First off, I'd like to thank Questyle for giving us HF'ers an opportunity to try out their latest amp/dac offering, the CMA 15 pictured above. They did not pay me nor provided any input for this review. All thoughts about this unit are mine alone.

So, let's start things off with what's included in the package. Out of the shipping box, the CMA 15 is enclosed in a rather spartan white cardboard box. A 5ft power cable, a remote, instructions, and other paperwork were included as well. I was surprised that two AAA batteries for the remote were missing from the package. Not a big deal since I already had some readily available, but one would expect some to be included here nonetheless.

The casing for the unit is metal, which is finished in a way that makes it somewhat of a fingerprint magnet (see photo above). I couldn't help but contribute a few additional fingerprints of my own to those that were already there when I took the unit out of its box. The volume control is motorized, which means that it displays more travel resistance than the cheap volume pots used in the THX AAA 789. Thankfully, the travel resistance of the CMA 15 is just smidge higher than the Alps Blue pot found in my passive preamp. In other words, the CMA 15's volume pot feels fine, it is smooth (not stepped), and motorized too. I mostly controlled the volume via the included the remote. Of course, any fine volume adjustments needed to made by hand.

Amps that I evaluated here:
Musicbee (FLAC) > SPDIF optical > CMA 15 (bias control set to High) > LCD-3, HEKv1, or HE-6
Musicbee (FLAC) > SPDIF optical > CMA 15 (DAC mode / fixed) > THX AAA 789 > LCD-3 or HE-6
Musicbee (FLAC) > Bifrost 2 (unison USB) > passive preamp > Bryston 3BST > HE-6

I also tested feeding the analog signal from my Bifrost 2 into the CMA 15 via the latter's SE input, a first for Questyle from what I gathered. This testing was short-lived because the sound from the Bifrost 2 sounded a bit grainy when fed into the CMA 15, something that I didn't perceive when feeding my Darkvoice with the Bifrost 2's SE output using the same cable. My initial impression is that the SE input of the CMA 15 is second class to the CMA 15's digital inputs. I feel that Questyle, again, designed the CMA 15 to be used as an amp/dac combo, which I don't mind since the CMA 15 amp/dac sounds pretty good. I will be interested in reading impressions from subsequent reviewers of this tour regarding this feature.

I didn't test the CMA 15's bluetooth feature nor its MQA or DSD decoding capabilities. Also, I didn't test the CMA 15 with any IEMs. There are gain switches underneath the unit for iems and headphones. I'm sure that people would appreciate if such switches are presented in the front or in the rear of the amp. It is quite inconvenient to lift the CMA 15 up and toggle the gain switches when switching from iems to headphones (and vice versa). To me, I do not really care too much since I'm mostly a headphone user.

As for the sound of the CMA 15, I describe as being neutral with a slightly bright tilt (edit: I'm coming from a BF2 + Liquid Platinum | LAuX, so a warmer setup). I will compare it to the THX AAA 789 since I believe a lot of people here are familiar with the character of the 789 and amps of its ilk. Bass impact (i.e. slam) is noticeably strong with the CMA 15, considerably more so than the 789. The 789's slam sounded dull and mushy compared to the CMA 15. This difference is most apparent on the opening bars of "Protection" from Massive Attack on my LCD-3's. Also, the 789 sounded more closed-in, congested, which meant that imaging was far better with the CMA 15. To my ears, the 789 has a nasty habit of overly sharpening the edges of notes, which makes it sound a bit cold and unnatural. Thankfully, notes on the CMA 15 sounded a bit more rounded and fuller, and thus more natural, in my experience. Overall, the CMA 15 presents a clean and spacious sound with wonderful macrodynamics.

I really enjoyed listening to my LCD-3 and HEKv1 through the CMA 15. The HEKv1 is known for its soft character and the CMA 15 provides it some of the macrodynamics that it lacks on most other amplifiers (power amps help alleviate this issue with the HEKv1 but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). However, the CMA 15 came second best to the 3BST when it came to driving my HE-6 (modded 4-screw). To my ears, it was interesting that the 789 performance was not far from the CMA 15's when it came to driving this monster can. The increased bass impact from the CMA 15 with the LCD-3 and HEKv1 was a bit more muted when driving the HE-6. I noticed the size of the image increasing when going from the 789 to the CMA 15 and then to the 3BST. The slight bright tilt from the CMA 15 came to the fore with the HE-6's, whereas the 3BST+BF2 combo exhibited better control and sounded far more spacious than the other two amps. This spaciousness might reflect the character from the BF2, which I noticed exhibited more soundstage depth than the CMA 15's ESS DAC when switching back and forth between the two sources using the CMA 15's remote during my brief testing of the BF2 with the CMA 15 (see above).

