Garage1217 Project Ember Hybrid Headphone Amplifier & Preamp - Reviews
Pros: Flexibility & Versatility, Powerful, Precise Staging, Tube Rollers Dream
Cons: Tube Rolling/Circuit Adjustments are needed to maximize sound quality, Versatility can work again'st you if you don't take the time to fine tune it for YOUR system & Headphones, NOT plug an Play
So up for review/comparison is a Modded APPJ pa1502a an stock G1217 Project Ember II and a stock Schiit Valhalla 2

My Ember II has a CNC Chassis 1940 Vintage Sylvania 6sn7 JAN CHS VT231 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $455 as tested if bought New
  • Ember II Assembled - $390
  • 6sn7 Adapter - $26
  • 1940 Vintage Sylvania 6sn7 JAN CHS VT231 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $39
[Though it's the longest established and can be gotten second hand for closer to $350 often with upgraded Tubes or you can opt to assemble it your self and save a little there too]

My Modded Set has a set of Russian 6n6c Power Tubes with a 1940s Sylvania 12SN7GT Driver - Cost as tested is $394
  • Appj pa1502a Base Unit - $199
  • Pair of 6n6c Power Tubes - $20
  • Pangea AC 14 Power $30
  • 1940 Vintage Sylvania 12sn7GT JAN CHS VT289 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $10
  • Audio Note Kasai + Auricap XO Re-cap an installation - $125
The Valhalla 2 is 100% Stock! - $350

As some one whose spent a lot of time tube rolling and modding/tinkering I was really curious to see how a stock amp like the Valhalla 2 compared to my rolled in wonders.

Overall I felt my Modded APPJ pa1502a was the most resolving, audibly it had the highest degree of fidelity or exactness in reproducing sound when specifically paired with dynamic headphones. The mods we did were;
  • Replaced existing Output Caps with AuriCap XOs & Audio Note Kaisei's
  • Introduced bypass caps into the Circuit Path
All in all it's the result of about 7 months of research and I'm very impressed with the results! At the end of it all I feel if your able to DIY your likely going to get the highest degree of fidelity for your system with the least monetary cost. But there's extensive knowledge and experience required as any mistakes invoke additional cost. I also had to do some digging to figure out who to have install the mods, as I'm not cleanest solderer. So again time and money can quickly add up when putting together a custom piece. I suppose I lucked out!

But in a sense I feel it's a bit unfair to compare an amp Modded specifically for my exact system, still I wanted to include it to get some perspective on how a more DIY Focused option compares to available retail products. An I'm happy to say there was in fact a retail amp that followed closely behind my own Modded SET! So much so I kinda wish I'd purchased said amp before venturing into my own little experiment.

I did my listening with a ZMF Auteur in Cocobolo with their Silver Michanikos cable as well as with my HD 800 using a Audio Envy Tone Kraft Copper.

Each of these I felt was a headphone that had a more natural mid range presentation with even bass response, the HD 800 is brighter up top and very technical with strong staging and the Auteur was a bit more intimate with a more correct timbre and more even tonal response.

An I personally enjoy each with a drier sounding tube amp, so the three amps featured all share that slightly drier presentation in comparison to something like a Schiit Vali 1 or a Cavili Liquid Glass with a thicker sounding Tube.

An again overall I felt my Modded APPJ pa1502a had the most resolve and audible fidelity how ever on high gain an at over 80% rotation I also noticed it was nosier than the other two amps. Thankfully only about 10% of my music requires me to push the amp to this upper limit, and even then I've got around 3-4 dBs of headroom.

