears. The only thing keeping me from having an 8-hour marathon with these headphones is the ear cups. My ears touch the top and bottom of the pads as well as the driver housing. My ears get warm and start to sweat as well.

The stock cable is ridiculously microphonic, especially when paired with the mostly metal headphones, so plan on spending another few dollars on a better cable. It's a shame because the stock cable really is nice with a braided sleeve that feels robust while never getting all tangled up.

DAC Pairings:

I'm definitely not DAC agnostic, so let's get that out of the way. I certainly hear differences between them.

I suggest that these headphones, due to their slightly synthetic and metallic rendering to the sound, will best pair with multibit, R2R, advanced segment (like the Burr-Brown 179X series, which is found in my V-DAC II), or otherwise warm DACs. Despite Sabres being known for their air and space, I don't think they will pair well with the timbre of these headphones even though the extra space in the sound stage would be appreciated. If you wanted warmth and space, the Schiit Modius would be a nice budget approach despite it being delta-sigma if you didn't want to venture into multibit or R2R land.

Conclusions:

I like these headphones. Don't let my nits and picks sway you too much from trying them. As I stated earlier, as the price goes up, my reviews get more critical and I'm more inclined to find issues rather than ignoring them. If you gave me a pair of Focal Utopias to listen to, I'm sure I'd find the problems in them, just for clarity here.

These headphones don't do anything wrong and are free of major sonic sins. They make for an enjoyable experience and are worth the asking price. They are quite neutral in a "fun" way. They have a very good frequency response, they render the music in a very pleasing way, and, frankly, they just sound darn good. The longer they are on my head, the better they sound and the more I like them. They make for an excellent complement to the Sennheiser HD 6-- line and are more refined than several of the offerings from Philips. I read online that these have a "safe" sound signature, and I'd agree. These will handle most, if not all, music genres with the appropriate manners and delivery. All in all, a solid debut into the headphone arena from Emotiva.

Update:

In the interest of full disclosure, I decided to return these headphones. While they sound fantastic, and I was sad to see them go, the ear cups and pads were just too small for my ears and caused discomfort after a short period of time. If Emotiva ever updates these to have larger ear cups, I'd buy them in a second.

I've been in possession of the Philips SHP9600 for a few days now and I wanted to post a review. I'm not much of a believer in break-in, so take the youth of these headphones with a grain of salt as it potentially affects your own dogma.



Disclaimer:
I have several other headphones that cost many times more. I bought these for mixed usage and I came into my purchase with very tempered expectations. I mainly intended for this purchase to act as my movie headphones when plugged into my Yamaha RX-V485 receiver with Silent Cinema. I had been using the Sennheiser HD 569 (closed) for that, but after a while I felt they sounded too boxed in and the voices had too much "honk" to them when watching movies. So, I wanted to find some relatively inexpensive open back headphones to make the sound feel more open for movies. Also, I wanted a pair of headphones that specifically had a little dip in the 1k-4K range to help remove any "honk" from speaking voices while watching movies. These fit the bill, so I pulled the trigger and ordered them.

I've been on a mini quest during the pandemic months to find good headphones in the sub $150 US range. While I do have headphones costing much more, I've grown tired of paying $50-100 US to re-pad them regularly, so I decided I'd try to invest that money instead into headphones, but knowing full well that they won't hang in absolute technicalities with my more expensive cans.

I'm reviewing these in comparison to my other headphones, no matter what the price difference may be. Also, I've never heard the Philips SHP9500 so I cannot comment at all about those. For example, it's said these have more clamping force than the SHP9500. These are quite loose and comfortable, so I have no idea how the SHP9500 stays on anyone's head.

I recently had my Audeze LCD-2F repaired by Audeze due to failed drivers. They are no longer "F" headphones, but I don't know exactly which drivers they put in there since they have had many revisions over the years. I never asked because I was playing with house money since they fixed them for free a year after the warranty expired.

After being very pleased with the SHP9600 for movies, I decided to plug them into my main headphone rig to evaluate their sound with music. While I am extremely pleased with these for movies, and I highly recommend them for that capacity, the focus of this review is mainly regarding music from my main headphone rig. I make a few comments here and there about their movie performance.

I also bought a cheap aftermarket cable that was extra long for using with my home theater. I reviewed the headphones using that cable and not the stock one. I'm also a cable atheist, so take that into account for your own dogma as well.

Headphone Rig:
iPod Classic ALAC --> Pure i20 --> Schiit Modius XLR --> Teac HA-501 --> single end jack

Overall Impressions:
I paid $89.99 US for these, and honestly, I would have no regret paying $250 US for these. I feel they are that good. The sound is more open and neutral than the Sennheiser HD 650. They lack the same resolution, refined treble, and precise imaging that the HD 650 demonstrate, but they sound less muddy and congested. I'm not complaining about the HD 650 as these are my regular music drivers, but the Philips demonstrate these qualities in comparison to the Sennheiser.

These headphones are voiced very well for a variety of rock and pop genres, but they also excel at movies. They hold themselves together very well with cinema and don't embarrass themselves at all at either movies or music.

These headphones have no glaring issues or flaws. They do many things well, and I suspect people on a budget would have no complaints with these as their daily drivers. I'm quite impressed with them regardless of how much I paid for them, and I only appreciate them more because of their price.

Treble:
The treble is a little more grainy and unrefined compared to both the Sennheiser HD 650 and Audeze LCD-2. Treble is more present than the LCD-2 and maybe about the same level as the HD 650. They provide sparkle when needed, but not nearly as elegantly as the HD 650 do. The treble is a little more blunt with a hint of metallic aftertaste. If I didn't have the LCD-2 or HD 650 within an arm's reach for comparison, I'd have no idea that the treble had any limitations. I wouldn't call their treble flawed. It's just a different rendering indicative of their price point. I found no hot spots or issues with sibilance. They aren't the last word in treble, but they are pretty darn good in their own regard.

Midrange:
The midrange is pretty darn good at the price point. It is a little recessed as indicative of the 1k-5k scoop, but they don't sound hollow at all. Male voices are nicely rendered. The midrange feels much less congested than the HD 650 or LCD-2. Mid-bass doesn't bleed at all into it, which it does in the HD 650, so naturally the mids sound less congested than the HD 650. I'm not going to get into the Sennheiser veil debate at all, but let's just leave it here that the mids on the Philips are more open than the HD 650. They're not as liquid and luscious, either, but they're tastefully done. If you are specifically looking for a V-shape curve, these should be on your list.

Bass:
The bass is pretty decent on these, but it is certainly out-classed by my other headphones. It has strong impact and good timbre. It digs deep when it has to and it never bleeds into the midrange, which is one thing I hold personally against the HD 650. Overall, bass is about the same amount as the HD 650 and a bit more pronounced than the LCD-2. However, the LCD-2 digs much deeper and cleaner than both the Philips and the Sennheiser. The SHP9600 doesn't differentiate the different bass notes as well as the HD 650 or LCD-2. Saying that, though, if these were your only headphones, you'd be none the wiser as they still are definitely not one-note in the bass department. The best thing I can say about the bass on these is they don't embarrass themselves in the slightest when playing anything by Les Claypool. It handles "Spirits in the Material World" by the Police without breaking a sweat. It's not as fast as the LCD-2, but it is pleasing for people who require a bit of bass emphasis. Note that I am not a basshead at all, but I do love the sound of the bass guitar.

