[normie610]

And blasphemous is a gross overexaggeration, clearly.

True. I was just surprised that such a strong statement came from someone who works for the company. Audeze has never been shy to offer sound improvements to their customers through EQ or DSP (in whatever form). LCDi4 is an example of a product that benefits greatly from EQ (FYI the cipher cable wasn’t bundled with i4 at the time of launch).

 

[Aurosonic]

Just shows the individuality and subjectivity in this hobby. For me, the right DSP made my system sound significantly more enjoyable and full of life.

 

[Ciggavelli]

That LTA Z10e CRBN combo is a good deal. If I was to buy the CRBN, this would probably be the route I’d take

Though, I’ve made a decision to not go down the electrostatic route until I’ve maxed out my “traditional” headphone setup, and I’m able to buy a Woo Audio 3ES Elite and the Hifiman Shangri-la Sr. So, far off from now…

 

[walakalulu]

Personally, if you need to eq your headphones they’re the wrong cans for you in the first place. I could be wrong….

 

[Chefguru]

buy a Woo Audio 3ES Elite and the Hifiman Shangri-la Sr. So, far off from now…

yuck

 

[mammal]

Personally, if you need to eq your headphones they’re the wrong cans for you in the first place. I could be wrong….

I have no philosophical issues with EQing, but practical ones. I am yet to see a software that changes headphone frequency response without losing resolution. Maybe an analoge device would work?

 

[carboncopy]

I have no philosophical issues with EQing, but practical ones. I am yet to see a software that changes headphone frequency response without losing replution. Maybe an analoge device would work?

Cosumer equipments? Not likely. They mess-up the phase, introduce a lot of op-amp’s in the signal way, etc…

 

[118900]

Amps I have owned: Malvalve, Moon 430, Bakoon HPA21, Bryston BHA1, Fosgate Signature, Audio GD, ifi ICan etc. and a lot of Stax, HighAmp and KGSShv Amps
Amps I could compare directly with the Paltauf:
- Riviera: stage is huge, everything is blown up, if you like that, you will love it. But is it realistic? High quality build. Price is 3 times of Paltauf and no electrostats. Out of my budget.
- Audiovalve : No chance, too lush, horrible design.
- Chord Hugo 2: Ok, but no emotion.

Amps I have listend to:
VIVA, what a beauty with the 1266. Ferrari-Sound.But too hot to touch. It`s ok for cold winternights.
Bartok: Didn`t touch my soul with the 1266. I expected much more. Maybe not in the right mood?
Chord DAVE: same as Bartok
Cayin HA 300: little bit like Riviera and VIVA : h

I had the Chord Hugo 2 and although I was very impressed by its resolution I wasn’t enamoured with its lack of musicality. When I upgraded to the HTT2 I was really really impressed by the emotion I discovered in the music and frankly consider it my end game.

I have no idea why Chord have decided to “tune” their DACs in that particular way but it would appear that the mojo and HTT2 both have a very slight warmth to them that is lacking in the Hugo2 and apparently also the Dave and is one of the reasons why me (and several others) feel the upgrade from the mojo to the hugo2 isn’t worth it.

Personally I am in audio heaven with my reference set up of the 007 mk2s via a Mjolnir Audio modified Srm-717 fed from the HTT2, but having owned the lcd-4z I would be genuinely curious to see what Audeze are capable of in electrostatics, especially powered by a really good amp.

We're all very different. I personally think using EQ is blasphemous (I'm overexaggerating guys). I feel dirty altering the sound so...blatantly. I mean, I WISH I didn't feel this way. Tailoring the sound to your liking sounds like such an easy way to live life. Yet, I can't. I'll take a headphone's inherent sound, warts and all. If not, I use another headphone.

I know I'm not the only one that thinks this way. Not saying my way is right. Just saying it's just how I personally feel.

To clarify: Cipher and Reveal are official and intentional, and fall under a grey area that I'm personally fine with.

I agree overall with your philosophy on EQing. I have no problem in tuning a sound with hardware to what sounds “right” to me, especially as you are “forced” to use amplifiers anyway, but it just feels wrong to me ti use an EQ to change the sound.

Possibly this is a throwback to my origins in hifi that I cannot shake off when EQing had a really nasty reputation amongst audiophiles for several reasons, however from several comments made by people whose technical opinion I respect, it would appear that it does alter the data in the digital domain to the extent that the extra money spent on equipment designed to extract the very most from a file without altering it in any way is lost.