Overall, I think the CMA 15 is a nice all-in-one unit that synergizes well with planar cans and offers a lot of convenient features.

First off, I have to give thanks to Hifiman for setting up this loaner tour for the Ananda. The only thing Hifiman requested from me, and from every other loanee, was an honest impression/review of this can. (EDIT: I wrote this review prior to purchasing a modded prototype HE-6, which unsurprisingly excels in almost every category over the Ananda.)

Packaging/Build Quality:
The cans come in a nice sturdy box (leatherette?) befitting their price point. I am bit disappointed that there wasn't a balanced cable, but these cans are really efficient at 25 Ohms and 103dB/mW (more on that later). As for the cans themselves, the metal gimbals and the metal headband are sturdy and do the job. Like others stated elsewhere, I thought I was going to be concerned with the lack of swivel from the newest Hifiman headband, but the cans ended up fitting my head just fine due to the stock angled hybrid pads. The weight and the clamp force are just about perfect in my book.

The ratcheting adjustment system for the loaner unit was a little hit or miss. For example, the right side slides up and down fairly straightforwardly with the required amount of force for adjustment being just about right. The left side, however, was more difficult to slide due to the larger amount of force (far more than the right side) needed for adjustment. I don't know if this issue is simply isolated to the loaner unit, but it is rather annoying. As reported elsewhere, the paint of the inner sides of the arms of the earcups are stripped from previous adjustments.

Also in the loaner unit, I noticed a looser fitting of the left 3.5mm jack than the right 3.5mm jack into their respective connectors. This can lead to some static during playback if one gently swivels the left 3.5mm jack about for a bit. Left alone, thankfully I didn't notice any static in the left earcup during playback. After two weeks with these cans, my opinion of the sturdiness of the metal headband or the comfort of its swivel-less design has not changed all that much. There was a period of time where I wished that the cans did swivel about as I had to spend a little bit of extra time to find the right fit and comfort. Thankfully, the pads are soft and plush, and any comfort niggles fell by the wayside.

As for the included Neutrik-terminated 1/4" TRS cable, to be slightly charitable, I must say that I do not rate it too highly. Intertwined silver and copper wire strands are visible through the transparent tubing, with the tubing itself looking like it came from a hospital. Overall, the tubing is a bit stiff and is prone to flopping and twisting about. I saw elsewhere that it appears to be prone to kinks, but that hasn't happened to the one provided with the loaner unit. External microphonics appear to be on the negligible side since I did not notice much of any while using the stock cable for most of the loan period. Bottomline, they do the job despite being unwieldy to handle.

Sound:

Equipment:
Work: FLAC > Musicbee > Modi 3 > Magni 3
Home: FLAC > Musicbee > SDAC-B > THX AAA 789*
*I didn't find much difference when running the Ananda balanced (Gain 1) or single-ended (Gain 2) on the THX AAA 789.

One word popped in my mind when I first listened to these cans through my Schitt stack at work: neutrality. My opinion didn't change when I listened to these cans at home. As a testament to their efficiency, my volume knobs are about 10 o'clock on low gain (Magni 3) and 8 o'clock on higher gain (Magni 3; THX AAA 789 - second gain) using the stock TRS cable. Having just listened to the AKG K501 and its concert hall soundstage before the Ananda arrived, the soundstage of the Ananda was less wide in comparison upon initial listen and the sound didn't swirl around my head as much as they did in the AKG K501 (Shoji Yamashiro's "Kaneda" from Akira [Symphony Suite] - VDR-1532). Still, I am enjoying the Ananda so far and it has many things going for it over more specialist cans like the AKG K501. A further breakdown of the sound follows.

Bass

The planar bass of the Ananda is tight exhibiting little to no bloom and extends fairly low. While not as low as Hifiman's HE-500 and Audeze's LCD-2 rev. 1 (LCD2.1) (nor as texturized as the latter), the bass of the Ananda certainly extends far lower than the rolled-off bass of Sennheiser's HD6XX and AKG's K501. Still, the Ananda certainly does not exhibit the slam of the HE-500 and the LCD2.1, as Ananda's presentation is a bit softer than the latter two.

Mids

They are slightly more dipped in 1-2k than the HE500 and HD6XX (by ~2dB according to InnerFidelity and solderdude's measurements) but are still enjoyable the same, as the Ananda's mids tends to veer closer to a softer, more neutral presentation.

Treble

Probably my favorite part of the Ananda. The treble appears to be well-extended with a bit of air surrounding the instruments, not as much air as provided by the AKG K501 though. Thankfully, the Ananda avoids the nastiness of a 7k peak, which to my ears permits its treble to extend quite nicely without experiencing any overbearing sibilance. With respect to timbre, pianos can sound a bit hot with the Ananda. Detail retrieval definitely is better on the Ananda than on any other can that I own (EDIT: except for my recent purchase of an HE-6), sometimes to its own detriment (see below).

