[AudioPowerHead]

the Aeolus, is one of the best headphones I've ever heard--and sounds terrific on every amp I've tried it on.

+1. I know this is Eikon/Atttus thread but couldn't agree more with the statement.

 

[Mhog55]

How difficult is the Atticus to drive relative to the Quad Era-1? Will a full watt push it close to full potential?

 

[Wes S]

How difficult is the Atticus to drive relative to the Quad Era-1? Will a full watt push it close to full potential?

For sure! 1 watt into a 300 ohm load will make them sing.

 

[Mhog55]

For sure! 1 watt into a 300 ohm load will make them sing.

Thanks

 

[phthora]

How difficult is the Atticus to drive relative to the Quad Era-1? Will a full watt push it close to full potential?

Both headphones are easy enough to drive with one watt. I've used both with my DAP and they've sounded surprisingly good. Although, the Quads are closer to sounding as they do on my desktop rig. The Atticus can sound bloated and muddy on some amps that over-saturate or over-smooth sound or on amps that don't do well outputting higher voltage. In that sense, the Atticus is harder to pair well, but it's not really a matter of how much power is delivered. To my ears, the Atticus sounds best with a clean, fast sounding amp that can keep that fat bass well controlled or with a tube amp capable of providing that big voltage well. The Quads, on the other hand, tend to sound thinner and spatially flatter when the amp's not driving them well, but I've only been able to get that under-driven sound with my backup DAP that puts out 150mW at most.

 

[Mhog55]

Both headphones are easy enough to drive with one watt. I've used both with my DAP and they've sounded surprisingly good. Although, the Quads are closer to sounding as they do on my desktop rig. The Atticus can sound bloated and muddy on some amps that over-saturate or over-smooth sound or on amps that don't do well outputting higher voltage. In that sense, the Atticus is harder to pair well, but it's not really a matter of how much power is delivered. To my ears, the Atticus sounds best with a clean, fast sounding amp that can keep that fat bass well controlled or with a tube amp capable of providing that big voltage well. The Quads, on the other hand, tend to sound thinner and spatially flatter when the amp's not driving them well, but I've only been able to get that under-driven sound with my backup DAP that puts out 150mW at most.

Would you be willing to provide a brief comparison of the Quads and the Atticus? The other closed back option I'm looking at is the Focal Radiance. I just want to find the right closed back that does rock and metal justice, similar to how I feel about the Quads, but I'd like a little more sub/mid bass. I had the Magni, and it was the closest I found, but it got a little too hot and bright in the upper mids for my liking. This is when people started to recommend the Atticus.

 

[Poganin]

I'm having some issues pairing my Atticus with Feliks Audio Echo. It's displays the same problem that my LCD-3 did, namely - unless I turn up the volume pot to 12 o'clock there is channel imbalance (out of a solid state amp the LCD-3 played evenly even at low volume pot settings). This issue does not occur with the Auteur. It's not such a big deal, but it is a minor annoyance. I guess there's something about the Atticus's transducer that doesn't like this particular amp.

 

[Magol79]

I'm having some issues pairing my Atticus with Feliks Audio Echo. It's displays the same problem that my LCD-3 did, namely - unless I turn up the volume pot to 12 o'clock there is channel imbalance (out of a solid state amp the LCD-3 played evenly even at low volume pot settings). This issue does not occur with the Auteur. It's not such a big deal, but it is a minor annoyance. I guess there's something about the Atticus's transducer that doesn't like this particular amp.

Cable issue?

 

[Poganin]

Cable issue?

No, I don't think so. Using the same cable with the Auteur doesn't result in the same imbalance at volumes below 12 o'clock.

 

[phthora]

Would you be willing to provide a brief comparison of the Quads and the Atticus? The other closed back option I'm looking at is the Focal Radiance. I just want to find the right closed back that does rock and metal justice, similar to how I feel about the Quads, but I'd like a little more sub/mid bass. I had the Magni, and it was the closest I found, but it got a little too hot and bright in the upper mids for my liking. This is when people started to recommend the Atticus.

Sure thing. Although, looking back, I failed to make this brief. I know you already have the Quads, but I described their sound too for those unfortunate souls who haven't heard the ERA-1. Hope this helps!

