I think this review was long overdue. Magni was one of the first headphone amps I've ever owned and I kept it almost always throughout my audio journey. Through the past two years, I've had it head to head with amps that exceed its value by 5x+,yet, I still find Magni to be an excellent entry level amp even after direct comparisons.
 
Build: Schiit always has stellar build quality. I've used all of their amps, including Ragnarok. I have owned Valhalla, Lyr (twice), and Magni (three times). Every amp I used was well built and Schiit always responds to my sometimes stupid questions quickly. It really says something about how much they care, I've sent them emails that get answered in less than an hour on some occasions.
 
Unboxing the Magni you get a manual, four stick on feet, and a plain old white box. There is no special packaging.
 
The amp itself is constructed well and is heavy considering its tiny size. Volume control is smooth, the enclosure looks and feels good, no wobbly RCA ports or anything poor. However, one of the compromises made for such a low cost amp was to use a cheapo, Chinese wall wart which worried me a bit at first. However, it works fine and doesn't get too hot or make any bad noises. 
 
Sound quality: I'd describe Magni as fairly neutral but it does have a bright tone to it. I've found that every headphone I've hooked it up to does receive a very slight boost in the treble and the overall sound is forward and detailed. Personally, I found it to be a great match with headphones like the Sennheiser HD600, Audeze LCD3, and Hifiman HE500/560 where they are neutral to slightly dark. However, I have used it with an HD800 and a Grado SR80i and the treble boost isn't welcome with headphones that are already bright. Apart from the treble coloration and forward soundstage, the amp itself is pretty much flat without any other significant colorations.
 
One of the most significant things about the sound quality (that I mentioned in the first sentence of my review) is how it's almost end game with certain headphones, like the HD600. I've tried Valhalla, Lyr, and the Burson Soloist SL (I have owned some more expensive ones as well but no direct comparisons were done). I kept Magni as sort of a back up amp and to be honest, it isn't too much different when I used the HD600 side by side with the big boy amps.
 
I will admit the treble is brighter in comparison to the other amps and the soundstage is a bit smaller and more forward, but, the differences are minor. For $99, it does come close in sound to some of the more higher end amps and the level of diminishing returns is huge. I think we over exaggerate the differences amps make here. I agree they do sound different, but I don't think low end amps like Magni are miles apart from more expensive amps.
 
The ugly...
 
Now, it seems like I'm praising the Magni as a giant $99 amp killer, I'm not trying to do that here. I do have a couple issues with it. One, the volume control: It doesn't bode well with sensitive devices. Using an SR80i or IEMs gives you little play on the volume control and a tiny bump on the pot can increase volume significantly. Also, there is channel imbalance where either the left or right channel will be louder at very low volumes when using high sensitivity headphones.The channel imbalance can be solved simply by reducing the volume on your computer or phone, giving you additional play on the knob or you can by RCA attenuators which are resistors hooked up to RCA plugs to reduce gain.
 
And, of course, Magni is basic and not versatile. You don't get preouts, multiple inputs, and all of those bells and whistles. It also, like I said before, doesn't pair well with sensitive or brighter headphones.
 
Conclusion: Magni is a great amp, especially if you enjoy a more energetic sound. I find it to be a perfect match with inefficient headphones or neutral to slightly dark cans where some of its flaws like gain, volume control, and a treble tilt aren't noticeable.
 

The HE560 is Hifiman's attempt at making a headphone between the HE500 & HE6, as of the time posting this review, there are two known versions of the HE560: the preorder version and production (rev 1 as I call it) version. The preorder version has numerous differences in build quality, but, they sound very similar. I've listed some photos below showing the build differences between the models. Just click on them to make them larger.
 
Preorder one says HE560, new one doesn't and is a bit less tall but deeper, both boxes had scratches and marks when I got them.
 

 
Preorder version has thinner foam and one cutout. New one has two separate foam cutouts, one for the headphones and one for the cable. The foam is harder and stays in shape easier than before.
 

 
Molding lines on the preorder HE560
 

 
Production HE560 has no molding lines
 

 
Preorder version has the seam from one of the pads sticking out, new ones are symmetrical and the seams match. There is also plastic where the connectors are located on the new one.
 

 
From left to right: HE560 preorder, production HE560, and HE-4
 
Production version has a fabric coated cable vs rubber on the preorder 560, same connectors (Neutrik) on both. The production HE560 feels the same as the HE-4 cable but it weighs more
 

 
 
 
Sound wise, they are quite similar, but there are small differences: The production HE560 sounds a little thinner in the midrange and a bit brighter in the treble. This is a subtle difference. I noticed this effect when swapping pads to the preorder HE560 as well, so, it seems to be the pads that cause this difference to my ears.
 
Comfort and build: Comfort is substantially improved compared to the previous HE headphones. The new earpads literally melt into your cheeks. They're plusher than both the original velour and pleather pads that came stock with my HE400 & HE500. The velour material that covers the top of the earpad feels less grainy/rough, compared to the velours that came with my HE400/500. Clamping force is a bit on the high side. However, If you don’t find that the Sennheiser HD600/650s clamp too hard, you should be fine with the clamping force on the HE560 after a brief break in.
 
The cable feels solid. It's terminated by a Neutrik 6.5mm plug. The new fabric black cable has less microphonics than the original silver HE500 and tangles a lot less easier. However, the new cable is shorter and weighs a bit more. The old HE500/4/6/etc. are left in the dust in terms of comfort, but, come back in build quality. The HE560 kind of feels like a toy in comparison to my HE500. When you pick up the HE500, you're greeted with reassuring weight and metal gimbals. The HE500 just feels solid in your hands, while the HE560 is composed of plastic gimbals and is much lighter. It seems more fragile and less “serious” in your hand compared to the HE500.
 
Overall, the build quality is fine, but, there are a couple of small nitpicks I have. For example, the wooden box has no feet on it to prevent scratching and mine came a bit banged up (scratches and dents on the sides). My headphone also had some permanent scratches/marks on the gimbals when first opened as well.
 
Sound Quality.
 
Bass: Extends down to ~20 Hz felt, with a sharp roll off in power starting at around 30-40 Hz. Both the HE500/560 have excellent sub bass extension. A good seal with the earpads is crucial for optimal sub bass performance in both. The bass sounds quicker and has less of a mid bass hump vs the HE500. The HE560s bass has better finesse and control, when listening to fast faced metal and techno, I can tell the bass can keep up more effortlessly. The HE500 on the other hand has a tiny bit more raw impact, especially in the mid bass. However, it sounds more one noted and slower in general. 
 
