[chumley]

xtreme4099
" notice i said with discrete buffer ... not the old buf634 buffered one"

Ramrod152001

"I compared the Pocket Reference (discrete buffers) with the XP-7 w/797 op amps. Let me just say I sold the XP-7 the next day, lol I hear it sounds similar to the SR-71"

I prefer the SR-71's sound to the XP-7, and the much closer sonic match, IMO, is the SR-71 with the RS HR-2; my sources range, with the SR-71, from a 4G iPod's Line out to a Meridian G08... I did compare the LPR, w/ discrete buffer, to the SR-71 and the new GL w/ PS upgrade, using several of my favorite 'phones and an identical range of sources. The new GL+PS and the SR-71 won handily.

Ramrod152001

"... The XP-7 is a good amp overall, but maybe it just didnt suit my system... "

I would also posit that your particular computer source might not be the best match w/the XP-7 anyway, that said, I find the SR-71's sound signature and sonic capabilities preferential, if not superior to the XP-7, at least the 'stock' XP-7... I think if you A/B'd the DB'd LPR and the SR-71, you'd find the results quite different...

NightWoundsTime

"R-71>Gilmore Lite, quite easily. The reason Ray can compete with higher end amps is because he did extensive work making sure the tonal balance on the SR-71 was impeccable. This is why people say it's "transparent". The Lite sounds compressed, with harsh upper mids and weak bass. Go for the SR-71 and never look back.

NWT, I'm puzzled... I don't know under what circumstances you listened to the GL, but your experience isn't at all typical... the new GL, plus upgraded PS gives an open, spacious, and every bit as capable sound as the SR-71, IMO; they are just different sound signatures, with the SR-71 sounding, at least to me, a bit 'warmer' and fluid, but without ANY loss of detail or extension at any point in the entire spectrum...

 

[TrevorNetwork]

Quote:

Gilmore Lite, quite easily. The reason Ray can compete with higher end amps is because he did extensive work making sure the tonal balance on the SR-71 was impeccable. This is why people say it's "transparent". The Lite sounds compressed, with harsh upper mids and weak bass. Go for the SR-71 and never look back.

The Gilmore Lite certainly does not sound compressed. I have yet to hear any Gilmore amp that has a hint of compression. Kevin's designs are very true to source -by my ears-. That is not to say that the SR-71 is a bad amplifier, it is not.

 

[xtreme4099]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumley xtreme4099 " notice i said with discrete buffer ... not the old buf634 buffered one" Ramrod152001 "I compared the Pocket Reference (discrete buffers) with the XP-7 w/797 op amps. Let me just say I sold the XP-7 the next day, lol I hear it sounds similar to the SR-71" I prefer the SR-71's sound to the XP-7, and the much closer sonic match, IMO, is the SR-71 with the RS HR-2; my sources range, with the SR-71, from a 4G iPod's Line out to a Meridian G08... I did compare the LPR, w/ discrete buffer, to the SR-71 and the new GL w/ PS upgrade, using several of my favorite 'phones and an identical range of sources. The new GL+PS and the SR-71 won handily.

Well then what we have here is a difference in tastes, but then again we dont know what opamp the sr71 has because ray paints over them, so comparing a PR with 8610s to an unknown opamp, well there you have it, the same could be said of comparing the 8610'd PR with the xp7 with 797s, people arent doing fair comparisons here, those opamps have vastly different sound signatures.

 

[Sean H]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrevorNetwork The Gilmore Lite certainly does not sound compressed. I have yet to hear any Gilmore amp that has a hint of compression. Kevin's designs are very true to source -by my ears-. That is not to say that the SR-71 is a bad amplifier, it is not.

I agree with you and what sacd lover have said in that the Gilmore Lite does not sound compressed in any way. Nor lacks bass for that matter. My point of view is that the Gilmore designs are indeed very transparent and true to the source where as the Ray Samuels amplifiers I have heard have a bit of a flavor to them. You often hear "warmer" when people describe Ray's amps while sometimes you hear "brighter" when people describe Gilmore designs. Not always, but quite often. It's my view that Gilmore designs don't mask sources that have a brighter character (a lot of digital gear does - even spendy stuff - digital in general for that matter) and for that people tend to blame the brightness on the amp when really it's just exposing the source. I am not in any way saying that Ray's amps are grossly colored and not transparent, I just find that in my experience Gilmore's seem more transparent. And to make sure my butt is covered, I love every Ray Samuels amp I have heard and bet the SR-71 is terrific in every way and hope I can hear it one day. That's just an observation, I love the signature of both designs.

 

[vienna]

yeah a used SR-71 with a eye candy cable and plainview batteries in the classifieds !!

 

[MoodyDragon]

Perreaux still available for 199 from HiFi Farm. It is pretty good with my Sony XA777es SACD player and Sennheiser HD650

 

[goto2003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus Anything better than SR-71 for under $400? The short answer is no. The long answer is that I have not tried everything else out there for less than $400, but when considering its sound quality and ultra portability, the SR-71 is in a league of its own. I've listened to a Gilmore Lite and I liked it, but prefer the SR-71. The SR-71 is more resolving and effortless.

The Xin SuperMacro may be another one that sounds super under $400, but not sure if it sounds better than SR-71. Given the improvement Xin's made over the beta version, it may be interesting to see the comparision of the two.