But I'll go over 4 aspects of sound quality in comparing the remaining two units;
  • Detail
  • Dynamics
  • Staging
  • Tonality/Timbre/Envelope
An as you guys know each of these aspects are often linked together, as tonal imbalances can often lead to perceived changes or in-inaccuracies in regard to staging as well as mask over some detail.
Overall I felt these aspects of the Valhalla 2's presentation were better than that of the Ember II;
  • Black background
    • With less audible noise, hum or hiss present during silent or quite passages
  • Clear Micro and Macro Dynamics
    • Gradual changes of individual instruments and musicians were easily identified
    • As were more sudden and intense changes to the intensity of the composition as a whole
  • Vivid Presentation of Transients
  • Tauter Bass
    • With a cleaner more balanced envelope - so no emphasis on attack, decay sustain nor release
Overall I felt the Ember II presentation was stronger in these aspects;
  • Staging
    • More precise location of movement of sounds within the audible space
  • Resolved more of the "sound of the room"
    • Such as ambient noise like wall reflections, echo's and things like foot steps
  • More Even Tonal presentation
    • Overall neither forward nor withdrawn throughout the frequency response
In comparison I felt the Valhalla 2 did the following different from the Ember II
  • Slightly Forward Mid-Range
    • While tonally not as balanced I did feel the Timbre was more natural
      • With a more even presentation of each part of the envelope
    • Slight forwardness helps define space for more intimate headphones but ultimately skews precision in staging for more open or spacious sounding headphones
In comparison I felt the Ember II differed from the Valhalla 2 in these aspects;
  • Some What Polarizing Presentation
    • Slight emphasis on attack and decay over sustain and release on in the mid range an upward
    • With contrasting emphasis in the lows
    • In a sense this some what polarizing presentation is more "tonally" correct but...
  • Slight emphasis on Ambient Noise
    • Part of why I feel it's staging is slightly more accurate
An finally I felt the Ember II did noticeably worse in these aspects in comparison;
  • Noisier
    • More audible hum and hiss during quite passages
  • Looser low end presentation
  • Some what skewed timbre
    • Again odd presentation creates a nice tonal balance but skews the overall balance in how the envelope is presented which makes the timbre kinda off
An lastly I felt the Valhalla 2 had this single fault;
  • Slight Glare or Hardness
    • A rougher top end texture alongside an unpleasant upper mid glare
So it was quite fatiguing with really bright or energetic cans like those from Audio Technica or even the Filter-less Campfire Audio Cascade.

An yes I also felt the Valhalla 2 did give my little Modded Amp a real run for it's money!!! Thankfully, I have purchased an upgrade to my system so my experiment isn't holding me back at this time, though I wonder how much sooner I might have gotten said upgrade if I'd just gotten the Valhalla 2 in the first place...

An I again choose to limit this review to just dynamics as I felt the Hybrid Ember II had a clear advantage driving my Hifiman HE 560 and PreFazor LCD 2. An I've found that typically at this price points Hybrid Units seem to do better with harder to drive Planar Magnetics. Though exceptions may exist and I may explore them in the future.

Though with that Said the Ember II biggest strength is it's versatility.

As a single tube swap can make small changes to;
  • Audible Noise/Gain
  • Tonal Balance
    • Timbre or presentation of the envelope
You can also change how the circuit operates and these changes bring a slight adjustment to;
  • Audible Noise/ Gain
  • Timbre
It's also far more powerful then either amp so it's got much more headroom on tap.

To this day I still feel the Ember II is an excellent choice for very power hungry Legacy Planars like the two I own, and I feel the circuit mods help to balance out the sound of these as well. Helping each to be a little more natural, while still be exceptionally "fast" sounding overall. In fact many of the weakness of the Ember II with my dynamics are in fact strengths with my planars as they have a some what contrasted presentation over my HD 800.

So for those of you that own large collections of headphones that have very differing sound presentations and amping requirements the Ember II will likely remain an excellent choice given how easily you can adjust it's operation to compliment a variety of gear and sound signatures.
  • Like
Reactions: Swann36
Pros: Versatility / Adjustability / sound quality / size / power
Cons: If forced to say there is a con it would be dust due to open design
My Headphone amp journey to date has included Schiit, Audio Gd , Centrance, Garage Polaris, and Horizon 2, Ampsandsound SE84 and Kenzie, along with a couple headphone outs on various receivers.
Of all the amps to date The ember has proven the most versatile and is somewhat chameleon like when it comes to the HUNDREDS of options for tube rolling,  IMHO the available adapters for use with the 6j5 and the 7193 tube varients take the Ember to a whole new level of SQ
I am not big on all the audiophile terms batted around all I know is what I hear, and with the 6j5's in place I am taken back to my days of SET amps and Horn speakers.  In short if you are in the market for a headphone amp for about any headphone on the market I would recommend the Ember whole heartedly 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdrock33
Pros: Allows customization of headphone impedance and tbe auto-biassing. Very clean
Cons: Case could possibly reject more external RF?
I have AKG K712 Pro headphones which are very fast and responsive, but need a good deal of drive.  This is where Project Ember really sings.  I used the default impedance settings combined with a new old stock Raytheon 12AX7 organ tube.  This is an amazing combo as the detailed warmth on the Ratheon perfectly compliments the sometimes over analytical K712.  The result is an extremely detailed yet warm listening experience. 
Pros: Can be tweaked to your hearts content, a tube rollers dream come true. can drive a ton of different headphones no matter what the power requirements
Cons: jumper clips can easily be lost,
Video review below, enjoy