The biggest difference is in the bass. The Quads have that typical planar bass extension with just a touch of mid-bass hump. Unlike typical planars then, it's not quite ruler flat and has exceptionally good impact. In the mix, the bass is just a few decibels north of neutral. The overall effect is one that preserves the great qualities of planar bass, like control, speed, detail, and extension, while also providing a little more body and naturalness to the sound. The upper bass blends nicely into the mids, giving male vocals especially some body, but without making them sound bloated or boomy. On the Atticus, you get quite a lot of mid-bass and it is definitely rounder and slower than the planar Quads. Even compared to other dynamic drivers like Focal or Fostex, the Atticus has longer decay and a blunter attack with less texture. Individual notes can smear together as well. The sub-bass rolls off well short of linear, but because of overall bass lift, it is still pretty present when needed. The sub-bass lacks the precision and power of a good planar, but it's still felt as a loose rumbling. Mid-bass kicks pretty well without venturing into basshead territory. That might sound like more negative than I intended, but the Atticus bass is very natural sounding. What I mean by that is: it sounds like live music. The bass lingers and in addition to (most of) the bass notes, you also hear a general increase in the warmth of the music. You don't get hammered by bass impact and you don't hear an overwhelming rumble, so the bass never really becomes fatiguing or out of place. On EDM or hip hop, the Atticus is going to sound odd, but with rock, especially live recordings, it's an excellent fit. The Quads by comparison can sound a bit too precise in the bass, maybe even slightly too lean.

In the mids, the Quads excels with clean and crisp mids. Instrument separation is above average, but the soundstage is not very wide. Instead, you get more of an intense presentation to the sound, where things come at you fast and with great impact. What mars the mids is that the Quads have a dip around 2.5khz which muffles the vocals a bit. To my ears, this dip makes the vocals sound a bit recessed, but also sort of flat and dulled. I tend to EQ in a boost there, but that alleviates the issue entirely. It also helps to give guitars a little more bite in the attack. Other than that, the Quads mids are well balanced and detailed. They don't have Audeze dip at 4khz to contend with either. With the Atticus, you get a great deal more body to the mids, as everything sounds fuller, richer, and bigger. Again, this comes at the cost of overall less resolution and a less clean sound. Vocals are forward compared to the Quads, especially given their dip, and more lifelike. The only issue is that the bass bleeds into the mids, making some vocals sound a bit odd. Occasionally the bassy undertones to a singer's voice will stand out way too much, giving them a cavey or boomy resonance. It's not unpleasant per se, but you lose some tonal accuracy. By comparison, the Quads can sound lean and lacking in depth. In the upper mids, both headphones fall a little shy of neutral, but the Quads do a better job of getting those upper mids to carry through the rest of the music. With the Atticus, the slightly dark tuning there is compounded by the big mid-bass, the slower driver speed, and tizzy treble peak around 6khz that prevents you (or me at least) from wanting to crank the volume too much. In music terms, what this means is that with the Atticus, you'll hear the bass most prominently, followed by male vocals, while instruments like guitars will sound somewhat muted and recessed, a little drowned out by the rest.

For treble, it's a bit of a mixed bag. The Quads have surprisingly good treble detail and extension, but this is not the focus or greatest strength of the headphones. No harsh sizzle, no sibilance, but they also don't sound clunky or dulled. Coming from something like an Audeze LCD-2C, they are a breath of fresh air and provide an excellent counterweight to the deep-reaching bass. They don't have the detail of an Arya or the realism of an HD800, but it's also clear that the treble has not been been ceremoniously sacrificed on the altar of bass. Instead, they have a somewhat ethereal or soft treble with good detail, extension, and presence. With the Atticus, treble is less balanced and more muted overall. Instead you get what sounds like a fairly wide peak around 6khz that causes some issues. Most notably, cymbals can sound a little tizzy and lose that initial strike. Instead of a crash, you tend to hear sh. This doesn't really make S's sibilant so much as fuzzy, if that makes any sense, so sibilance is not aggravated by that peak. Horns and strings sound a little dull, but no worse than on the Quads. To me, the Atticus has a more aggressive sound in the treble (because of that peak), but the Quads have a more inoffensive one since the driver speed helps make the treble sound less intense. It's hard to say which one I'd pick.

TLDR; The Quads are very balanced with only small dip in the vocals marring their detailed, slightly warm sound. The Atticus add a lot of warmth and body to music and excel at vocals, but are held back a bit by the peak in the treble. The Quads excel in detail and balance, where the Atticus excels in naturalness and vocals.

 

[Mhog55]

Sure thing. Although, looking back, I failed to make this brief. I know you already have the Quads, but I described their sound too for those unfortunate souls who haven't heard the ERA-1. Hope this helps!