Mids: Goodbye recessed upper mids. The midrange is a lot more even on the HE560. The depression around 2-3.5k is rectified, and the midrange is a bit less forward and sounds less thick (though IMO the HE500 was too forward/thick). Vocals are more palpable on the HE560, at least in terms of tone/realism. Same with most instruments, explained in the timbre section later.
 
Treble:  High notes on the HE560 are a touch airier, more extended, and in my opinion superior. The lower treble region is more forward and brighter on the HE560. However, the upper treble is less bright and flatter on the HE560. This is because there are peaks on the HE500 around 10 kHz that are absent on the HE560. I generally hear the HE560 as having a brighter treble in most recordings, however, some songs that hit the 10kHz area a lot make it seem like the HE500 is brighter but gives you the impression it's a bit grainy or tizzy because of that peak. This is especially noticeable with cymbals.
 
Timbre: With the help of a more even, extended treble and the absence of the recessed upper mids, the HE560 takes the edge in terms of timbre. Nearly all instrumentation sounds more lifelike on the HE560 but some can also sound dull in comparison with the HE500. The HE500 has some treble spikes and peaks, as stated before. This makes certain instruments like cymbals a bit strident and harsh. They’re over exaggerated on the HE500 but can be more engaging in some songs while the HE560 is more accurate.
 
Soundstage: Listening to binaural recordings gives you a larger sense of space on the HE560. The soundstage is wider, but not so much so that you begin to feel very distant or bored (Looking at you, HD800 and Stax SR-202). The larger width of the HE560 can be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it. I actually preferred the smaller soundstage of the HE500 with rock/metal as I felt closer and more engaged with the band playing. However, for orchestral music and jazz the larger sense of space on the HE560 was welcomed, in these genres, the HE500 was less resolving and sounded almost claustrophobic in comparison.
 
Enough about the width, depth is also a key part in soundstage. To be honest, the HE560 is kind of the same. I can’t detect any major differences. HE560 is on par, if not better than the HE500.
 
 

Efficiency & amping: ​

My receiver has power output meters, to reach the same value at the power meter while playing a flat tone (100hz,1000hz,etc). The HE560 needed to be turned 1 notch less on the volume pot compared to the HE500. So, pretty much the same.
 
The HE560 also scales fairly well with multiple sources. On Magni, it's kind of bright and forward, more akin to the HE500s sound. When I stepped it up to Lyr, it sounded less forward and more relaxed, especially with the right tubes (Matsush1ta E88cc) and was much more louder. I also felt the same when comparing HE560 on Magni to my old integrated amp (JA-S55).
 
I would recommend amping HE560 with a Lyr or a Vintage A/V amp (they do quite well and can be bought for cheap at garage sales or craigslist). Magni works as well but the volume had to be turned to ~70% to reach my preferred listening volume with recordings that have a extreme dynamic range. (Explorations in space and time, DSOTM 5.1 SACD, most of my old Vinyl rips). With pop music the volume was at 30-40%. EDIT: I originally had the values a lot higher here! I had an issue with sound drivers. The Magni didn't need to be as loud as I put it before.
 
 
Artist, track, album. and source.
 
AC/DC – TNT – Self titled album (Lossless CD rip)
HE560: Wider soundstage, the guitars (especially in the first couple seconds) extend outwards to the left more. Less raspy and sibilant on the vocals and overall the 560 has a more lifelike and palpable rendering of the vocals, guitars, and drums. You almost feel as if you were there, cliché I know, but it’s true.
 
HE500: Immediately more forward vs the 560. The guitar in the left at the beginning sounds right in your ears, vocals take up a larger sense of space in the center and are more in your head sounding. Vocals are also more raspy/sibilant, especially when "TNT" is screamed. The HE500 actually sounds more engaging on this song yet this may give you the impression its treble is uncontrolled and peaky in return (10khz+ bump).
 
Pink Floyd – Money – Dark Side of the Moon (5.1 channel 30^th anniversary SACD rip)
HE560: The sounds of the cash register and coins extend outwards towards the left and right more. You can easily tell where the center channel and left/right is on this surround sound recording. Timbre on all of the instruments are improved, cymbals are less splashy and bright, and the guitars have a bit more bite due to the lack of recessed upper mids. Vocals are less sibilant and raspy as well.
 
HE500: In the beginning, you can again tell that the HE500 is more forward like the other song. The coins dropping and the cash register in the beginning are closer to your head and sound like they’re almost mashed up in the center in comparison to the 560. It’s a bit harder to determine the location of the center channel and left / right. Cymbals are brighter and guitars have less bite. Vocals are more sibilant and raspy.
 
Miles Davis – Freddie Freeloader – Kind of Blue (HDtracks 192/24)
HE560: Again, soundstage is wider. In the first 30 seconds you can easily tell that the cymbal on the right is more outwards and out of your head, same with the piano in the left. Timbre is significantly improved, simply put it it, every instrument sounds more palpable and effortless on the HE560.
 
HE500: More in the head. You feel closer to the sextet. Cymbals and the piano are less out of your head and closer to your ears. The piano almost has a slight glare to it which is absent on the HE560 (around 40 second mark).
 
My plan was to do song comparisons for this but I decided I just wanted to relax and listen to music, switching every couple hours or days. I hate playing 30 seconds of one song and switching back and forth 5 times to test like I did with the HE500.
 
In a nutshell, the HD800 is technically superior to the HE560 on a good recording except for bass impact. The HD800 has a larger soundstage in width/depth, the treble is clearer (but can be too bright for some) leading to more subtle details to flow through that were missed on the HE560. The thing is, these qualities are only exposed on few recordings. The HD800 is very picky, to the point of only a few songs from my library actually sounded superior on them vs HE560. They're very picky while HE560 is much more forgiving of modern music and poor mastering.
 
 The HE560, while not technically as good as the HD800 on a great recording, has a more relaxing and generally enjoyable sound. Everything on HE560 sounds more cohesive without as many spikes/peaks, especially in the treble relative to the HD800. Bass is stronger in terms of impact/extension and the sound is less diffused and thin.
 
 
Conclusion: The HE560 will not necessarily be a better headphone than the HE500 for many. The HE500 has an addicting tone to it, which is a forward, up close, and full sound On a lot of songs, especially during rock/metal, I found the HE500 to be a much more engaging headphone. I felt closer to the band due to the more forward/smaller soundstage and the emphasized 10k region was actually welcomed for me in these genres.
 