  • Like
Reactions: Curlycat
Pros: Functional versatility, highly tube-rollable, inexpensive price, very good overall sound
Cons: Lacks some clarity & speed/agility
published on January 12, 2014
updated on October 27, 2015
- download a printable 6-page PDF version of this review (links go to locations on my Dropbox)
- download a printable 7-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review. The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes).
(click any photo in this review for a larger version)
(photo note: case pictured below is the optional hard case sold separately on Garage1217's Web site)
I found out about Garage1217 several months ago, through a Head-Fier who listed "Project Starlight" in his signature which piqued my curiosity and got me on Google to find out what that was. It was the "Project Ember" on their site that really caught my eye though, largely in part to its intriguing specs. I finally asked Garage1217 about a review sample several weeks ago, which they generously provided. Thanks goes out to them for providing the review sample.
Note: the time duration for all listening for this review was just about 2 weeks. Not quite as long as what I'm typically used to (most of my past reviews have been of equipment that I owned and were done over months), so I wasn't able to get as familiar as I would've liked with the amp and the set of tubes that I received with it. My listening impressions should not be seen as finalized and are likely subject to change.
Equipment Setup
- Source component: NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA (2 pairs: 1 from source to Gilmore Lite, 1 from Gilmore Lite's loop output to Project Ember)
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS (as a point of contrast)
- Headphones: AKG K712, Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, ATH-AD2000X, & ATH-R70x, Sennheiser HD598
Set of tubes used with the amp included:
- stock 6N1P gold grid
- RCA 12AU7A cleartop
- Russian Voskhod 12AX7VKA
- GE Smoked Glass 6DJ8
- GE 6BZ7 (mine, not received from Garage1217)
- RCA 6SN7
- 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7
Evaluation Music
- Boards of Canada - Tomorrow's Harvest
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven 5 & 7
- Half Moon Run - Dark Eyes
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos, Paganini: 24 Caprices
- Katy Perry - Prism
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- OSI - Fire Make Thunder
- Phantogram - Eyelid Movies
- Sarah Jarosz - Build Me Up From Bones
- The Civil Wars - The Civil Wars
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend
- The Devin Townsend Project - Deconstruction
- Trivium - Shogun
- Yggdrasil - Prose Edda
Foreword & Garage1217
Before getting into the review proper, I'd like to share why the Project Ember caught my interest, particularly when I'm not usually a fan of tube or hybrid amps in general (I'm just wary of the fragility of tubes and don't really like their aesthetic; I vastly prefer flat & sleek designs when it comes to audio equipment):
  1. Advertised features & specifications, particularly the power output chart, which showed that it was fully capable of driving any dynamic or planar magnetic headphones from 32 all the way up to 600 Ohms.
  2. Garage1217's Web site, which consisted mostly of tech-speak, as opposed to marketing-speak with superlative adjectives to describe sound quality.
  3. Attractively-low price at a relatively inexpensive $325 for the built version, which I needed as I'm not a DIY-er and can't solder to save my life.
  4. It was American-made and -supported. I always like to support American businesses whenever I can, particularly small ones.
  5. Eye-catching aesthetics, specifically the clear plexiglass top, though I didn't like the open-frame-style chassis because I saw it as a dust trap.
And as a brief note on Garage1217, I want to add that my experience with them was top-notch. Customer interaction is always a major factor for me in deciding where to spend my money and I'm happy to report that Jeremy @ Garage1217 was a pleasure to deal with. He was courteous, patient, and took the time to answer all of the questions that I had, usually in very extensive e-mails. His level of accessibility & communication was simply excellent and it was clear that not only was he knowledgeable, he was also very customer-focused. He reminded me of why I prefer to support American businesses; there was simply no way that any international business could've come close to matching everything he offered from the beginning all the way to end, which included taking care of return shipping procedures.
Operation, Functionality, & Handling
Garage1217 advertises the Project Ember as having selectable gain (2 settings: Lo & Hi) & output resistance (3 settings: 0.1, 35, & 120 Ohms), and if that weren't enough, compatibility with a wide array of 6V & 12V dual triode tubes, plus auto biasing and pre-amp output, which made it probably the most functionally versatile amp that I've ever come across. I kept the amp configured to low gain though and never needed to set it to high gain, even for the AKG K712, as there was always enough headroom on the volume pot for those headphones whether using the 6V tubes or the 12-volt 12AX7VKA, or even the 12AU7A. The only reason I'd think anyone would need to use the high gain setting would be for even-more-inefficient headphones like the AKG K1000 or HiFiMan HE-6. I'd imagine the low gain would be sufficient for most other headphones, including those up to 300 Ohms (which is typical of Sennheiser & Beyerdynamic models).
Individual Tube Assessments
The sound of the Project Ember varied with each tube so I decided to break down each one:
- Stock 6N1P gold grid (w/ primarily Med output resistance but also Lo)