Soundstage:
The soundstage isn't anything to write home regarding music. If you put these headphones on my head without letting me see them first, I'd have no idea they have angled drivers. Imaging is pretty good, and about the same as the LCD-2. I've never felt imaging or soundstage were a strength of the LCD-2, but it is a strength of the HD 650. Despite the HD 650's "three-headed blob," they do have very good imaging. The Philips don't suffer from the same "three-headed blob" that the HD 650 does, but they do fall behind in the precise imaging. Overall, these headphones have a fine soundstage and imaging for their price point. However, just don't expect the angled drivers to deliver anything special for you. I'd hate to imagine how these would sound without angled drivers...

Interestingly, the soundstage is excellent for movies. My first time using them for movies I honestly thought certain noises were coming from somewhere in my apartment and I took the headphones off to try to figure out what it was. It was from the movie soundtrack itself. I was watching "Raised by Wolves" on HBO Max and the noises from wind blowing on the tent during those scenes really tricked me.

General Conclusions:
These are very good headphones for movies. They image well enough for movies and voices are clear without any honk. They have enough bass for explosions and other rumbles. They have enough sparkle for fine details in the soundtrack. People looking for modestly priced open back headphones for movies should definitely add these to their list.

For music, these headphones have absolutely exceeded my expectations. They are very well rounded performers without any obvious sins. Had I not had more expensive headphones nearby for comparison, I would be completely ignorant to any quality drop off with these compared to them. When I put on a pair of relatively inexpensive headphones that aren't the better ones in my collection, I can tell instantly what their sins and flaws are. I really had to listen critically to identify the limitations of the SHP9600. I previously reviewed the Sennheiser HD 559, and while I thought those were very good for the money (they are, but they absolutely commit several sins including massive mid-bass bleed into the midrange and a timbre that is just off), the Philips cost less and are absolutely better. Drastically better. In fact, they put the HD 559 to shame. If I didn't have the HD 650 for my regular drivers, I'd have no problem using these for that purpose. It just so happens that these are my movie headphones.

TL;DR
These have no business sounding this good for $100 US.




Background Context
Before I jump into my review, I feel it's important to give some context about myself that ultimately influenced my review.

I used to be active on these forums for years, and I thought I did a decent job of building a mostly endgame system for myself within my budget: Teac HA-501 amp, Schiit Gumby mulitbit, HD 600, HD 650, Shure 1540, DT990/600, and LCD-2F. I even had a Trafomatic amp in rotation before it developed a static. Still never got that repaired, mainly because the Teac sounded so good to me.

However, lifestyle changes in recent years have taken my interests elsewhere, mainly to home theater, and I stopped being active around these parts. I moved to speakers for audio, and when I did want privacy for music, I used bluetooth cans and my iPhone. I know, the horror. It was strictly convenience.

Well anyway, I recently decided I wanted to use closed headphones to watch movies at night as to not disturb my girlfriend or downstairs neighbor. No problem, I'll use my Shure 1540. But, despite being properly stored in their box for years, they still managed to fall apart within a few hours of use. The ear pads disintegrated and the headband pad fell apart. Geez. That was discouraging.

No problem, I'll just buy some cheap-ish closed backs, and I settled on the Sennheiser HD 569. For movies and tv shows via Netflix, they are just fine. Anyway, I'm not reviewing these here, although they will serve as a comparison, which I why I mentioned them. Out of pure boredom and curiosity, I decided to try them out on my headphone system. Let's just say, I was a little underwhelmed. The sound was a little honky and shouty. Sound stage was poor. This prompted me to pull out my other good cans because once the itch started, it required scratching.

Well, my other cans all suffered the same fate as the 1540. Ear pads all disintegrated. Despite also being stored in their proper boxes, the ear pads on the HD 600, DT990, and LCD-2F both fell apart in my hands. Welp, this isn't good. Talk about a punch to the gut.

Luckily, the HD 650 seemed to come away unscathed. So, I plugged those into my system.

After listening to speakers and other headphones for years, something seemed off. They were a little too congested, veiled, and boring. They immediately felt like the 3-headed blob of sound. The sound stage wasn't very wide. They were also quite fatiguing after a while because they were too polite. It's as if they were too relaxing and safe that it felt like a huge weight was dragging them down. A few years ago, I could find no fault in these headphones, but tastes and experiences change, I guess.

I decided I needed to get some new headphones to use in my newly revived system. I'll eventually replace the pads in my HD 600, Shure 1540, DT990, and LCD-2F, but they're not a priority right now, especially if I don't end up using my headphone system as much as I did in the past.

In my quest for some new cans, I made a list of must haves:

• Open back.
• Relatively inexpensive, just in case I decide to not utilize my headphone system much again, resorting back to speakers and home theater.
• A little on the bass-heavy side because I listen to mostly rock.
• Since I listen to mostly rock, especially classic rock, most of the recordings aren't the best, the headphones needed to be on the forgiving side of bad recordings. My amp and dac are very revealing, but I bought those specific components mainly to get the sounds to sound right, like drums and cymbals. I don't need to hear every flaw in the recording.
• Scales well with equipment, as I have decent components.
• Wide sound stage, otherwise I'd stick with the HD 650.
• No treble sizzle.
• Comfortable.
• Single-entry cable. I've grown tired of the double entry. Ok, that wasn't a must, but it would be a bonus.

All of these criteria, through extensive searching on web, led me to the Sennheiser HD 559. There's not a lot out there, but I was able to find enough matches to my query that prompted me to pull the trigger on these.

Now, the Actual Review
Well, if other reviews out there led me to these headphones, why would I need to review them? Good question.

For starters, the reviews out there are quite polarizing. I've read they were muddy, junk, compressed, etc. You name it, I read it. Of course, these reviews were mainly from Amazon users, so take them with a grain of salt.

I also wanted to formally review them to test my own confirmation bias. Note: I think I overcame my bias as I found these to better than I was expected, and I'm very critical of headphones when I test them.

Anyway, where do these headphones fall on the spectrum? The bulleted list I provided above, or the muddy junk some reviewers would have us believe?

I'd say mostly on the side of the bulleted list, and maybe even a little better. I'm willing to bet most people reviewing them can't get past their price of $100 US and, therefore, must believe they aren't good or worthy of being plugged into good gear.

I'd also be willing to bet that if you put these headphones on someone's head and said they were $500, they'd assume they were magnificent.

Bottom line, price isn't a consideration here. They definitely punch way above their price point.