 

[Romanee]

I won't know until this Saturday (11/13) how well it compares to the SR-71, but I've been listening since Saturday to a tiny portable amp that costs $185 + about $35 for an ELPAC 24V PS that sounds great -- but so far I've only heard it in my modest system of Titanium Powerbook G4 1.25GHz > .5m Belkin Pro USB cable > Lan-mod Sonica USB > Zu Pivot or Silver Dragon .5m mini-to-mini cable > The Portaphile (maxed out) > AKG K501.

Briefly, at the NYC Qualia meets, besides a variety of high-end amps, we heard the AKG K501 (and other phones including Qualia R010) through my modest system with the SR-71 which was, surprisingly, not up to the task. We found out later that this SR-71 was a low-gain unit, and since the Sonica USB has very low level output, it presented a serious bottleneck that the SR-71 couldn't overcome. It sounded detailed, but thin, dry and lacking depth and body.

At the Nov. 13 NYC meet we'll have a hi-gain SR-71 -- plus the Xin Supermacro, and a slew of other pieces, so it will be a well-rounded head-to-head comparison. If it turns out that this newbie amp falls short in a direct A/B, I'll announce it as so. I expect to compare all the portable competitors as equally and objectively as I can manage.

The little amp I'm recommending for consideration is The Portaphile (maxed out). I have it inline now and it really sounds marvelous, at half the price of the SR-71. Obviously I have to wait for Saturday for an A/B comparison, but I wanted to introduce this surprising, tiny contender into the mix.

If you're even mildly curious, please look into the (poorly titled) post I placed in this forum last night. At this moment (8:38pm 11/11/04) it has moved to the bottom of the page, and will rollover to page 2 soon. My Portaphile post is long, but pretty well detailed for a "mini review". Here's the link, to make life easier:

GREAT sounding portable - The Portaphile "mini review"

It's seems to be a newcomer (that I stumbled upon by accident) and I haven't yet seen any mention of it at headfi. I don't know if anyone at headfi has heard one yet, so I felt it neeed more explanation than just a brief mention. I'd be very interested to know how it stands up in other systems.

The SR-71 is certainly a solid unit from a fine craftsman (and a thoughtful human being) -- and I've heard it sound very robust through my 501s in other circumstances (yes, my 501s can sound deep, rich and robust). If there's anything worth telling after Saturday's meet, I'll certainly post it. I don't believe in assuming anything without direct experience, so it will be interesting to see how The Portaphile will be perceived.

Let me know what you think of my other post.

 

[AuroraProject]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover No way did the lite sound anything like that in my setup. The lite was not the least bit compressed or harsh and the bass was phenomenal for an amp that inexpensive. I do wish I could get a hold of an emmeline sr-71 or hr-2 amp to hear them for comparison though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrevorNetwork The Gilmore Lite certainly does not sound compressed. I have yet to hear any Gilmore amp that has a hint of compression. Kevin's designs are very true to source -by my ears-. That is not to say that the SR-71 is a bad amplifier, it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean H I agree with you and what sacd lover have said in that the Gilmore Lite does not sound compressed in any way. Nor lacks bass for that matter. My point of view is that the Gilmore designs are indeed very transparent and true to the source where as the Ray Samuels amplifiers I have heard have a bit of a flavor to them. You often hear "warmer" when people describe Ray's amps while sometimes you hear "brighter" when people describe Gilmore designs. Not always, but quite often. It's my view that Gilmore designs don't mask sources that have a brighter character (a lot of digital gear does - even spendy stuff - digital in general for that matter) and for that people tend to blame the brightness on the amp when really it's just exposing the source. I am not in any way saying that Ray's amps are grossly colored and not transparent, I just find that in my experience Gilmore's seem more transparent. And to make sure my butt is covered, I love every Ray Samuels amp I have heard and bet the SR-71 is terrific in every way and hope I can hear it one day. That's just an observation, I love the signature of both designs.

I have to agree with all of the above, the Lite has powerful bass and doesn't sound compressed at all, very open and airy.

 

[chumley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtreme4099 Well then what we have here is a difference in tastes, but then again we dont know what opamp the sr71 has because ray paints over them, so comparing a PR with 8610s to an unknown opamp, well there you have it, the same could be said of comparing the 8610'd PR with the xp7 with 797s, people arent doing fair comparisons here, those opamps have vastly different sound signatures.

Jeez, the 'painted over opamps' again? IMO, a 'fair comparison' is relative to budget and sound for that budget- who cares what opamps the SR-71 has? I've got better things to do than 'roll' an amp that I just want to ENJOY, NOT futz with- if I wanted to do THAT, I'd DIY one...

As for 'different tastes', sure- THAT'S fair... the XP-7 is a lot more $$, last time I checked, than any 8610 equipped amp, anyway. And for 4 bones, the SR-71 produces what most believe to be one of the best portable headphone amp sonic signatures around, arguably the best construction of ANY portable headphone amp, and RS interior build quality... whatever resides on that 'lil board inside, it delivers.

Comparing a Pimeta, a ('Deluxe') SuperMacro, a DB'd PR (which RR says prevailed over the opamp 797'd XP-7, in his opinion), an SR-71 and a GL w/, or w/o the PS upgrade is, IMO, a 'fair' comparison... 797s, and, for that matter, OPA827s and 837s ALL have 'vastly different sound signatures' than the 8610s, etc., IMO, all other things being 'equal'...

One thing's for certain, xtreme- the 'paint' (or whatever) doesn't make the opamps in the SR-71 sound any better- the unique way RS designed and built the entire amp does!...