This stock default tube for the Project Ember was overall very good-sounding with a nicely filled-out mid-range, decent bass with good quantity & quality, and no obvious detriments in treble. Compared to the other tubes, specifically the 6BZ7, it was a touch more passive/laid-back- and spatial-sounding. Essentially a good, basic all-rounder for my set of headphones and it functionally drove the K712 well enough too, but only in terms of volume. The K712 sounded somewhat "dead" on the 6N1P but significantly more alive on the Russian Voskhod 12AX7VKA (more on that in that tube's assessment).
- RCA 12AU7A cleartop (w/ primarily Lo output resistance but also Med)
This was provided to me as an effective low-gain tube for low-impedance sensitive headphones, and as expected it provided good volume-control precision for the Audio-Technica AD2K/AD2KX. It had the least amount of tube hiss too, which was nice, as all of the other tubes had somewhat distracting hiss on the AD2K. This tube had a proportionately moderate amount of bass, mid-bass, & mid-range overall that particularly helped to offset the HD598's relative treble tilt, but it worked nicely with the AD2K/AD2KX as well and made them sound more powerful (with more bass force & impact), heavier, & "meaner". It essentially turned the AD2K into more of a bass-growling monster on metal music as opposed to a percussive speedfreak (which is the AD2K's characteristic on the Gilmore Lite). I wouldn't recommend this tube for any inefficient headphones though, even with the amp's high-gain setting available, as the K712 sounded weak, wimpy, & dull when driven by this tube. For general purposes, I'd be inclined to say that a 12AU7 is a great inexpensive type of tube to have on hand for sensitive headphones, and this specific RCA-issue tube sounded very good indeed.
The only major fault of the RCA 12AU7 was its inability to audibly match the blistering speed & agility of the Gilmore Lite when used with the AD2K, but otherwise it was very good with the AD2KX and HD598, specifically with its open 3D-like soundstage, tonal depth (especially in the mid-bass), and more powerful bass.
- Russian Voskhod 12AX7VKA (w/ only Med output resistance)
Note: this was a rare tube offered to me by Garage1217 for review purposes only and will probably be unlikely to be easily found on Internet sites like eBay. Those looking for a similar tube to buy should look for other tubes in the 12AX7 family.
The 12AX7VKA had it all over the other tubes when it came to driving specifically the K712. Not that the K712 sounded bad on the stock 6N1P, 6DJ8, and 6BZ7; it sounded very good indeed on those tubes with only slight noticeable variations in the mid-range, bass, & soundstaging. There was very little to fault with those three tubes when used with the K712, they all sounded really good, and if I hadn't had the 12AX7VKA, I wouldn't have complained. But the 12AX7VKA clearly took the K712 to another level that was enough of a sonic improvement that it was apparent that every other tube, including the Gilmore Lite, under-drove the K712. On the 12AX7VKA, the K712 simply sounded more dynamic in the musical sense, properly ranging from "piano" (p) to "forte" (f) and everything on the scale in-between. On the other tubes, the K712 sounded more like it went from only "mezzo-piano" (mp) to "mezzo-forte" (mf). The K712 also sounded substantially more physical and immediate/direct on this tube, with simply more of a "presence factor" almost like that of an Audeze headphone. It also developed the most powerful bass on this tube while retaining an open, expansive soundstage at the same time that didn't detract from the headphone's innate "separated" sound. But the most obvious sign that the 12AX7VKA was the only tube that properly drove the K712 was the effect as volume was turned up—it proportionately increased treble, mid-range, and bass simultaneously, while none of the other tubes did that and actually seemed to subtract bass as volume was turned up.
This tube was clearly the best one for the K712 specifically, and I'd imagine that it'd also be good-to-great for other inefficient headphones as well, specifically the HD800, Audeze LCD-2/LCD-3, and likely the HiFiMan HE-400/HE-500 too (not that I've heard the HE-500 though, just a guess on that). Another possible similar high-gain tube that Project Ember owners or buyers might want to look into is a Tung-Sol 12AX7, which I read might be a further sonic improvement over the 12AX7VKA.
- GE Smoked Glass 6DJ8 (w/ primarily Med output resistance but also Lo)
This tube was an excellent all-rounder that paired up very well with every headphone, improving on the 6N1P specifically at driving the K712, making it sound a bit more lively and with more mid-range presence. The only notable detraction with this tube was its amount of hiss, which was quite noticeable on the AD2K/X and HD598, but nothing that was too distracting once music was playing. The 6DJ8 had a very noticeable mid-range & mid-bass presence that really made everything sound filled-out, weighted, heavy, & powerful, but not ponderous or inert, while maintaining a clear 3D soundstage that had as much depth as width. Granted, it didn't have a "huge" soundstage, but it was large enough that it was a clear improvement over the Gilmore Lite, which had a very 2D-flat, compressed soundstage (with nearly zero 3D depth).
If this tube was indicative of 6DJ8-type tubes in general, then I'd highly recommend one for every Project Ember owner or buyer. It was a fantastic tube that worked particularly well with vocals (male & female), plus the instruments that generally make up pop, rock, metal, & electronic music—i.e., bass guitars, overdriven guitars, and synthesized & acoustic bass.
- NOS GE 6BZ7 (w/ primarily Med output resistance but also Lo)