Bass
The bass has good body and heft. It digs deep when it has to. There is some mid bass hump, but it's not offensive. I like it, and it makes rock sound quite good. It's not boomy or muddy at all. It's not as controlled as the HD 650, but it has more body and slam. It creeps a little into the mid range, but it doesn't drown it out. Overall, bass is pleasing and brings rock to life. The test I put all headphones through is Big Head Todd and the Monsters' "Sister Sweetly" album. These passed with absolutely flying colors. That album has all kinds of texture in the bass guitar.

Mids
The mids are good. Male voices sound nice. Where the HD 569 were a little honky and shouty, the mids on the HD 559 are smooth, open, and natural. They have a little bit a rough edge to them, especially when compared to the HD 650, but then again, which headphones don't in that comparison?

Highs
Highs are a little rolled off, but only when you compare them to headphones that aren't. If these were all you heard, you wouldn't notice any lack of detail or roll off. No sizzle, but they have enough sparkle when the recording calls for it. They are smooth-ish and relaxed, but not as much as the HD 650. They sound good with rock, especially poorly recorded tracks, which was the point of my purchase.

Sound Stage
It's defintely wider than the HD 650, and most definitely wider than the HD 569. I'd say the sound stage is about on par with the LCD-2F. There's no 3-headed blob here. Sounds pan left and right very nicely. There's no congestion, either. The torture test I put them through is Brian Eno and David Byrne's "Home." The HD 559 passed with mostly flying colors. I also play Rush's Tom Sawyer to hear how the drums pan right to left. No issues here. In lesser headphones, they pan from your right ear, over your head, to your left ear. With the HD 559, they pan through your head. Impressive.

Detail Retrieval
This is where I was the most surprised. Most of the reviews I read said these lack detail retrieval. This is most certainly not the case. Is it as refined as the HD 650, or even HD 600, for that matter? No, but it's closer than you'd expect. The test I put headphones through for detail retrieval is Beck's "Unforgiven" because better headphones can make out the rasp and breaks in his voice. Lesser headphones cannot. Here's where I was surprised. My top headphones have no problem picking up this rasp. However, the HD 569 cannot retrieve it. It's gone. But, the HD 559 picked up the rasp, just like the HD 650. But, wait, the HD 559 are 10 less than the HD 569! How can this be? Nicely played, Sennheiser.

Speed
The one flaw these headphones may have is their driver lacks the speed found in better cans. They aren't as fast as the HD 600, HD 650, or LCD-2F. The lack of speed can reduce some of the clarity, especially in the mid to low bass. I can see why some may think the bass is muddy, but that's not the right term for it. It lingers a little longer than better headphones, but if you really listen to it, it has the detail. I consider muddy bass to lack detail. These just lack speed, and when you couple that with mid bass boost and the bleed into the mid range, I understand why someone may choose that vocabulary.

These headphones definitely need to be run on an amp with extremely low output impedance. Don't attempt to use these on an OTL tube amp or a home AV receiver with a stop down resister on the main amplifier. These need a good dampening factor, otherwise I suspect these bass flaws will get worse as the amp loses even more control over the driver.

Scaling
In my limited time testing these headphones, I think they do scale well with better gear. The main reason I bought the Schiit Gumby multibit is because I wanted drums and cymbals to sound right. I don't like the harshness found in lesser dacs. While I can't tell if the smoothness I'm hearing in some recordings is just because these headphones are forgiving or if the dac truly makes the difference, I can say that the HD 559 does pick up the improved sound of cymbals that the multibit dac provides. My Teac HA-501 is also a pretty revealing amp, and has an adjustable output impedance, which I think further suggests these headphones scale well with better components. The differences are subtle, but I think they're there.

Fun Factor
These headphones aren't clinical or analytical. They have good detail retrieval, but are forgiving at the same time. They offer a fun sound, and I know that's a very subjective term that gets thrown around a lot here. But, they are fun for rock. They make for long listening sessions without fatigue. If you want to rock, they rock out. If you want to relax, they can chill as well.

Comfort
Yes, they have the famous Sennheiser 5xx series comfort.

Bottom Line
I'm quite impressed with these headphones. They meet all of my requirements that I listed above. Do they approach the fidelity and criticality of my higher-end headphones? No, but it's closer than you'd expect for $100 US. The HD 650 isn't 4x better than these. The LCD-2F isn't 10x better than these. In fact, the HD 559 give the HD 650 a run for their money. The LCD-2F puts a little more distance between itself and the HD 559, but that's no shame on the HD 559. Plus, the LCD-2F are heavy and lose comfort after a while. I can listen to these HD 559 for longer periods.

Will these become my regular drivers? Maybe. Maybe not. But until I invest to replace all of those ear pads, I'll be using these exclusively. And, because of these, I'm in absolutely no hurry to buy all of those replacement pads. Who knows, maybe I won't ever replace the pads and I'll end up using these. Maybe I'll go back to speakers. However, I'm very glad to have taken a chance on these and added them to my collection.

Are these worthy of your consideration? Absolutely yes. Emphatically yes. Don't fall victim to the trap that you have to spend large sums of money to get good sounding headphones. These have no business sounding this good for $100. You can plug them into your higher-end gear without shame. They won't diminish your investment in that gear.

I recently picked up the JBL Everest Elite 300 On-Ear Bluetooth Noise Canceling Headphones for $209.99 from the local Best Buy. They are a new product, and since they haven't been discussed around here, I thought I'd post my brief impressions for the holiday shopping season.
 
TLDR; In short, I really like them. They are going to be my go-to travel and portable headphones for quite some time. They sound very similar to the V-Moda Crossfade M-80s, which I also really like. The JBLs appear to be pretty rugged and can survive years of regular, and perhaps aggressive, use.
 

 
I have a full confession, though. I went to Best Buy fully expecting to purchase the Bose QC 25 based on the favorable reviews posted here. However, once I tried the Bose, they didn't sound very natural to me. The noise canceling was excellent, but the sound signature wasn't really for me. Nothing against the Bose, but I knew I wasn't going to like the sound they produced.
 
I tried a bunch of noise canceling headphones in the store, and none of them really impressed me. But, the sales lady asked me to try the JBL line. I'm glad she did because the JBLs weren't even on my radar. I was immediately impressed with the sound. I wasn't in the market for Bluetooth headphones, but since these were also noise canceling, I went with them. They were $90 cheaper than the Bose (although the Bose were over-ear and these were on-ear). The JBL Everest Elite 700 are their over-ear offering ($249.99), but I thought their on-ear version sounded better.
 
Compared to the Bose, they sounded more natural and musical. In the store, I couldn't tell any difference in noise canceling, but since the Bose are specifically known for that technology, I'm assuming the JBLs won't quite measure up to them. I haven't done any special tests for the noise canceling, but they seem to work. The real test will be when I fly for the holidays. I took them out for a walk the other night, and I had a hard time hearing passing cars. Also, it was windy, and these blocked all sound of the wind hitting the ear cups. Non-noise canceling headphones really pass the sound of the wind to your ears.
 