However, technically speaking, the HE560 is the better headphone overall. It doesn't have the tone of the HE500, but what it does have that the HE500 lacks is better technicalities. Bass is quicker, the soundstage is wider, and everything sounds more lifelike. Problems like recessed upper mids, ringing, and heavy weight in the HE500 are also resolved with the HE560.
 
I can also wear my HE560 all day (and yes I've done that, my weekends are that boring) without any listening fatigue. I've tried this with HE500, my ears just got tired of the 10khz peak and the weight required me to take them off every 2 hours for a break.
 
So, it kind of boils down to preference which is better. For me, I enjoyed HE560 and think it's a worthy successor to the HE500. If you want a neutral and lifelike sound with great timbre and balance, kind of reminiscent to the HD600, the HE560 is your can. If you want a more colored and forward sound then the HE500 is what I would recommend. Also consider you can find a HE500 for $400-500 used, which is a steal, these used to be $899 when first released.

Note: All of my listening impressions of the Stax SR-202 were done with a Stax SRM-313 amplifier, which was hooked up to an AMB y2 DAC via the RCA input with SKW JIB braided interconnects. For the dynamic headphone comparison, a Schiit Lyr (with Sylvania 6BQ7A tubes) was used with the same DAC and interconnects.
 
First off, the driver unit: There isn’t really too much to say about the driver, it feels well built and looks beautiful in person. The potentiometer utilizes a double axis design, which means you either turn the whole knob to make the left/right channels louder. Or, you can move an individual portion of the knob to make the sound louder in only one side of the earspeaker. The potentiometer is smooth and isn’t too stiff or firm. Case feels solid and it has a bit of weight to itself, overall, build quality is pretty good.
 
Now, sound wise, I’ve never owned any other electrostatic amp. But, the SRM-313 seems to get the job done fine. It has more than enough power to drive the SR-202 to ear damaging levels. I never find the need to max out the volume. Modern recordings usually have the knob dialed in at 2.5/4. For recordings with a large dynamic range, the volume is usually at 5-7 on the knob. Another plus, background noise is 100% absent, absolutely nothing, even with the volume at 100% with no music playing. That is pretty impressive, considering I’ve heard single ended amps (though not electrostatic) that cost to $1,000 that have background noise even though I used the same exact interconnects and DAC in my system when testing them.
 
Onto the Stax SR-202 earspeakers
 
Build: Build is OK, my main problem is that the whole earspeaker is constructed of plastic. The plastic used for the housings of the diaphragm do feel solid in the hands, but, the plastic that is used for the gimbals and the headband feel cheap and fragile in comparison to the stronger plastic that holds the diaphragms.
 
Comfort: Weight distributed evenly, these are about 300 grams. However, the suspension strap relives most of the weight. Clamping force is perfect, they don’t feel like they’re strangling my face or that they’re going to fall off. Compared to the HD600/650, comfort is on par with the Sennheisers. You get more clamp with the HD600/650 at the cost of having nicer earpads, with the Stax, you get less clamp but bad pads (though Stax sells upgraded, real leather pads)
 
Now, the sound quality.
 
Lows: Quality>Quantity. The bass of the 202s has excellent extension, speed, and texture. They only lack perceived impact, compared to other headphones, these do not have a mid-bass hump which may give you the impression that they lack a bit in the low end. Due to the nature of the electrostatic driver, the bass is insanely fast. Listening to metal or techno, the bass of the HD600 almost sounds monotone and blurred in comparison. Bass goes down to 20hz, at which you can literally feel the bass on your cheeks at that frequency unlike the HD600 which has absolutely no bass that goes that low. 
 
Mids: The mids are good, they aren’t recessed nor overly warm and rich. Vocals are palpable, but slightly brighter, thinner, and more sibilant than what I would consider natural. Instruments are rendered pretty realistically and naturally, minus a slight lack of body and slightly overemphasized treble. This makes some instruments sound a bit wonky (chimes & cymbals). The thinner sound, however, kind of enhances things like the acoustic guitar, strings, harp, etc. The Stax sounds really precise with these kinds of instruments, in comparison to the HD600 which adds a ton of extra reverb and doesn’t separate the individual plucks of the strings as gracefully as the Stax.
 
Highs: The highs are on the brighter side of neutral. Due to this, these are not very forgiving of poor quality recordings vs other headphones I've heard (HD600, LCD3, HE-500). I find the treble to be manageable but cymbals and sibilance are exaggerated on the SR-202 to the point of causing fatigue on some recordings. Otherwise, the treble is mostly tolerable and has good extension, it's just a touch too peaky.
 
Soundstage: Fairly large and diffused. The SR-202 has good width and can easily separate complex musical tracks. Unlike the HD600, the SR-202 can give every instrument in an orchestra their own personal space while the HD600 sort of mixes everything together. The soundstage of the SR-202 extends a bit out of your head, giving it a nice sense of 3D space a.k.a a surround sound effect. Though, they are not very forward like the HD600. You feel like you're a couple seats back with the SR-202 than when you listen to the HD600.
 
 
Compared to dynamic headphones.
 
This is a comparable combo cost wise to the Stax. In fact, the Stax system, composed of the SRM-313 + SR-202, was actually cheaper (I bought both systems used for about the same cost). The dynamic setup, as stated before, is a Schiit Lyr (Sylvania 6BQ7A tubes) + AMB y2 + SKW JIB ICs. My original intentions were to do song comparisons + long term back and forth listening (about 3-4 weeks) but I ended up selling my dynamic setup, so, this portion came very early.
 
Lows: The Stax easily beats out the HD600 in the low frequencies. The Stax has more extension, going down to 20hz and allowing you to feel the super low sub bass. In comparison, the HD600 rolls off at 40 Hz and there isn't anything happening under 40hz. Speed wise, the Stax again wins. Listening to upbeat techno or metal easily shows you that the Stax can keep up. Bass almost sounds monotone and blurred with the HD600 on these genres compared to the Stax.
 
Now, the HD600 does have some positive traits vs the Stax in the bass department. For one, the HD600 has more of a mid-bass hump, which may be a pro/con based on your tastes. The hump on the HD600 gives you more of a tactile feel in that area. The Stax is more tactile (meaning you can feel the bass) with very low notes (under 40 Hz) while the HD600 has more tactile bass in the higher bass notes (40-100hz+).
 
Mids: This is probably one of the most significant differences that sets apart the HD600 and Stax. The Stax almost sounds hollow in comparison, it is very hard to get accustomed to the mids of the SR-202 after owning the HD600 for well over a year.The midrange of the HD600 is very full and rich. While, on the Stax, everything sounds thinner and less rich, what I'm trying to say is that the Stax lacks body, at least when compared to the HD600. 
 