Whether this is all true or not I have no idea but I for one prefer to have zero EQing to my music, although I fully agree it has its advantages for home theatre where I am not looking for musical fidelity per se.

Concerts are considered to be the reference. And even there it’s EQd.

Yes and no

live concerts with acoustic instruments are considered the reference and they definitely aren’t EQed.

Any powered instruments are obviously amplified so distortion (in the technical sense, not as a pejorative) is always introduced anyway and EQing is specifically required to counteract the limitations of venues that were never designed and built for music (such as stadiums and arenas, but not only).

I don’t think there is a reference to personal preference.

 

[Currawong]

Catching up with the thread, so a bit of a quote explosion...

Sometimes, if you read here in Headfi about amps for electrostatic hp, you get the impression that there is only Mjönir and BHSE.
I `ve had 2 KGSSHV and listend to the BHSE, but PALTAUF toppt them both with body and naturalness. And I can listen to all other headphones on the same level for the same price as a carbon. https://paltauf.com/index.php/kopfhoererverstaerker/khv-esd

Much of this can be traced to a single person who likes to listen LOUD. As the the requirements on equipment performance increase exponentially as you turn up the volume, combine that with requirement of a few hundred volts (compared to <20 for headphone amps) and you have a major issue if you like to headbang with 'stats. Then, with the move towards lower power electronics, high voltage components (which were often used in old, CRT TVs and other defunct devices) stopped being made. That makes it hard to source sufficient components to make a serious 'stat amp. Then you have the issue of selling a very high-voltage amp to consumers, whom, at least a handful will open it up and potentially kill themselves messing with it. Lastly, when you do sell an amp, you get the truly mafia-like attitude of a handful of 'stat elitists who will trash anything they haven't personally approved of. Easiest not to bother, so we're left with a handful of mostly obscure companies building small quantities.

Like I said, I never said my taste were right. It's just how I feel about headphones. And even then I'm fallible. I use virtual surround programs when I game with headphones. Clearly not 'intended' from factory. I wish I didn't feel this way. Audiophilia would be much more easy.

I use the Modius for Youtube, and often video editing. The 3D mode is surprisingly effective and great for bringing through the atmosphere, even if the headphones themselves are nothing special with it off (at least to me, with the gear I use to listen).

I had the Chord Hugo 2 and although I was very impressed by its resolution I wasn’t enamoured with its lack of musicality. When I upgraded to the HTT2 I was really really impressed by the emotion I discovered in the music and frankly consider it my end game.

I have no idea why Chord have decided to “tune” their DACs in that particular way but it would appear that the mojo and HTT2 both have a very slight warmth to them that is lacking in the Hugo2 and apparently also the Dave and is one of the reasons why me (and several others) feel the upgrade from the mojo to the hugo2 isn’t worth it.

Personally I am in audio heaven with my reference set up of the 007 mk2s via a Mjolnir Audio modified Srm-717 fed from the HTT2, but having owned the lcd-4z I would be genuinely curious to see what Audeze are capable of in electrostatics, especially powered by a really good amp.

I've had the MScaler with the TT2 here a while now and now I can't live without it. But specifically with each DAC, the output stages are different as far as I know. I used the Hugo 2 quite a bit to a tube amp, even if there was a bit of a loss of detail, just for a bit more of a "euphonic" sound sometimes.

 

[118900]

I've had the MScaler with the TT2 here a while now and now I can't live without it. But specifically with each DAC, the output stages are different as far as I know. I used the Hugo 2 quite a bit to a tube amp, even if there was a bit of a loss of detail, just for a bit more of a "euphonic" sound sometimes.

I saw that you had finally seen the light and had become a chord convert recently with your comments in the relative threads . I am waiting to have a loan of the Mscaler to hear it partnered with my own HTT2 before making a decision as some say it’s totally worth it and some say it’s very subtle, I want to hear it and be sure before I make the decision to spend that kind of money.

I feel that the difference between the H2 and HTT2 was blatant not just for the detailing and immersive 3D placement (live recordings) but also the tonality. The HTT2 was slightly warmer, NOT syrupy thick but just that smidgen needed to turn “sound” into “music”. Don’t get me wrong, i think the H2 is an exceptional product for what it is and my thoughts on the tonality are obviously my personal taste, but I definitely feel there is an abyss between it and the HTT2 and this isn’t just down to its resolution but also to the sound signature, to the point that if I was asked to exchange my mojo (which has a similar SS to the HTT2) for an H2 I wouldn’t do so.

anyway getting back to Audeze I really enjoyed the lcd-4z but I always felt that there was a certain something missing from recordings that I knew quite well and in the end it came down to the fact that they were just a tiny bit too dark for my personal tastes (hence my first question on the thread about the CRBN).