There is the typical low-level white noise hiss you can hear with noise canceling activated in quiet settings. I didn't hear this at all while in the store, so I can't say one way or the other how this compares to the Bose. It's certainly no louder than other noise canceling headphones I've owned and used in the past. You cannot hear it when the music plays anyway, so it's not of any consequence. It's no worse than plugging closed headphones or ear buds into the noisy headphone jack in a cheaper Windows laptop computer.
 
Sonically, these remind me a lot of the V-Moda Crossfade M-80s. Not an exact match, but they are very similar to my ears. I have those as well, and I really like them, so it's no surprise why I like these JBLs so much. The V-Modas have much boomier bass that also bleeds into the midrange, but the mids and treble seem mostly similar; there is less bass bleed into the mids on the JBLs. The V-Modas have been my go to travel and portable headphones for a few years now, so I'm really pleased I'll be able to retain that sound signature with the new JBLs while also getting noise canceling. I'm not sure if JBL tuned them to sound like the V-Moda on purpose or on accident, but since the V-Moda house sound seems to be popular, I suspect JBL will sell a fair amount of these headphones.
 
If I had to pick the sound signature of either the JBLs or V-Modas, I like the JBLs better because the bass is less boomy and blends in much better with the mids.
 
Overall, I'm pleased with these headphones. They sound pretty darn good, have noise canceling, and have the convenience of Bluetooth. They have a non-removable rechargeable battery that offers up to 10 hours of use. This may not be ideal for people on long trips, but JBL does include a 3.5 mm cable so you can use the headphones in passive, non-noise canceling mode. They do have a hint of that "typical" noise canceling etch and artificial sound to them, but they are much better than others I have owned or used. They are very natural sounding compared to the other offerings I am aware of.
 
These headphones have a few quirks that you should know about it. 
 
First, the Bluetooth didn't really play nicely with the Google Play Music app on my Android phone. There were lots of pops and temporary drop outs. However, when I used the Amazon Prime video app on the same phone, the sound stream was perfect. There were no issues when streaming music or videos on my Amazon Fire Tablet or music from my iPod Nano. Therefore, I'm assuming it's an issue with how my phone interfaces with the Google Play Music app. 
 
Second, you can only pair these with a single device at once; there is no multi-device memory. Every time you want to pair with a new device, you must delete the pairing settings from within the headphones themselves.
 
Third, they have an "ambient aware" feature for the noise canceling that varies between off, high, and low. As far as I can tell, all this does is pass and amplify outside noise picked up by the mic such as wind and cars. It's quite annoying, actually, so I leave it off at all times.
 
Fourth, they have some sort of mysterious TrueNote sound calibration based on how the headphones seal over your ears. I can't tell one bit of difference when I use this. I have no idea if it actually works or does anything at all.
 
Fifth, while you can use the noise canceling feature when using the wired connection, I don't recommend it. The cable picks up additional noise and passes a slight buzz through the headphones. The buzz is present on every device I tried and even when there was no device connected to the cable.
 
Overall, I recommend these. They sound good, appear to be rugged, have a rechargeable battery (which may or may not be good based on your usage patterns), and cost less than the Bose. They also have a more stout construction than the Bose and will instill a little confidence in your usage patterns.

Much has already been written about the Schiit Gungnir Multibit (Gumby), so I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here. Rather, I'll briefly discuss my interpretations on various questions, opinions, and disputes that are central to people's decisions regarding buying this DAC.
 
My evaluation system
 
Source: iPod Classic ---> Apple lossless ---> Pure i20 dock ---> optical ---> Gumby ---> XLR ---> Teac HA-501 ---> Audeze LCD-2F
 

 
When evaluating DACs, it's important to use the correct resolution of expectations. DACs won't have drastically different sounds like headphones do, but there are differences. When speaking of differences, you have to remember they are subtle differences, but the vocabulary used to describe these differences is more drastic than the actual sonic differences. Keep in that in mind. YMMV.
 
1. The multibit / megaburrito filter is not overhyped. Yes, this is a real thing. I'm amazed at how much information is on Redbook lossless rips. Lesser converters seem to throw it away or resolve it much less because I'm hearing sounds in my tracks that I've never heard before. I can hear the singers take breaths. Fingers on strings. It's not just the amount of information this DAC retrieves that is striking, it's what it does with it when it renders it. The spatial cues are amazing. Forget the 1st or 10th row analogy. I'm on stage with the performers. I can now hear sounds behind my head, which has never happened before. Previously, sounds were in front, above, and to the sides. Now, there is a sphere of sound.
 
The Gumby has completely eliminated any desire to explore 24 bit files or DSD. I'm perfectly happy with Redbook. There's a ton of information in those tracks.
 
2. The warmup period is real, but overblown. Yes, the Gumby sounds better when fully warm. But, it sounds great immediately after a cold start. It sounds better after an hour. It really comes into its own at 6 hours. 12 hours is where it maxes out. I noticed no improvements after 12 hours. I could easily live with this DAC by turning it on and listening to it after one hour. The differences between one hour and 6 hours is real, but not enough to make me wait 6 or 12 hours to listen. I live in an area with frequent thunderstorms, so leaving the Gumby on 24/7 isn't ideal for me. I'll leave it on when I can, but won't enjoy it any less if I am forced to turn it off and deal with a cold start.
 
3. The unbalanced outputs are not crippled at all. Several are reporting the Gumby's unbalanced outputs "clearly" lack behind the balanced ones. This is false. My Teac HA-501 is a single-ended amp, but can accept both unbalanced and balanced connections. I tried them both when using the Gumby. So, I had either the Gumby or the Teac do the summing. I could tell no difference between the connection type, and assuming my Teac isn't a piece of junk (it's not, it's a fabulous amp), it's because there isn't a difference at the human hearing level. Obviously, use balanced if you have an amp that receives them. Otherwise, use unbalanced without any fears at all.
 
I didn't pause the music and crank the volume to maximum to listen for any noise or hiss. That's a fruitless endeavor because it's way past listening volumes. I won't do this test, either. At listening volumes, and even above where it starts to hurt, I could hear no difference between connection types.
 
4. Cosmetic flaws do exist. This has basically been a dead horse around here. Yes, there are some slight cosmetic flaws on Schiit gear. Over the years, I've had five pieces of Schiit in my possession, and they all had very slight flaws on the metal edges from the cutting process or from little dings during the hand assembly process. Yours will be no different. Schiit keeps their money in the innards. If you want a fancy case, Esoteric will gladly take your $20,000.
 
5. It is vinyl sounding. I've heard others describe this DAC as the closest to vinyl as digital can be. I agree with this. Cymbals sound right and there's no digital glare. It's a very smooth and detailed DAC. Other DACs I've used in the past are either smooth or detailed, never both at the same time. The Gumby pulls off both, like a good vinyl setup can sometimes accomplish.
 
6. USB gen 2 is very good. Many people are wishing for USB gen 3 to come to the Gumby. I tried all the connection types I could--USB, optical, and coaxial. I could hear no difference between any of them. Also, my USB worked flawlessly using the same drivers I had installed for my Uberfrost. No dropouts, pops, noise, etc. It was fine.
 