Highs: The Stax is brighter and a bit more fatiguing. Not so much so that it causes discomfort, but, my main problem as I said before is that these overemphasize cymbals and sibilance on less than stellar recordings. There are a lot of albums that I can't listen to any more on the Stax, because they are too bright (which is mainly due to the poor mastering). The HD600 has less sibilance and more relaxed treble in general vs the Stax.
 
Soundstage: The Stax has a wider soundstage, it was very obvious switching back and forth that it had a more diffused soundstage. In complex recordings, the Stax was able to separate everything so that instruments had their own sense of space, the HD600 failed at this in comparison.
 
Some positive notes on the HD600: it sounds more in your head and can be more exciting because of this. I feel more involved with some music since it sounds less diffused, however, on orchestral music (Wagner, Beethoven, Stravinsky) the HD600s smaller soundstage wasn't tolerable after hearing the Stax. Everything sounded mixed and crammed with each other.
 
Apart from width, depth seems similar and the difference is subtle in that area.
 
Timbre:  Stringed instruments (acoustical guitars, harp, etc.) sound a bit better on the Stax in my opinion. You can hear every individual note plucked and the notes carry a bit of a sharp sensation to them (not really sure how to describe it). The HD600 with the harp, acoustic guitar, etc adds extra reverb and gives these instruments too much body. All the strings plucked on a harp sound mashed together, the Stax separates every string whereas the HD600 combines them into a whole. 
 
Other instruments, like the organ/sax/trumpet sound a bit better on the HD600 IMO. The extra body makes them sound very full, I dislike how the Stax lacks body on the lower notes of an organ/piano.
 
Conclusion versus the HD600.
 
The Stax is technically more proficient than the HD600. It was faster, cleaner, had better extension on both ends of the sound spectrum, a larger soundstage, and less distortion. Yet, I didn't enjoy them as much as the HD600. Some albums were rendered useless because they are not forgiving, music was more distant and less exciting, and the headphone just seemed to lack any sort of emotion to the sound. It sounded a little too analytical sometimes. For most music, its technical finesse was just too much. Although, on nice recordings, the extra detail of the Stax was extraordinary. 
 
The HD600, while being technically worse than the Stax, was more enjoyable. I can listen to less than perfect recordings and the HD600 is forgiving of them, the sound is warmer and fun, and I just feel more engaged with the music. The strength of the HD600 isn't its technicalities, but its tonality. I have yet to hear any headphone, that to my ears, retains the HD600's tone while improving on its technicalities, and I've tried many headphones with costs ranging from $400-$2,000. These were the LCD3, HE-500, HE-400, SR-202, and in the future it will probably be a HE-560 as well.
 
Anyway, if you made it this far, thank you for reading through my massive wall of text. I hope you enjoyed the review.
 
Here are some quick pictures of the SRM-313 and SR-202. 
 
 

First off, before I begin this review, I would like to give a big thank you to the guys over at Audeze and Burson Audio for letting me demo their Conductor SL & LCD3. This review would not have been possible if it wasn't for their generosity. 

 

So, first off the Conductor SLs build quality is excellent. The aluminum housing looks and feels amazing. The Volume pot allows for excellent control, it doesn’t feel too stiff or firm. Under the hood everything looks clean (soldering, wiring, etc.) and it is very easy to swap out the DACs. Just take out all of the screws on the outside, unscrew the screws holding the DAC module in place, and finally align the new DAC module in place with the 5v/gnd/etc pins and screw everything back in. Burson also throws in a nice set of RCA interconnects, their thick and feel well built with good shielding. You also get a USB cable too, though it's just a regular generic cable unlike the nicer looking RCA interconnects.

 

Onto the sound, Headphones I mainly tested with the Conductor SL were a pair of Sennheiser HD600s, an Audeze LCD3, and a Grado SR225i (kindly donated by my friend for temporary testing). The conductor SL was able to drive all of them without breaking a sweat. Low gain was needed for the sensitive Grados to make volume control easier, otherwise it was great. High gain was used with the LCD3 & HD600 and I never had to turn the volume past 12 o’ clock with them, even when using recordings with a high dynamic range.
 
Only cons was very minor channel imbalance and volume bleed. Channel imbalance occurred on the Grados, but it was such a low volume it wasn’t really a problem, though I thought I’d still mention it. Volume bleed (again this is nitpicking, very minor) was present. If the volume was all the way down I still heard music coming very faintly through the left channel while using high gain. Using low gain no volume bleed was present.
 
I was able to test out two different DAC chips with the Burson Conductor SL, the ESS Sabre 9018 and Ti 1793. Here are my impressions.
 
1793: Warmer and more laid back compared to the 9018 chip. The 1793 simply sounds relaxing and musical. Treble is less aggressive and the midrange sounds fuller bodied. I have found it to pair well with the HD600 and SR225i as it slightly attenuates the treble and makes them overall sound less in your face. However, I thought the LCD3s were too laid back with this chip as they already sound fairly warm.
 
9018: Nearly the exact opposite of the 1793. The 9018 is a little more analytical and focuses more on clarity. Treble is a touch more aggressive and sounds more extended, making cymbals/ hi hats on the drums and any recording hiss sound more present and easier to hear.The 9018 paired up well with the LCD3s to help give it just the last bit of overall clarity.
 
 
Overall the Conductor SL is a rock solid DAC & Amp. The DAC portion sounds stellar and the ability to modify the sound to your tastes is a big plus. Amplification wise, the Conductor SL was easily able to drive a variety of headphones with different sensitivities and impedance thanks to the variable gain and excellent volume pot which presented only very minor channel imbalance and bleed.
 
Quickie picture I took of it paired up with the LCD3. (I know my photography skills are sort of meh. Still learning!)
 

First off, before I begin this review, I would like to give a big thank you to the guys over at Audeze and Burson Audio for letting me demo their Conductor SL & LCD3. This review would not have been possible if it wasn't for their generosity. Stay tuned for a Conductor SL review soon.
 
Comfort/Build: Very good, the LCD3 does a good job at evenly distributing the weight around your head so that no specific area has more pressure on it causing fatigue. The lambskin earpads are very plush. This, coupled with modest padding towards the top of the headband offers you fair resistance against the heavy weight, which is the only comfort problem for me. The LCD3s feel well built in the hands and look stunning with the Zebrano wooden cups. Padding on the headband is adequate and the pads, again, are wonderfully plush and soft yet create a good seal on my head. A removable cable sporting mini XLR connectors is a definitely a plus. The LCD3 is nearly all metal/wood in the construction. Only cons (which are very minor nitpicks) is that the rodblocks where the gimbals are located are made of plastic. Also, the stock cable feels and looks a little cheap, but can be easily replaced.
 