Soundstage

The soundstage is wider than the HD6XX but less so than the HE-500 and AKG K501. The Ananda's soundstage is definitely taller than the HE-500's. However, I have an issue when it comes to soundstage depth with regards to how "compressed" certain orchestral tracks, particularly older recordings, can sound. For example, in the opening measures of the third movement (Presto) of Beethoven's 7th Symphony conducted by Karajan (recorded in 1962), it seems that the strings and timpani are smushed together into a blob. My AKG K501 separates things out a little better in this regard, but it isn't a night and day difference with this old recording. Since the Ananda seems to push detail to the fore, it sometimes sounds like instruments in the mix for older or poorer recordings are pushed closer towards the ear thereby reducing any sense of soundstage depth. Still, I prefer the Ananda for classical music far more than the HD6XX, HE-500, and the LCD2.1. The Ananda, however, cannot unseat my can of choice for classical music: AKG K501 with its concert hall soundstage.

Overall

To me, the Ananda is a well-balanced headphone that can be the only one a person needs, as it handles most genres well. Despite it being more resolving than any headphone that I currently own (HE-6 coming in shortly however), the Ananda has a musical sound signature that isn't sterile or dry as other more technical cans. At $850, I believe it is a fair price for a highly efficient can that still sounds good on modest setups.

First off, I would like to thank Todd of TTVJ Audio for putting this loaner tour together that allows some of us Head-Fi'ers to offer our views on the latest Head-Fi edition by Grado Labs, selling for $350 and on a limited production run until November 1, 2019. The review that follows is my opinion and mine alone, as TTVJ Audio did not request anything from me other than shipping the cans to the next loanee. Also, as shown by my signature, I tend to veer towards warmer cans (HE-500, HD6XX, and the LCD2.1) and the HF-3 is the first can from Grado Labs that have graced my ears.

Packaging:

The HF3’s come in a white cardboard box with “Grado” printed in a black font, plain and simple. Despite a foam cutout protecting the cans somewhat, there’s no protection with respect to the top and bottom interior of the box. At the very least, I would like to see additional foam padding to cover up the remaining exposed parts of the headphone, especially in the US since most carriers here are not particularly gentle when it comes to package handling (e.g. see [imgur] how USPS treated a recent tube purchase of mine). As others have described elsewhere, “spartan” seems to be the operative term when it comes to Grado Labs packaging. Personally, I would have liked to see something more at this price point, like a box that can double as proper storage for these cans, as the cardboard used for the box here does not seem to be long for the future.

Build quality and looks:

With respect to looks, it is a matter of taste. For me, I have always admired the retro, bespoke look of Grado cans from afar, and the HF3 does not deviate from this tradition. The red oak cups look really nice. They appear to lack any glossy finish that is seen in other Grado cans that sport wood cups. As such, the curing process for the wood cups of the HF3 appears to leave them with a “dry” appearance. As for their weight, the HF3 is extremely light. I feel I could wear these all day if they didn’t come with the L-cush pads, as the foam (out of the box) is fairly stiff and feels irritating when pressed upon my ears. On the other hand, my two female co-workers each have long hair, and they remarked how they were not bothered by the L-cush pads.

The biggest negative to me when it comes to build quality of the HF3 is the attached cable. The cable is around 6ft long and is visibly thicker to other Grado cans I’ve seen. While this added thickness appears to do a better job of protecting the internal wires, it makes for an extremely stiff cable that seems to have a mind of its own sometimes as it flops about my setup. I understand that attached cables are a Grado tradition, but seeing this cable freely rotating about the cup, and thus rotating the internal cup wiring, does not instill confidence in me that the internal wiring will last with this cable.

Setup:

Home – FLAC > Musicbee > SDAC-B > THX AAA 789

Work – FLAC > Musicbee > Modi 3 > Magni 3

Of the two, I prefer the HF3 pairing with the warmer Schitt stack. The SDAC-B and THX AAA 789 was a bit too bright and clinical, as female vocals exhibited a sharper edge at times with the HF-3.



Treble:

There’s a bit of air so to speak, as I can hear the recording tape hiss of most tracks on my home setup. The treble is not too sibilant to my ears on the Schitt stack. With the SDAC-B+789, it is a different story though. For example, fingers sliding up and down the guitar neck for acoustic pieces sometimes felt like daggers stabbing my ear drums (e.g. Elliot Smith’s Roman Candle), which isn’t an issue when listening to the same song on the Schitt stack.