Conclusions
 
This is an outstanding DAC. It exceeds every DAC I have previously heard. It is replacing my Uberfrost, and the differences are real. It is expensive, and cost more than 2x what my Uberfrost previously did. Is it 2x better than the Uberfrost? No, but it's extremely good and worth the price. It's less shouty than the Uberfrost, more smooth, more musical, more detailed, and more resolving--in relative terms that is.

The Audeze LCD 2.2 is one of the most popular headphones on Head-Fi. Much has already been written about them, so adding yet another review may not offer anything new or different. However, when the 2.2 line was upgraded to include Fazor technology, the reviews were a little more divided. Some loved the upgrade. Others hated it and felt the non-Fazor model was better.
 
Which is it?
 
Well, I can't answer that because I've never heard the non-Fazor model. But, I can tell you the Fazor version is fabulous.
 
Evaluation Setup:
 
Amplifier: TEAC HA-501
DAC: Schiit Bifrost Uber
Source: iPod Classic via Pure i20 dock with coaxial connection
Tweak: Charleston Cable Company Canare cable (not for sonic improvements, but for sturdiness and longevity; stock cable is fragile and doesn't inspire confidence)
 
The way I can best describe the LCD 2.2F sound is to take you through my audio journey.
 
My first entry into "high end" headphones was the Beyerdynamic DT880/250 ohm. At first, these were wonderful. Crisp details that I never heard in my music before. Better imaging than anything I've ever experienced. After about a year, I realized that the initial wonder wore off and they weren't for me. I found them dry, brittle, boring, and lacking bass.
 
The next natural transition from the DT880 in search of more excitement was the DT990/600 ohm. These certainly were very exciting. The bass was much more pronounced, the treble was sizzling, and the v-curve that got me through my youth was in full effect. There was more meat and life on the bones, so to speak. However, after about a year or so, I decided the treble was really too much, especially when fed from a solid state amp.
 
I then purchased the Sennheiser HD600. At first, it was perfect. It was a balanced signature, with much more controlled treble. It was smooth and enjoyable. I was pretty happy with these for about two years, but then I found the bass lacking. They also suffered the dreaded 3-stage blob and made some recordings seem unnatural.
 
The next natural move was to adopt the HD650. These did in fact have more bass, so all was right with the world. However, they were almost too polite and laid back. The treble was clear, and they don't have the lack of treble that so many people claim. It's just sweet and subdued, but almost in an unnatural way. Some tracks sounded marvelous, yet others sounded dull, congested, and claustrophobic. There was too much midbass creep for my liking. Also suffered the 3-stage blob. It took me less than a year to reach the conclusion that I liked these cans, but I still wanted more.
 
About the same time I bought the HD650, I also purchased the Shure SRH1540. Up to this point, all of my headphones had been open designs, and I thought I might try the closed variety. They are pretty darn good, but they really have too much bass for my liking. I always thought of myself as a basshead, but these cans showed me that I wasn't. There was simply too much low bass, and the midbass creep was even worse than the HD650. My search would continue.
 
Enter the Audeze LCD 2.2F. I'm not going to go into exquisite details trying to describe the sound signature using as long list of creative adjectives or metaphors. That's been done countless times here on Head-Fi. Rather, I'll state that these headphones have finally given me the exact sound signature I've been looking for this whole time.
 
Pros:
 
-The sound is balanced from top to bottom. The bass is accurate and tight, while the treble is natural. No sizzle. It's life-like and clear. A criticism of the non-Fazor version is lack of top end clarity and treble extension. Not these. These do treble right.
 
-There is no midbass creep at all. At first listen, I actually thought the LCD 2.2F were bass light. However, once my brain adjusted, I realized it was because there was no midbass creep and what I was hearing was the natural bass range in the recordings. It also cleared the way to hear the deepest of deep bass much more clearly.
 
-Soundstage and imaging is a very personal thing, and also one of the more disagreed upon topics when reviewing headphones. Compared to all of the other headphones listed above, the LCD 2.2F has the best soundstage and imaging. I'm bringing this up because one of the debated weak points of the LCD 2.2 (Fazor and non-Fazor) has been the soundstage. These aren't the last word in width or depth, but I found them to have the most believable and balanced of all my headphones. The image is coherent and extends into the corners that the other headphones miss. There is no 3-stage blob. When sounds track from right to left, the sounds no longer go "over" my head or "in front" of it in an unnatural manner. The sounds go through my head in a natural, linear movement. Very believable and life-like. The soundstage also has excellent height. They are the tallest of all my headphones.
 
The sound is clear and non-fatiguing. With my other headphones, I could get either clarity or non-fatigue, but not both. The LCD 2.2F pull both off. There's no haze, veil, congestion, or claustrophobia. 
 
The sound is fast, accurate, and has a natural timbre.
 
Overall, I love these headphones. When I first got them, I went through a little buyer's remorse because they were expensive. However, I got over that very quickly and they put a smile on my face every time I put them on my head.
 
Cons:
 
Heavy and can make your head uncomfortable after long listening periods. The stock cable is cheap and horrible. I don't believe much in cable magic, but I bought a replacement cable just to have something stronger and more likely to survive years of use. After all, I plan on having these for a long time. They are very expensive, so there is a huge barrier to entry in this realm.

I recently took delivery of the TEAC HA-501.  After giving it a good workout, I am happy to share my impressions about it.
 
TL;DR
 
This is one impressive amplifier.  It has clean, refined power.  It is very musical with a hint of warmness and smoothness, while retaining a high level of detail.  It is very transparent and essentially disappears from the chain.  Highly recommended. 
 
Picture of My System
 

In the picture, you can see the TEAC HA-501, Bifrost Uber, iPod Classic, Pure i20, Trafomatic Head One, and Shure SRH1540.
 
Amplifier Basics
 
The TEAC HA-501 is a solid state amplifier.  Key features include variable output impedance to control the damping factor for all headphones you own.  According to fellow Head-Fi member Operabuff, the calculations for damping control range from a low output of 0.4 ohms to a high of 5.1 ohms.  The idea behind it is when damping is set on high, the output impedance is the lowest, giving a more controlled and analytical sound.  When set on low, the impedance is the highest, and the sound is more mellow and euphoric.
 
The circuit design uses Muses 8920 op amps, which are considered as "audiophile" op amps.  While some audiophile purists may detest op amps of any kind, I have no objection to them.
 
Test Equipment
 
DAC: Schiit Bifrost Uber via coaxial from Apple lossless fed from iPod Classic and Pure i20 dock.
Headphones: Shure SRH1540 (closed) and Sennheiser HD650 (open).  These were chosen because they represent both open and closed headphones with both high and low impedance.  
Comparative Amplifiers: Schiit Asgard 1, Schiit Asgard 2, Woo Audio WA3, and Trafomatic Head One.
 
Bass
 
Overall, the bass is rendered in an excellent manner.  It goes deep and is highly controlled.  The bass notes are detailed and textured and are never one-note.  The amplifier renders the different bass notes with precision.  I can detect no bloat or leanness from the bass.  Whatever is on the album is what the amplifier delivers.  Drums are rendered with razor-like accuracy and punch.  There is nothing left wanting from the bass regions.  The textures from bass guitars are crunchy, yet throaty with authority. 
 