Bass: The LCD3 is close to perfection. Bass has excellent extension, boasting a response that goes all the way down to 20hz. However, it rolls off at 30hz. The LCD3 lacks a mid-bass hump and has modest impact in the sub-bass regions with slightly less bloom in the mid/upper bass frequencies relative to the sub-bass. The low end is able to keep up with fast paced music (techno/metal/rock) and can deliver a nice rumble when the track calls for it. Listening to various electronic (house/dubstep), you really can appreciate the LCD3s sub-bass. You literally can feel the lowest bass notes with these.
 
Mids: Lush would be the way I would describe the midrange. Vocals and instruments sound full bodied and timbre is pristine. I find that the LCD3 can reproduce the sound of instrumentation accurately and it sounds very close to real life on a good recording. Drum cymbals and hi-hats however are my only gripe, they are not reproduced well due to the Audezes slightly dark sound. I find the HD600, which is a fifth of the cost of the Audeze, sounds better with cymbals/hi hats (though the 600s don’t reproduce bass drum as well) I feel that overall the HD600 has better timbre on the drums.
 
Treble: The treble is the achilles heel of the LCD3 and it's sort of a love it or hate it affair. Simply put it, the highs are not fatiguing and are laid back. Sibilance, if present, is slightly attenuated. The issue with the treble is that it slightly lacks in air and overall aggressiveness, making it boring and too laid back for some. However, others without the highest quality sources will appreciate that it is very forgiving and treble sensitive users will also love that the LCD3 has a laid back sound. I personally would prefer more bite on electric guitars, the harp, and violin. I find that a slight bump with equalization in the 3-5k/10-14k area really helps the Audezes shine.
 
Soundstage: The LCD3 lacks the width and size of other offerings. However, it provides an excellent balance between intimacy and space. I never felt that the music sounded diffused and too far away. The LCD3 gives you the impression that you are fairly up close and intimate with the music, yet, not so much so that it sounds excessively forward and in your face (HD600 is like this). Instrument separation is good and I could distinguish where certain instrumentation was easily in small jazz ensembles but the LCD3 sounded slightly claustrophobic with large orchestras.
 
Amping and Synergy: I found that LCD3 to be driven easily with the Burson Conductor SL. Using high gain, I usually had the volume half way for music with a large dynamic range. With modern music, the volume was set at 25-35%. Getting to a good volume is easy on the LCD3, mobile devices I tested it with were an iPhone 5, Note III, and Fiio E7 which were able to drive it to near deafening volumes (but had to be set near max volume to get decently loud on recordings with a large dynamic range) But of course on a mobile device the Audezes were obviously were not driven to their full potential and lacked sound wise. The first thing was a slight bass loss and distortion.
 
Versus others: Unfortunately, I don’t own anything similar like the LCD2/LCDX/HE6/etc. This is an apples to oranges comparison, the HD600 is a completely different phone, but it’s relatively popular and I know many have heard it so it may be a good reference point. The HD600 has a brighter sound overall and treble/ timbre on the drums is the only thing it happens to beat the LCD3 on. Both offer about the same amount of detail, yet the HD600 has a way of presenting it in a more assertive manor. Immediately switching to the HD600 reveals it sounds narrow and congested, brighter, less bassier, and slower. However, I still enjoy them. I actually prefer some songs on the HD600 over the LCD3. Take for instance Little Tuesday, by The Flashbulb, it’s mainly all drums and I find that the HD600 sounds much clearer and more true to life on this track.
 
Final words: The LCD3 is a superb headphone if you’re looking for something that is smooth and easy on the ears. It does everything well except for its slight treble deficiency. However, that’s sort of the magic of the LCD3. They never fatigue and rarely are they harsh. You just enjoy the music with them while any recording flaws (while still present) are modestly attenuated.
 
Song tests (320kb MP3/FLAC via Burson Conductor SL w/ 9018 DAC via optical input)
 
Miles Davis, Freddie Freeloader, Kind of Blue
Like: Excellent timbre and bass texture. Instrumentation sounds full bodied, natural, and quite real. Soundstage is perfect, you feel relatively intimate and close to the ensemble.
Don't Like: Cymbals could be more prominent, trumpet lacks slightly in air.
 
Richard Wagner, Ride of the Valkyries, Apocalypse Now Soundtrack
Like: Again, excellent timbre, the instruments sound very true to life. The warmer signature of the LCD3 makes the instrumentation sound very full as well.
Don't Like: Slightly congested sound made instruments sound mashed together during complex parts of the song due to the warm signature.
 
Avenged Sevenfold, Victim, Nightmare
Like: Immediately in the towards the start of the song the bass from the drums are perfect, you can almost feel it. I feel immersed in the atmosphere and actually with the artist in the studio. Guitars sound full and lush as well as vocals. Sibilance is present in the vocals, but attenuated slightly.
Don't Like: Cymbals could be just a touch brighter and more present. More bite on the guitars would have been welcomed.
 
Gorillaz, Latin Simone, Self Titled Album 
Like:  A full sound with an overall pleasant tone. Instrumentation such as the piano have good timbre. Vocals dead in the center and focused with respective instruments towards the left and right.
Don't Like: None.
 
Couple of quick picks

Since the Gamma y2 is a DIY project I'm not going to comment on the build quality as its dependent on the builder.
 
The Sound
 
The sound of the y2 varies on how it was built. Mine is using ASRC with standard parts, no special capacitors, power supplies, etc. Sound wise I don't notice any tonal changes when hooking it up to my Schiit Valhalla or speakers. Rather, the y2 improves more on the technical aspects of the sound. One thing I notice from switching back and forth vs on board sound is that everything sounds less mashed up and is spaced out much better. Soundstage seems to be increased and I get the feeling that sounds move outwards towards my head more. So, the y2 IMO is neutral and shows the more technical aspects of your music.
 
Another thing is that driving high impedance headphones out of the 3.5mm output worked quite well, my HD600 got to loud volumes and my y2 was not modified to drive headphones directly. However, the HD600 did sound somewhat limited being driven off only the DAC. The main drawback I found to driving right off the DAC is that I lose bass impact and control. Plus the soundstage crumbles. However, the differences were quite subtle. I can barley tell the difference between the y2 headphone output and my $350 Valhalla headphone out. I did a blind test with a friend switching the outputs for me. I was able to tell 38% of the time out of 40 short trials what the source was. (I was very embarrassed by the results).  
 
