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.