I still had this tube as a leftover from a Schiit Lyr (in which it's used as the stock tube) that I previously owned, so of course I had to try it out in the Project Ember. It was another good all-rounder, but I'd slot its overall performance between the stock 6N1P and 6DJ8. It wasn't as wide- & spacious-sounding as the stock 6N1P and had more of an upfront, closed-in presentation. Like the 6DJ8, the 6BZ7 also sounded good with male & female vocals, and had particularly strong & forceful bass (with maybe just a tad bit more quantity than the 6DJ8, but I wasn't completely sure on that), but it didn't seem to be as clear-sounding as the 6DJ8, and definitely not as spatial (with particularly less 3D depth).
Since 6BZ7-type tubes are inexpensive, they're probably worth trying for those who don't mind amassing a collection of tubes, but I'd probably recommend against them for those who'd prefer having just a limited set of purpose-driven tubes.
- RCA 6SN7 (w/ Hi output resistance & gain) (October 2015 update)
I was able to try this tube with an updated Ember v2 loaner unit that Garage1217 sent to me for a local Head-Fi meet, and it proved to be a great match with the Audio-Technica R70x. I also received a couple of other new tubes to try as well, which included a 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7, but it was clear that the 6SN7 was the best choice for the R70x, as it delivered the most powerful bass & enveloping mid-range. It basically turned the R70x into somewhat of a sonic behemoth, with an insane amount of control over the bass even at very high volume, and provided a veritable gluttony of mid-range texture & presence—by far the most comparable mid-range to the classic but discontinued Grado HP1000 that I’ve ever heard! It was so astounding that I urge any owners of an Ember and R70x need to add a 6SN7 to their collection stat!
- 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7 (various output resistances) (October 2015 update)
And because I received these two tubes from Garage1217 as well (at the same time as the 6SN7), of course I had to try them out in the new Ember v2. They were both very good, and each had different strengths. The 6H6N provided a sound that was the most “solid-statey” I’ve heard from the Ember, with clean precision and very strong clarity, while maintaining clean & solid bass. The 6GU7 provided better soundstaging with more expansive depth and width while maintaining good layering in the stage (not an easy feat to pull off). It’d be my recommendation for anyone who wants an expanded soundstage for any set of headphones. (Note: For more info on these last two tubes, please contact Garage1217, as I neglected to note their makes when I had them in-house.)
Overall Tube & Amp Assessment
I found the 12AU7, 12AX7VKA, and 6DJ8 to be the stand-out tubes in the set, each with its own purpose: the 12AU7 for both Audio-Technicas, the 12AX7VKA for the K712, and the 6DJ8 as an alternative for general-purpose use with all of the headphones. The other two tubes, the stock 6N1P and my own GE 6BZ7, didn't really offer much sonically compared to the other three. If I was selecting the most preferential tubes for my own purposes for my own Project Ember, I'd definitely want to get a 12AU7 and 6DJ8 again (probably an Amperex Orange Globe 6DJ8 in addition to the GE Smoked Glass to compare them), and likely the 12AX7VKA as well but I'd want to try a Tung-Sol 12AX7 too for comparison.
Being able to sample a variety of tubes in the Project Ember was extremely helpful and allowed me to gauge its overall level of performance, which seemed to be very good at any level. Though the Gilmore Lite did beat it in two specific aspects, which were clarity and speed/agility, I'd say that the Project Ember generally eclipsed the Gilmore Lite largely in part due to its soundstaging, richer tonal balance (the Gilmore Lite can be considered to have a "thin/light" tonal balance), & mid-range qualities that were consistent regardless of which tube was used.
The Project Ember probably won't amp every headphone to its full sonic potential, even via tube-rolling, but at $350, does that matter? How many other amps can functionally drive headphones spanning the gamut from low-impedance sensitive types all the way up to the most inefficient planar magnetics? When every aspect of the Project Ember is considered, from the vendor's level of service & support (in the USA, no less), to its inexpensive $350 (USD, built) price, to everything about it technically, and the sonic possibilities through tube rolling, it's amazingly unprecedented. I'd call it the premier absolute must-buy headphone amp for almost everyone! Of course there are better-sounding amps available, most of which cost a lot more, but for those who just want an amp that can drive any set of dynamic-type headphones, the Project Ember is the clear solution.
And even if the Project Ember is over your budget, Garage1217 makes a few other amps that are even more inexpensive, down to the (built L1) $160 Project Starlight!
'Of course there are better-sounding amps available, most of which cost a lot more'
I would be interested to know what other amps even approach the Ember's sound quality and versatility at this price.
^ I don't personally know of any such amps, particularly when it comes to versatility, but that's not to say that they don't exist.
As a reminder to everyone, please post any questions in the forums (and not as comments on this review), especially so that other knowledgeable people can answer.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Pros: Super clear and super clean sound, Easy to customize, Perfect for lots of headphones, IEMs and speakers and end game for most people, 3 years warranty
Cons: Open case Project Ember Hybrid Headphone Amp & Preamp Initial Impressions
Hi guys,