 
I don't have much experience with DACs, the only other one I had was the Schiit Modi. However, from my memory, the y2 sounds on par if not better than the Modi. I didn't notice any major differences when I first heard y2 after leaving my Modi.
 
Features & Connectability
 
Anyway, the y2 also features other options like anti clipping and filters. Filters allow you to choose a different frequency roll off. Using a Sennhesier HD600 I can not detect any difference between filters A/B/C. Many other reviews say the differences are quite subtle and it will also depend on which DAC chip is used (WM8740,WM8741,WM8742). The y2 also has an anti clipping mode which attenuates the input by 2dB to avoid clipping, it seems to work well. 
 
Another thing I enjoy about the y2 is it is flexible. You have optical, coaxial, 2x 3.5mm output, and an RCA output. As well as a plethora of digital input options. I had two amps hooked up to it at once (Fisher 400 and Valhalla) all via 1 RCA and 3.5mm output and it sounded excellent. I didn't notice any difference in sound quality when outputting to multiple sources. 
 
Conclusion
 
The y2 is a solid DAC and I'm very pleased with mine, especially considering it's low price ($200) for parts alone and not including tools. (Can sometimes be found for even cheaper used). I can't find any negatives things to say about it!
 
 
Thanks for reading!

After upgrading to the Valhalla, I thought I'd give it a review while comparing the lower end Magni that I upgraded from. Keep in mind these are all subjective thoughts, what may be a con for me may be a pro for you based on your preferences.
 
Non sound impressions: Build quality, as always, is excellent with Schiit. I can't find a single thing wrong with how it was constructed, it's solid, and even though it has a pretty compact size, it weighs a lot more than you would think. Compared to the Magni, it runs much, much hotter, but that is expected from a class A tube amplifier. The potentiometer works better on the Valhalla, it has less channel imbalance at lower volumes and is more precise than the Magni's potentiometer. The Magni's high gain seems to make the potentiometer almost useless, especially with low impedance headphones.
 
Bass: I can't notice any difference in the bass, they are both equal in impact and extension.
 
Midrange: The Valhalla adds a little more "meat" to the music and harshness is smoothed over. For example, Electric Guitars sound fuller, more laid back, and richer. The Magni sounds a bit thinner and brighter with the Electric guitar. 
 
Treble: The Valhalla has less emphasis on sibilance and treble, however, the treble is still well extended and is there when needed, it doesn't sound overly warm or lush like a stereotypical tube amplifier. Cymbals and hi-hats still have a good sense of air and dominance, but the Magni renders them with a sharper, brighter tone. If you have been reading other reviews, the general consensus is that the Valhalla is actually quite bright for a tube amp, I agree. The Magni in comparison is a bit brighter, sharper, and more uncontrolled in the treble. However, the Magni can be much more exciting because of this, the downside is that it is more fatiguing and less forgiving of lower quality sources.
 
Soundstage: I don't notice much of a difference at all versus the Magni. The Valhalla sounds just a touch wider, deeper, and less in your head.
 
Song tests: (Source is a Schiit Modi, 320KB MP3s or FLACs, and a Sennheiser HD600)
 
Avenged Sevenfold, God Hates Us, Rock
 
Valhalla: Neutral and flatter. The Valhalla has more realistic timbre on the instrumentation versus the Magni.
Magni: Brighter and more colored. The Magni has less realistic timbre on the guitars and drums, but, it is much more exciting. The guitars and drums are thinner and have more of a "pop/snap." The vocals, while more sibilant and sharper, are more exciting.
Winner: None, tie. Do you prefer accuracy or an exciting sound?
 
Flying Lotus, Table Tennis (Feat.Laura Darlington), Electronic
 
Valhalla: Even though I was able to download this in a lossy format, this song isn't mastered too well, the Valhalla has less sibilance and everything is more laid back and lightly smoothed over with less peaks in the treble. 
Magni: Sibilance is more present, the Magni is not forgiving of the recording. The guitar at the end is a bit sharper with quicker decay, the tennis balls and respirator in the background are more prominent. Treble gets a bit peaky.
Winner: Valhalla, much more smoother and forgiving.
 
Miles Davis, So What, Jazz
 
Valhalla: Towards the start, the drums on the right had less air and weren't as prominent on the Valhalla. When the trumpet abruptly starts at 1:29, the Valhalla sounded less sharp and didn't have as much glare. Good timbre on all the instruments as well. Once the trumpet goes crazy again at 3:25 on the left, the Valhalla once again sounds smoother, less sharp, and easier on the ears.  
Magni: Towards the start, the drums on the right had a bit more air and sounded a bit more dominant and in your face. When the trumpet abruptly starts at 1:29, the Magni 
initially renders it with a sharper tone. Timbre is alright, but the Valhalla is ahead by a hair. Once the trumpet starts up at 3:25, the Magni again rendered it with a sharper than natural tone.
Winner: Valhalla, better timbre and more controlled.
 
Snnop Dogg and The Doors, Riders on the Storm, Hip-hop/rap
 
Valhalla: The clapping in the beat is less prominent and has a slower decay (Fades away slower). Less sibilance and sharpness, sounds less in your head, but not by much.
Magni: The clapping in the beat is more prominent and has a quicker decay (Faded away quicker). The Magni has slightly more sibilance and sounds more in your head, but again, not by much.
Winner: Valhalla, more resolving in the soundstage and smoother.
 
A quick breakdown.
 
Bass impact/extension: Valhalla=Magni
Mids: Valhalla>Magni
Treble quantity: Valhalla<Magni
Soundstage Depth/Width: Valhalla>Magni
Timbre: Valhalla>Magni
Detail:Valhalla=Magni (It can be argued that the Magni's treble exaggeration leads to fake detail perception, so I'm marking this as a tie.)
 
That about sums up my thoughts between the two amps. I must emphasize that the difference between the two is minimal, most of the differences I noticed was with critical listening and A/B testing. The reason why I only have four songs in the comparison is because in most songs, I really couldn't pinpoint much of a significant difference, other than "it sounds slightly less bright." The Valhalla is a diminishing return and it is not that much better than the Magni, in fact, on some songs it sounds even worse. I enjoyed the Magni with metal and rock, it had a more exciting and involving presentation, but, for the most part, the extra treble was unwelcome in most of my music. When I listened to lower quality music, I appreciated the Valhallas more forgiving nature. I also preferred the Valhalla for jazz, classical, and instrumentals for its more realistic timbre and pleasant tonality.  