 

[KMann]

I agree overall with your philosophy on EQing. I have no problem in tuning a sound with hardware to what sounds “right” to me, especially as you are “forced” to use amplifiers anyway, but it just feels wrong to me ti use an EQ to change the sound.

Possibly this is a throwback to my origins in hifi that I cannot shake off when EQing had a really nasty reputation amongst audiophiles for several reasons, however from several comments made by people whose technical opinion I respect, it would appear that it does alter the data in the digital domain to the extent that the extra money spent on equipment designed to extract the very most from a file without altering it in any way is lost.

Whether this is all true or not I have no idea but I for one prefer to have zero EQing to my music, although I fully agree it has its advantages for home theatre where I am not looking for musical fidelity per se.

Till some of you get to hear CRBN and we start seeing real reviews, this thread is likely to meander aimlessly, so I may as well add my opinion on EQ

When it comes to EQ there are likely three categories of people:

1. Purists who do not like the idea of modifying the intended sound signature in any way and have a philosophical issue with applying EQ. They would rather change headphones or perhaps modify the chain a bit to suit tastes, nothing wrong with this and I respect that.
2. Those who do not mind EQ but have had consistently bad experience with EQ and have given up trying (may be willing to try if a better implementation is/becomes available)
3. Those who like EQ and/or do not mind using EQ.

EQ when used indiscriminately can result in bad experience and there are several factors that affect the outcome.

1. Quality and type of EQ filters: FIR vs IIR implementations, within FIR, linear phase vs Minimum phase vs Mixed phase implementations. The quality and type of filters affects imaging, transparency and clarity. I prefer long, FIR linear phase implementations.
2. Head room: Whether one boosts or cuts, EQ results in reduced headroom. The rest of the chain can sometimes be constrained by the reduced headroom and result in reduced dynamic range.
3. Sample rate conversions and re-quantization: This is the harder issue to solve, especially with discerning listeners and resolving chains. To apply EQ at lower rates or bit depths (44.1k/16bits for example), the signal is converted from 44.1k/16bits to 44.1k/64bit then EQ is applied and the result is converted back to 44.1k/(16/24/32 bits), this can be a lossy process depending on the quality of the final step that re-quantizes from 64bit processed signals back to lower bit depths. Similar argument can be made for different sample rates too. Sometimes the EQ filter may not match the input sample rate of the the track. In these cases either the sample rate of the EQ filter or the track is changed to match. This resampling process can also impact the results negatively.

If careful attention is paid to all aspects of EQing, results can be good but it is not something I would take for granted.

 

[118900]

Till some of you get to hear CRBN and we start seeing real reviews, this thread is likely to meander aimlessly

Talking of which, any ideas when the first reviews are coming out?

 

[amsync]

I know e.g. Stax doesn't do this, but I suggested to Audeze they should think about adding 2 or 3 length options for the attached cable. I don't think extension cords work well. I have had those with Stax and always have some issues with them. Since these are all "made to order" I don't see why they can't give us options for slightly longer or shorter cables without impacting their production process. It's not like Audeze has a thin product catalog...

 

[VandyMan]

Till some of you get to hear CRBN and we start seeing real reviews, this thread is likely to meander aimlessly, so I may as well add my opinion on EQ

I really love the builtin Audeze EQ in Roon. It would be cool if Audeze could take this to the next level and provide a custom convolution filter file with each headphone; especially the more expensive models. I think you already measure each headphone at the factor for QC, so it seems like it would be possible.

 

[tutetibiimperes]

Does anyone make an electrostatic amp/energizer using something like the THX feed-forward error correction found in a lot of amps these days?

I’ve seen mention of the Stax amp designs being old, a lot of energizers are tube based, and the Mjolnir KGSSV Carbon even mentions in the item description that it uses output devices designed to work like tubes.

Who’s making something that’s just a dead-neutral, brutally honest, straight-wire-with-gain type of thing in the electrostatic amp world? Something like the electrostat equivalent of the THX AAA 789 or Benchmark HPA4?