Just received my amp today, the tube is brand new as well. No burning done so far. And used only as a preamp so far, not even tried any headphone 

Aktimate Micro powered speakers
Swan M50W 2.1ch speakers
Asus Essence STX DAC

Out of the box, default settings with the Siemens 12AU7 tube (same tube that I was using with my Bravo Ocean):
A little warm for my taste but some improvement over the Bravo. Noticeable out of the box. But I didn't spend too much time on this setting.

I changed Output to Low, Input Gain to High, bypassed Input capacitors and then tried again with the same tube:
Again, some more improvement over the previous combination. Not night and day over the previous setting, but again, I didn't spend too much time and it did seem less warm, louder and more to my taste.

Then I tried the Philips USA 6DJ8 tube with the new settings itself:
This was a significant improvement over the previous tube. Much better. Clearer, cleaner. Better pass, better in every way. I didn't listen too long but many would call this a substantial jump considering you don't expect the lyrics to change in the audiophile world :p

Then I finally settled on the Siemens 6922 with the same new settings:
Again, a noticeable jump in performance over the previous tube. Bass did become less tight and somewhat muddy in comparison to the Philips. However, for non bassy parts, it is cleaner, sharper and clearer. Seems more lively and dynamic as well. I might go back to the Philips later but for now I seem to have settled on the Siemens 6922, at least for the time being.

Changing the tube makes a hell lot of difference. Perhaps somewhat less than with the Bravo Ocean if you really ask me, not quite sure about it.