I am currently using a loaner pair of HE-500's and thought I'd give my thoughts on the headphones and how they compare to my current pair I was planning on upgrading (Sennhesier HD 600). Keep in mind these are all subjective thoughts, what may be a con for me can be a pro for you based on your preferences. I loaned a pair from The Cable Company, http://www.thecableco.com/Product/NEW-Headphone-Lending-Library. 
 
The Pros.
 
Bass: The HE-500 has some of the best bass I have ever heard on any headphone and absolutely dominates the HD600. There is no mid-bass hump that I hear present in most headphones, the sub-bass has great extension and can really give you a nice rumble when the song calls for it. The bass is very dynamic and suits any genre. It is well controlled, fast, and textured when listening to rock and metal, precise and natural when listening to jazz and classical, and can deliver a nice amount of thump when listening to rap, trap, and dubstep.
 
Soundstage width: Contrary to another review I read, I found the HE-500 to have much better width than the HD600, the HD600 sounds narrow versus the HE-500, this was very evident when listening to Miles Davis. The drums and trumpets sound more outwards towards the left and right, but not so much so that I find myself losing excitement or so that the music seems distant.
 
Little Fatigue: Once I got used to the clamping force and heavy weight of the HE-500, I'm able to listen to them for hours without any fatigue. The laid back lower treble makes these very easy on the ears. The upper part of the treble has good extension, hi hats/cymbals/etc have a nice sparkle without sounding overdone and ear piercing, which was a big problem I had with the HE-400.
 
The Cons.
 
Ringing: For some reason, If a high frequency note is played for a continuous period of time, the HE-500 produces a strange ringing effect, even more so than the HD600. It's kind of annoying and hurts my ears. Listen to a opera singer holding a note for a long time, or a trumpet being held on a single high tone, you will see what I mean.
 
Timbre: I find that drums, trumpets, the piano, and guitar sound more true to life on the HD600. I originally thought this was because I wasn't used to the planar drivers on the HE-500, so I listened to them continuously for a extended period of time, then switched to the 600. I still found timbre to be much, much better when doing this and also during a/b testing.
 
Lacks detail: Due to the laid back lower treble and wide soundstage, I find the HE-500 produces less detail than the HD600. I can hear more subtle details, like recording errors, static noise, and reverberation of instruments. This is because of the brighter lower treble on the 600 and the more intimate presentation.
 
Smoothness: The HE-500 is a smooth headphone, but the HD600 is even better in this regard. I find less peaks in the HD600s frequency response, music sounds much more coherent and neutral without any extra glare/brightness being added. Everything sounds like it flows together naturally with the 600, while the 500 breaks the flow with ringing and a light glare
 
Song Tests (Done with pleather pads, Schiit Magni & Modi, FLAC/ 320kb MP3s) 
 
Bitches Brew, Miles Davis, Jazz
500: Soundstage is much larger in width, drums extend more outwards towards the left and right. Timbre sounds less realistic on the drums and trumpets, however, the bass is more present in the song. 
600: More intimate and exciting sound, drums don't extend outwards left/right as much as 500, however the drums and trumpet sound more true to life, timbre is much more accurate, the bass is lacking just slightly versus the 500. 
 
Passed Me By, Andy Stott, Electronic
500: Bass extends all the way down and has a much stronger impact, ambiance of the song surrounds my head and sounds as if it's warping/surrounding around me.
600: The very low sub-bass is almost ignored, much less impact, ambiance of the song is more intimate and lacks the "surround sound" effect I felt with the HE-500. 
 
Teardrop, Massive Attack, Trip Hop

500: Presentation is larger, drums have more of a "pop/snap" and the guitar sounds livelier vs the 600, but timbre is still stronger on the 600. Mid-bass is less excessive on the song.
600: Presentation of the song is more intimate (sounds more in my head), the guitar and drums have more accurate timbre, Vocals are smoother and have less sibilance and peaks.
 
Song Of Life (Nick Warren Remix), Leftfield, Techno/House
500: Bass is quicker and has more impact, drums/cymbals have more sparkle and shimmer. In general, this song sounds much more lively and energetic vs the 600.
600: Bass is less present and lacks the impact and speed of the 500. Drums/cymbals lack the sparkle/shimmer of the 500. In simple terms, this song sounds more smooth and is easier to listen to on the 600.  
 
Warrior Concerto, Glitch Mob, Electronic
500: Clearer and more open vs the 600. Bass has a strong rumble (1:50-2:10), much better imaging and separation.
600: Sounds congested, all of the instrumentation/soundfx sounds too close without enough separation, bass is lacking impact (1:50-2:10 in the song)
 
Both are truly great headphones, but you may favor one over another based on your tastes. I think the HE-500 and HD600 compliment each other well. I often find myself grabbing the HD600 for jazz, classical, and instrumentals for the beautiful timbre and intimacy. Then I switch over to HE-500 for dubstep, trap, rap, and rock/metal because of the bass, more shimmery upper treble, and speed. Both are driven by my Schiit gear with ease, I find both headphones can be driven to ear damaging levels with the Magni & Modi. However, the HE-500 is more dependent on amping. The HD600 sounds good out of my Nexus 4/computer, but plugging in the HE-500 to a portable source leads to dull dynamic range with little bass impact. 
 
That about sums up my thoughts, hope you enjoyed reading my review!

Build: Simply put it, the build quality of the Modi is 100% perfect. Made in the USA and it feels and weighs more than you would think for something so small and only $99.
 
Sound: The sound of the Modi is pretty transparent, it doesn't alter the frequency response very heavily. Using the Modi improves the technical areas of my headphones and speakers, like the detail and soundstage. One of the most noticeable difference versus onboard sound is the increased soundstage. Everything sounds a lot wider with my HD 600. A good example of this is the first minute of Avenged Sevenfold's "Victim". Everything sounds less mashed up and more separated, the guitar on the right also moves farther towards your right instead of being mixed up in the middle. The Modi also slightly brightens the treble with most headphones and speakers I've paired it with, this was good with my HD 600, cymbals stood out more and you get less of a laid back tonality. The slight treble boost is very subtle however, it won't make any headphone you pair with it instantly become bright. 
 