Mids
 
The mids are exquisite.  Voices, particularly female voices, are quite seductive.  They are charming and smooth, yet they are brought to the forefront.  Voices never get lost in the shuffle and are easy to track.  Guitars have the appropriate crunch and distortion.  I can detect no grain at all in the mids, which may also be a product of my test headphones because they are known for their lack of grain, but the amplifier certainly didn't introduce any grain when compared to my other amplifiers I have in my stable.
 
Highs
 
The highs are smooth and sweet.  There is definitely no grain, and if the album lacks stridency, the amplifier certainly doesn't introduce any.  If there is stridency and sibilance on the album, the amplifier will pass that along, but not completely honestly.  It does smooth them out a little bit, which I consider a good thing.  Cymbals, bells, flutes, and whistles are all smooth and sound as close to natural as I've heard them in my living room with my gear.  All in all, the highs are beautifully rendered.
 
Soundstage
 
The soundstage is rendered as the album was recorded.  It's neither artificially compressed nor expanded.
 
Control
 
I like to throw my amplifiers the torture test, which I find from Brian Eno and David Byrne's album "Everything That Happens Will Happen Today."  The album is pretty much a torture test because it's such a complex collection.  Most of the songs are a nexus of guitar, techno, electronica, deep bass, percussion, and of course David Byrne's magnificent voice.  Lesser amplifiers fall apart on these tracks and lose focus.  The result isn't pretty.  When played natively on my iPod through its headphone jack, the iPod completely loses it.  The Schiit Asgard 1 has trouble, but the Asgard 2 maintains much more control.  Depending on the tubes used, the Woo may or may not have troubles with the album.  If using the legendary Tung-Sol 5998 power tube, things go smoothly.  However, rolling in an RCA 6AS7G reduces the control and precision.  The Trafomatic Head One and TEAC have no problems slicing through these tracks.  The torture test is passed with flying colors.
 
Damping Factor Control
 
I'm sure this feature will interest some potential buyers.  I did try it out on both my low and high impedance headphones.  While the effect is real, it is pretty subtle at best.  It was more noticeable on the low impedance Shure SRH1540s than it was on the high impedance Sennheiser HD650s.  It did work as advertised, I'd say.  When on high, the sound was more crisp, and when on low, it was more euphoric.  I preferred it on medium with the Shures and on high for the Sennheisers.
 
Noise Floor
 
The noise floor is very low.  The amp doesn't introduce any noise on top of the noise already in my chain.  Based on previous tests, the nosiest component in my chain is the Bifrost Uber.  I can hear the noise floor when I crank the volume to high on the amplifier with music muted.  The TEAC doesn't add anything to this as far as my ears can tell.  Overall, I'd say the amplifier is very quiet and transparent.  The low noise of the TEAC knocks the socks off the Schiit Asgard 1 and Asgard 2.  The Woo, since it's an OTL amp using the noisy 6AS7G power tube is naturally noisy to begin with, and also has a slight veil to the sound.  
 
Musicality
 
We can talk about tech specs for hours, harp on the noise, etc.  But, what does it do for the music?  It is very musical amp.  It's very detailed, yet smooth.  There is a hint of warmth, which I find pleasing.  It feels like it has power in reserve, which can pull out the minute details in the background, but yet have the cannons explode with gusto during the 1812 Overture.  While the amp pulls out every detail thrown at it, it never sounds clinical or analytical.  It is fluid.  Compared to my Trafomatic Head One, which is an output-transformer-coupled tube amp, the TEAC doesn't have the mid-tone bloom, but it does retain similar smoothness.  It's perhaps a touch less holographic, but the soundstage width is about the same.  I don't find the TEAC any less musical than the Trafomatic; it's just a slightly different flavor.  I find the Trafomatic to be quite linear not very "tubey" in sound, so I find it to be a fair comparison.
 
The Woo is a pretty "tubey" sounding amp, so it's not really a fair comparison to match it up with the TEAC.
 
At the end of the day, the TEAC induces no listening fatigue.  In fact, it has an addictive qualities.  For the last week, I've been guilty of the "just one more song before bed" conversation with myself that would last for several hours.  It's definitely a solid state amplifier, and may lag behind what tube amplifier fanatics live for, but the TEAC certainly stands on its own in the musicality department.  
 
Other Thoughts
 
The TEAC is a well-built piece of equipment.  It exudes quality, and those who have it will have a high level of pride in ownership.  Potential buyers will be happy to know there's absolutely no transients or power on/off thumps, pops, bangs, or hisses.  While those don't typically damage headphones, it's assuring to not have to hear them.
 
Comparisons
 
Other amplifiers in my arsenal include the Schiit Asgard 1, Asgard 2, Woo Audio WA3, and Trafomatic Head One.  The TEAC literally puts the Schiits and Woo to shame.  It has much less noise and more detail retrieval.  I'm a Schiit fanboy, and I think highly of both Asgards, but the noise, precision, and control of the TEAC make the Asgards seem like much lesser amplifiers, and they are in the price category.  No disrespect to the Asgards, but the difference is that noticeable.  Same with the Woo, as it is noisy, lacks top-notch control, and can feel claustrophobic at times.  The Trafomatic is a world-class amplifier in terms of musicality, control, soundstage, and its holographic nature.  The TEAC gives it a run for its money.  The TEAC has about the same low noise, detail retrieval, and spaciousness.  Where the Trafomatic bests it are in the tube mid-tone bloom and the holographic imaging, but it's not by much.
 
Conclusions
 
Overall, this is a wonderful solid state amplifier made my major company.  Many of us like boutique companies and components, myself included.  However, you don't need to find a rare amplifier or circuit design to get good sound.  The TEAC is a very musical amplifier.  Whatever you throw at it, it will render accurately and with authority.  It pulls out the finest details, yet has power in reserve to totally rock out.  It is quiet, transparent, and you don't even know it's there.  That's the sign of a great amplifier.  TEAC swung big on this, and I say they hit a home run.  You need not look exclusively to boutique and cottage industries for that elusive amplifier.  The TEAC is well worth an audition.

**I edited this review on 2/28/14 to include some new thoughts.  I placed the edits at the bottom of this review**
 
This review is a little unique for me.  Firstly, I'm more comfortable and experienced at writing reviews of amplifiers and DACs.  Writing a headphone review is a new thing for me.  Secondly, this is my first foray into premium closed headphones.  I've heard many closed cans in my day, but my premium cans have always been open.  This is my first attempt at analyzing flagship closed cans.
 
Review system:
 
Trafomatic Head One and Schiit Bifrost Uber.  Apple lossless files fed to Bifrost via coax.
 

 
Ok, let's get down to it.  Some reviews have already been posted, so I'm not going to rehash everything or reinvent the wheel.  Anyway, here we go.
 