However, it does make a very significant difference to the extent that you might like an amp with one tube and dislike it with some other tube.

Especially, when you change the family, the difference is even more pronounced. And the tubes I tried from 6DJ8 and 6922 pawned the best tubes of the 12AU7 family 

Compared to the Bravo, with the final setting and tube:
Much cleaner, much clearer, better bass response, better treble I think, much more hifi, a huge difference if you pay attention to details and listen for a few hours. Unlikely that you will want to go back after a couple of hours I think. Though, it has barely been 30 minute for me but the clean clear sound has already won me over

Far more dynamic and lively over the Bravo as well.

But of course, to somebody with less finicky ears, the difference might be barely noticeable. But for audiophile ears, the difference is significant, just less than night and day I would say. But then again, to each his own.

You do end up with diminishing returns, so provided you have the dough without being clinched, it should be a decent boost in sound quality.

Mids: Much more articulate. I can clearly make sound lyrics I couldn't before. It is much closer to cinema/hi-fi compared to the Bravo. Again, the difference won't bring you to the moon, but it is rather significant if you pay attention to details and articulation.

Details: A decent jump over the Bravo. Not night and day but perhaps I will know better with time.

Bass: 6DJ8 and 6922 families give much better bass response, at least the tubes I tried, and these families are not compatible with Bravo. Those 12AU7 tubes which have similar bass response lose in other areas, so this is a very clear win for the Ember by a long short.

Treble: Much more realistic and natural compared to the Bravo Ocean. Not a night and day jump, but a huge jump I think. Much cleaner and a bit sharper. Far better at realism. This is without burning in!

Dynamics: A night and day jump. Not even a comparison. Far more lively and realistic out of the Project Ember.

Realism: Project Ember is significantly more hi-fi and cinema like. Far more natural.

Soundstage Width: A decent jump, maybe huge or at least noticeable, not sure about the extent of the difference. But it is better for sure. Wider and more realistic.

Soundstage Depth: A night and day difference. It is far more profound and natural. Deep voices which engage you!

Imaging: Not too much difference, some difference, perhaps a bit noticeable. But not too big a difference out of the box at least. Definitely more balanced without channel imbalance and stuff, a bit more natural, but not as good as what I can get without any preamp in the chain.

Clarity: A huge jump in terms of clearness and cleanness. The PRAT is better as well I think. It is speedier when required but in a natural way. The PRAT isn't night and day difference, but not nil either I think.

Volume: The Bravo Ocean is much louder than the Project Ember with high gain. Night and day louder, the Bravo Ocean is.

Most significant differences over Bravo Ocean:

No channel imbalance like in Bravo Ocean

Much much clearer and cleaner

More dynamic and realistic

A huge difference in articulation and mids

Many more differences, lots more, which really matter, but the above is what will really matter to you out of the box to the most extent.

And the tube/tube family/brand within the same family make a huge difference even with the Bravo Ocean, and also with Project Ember. It is enough for you to like or hate the amp based on the tube used. It is rather significant. Changing the tube is like trying another amp which is similar but different at the same time.

Would I call it a worth it upgrade over the Bravo Ocean for the price difference I paid?

I got my Bravo Ocean new with 1 year warranty shipped to my country including customs etc for less than USD 100.

Project Ember cost me nearly $550

Is the difference worth it?

If you can afford it and have the money to spend this much on a preamp, then yes, it is worth it, provided you have audiophile ears and can appreciate minor nuances and changes.

Is it worth it for every Tom Dick and Harry who finds Bose better than Sony?

NO, the difference isn't as large. But it is huge for most audiophiles, considering people spend 1000s+ on a single equipment, this is definitely worth what I paid, provided money isn't an issue for you 

PS: I am not reviewing Bravo Ocean with Project Ember. Just trying to point the differences as these are the only two full sized desktop amps I have owned. They are in different price brackets and of course Project Ember is much better. But how much better? I try to answer that!

Thank You


Read more:
  • Like
Reactions: Swann36 and elad
Lots of interesting information. Just three questions:
Did you try with headphones as they are both marketed primarily as headphone amps?
Was the lower volume of the Ember ever a problem?
What do you mean by 'pawned'?
thanks for the review!
i have the indeed g3,is it like the bravo?