The biggest difference is in the bass. The Quads have that typical planar bass extension with just a touch of mid-bass hump. Unlike typical planars then, it's not quite ruler flat and has exceptionally good impact. In the mix, the bass is just a few decibels north of neutral. The overall effect is one that preserves the great qualities of planar bass, like control, speed, detail, and extension, while also providing a little more body and naturalness to the sound. The upper bass blends nicely into the mids, giving male vocals especially some body, but without making them sound bloated or boomy. On the Atticus, you get quite a lot of mid-bass and it is definitely rounder and slower than the planar Quads. Even compared to other dynamic drivers like Focal or Fostex, the Atticus has longer decay and a blunter attack with less texture. Individual notes can smear together as well. The sub-bass rolls off well short of linear, but because of overall bass lift, it is still pretty present when needed. The sub-bass lacks the precision and power of a good planar, but it's still felt as a loose rumbling. Mid-bass kicks pretty well without venturing into basshead territory. That might sound like more negative than I intended, but the Atticus bass is very natural sounding. What I mean by that is: it sounds like live music. The bass lingers and in addition to (most of) the bass notes, you also hear a general increase in the warmth of the music. You don't get hammered by bass impact and you don't hear an overwhelming rumble, so the bass never really becomes fatiguing or out of place. On EDM or hip hop, the Atticus is going to sound odd, but with rock, especially live recordings, it's an excellent fit. The Quads by comparison can sound a bit too precise in the bass, maybe even slightly too lean.

In the mids, the Quads excels with clean and crisp mids. Instrument separation is above average, but the soundstage is not very wide. Instead, you get more of an intense presentation to the sound, where things come at you fast and with great impact. What mars the mids is that the Quads have a dip around 2.5khz which muffles the vocals a bit. To my ears, this dip makes the vocals sound a bit recessed, but also sort of flat and dulled. I tend to EQ in a boost there, but that alleviates the issue entirely. It also helps to give guitars a little more bite in the attack. Other than that, the Quads mids are well balanced and detailed. They don't have Audeze dip at 4khz to contend with either. With the Atticus, you get a great deal more body to the mids, as everything sounds fuller, richer, and bigger. Again, this comes at the cost of overall less resolution and a less clean sound. Vocals are forward compared to the Quads, especially given their dip, and more lifelike. The only issue is that the bass bleeds into the mids, making some vocals sound a bit odd. Occasionally the bassy undertones to a singer's voice will stand out way too much, giving them a cavey or boomy resonance. It's not unpleasant per se, but you lose some tonal accuracy. By comparison, the Quads can sound lean and lacking in depth. In the upper mids, both headphones fall a little shy of neutral, but the Quads do a better job of getting those upper mids to carry through the rest of the music. With the Atticus, the slightly dark tuning there is compounded by the big mid-bass, the slower driver speed, and tizzy treble peak around 6khz that prevents you (or me at least) from wanting to crank the volume too much. In music terms, what this means is that with the Atticus, you'll hear the bass most prominently, followed by male vocals, while instruments like guitars will sound somewhat muted and recessed, a little drowned out by the rest.

For treble, it's a bit of a mixed bag. The Quads have surprisingly good treble detail and extension, but this is not the focus or greatest strength of the headphones. No harsh sizzle, no sibilance, but they also don't sound clunky or dulled. Coming from something like an Audeze LCD-2C, they are a breath of fresh air and provide an excellent counterweight to the deep-reaching bass. They don't have the detail of an Arya or the realism of an HD800, but it's also clear that the treble has not been been ceremoniously sacrificed on the altar of bass. Instead, they have a somewhat ethereal or soft treble with good detail, extension, and presence. With the Atticus, treble is less balanced and more muted overall. Instead you get what sounds like a fairly wide peak around 6khz that causes some issues. Most notably, cymbals can sound a little tizzy and lose that initial strike. Instead of a crash, you tend to hear sh. This doesn't really make S's sibilant so much as fuzzy, if that makes any sense, so sibilance is not aggravated by that peak. Horns and strings sound a little dull, but no worse than on the Quads. To me, the Atticus has a more aggressive sound in the treble (because of that peak), but the Quads have a more inoffensive one since the driver speed helps make the treble sound less intense. It's hard to say which one I'd pick.

TLDR; The Quads are very balanced with only small dip in the vocals marring their detailed, slightly warm sound. The Atticus add a lot of warmth and body to music and excel at vocals, but are held back a bit by the peak in the treble. The Quads excel in detail and balance, where the Atticus excels in naturalness and vocals.