Let's start with the lower frequencies because these cans are known for their bass.  There is a lot of bass, but I wouldn't call these bass cannons simply because it's controlled, textured, detailed, and not bloated.  It digs deep when it needs to, but it never seems to distract from the other frequencies.  When I first fired them up, I was shocked at how powerful the bass was because my reference cans are the Sennheiser HD600s, which aren't necessarily bass light, but they're not going to please too many bass heads anytime soon.  The bass is extremely enjoyable, but I'd say it's north of accurate.  It is emphasized, but done in a pleasing way.  If I was to nitpick, there is a weakness with poor recordings.  Some of the lesser quality bass tracks can come across as bloated, which can interfere with the other frequencies.  Is this is function of the headphones or recording studio?  Both, I'd say, because these headphones aren't forgiving in the bass region.
 
Mids are excellent.  They are very accurate and life-like.  Guitars are rendered with appropriate crunch.  The same can be said for saxophones and violins.  Dave Matthews Band live sounds exquisite through these headphones.  Male voices are not washed out into the background and seem very accurate and pleasantly rendered.  Female vocals are also good, but I don't have a large collection of those kinds of tracks, so I don't want to say anything more than I simply enjoyed how female voices were reproduced.  I've read some reviews that claim the mids are recessed.  I can honestly say that this is not the case with my ears.  The mids aren't forward, but they're not recessed, either.  They're "just right," which is what Shure is famous for in the end.
 
Upper frequencies are very nice.  When looking at the frequency graph, I was worried these would have treble roll off, especially when comparing them to my Beyerdynamic DT990s, which have some serious treble sizzle.  To my ears, there is less treble than the DT990s, but I wouldn't call it roll off.  It's just very smooth and pleasing.  It is very clear, which renders a good sense of space.  It's never harsh or intrusive.  Cymbals are present, but they never show any tizziness.  There's no "hotness" in the upper frequencies for me.  I really like how Shure rendered the treble.  Very non-fatiguing while maintaining clarity and presence.
 
Soundstage is very good for closed cans.  I've listened exclusively to open cans on my reference system for the last few years, so I'm very used to the open rendering of the music.  While the Shures will never be confused with open cans, they are very open in sound.  There's good air and imaging there.  They do form a very 3D image that circles your listening space.  They don't fall victim to the "three blob" soundstage that many headphones produce.  Imaging is believable with good space and placement.  It's among the best I've ever heard in closed cans. I'd say it's very accurate within the confines of a closed can system.
 
I bought these headphones mainly for rock, indie, classic rock, and alternative.  So far, they haven't disappointed.  I'm sure cans costing 2x (or more) as much as these are better, but at the current street price of $500US, these are excellent cans.  I have been enjoying them immensely.  It has taken some time for my brain to adjust to the extra bass and the closed-back design, but it's been an enjoyable transition.  These headphones are extremely fun and musical.  They are definitely worth an audition.
 
**Edits 2/28/14**
 
I was finally able to put my finger on the sound signature.  These headphones have a unique sound signature that is easy to hear, but I was having a hard time trying to describe it.  Well, it finally hit me like a ton of bricks after an extended listening session.
 
These headphones have the audio qualities you hear when listening to recordings made by ribbon microphones.  That's it.  There it is.  It's a very nice sound signature and even has a hint of vintage audio to it.  The frequency curve looks like one you'd expect from a ribbon microphone.  Also, these are some smooth headphones and have absolutely no grain.  None.  In fact, they make the HD600 sound like they have grain.
 
**Edits 3/19/14**
 
I've put several more hours over several listening sessions on these, so my opinion is even more locked in.  My overall opinion has not changed at all, as these are the best headphones I've ever owned.  I think they surpass the mighty HD600s.
 
Anyway, I started to really think about what makes these special.  I've come down to two major conclusions (no need to rehash all of the opinions about bass, mids, and treble, as those are pretty obvious at this point).
 
1) As I previously stated, they have a ribbon mic presence to them.  That's very pleasing.
 
2) They have a room quality sound to them.  In natural rooms with loudspeakers, bass tends to come forward and highs are a little subdued.  I had a chance to listed to a really nice speaker system this weekend (not mine, as mine isn't very good), and my opinion was confirmed.  These Shures are tuned in a similar manner than I hear in room settings.
 
Then, I read about the new NAD VISO HP50, which are tuned to have "room feel."  When I compared their freq resp, bingo.  Behold.
 

 
**End of edits**

Holy Schiit!
 
That's the first thing that came to mind when I connected the Bifrost Uber to my system and gave it a listen.  Here's a rundown of a few things.
 
Amp: Trafomatic Head One
Cans: Sennheiser HD600
Old DAC: V-DAC ii with V-PSU ii
Apple lossless -> iPod Classic -> Pure i20 dock -> coaxial connection
 
For a long time, I felt my rig was basically end game.  But, over time, I began to notice some weaknesses in my overall sound, which I started to attribute to the V-DAC.  Some of the hailed strengths started to be weaknesses to me.  For example, at times it was too smooth and polite.  It rounded some notes off.  Then, I began to realize a lot of the weaknesses, too.  It had some grain in the upper frequencies, even though the overall sound was smooth.  This just drew more attention to the grain because the mids and bass were silky smooth.  Despite the bass being smooth, it wasn't overly authoritative.  Also, the image got crowded at times and it struggled with micro details.  The V-DAC also lacked PRAT during some complex passages.
 
So, I began to look for a DAC upgrade.  My research lead me to the Bifrost Uber.
 
Specifically, here's what I noticed immediately when playing my reference tracks with the Bifrost Uber vs. the V-DAC.  Granted, differences between DACs are subtle, but I can hear them.  It's not my attempt to overstate things or use hyperbole to describe the sound.  But, I need to describe the differences somehow.  Below are the subtle differences I noticed immediately:
 
1) The sound is alive!  There's no better way to say that.  The sound has energy and is alive and real.  Not dull.  No veil.  No boring politeness. 
2) The background is absolutely black.  The blackest I've ever heard.
3) The bass is authoritative.  It's textured.  It runs deep and hits hard.
4) There's no grain in the upper frequencies.  It's smooth and life-like.
5) The imaging is exquisite.  I have to retrain my brain to imagine where the instruments are on stage because it's filling is spaces that weren't previously there.  I'll be spending many late nights re-listening to my music collection.  The sound isn't the "three blob" image we hear about from time to time.  It's more 3D and complete.  Great width and depth.  Height is pretty good, too.
6) The attack and decay are dogmatically vigilant. The DAC attacks the music and throws it at you with enthusiasm.
7) The midrange is superb.  Guitars have texture I'm not used to hearing.
8) Space.  There is space between instruments and voices that simply wasn't there with the V-DAC.
9) Micro detail.  The detail retrieval is much better than the V-DAC using the same source files.  I'm hearing sounds I've never heard before.  Unfortunately, I'm hearing flaws in some recordings that the V-DAC's politeness masked.
10) PRAT monster. 
 
In my mind, there's no comparison between the V-DAC and the Bifrost Uber.  Sure, differences between DACs are subtle  But, the collection of these subtle differences put a huge gap between the V-DAC and Bifrost Uber.
 