 
The only bad thing I can say about the Modi is that because of the USB DAC input, it suffers from USB noise on some computers. Using Modi with my PC, it doesn't have a fully black background after 50% volume and the low end of the bass makes a static sound and it plays high frequency tones when playing 30/40/50 hz sine waves. Using a USB isolator would eliminate all of these problems, but an isolator is about $50. Additionally, plugging the Modi into my iMac or my laptop, the background becomes black even after 50% volume and I hear no problems with static and the bass. The high frequency sound being played with the bass is rarely noticeable in 99% of my music (and I listen to a-lot of dubstep and bassy songs) but it is there sometimes and when it happens it is very annoying. 
 
Overall, it is a great DAC assuming you don't get problems with USB noise. It improves the sound if you're running a computer with the integrated onboard sound. The great thing about Schiit is you have a 15 day money back guarantee, so if you do have any problems you can return it.

Am I the only one guy on Head-Fi that owns one of these? This amp is fantastic and a steal at $90. Here is the first ever review to be made.
 
Build Quality (5): All metal chassis and input/output jacks are all gold plated. Build quality is superb and this thing has been used for over two years, it still works 100% perfectly. Even after dropping it on concrete twice and on my hardwood floor twice it still holds up and only had light scratches from drops.
 
Features (5): You get five outputs all with the choice of 3.5mm or 6.5mm. You have XLR inputs, mono 6.5mm input, stereo 6.5mm input, RCA jacks, 3 insert inputs and even line output. The line output is supposed to "join" two RA53b's together for ten outputs, but you can hook it up to any old stereo and it gives it a clean signal. I used this to drive multiple headphones, control a couple of speaker's volume, and give source to a second A/V Receiver. Lots of options here to choose from, very versatile. 
 
Sound (4): Very flat, doesn't color the sound in any way, in other words, what comes in comes out. Little background noise is heard and it almost has a perfectly black background. The potentiometers (volume control) feel a little cheap, but they have good precision controlling the volume and only give off a tiny bit of channel imbalance at very low volumes. Gain isn't too much for your IEM's, but if you listen to very low volumes with IEM's, channel imbalance will drive you nuts. This is what caused me to take off a point. Under stress (Driving my HD 600, SM3, HE-400, and controlling speaker volume) the sound quality is still the same as if only one device was plugged in and doesn't degrade at all when multiple headphones are driven.
 
UPDATE 8-9-2014: I find that everything I said above still proves to be true after these past few months of using the RA53b. However, I will say that after getting more power hungry cans (HE560/500/LCD3), the Rolls does lack power. Clipping does occure above 60% with all 3 planars I listed. This amp can only deliver ~270mW per each side, which explains the clipping. It's a good amp for HD600/HE400 that aren't too power hungry. 
 
Just like to point out, the picture is old. The new RA53b sounds the same as the old one, but the Rolls logo and color is white instead of red. 

Here's my thoughts on the HD 600. During the review, I'll be throwing in the similarly priced HE-400 and the lower end HD 598 for comparison. Be warned, these are not direct comparisons. I have sold my HE-400 and HD 598, but still remember how they sounded on certain songs and if I don't feel comfortable about any statements towards them I simply won't post them.  
 
Build Quality/Design/Comfort (3.75/5): These are really comfortable, they have a bit of clamping force but you will easily get used to them. They weighed a lot less then I expected and the pads are made up of very soft material. I would say the HD 598 is more comfortable because it has less clamping force and softer pads, but the HD 600 is still excellent in this category. The cables are removable but they aren't as thick and don't feel as sturdy as the HD 598's cable. These are plastic with some metal in them, the plastic doesn't feel very cheap, but to me they don't look or feel like a $400 headphone in your hands.
 
Lows (4/5): The bass has good power at the mid-bass area, but under 40hz is lacking a bit in impact. The bass is not the fastest, I noticed the HE-400 had quicker bass when I listened to upbeat Techno, like the song "E" by Drunkenmunky. I would say the HD 600's bass is adequate, it never wowed me with power and speed, but it didn't sound anemic or very slow either. It did well with Trap, rap, and dubstep showing good extension and moderate power but it doesn't exaggerate the bass which makes those genres enjoyable to some. Comparing the HE-400 I actually think the HD 600 has more perceivable bass in most songs, because of it's stronger mid-bass which you hear more in music, but at the same time the HE-400 will seem to have more bass if you play a song that relies heavily on sub-bass. Comparing the HD 598, I simply felt the HD 600 had just a touch more quantity wise.
 
Mids (5/5): The mid-range is less forward than the HD 598 making the 600 a bit easier to listen to without fatigue. The mid-range is smooth, vocals almost never seemed to be harsh or sound fake in any way. The HD 600's mid-range felt a bit more full than the HE-400, mainly in the upper mids. I felt the HE-400 was a bit recessed in that area, even with new velour pads.
 
Highs (4/5): The treble in this headphone lacks some detail and excitement. The treble is not veiled, but I couldn't say it is bright. The HD 600 has close to neutral treble that makes it very easy to listen to. Cymbals still have some sparkle and energy but it isn't overdone in any way, sibilance rarely occurs on well recorded tracks and when it comes it isn't heavily exaggerated. If you like a relaxed signature, this will probably be a 5/5 for you. If you want a more dynamic sound with excitement, you should probably look elsewhere. I think the treble was less bright and fatiguing versus the HD 598 and HE-400.
 
Soundstage (3.75/5): The soundstage has a good size to it but it doesn't always give you that out of your head sound with some headphones. This is kind of a good thing, because the intimacy the HD 600 gives you can be more exciting. Sometimes when I listened to my previously owned HD 598 and the Q701 I auditioned these headphones seemed to make some songs sound too far away, which made me lose excitment. The HD 598 has a larger sound-stage, not only in width but also in height. I listened to "Kitchen Sink , Boxcutters remix" by Amon Tobin and I could tell the song sounded smaller on the HD 600 than the 598.I can not comment on the HE-400 because I don't feel comfortable with my memory regarding soundstage on them.
 
Amping & Synergy: The HD 600 is a bit harder to drive than your average headphone but it scales incredibly well. It sounded good out of my phone, even better out of my Vintage Fisher 400 & JA-S55 stereo, and excellent out of my mediocre headphone amp (RA53b). Comparing the sound from out of my cellphone to the 30+ year old receivers or my headphone amp wasn't a night and day difference, but I noticed the treble was more relaxed and less sharp, plus the bass had increased power.
 
Final thoughts: The HD 600 is a great headphone that can handle almost all genres. It has a smooth and relaxing signature that I personally love. You will need to look elsewhere if you want a fun and more dynamic experience, but if you're looking for a easy to listen to headphone that won't make you too bored the HD 600 should be near the top of your list.