Outstanding! I'm not sure if the Atticus quite what I'm looking for, especially given the price. My biggest concerns would be the resolution and the 6khz peak. That's smack dab in the presence region - also the same issue I had with the Magni. A little surprising considering most people stated that this wasn't an issue with the Atticus. Though with the Magni it did create sibilance.
The mids sound like what I'm after. Full, rich, and ever so slightly forward. I'd be very happy with a Meze 99 Classics on steroids. I do like speed, but it's not completely necessary. A little darkness is fine as well, as long as we're not talking NightOwl dark.
More decay down low would be a nice contrast with the Quads. I don't want super boomy or wooly though. Bass actually sounds similar to the Magni, but perhaps a little less attack. I've owned the 7200 and the Teaks, but I didn't find the bass satisfying much at all. The Magni killed them both.
In terms of warmth (what I'm after), have you heard the 99 Classics? I would hope that the Atticus is more resolving, especially considering its more than 3 times the cost.
I'll need to do some more research before deciding between the Radiance and the Atticus. I'm just happy I could keep my open backs expense below 600 bucks, and feel totally satisfied (Quads and Ibasso SR2). Thank you for the details, I really appreciate it.

 

[Mhog55]

Oh, one last thing. I couldn't EQ that peak to reasonable levels with the Magni. How does the Atticus respond to EQ? Can the upper mids peak be mitigated with EQ?

 

[Pharmaboy]

If you get a chance listen to Solitaire P, I am really curious about your thoughts.

I'd love to hear them, though it's kind of an exercise in futility (price is too rich for my blood).

If the pandemic allows, I'll be in CanJam/NYC this coming February--that's my chance to hear these.

 

[phthora]

Outstanding! I'm not sure if the Atticus quite what I'm looking for, especially given the price. My biggest concerns would be the resolution and the 6khz peak. That's smack dab in the presence region - also the same issue I had with the Magni. A little surprising considering most people stated that this wasn't an issue with the Atticus. Though with the Magni it did create sibilance.
The mids sound like what I'm after. Full, rich, and ever so slightly forward. I'd be very happy with a Meze 99 Classics on steroids. I do like speed, but it's not completely necessary. A little darkness is fine as well, as long as we're not talking NightOwl dark.
More decay down low would be a nice contrast with the Quads. I don't want super boomy or wooly though. Bass actually sounds similar to the Magni, but perhaps a little less attack. I've owned the 7200 and the Teaks, but I didn't find the bass satisfying much at all. The Magni killed them both.
In terms of warmth (what I'm after), have you heard the 99 Classics? I would hope that the Atticus is more resolving, especially considering its more than 3 times the cost.
I'll need to do some more research before deciding between the Radiance and the Atticus. I'm just happy I could keep my open backs expense below 600 bucks, and feel totally satisfied (Quads and Ibasso SR2). Thank you for the details, I really appreciate it.

Oh, one last thing. I couldn't EQ that peak to reasonable levels with the Magni. How does the Atticus respond to EQ? Can the upper mids peak be mitigated with EQ?

You're welcome! The Atticus wasn't what I was looking for either. Until I heard it. On paper, whether measured or described, it shouldn't really be something I'm into at all. I've described my sound preferences fairly precisely in my profile and it's easy to see that the Atticus checks very few of those boxes. Yet, somehow I still love it. It's got that magic to it, that je ne sais quoi, that makes it just an amazing headphone to listen to. Intellectually, I can list out all of its shortcomings, but emotionally, I just don't care about them. As a gestalt, the Atticus's sound is just so pleasing and engaging. Of course, all that is wildly subjective, so I would never recommend buying the Atticus based upon some sappy description like that, but I would absolutely recommend doing anything else you can to get your ears on them. If they click for you, like they did for me, then you'll be happy you did.

In the meantime... I haven't heard the 99 Classics, but I own the NightOwls. The Atticus is definitely more detailed across the spectrum and doesn't sound nearly as... unique as the NightOwls. It's quite a bit more balanced and less dark than the Owls or the LCD-2C. I've written a comparison of the Atticus and the E-MU Teaks too, if you're interested in how those two stack up.

You could EQ the peak down easily enough. It sounds fairly wide and the Atticus will certainly tolerate a cut like that without ill effect. However, to my ears it seems like the Atticus's treble would sound better if you filled in the FR around that peak. The Atticus can be a bit dark on the top end, with just that 6khz centered peak reaching up to neutral. Maybe that's why others haven't found it to be an issue. But, take that peak away and then you would have a headphone darker than the Owls or the 2C. Of course, that kind of EQ'ing to fill in narrow dips is trickier and may introduce some distortion or resonance to the Atticus.

 

[Mhog55]

Your comparison of the Teaks in the treble region now has me a little concerned about the treble with the Atticus Lol. I thought that the treble was the best part about the Teaks - Smooth. Overall, I didn't find the Teaks dynamic enough, and the bass came across a bit soft. The mids weren't really recessed, but they weren't forward either. All together, the Atticus is starting to sound like it very well could be the one. I'm happy to hear that it has better resolution than the NightOwl and isn't as dark. You nailed it when you referred to the Atticus as pleasing and engaging - that's a top priority.