Mids:

It seems that the upper mids are emphasized here, which brings a certain liveliness to guitars that seem to make them shimmer. Vocals, especially male vocals, are absolutely wonderful with the HF-3. However, there are issues with female vocals depending on your setup as described above.

Bass:

Probably the most surprising aspect of the HF3, to me, was the presence of bass, particularly the mid-bass. There’s definitely a sub-bass roll-off similar to that of the Sennheiser HD6XX and a bit of bloom compared to the tight, well-extended planar bass like that of the HE500 and LCD2.1. However, the HF-3 is definitely not bass light. To me, the bass of the HF-3 is similar to that of the HD6XX.

Etc:

As mentioned elsewhere, the soundstage of the HF-3 is pretty impressive for a can of its size. They are definitely wider than the HD6XX and appear to be close or on par with the soundstage of HE500 (too close to tell here). However, they are not as wide, nor holographic, as my AKG K501’s. The classic HD414X by Sennheiser are the closest cans in my collection that sound similar to the HF-3, but they are still considerably different from the HF3. The HD414X has an extremely sharp bass roll-off (almost like a high-pass filter) that cuts out most of the bass response, which thankfully is not the case with the HF-3.

Since the SDAC-B+789 was too bright for me with the HF-3 at times, I tried out these cans with my Darkvoice 336SE (6F8G+6AS7) (fed by the SDAC-B) one evening to temper the treble a bit. Of course, by the numbers, the Darkvoice would not be an ideal fit for these low impedance cans (32ohms) since the output impedance of the Darkvoice is about 70ohms and higher. Accordingly, there was a pronounced treble roll-off while the bass was left largely untouched. This led to the treble sounding warmer but also far more distant compared to the bass. Predictably, OTL amps like the Darkvoice are not ideal for the HF-3.

Tracks (all are CD FLAC sources unless noted):

Israel Kamakawiwo’ole – Over the Rainbow (BBCD 5907): I have to admit that I was floored by the presentation of Israel’s vocals where its details are presented front and center while not robbing any of the tenderness and heft that his late-evening recording session captured so many years ago. Both of my co-workers, one an EDM fan and the other a classical music fan, were similarly impressed by the performance of the HF3 with this tune on the Schitt stack.

Mandolin Orange – From Now On (YEP-2417): However, as stated earlier, I notice how female vocals are sometimes presented with an unnaturally hard edge to them from my SDAC-B+789. Case in point, the showcase of Emily Frantz’s delicate vocals from this little slice of Americana loses a bit of warmth that I normally associated with it due to the sharpness presented in this setup. Thankfully, this hard edge is smoothed out on the warmer Schitt stack though.

Junior Marvin & The Upsetter Revue – Closer Together (CRNCD 6): One of those old tracks where the reissuer annoyingly applied declicker to it rather too liberally, which is sad as this is one Junior Marvin’s (of Police and Thieves fame) finest vocal performances. A little brightness offered by the HF-3 is most welcomed here indeed.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Symphony No.41 in C Major ("Jupiter"), K.551: IV. Molto allegro (Orchestra of The 18th Century / c. Frans Brüggen) (478 9849): An in-your-face performance of one of the most famous movements in the symphonic repertoire meeting an in-your-face can results in a bit of disappointment. During the busy passages of this piece, instruments seem to glob together. Interestingly, after putting several more hours into the HF3, the cans seem to open up a bit more to give the instruments heard in this piece a bit more breathing room. So, maybe more burn-in is in order.

LL Cool J – Going Back to Cali (314 534 125-2): Great layering of the vocals during the intro, and there’s plenty of meat with the bass.

Moose – Jack (HUTCD 3): Shoegaze, wall-of-sound guitar collages, seems to benefit more with more body to the sound produced by cans like the HD6XX and HE500. This tune sounds too thin on the HF-3, which robs this song of the hazy sound that typifies the genre.

Cream – N.S.U. (593001) [24/96 Vinyl Transfer | Prof. Stoned bootleg]: This track never sounded better. Ginger Baker’s drums are heard and satisfyingly felt throughout the song. There’s something about the HF-3 that helps clean up a bit of the darker sound associated with many older vinyl recordings.

Final thoughts:

Overall, I was quite pleased with the HF-3. They certainly sounded different from any other cans in my collection. They absolutely rocked my world when it came to most genres of rock and metal. One of my female co-workers really liked the aggressive, detailed sound produced by the HF-3, especially with her preference for EDM tracks. According to her, the HF-3 provided a ton of detail while also having a sufficient amount of bass. In fact, she liked them more than my HE500 when she compared the two on the Schiit stack. Anyways, if you like the above genres more than others, then the HF-3 might be the cans for you. In my opinion, the price point of the HF-3 of the $350 is more than fair but would've liked to see better packaging.

That’s a wrap!