I'm not trying to cut the V-DAC down.  When I first bought it, it was was a major upgrade to my CD player and I was super excited to have it.  But, time has passed it over and the Bifrost Uber is the better piece of equipment at this time.  And, but a pretty large margin.  Well, if you add up all the small differences, it becomes a large margin.

I recently took delivery of the V-DAC II and put it through the paces.  I have a good feeling for its sound and wanted to share them here.
 
First, a word about how I review gear.  I don't spend weeks going back and forth doing A/B comparisons.  Rather, I use a certain set of gear for quite some time and really get to know how it works.  I know how my favorite songs sound inside and out.  Then, I put a new component into the chain and listen to my favorite songs.  I'll immediately form an opinion of the changes.  I'll listen for a while to the new configuration and further develop that opinion.  Finally, I do some brief A/B comparisons with my previous setup to really lock in my impressions.  You could say it's a mixture of memory and A/B at work.
 
My brief summary of the V-DAC II:
-Smooth and musical
-A hint of warmth while preserving good detail retrieval
-Realistic soundstage
-Realistic bass response
-Not much grain in the highs
-Black background
-Has a very analog flavor to it, much like vinyl
 
Now, for some more in-depth discussions.  I used these components to test:
-Sennheiser HD600
-Trafomatic Experience Head One Amplifier
-Onkyo C-S5VL cd player
-iTunes 10.6, Windows 7 64 bit, Apple lossless files, usb output at 24/96
 
Compared to the analog out of the Onkyo, the V-DAC is/has:
-Slightly wider soundstage
-Blacker background
-Slightly more refined bass, being tighter and deeper
-Slightly better instrument separation and imaging
-Noticeably less forgiveness for poorly mastered recordings
 
Compared to the usb/Apple lossless, the opitical out of the Onkyo is/has:
-Slightly wider soundstage
-Slightly better imaging
-Slightly less smearing
-Slightly blacker background
-About the same bass response
 
Ranking of performance:
1) Onkyo--optical--V-DAC II
2) Usb--V-DAC II
3) Onkyo analog out
 
Summary:
The V-DAC II is a nice piece of equipment.  It is musical, smooth, and has good imaging and very black background.  It performed the best when feeding it an optical signal from my cd transport, but usb wasn't too far behind.  The upgrades it brings to my system are subtle, but noticeable.  The biggest difference was the optical signal from the Onkyo vs. the analog signal from the Onkyo.  I always thought the Onkyo had a very good onboard dac and produced very musical sounds, but the V-DAC II makes slight, but detectable upgrades to my ears.  The first thing I noticed was how much more black the background was compared to the Onkyo.  Secondarlily, I noticed that the Onkyo's analog out was considerably more forgiving of poor recordings than the V-DAC II.  This is clearly linked to detail retrieval and imaging.  Next, I noticed the V-DAC's soundstage was ever so slightly wider.  Finally, I wrote a review of the Onkyo some time ago and I concluded that the Onkyo was very analog sounding.  The V-DAC is also very analog sounding.  In fact, I'd say it is just a hint smoother and more musical because it preserves details while still being smooth.  I think for the price, it is a very good dac and will provide slight upgrades to certain peoples' systems.  I'm happy with it, especially considering its modest price. 
 
Perhaps the biggest thing I can say about it is I finally have no problem using iTunes.  I might get addicted to the genius playlists. Of course, those poor recordings might get skipped over though!

I've had my Trafomatic Experience Head One for a few days now and have put some hours on it.  I bought it secondhand, complete with tubes, so I'm assuming it has already been fully burned in.  I'm posting my impressions here in a little mini-review.  It is driving my HD600s, which I find to be a match made in heaven.
 
To understand where I'm coming from, I'll give a little bit of a background about me.  I grew up with Walkman cassette players and Discman CD players.  I listened to most of my music that way, complete with the cheap $1 headphones they throw in the box for you to use.  I didn't know any different.  I didn't know any better.  I enjoyed music that way and was happy as can be.  Later on, I got into iPods, also with cheap headphones, and listened to lossy AAC files.  Once again, I didn't know any different and really enjoyed music that way.  Concepts of sound stage, decay, timbre, etc. were all foreign to me.  I was blissfully ignorant in music being compressed between my ears.
 
Then, about 2 years ago, I got my first "good" amp.  It was a Woo 3.  It drove my first "good" headphones, which were the DT880s.  This was an epiphany for me.  I never knew how much headphone music could come alive.  I had sounds all over my head, projected out into space.  I could hear 3-D positions of instruments and dynamic range came alive.  I entered into a whole new world.
 
You could consider my Woo 3 as a gateway drug.  Once I knew better sound was possible, it became game on.  I had a new understanding of music reproduction, but more importantly, the desire to maximize my listening experiences.
 
Well, now I have taken ownership of the Trafomatic.  This amp has bested everything I have heard so far.  I'm not trying to put down the Woo 3, because it really is a fine amp for the money, but it is my only real point of reference for comparing the Trafomatic.  I also realize that the Woo 3 costs about 3-4 times less than the Trafomatic, so it should perform less impressively.  But, once again, it is my only point of reference.
 
Compared to the Woo 3, the Trafomatic is better in every desirable category.  For starters, the sound stage is huge.  I had no idea a headphone sound stage could be this large.  It has layers upon layers of sound.  I feel surrounded by the music.  The imaging is sublime.  I can pinpoint the exact position of instruments and voices.  I don't have the vocabulary to describe it, but there is just an immense sound signature.  It is alive.  There is just so much sound and information surrounding my head.  It is very holographic and 3-D.  I have never experienced such an expansive image ever before.  There is tremendous separation.  However, it is not fatiguing.  I am not under sensory overload.  It all comes together in beautiful musicality.  Yet, there is tremendous air in this tapestry of sound.  Everything is sewn together in a wondrous atmosphere.
 
The sound is very neutral, but there is a hint of warmness.  It also has a touch of liquidness and midtone tube magic.  Warm and syrupy this amp is not.  This amp is clear, precise, but very musical.  It has a hint of sweetness to it.  This amp does not have flaws to my ears.  There is nothing fatiguing about it.  No strident tones.  Accurate, but musical.
 
The bass runs deep.  It is tight and accurate.  Not at all boomy.  When the song calls for bass, the amp puts it out.  This amp seems to have power to spare in spades.  It can dig deep when needed and never lose focus, clarity, or control.
 
There's not a whole lot more I can say about this amp that has not been said already.  My biggest impression is just how much sound this device puts out.  There is sound everywhere.  Layers upon layers upon layers in total control and precision.  Coming from my Walkman cassette player with $1 headphones, I never knew how much sound was possible.  I never imagined I would have this amount of sound around my head.
 
The only real drawbacks are this amp is not widely available and tube rolling is limited, or even not possible.  However, this isn't an issue because the standard tubes are phenomenal.
 
The Trafomatic is a true masterpiece.  It is without a doubt the best musical experience I have ever had.