[ardilla]

I see. Though - still, on a budget, there will always be tempting stuff.. But yes, the Taurus is IMO not at all a bad amp to get stuck with =)

 

[phaeton70]

  Anyone with Vega and Taurus MK2 combo needs to turn the volume control very low at normal listening level?  That's the case if I leave Vega vol at 100.  With my LCD-X and Fostex TH600, I can't turn knob pass 9 o'clock.

 
Taurus is a quite high powered amplifier. I'm using  a Vega+Taurus combo with my HE500, all balanced connections, and I never go higher than 11 o'clock in balanced mode, normal usage is between 9 and 10.
 
if you are using the balanced connection, have you considered setting the ampli in unbal mode? The volume should be 6db down.

 

[fishyee]

I browsed the thread and didn't see a post on the Taurus Pre with the LCD-2s (v1).  The Pre would serve me better since I need the preamp functions and wouldn't mind a little sparkle for the LCD-2s.
 
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I'm looking to put together a combo of Vega - Taurus Pre - Decware - LCD-2 - Amphion Argon 3L.

 

[project86]

  I browsed the thread and didn't see a post on the Taurus Pre with the LCD-2s (v1).  The Pre would serve me better since I need the preamp functions and wouldn't mind a little sparkle for the LCD-2s.
 
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I'm looking to put together a combo of Vega - Taurus Pre - Decware - LCD-2 - Amphion Argon 3L.

 
To be honest, I don't think there's been any exposure to the Taurus Pre. Certainly not here - which makes sense because HeadFiers would go for the headphone amp first and the preamp second. 

 

[fishyee]

Thanks project86.  That has been my problem ...  there is very little about the Pre and even less about the Pre with headphones.

 

[ardilla]

I browsed the thread and didn't see a post on the Taurus Pre with the LCD-2s (v1).  The Pre would serve me better since I need the preamp functions and wouldn't mind a little sparkle for the LCD-2s.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  I'm looking to put together a combo of Vega - Taurus Pre - Decware - LCD-2 - Amphion Argon 3L.

The pre is said to be a bit brighter. And since the Taurus isn't especially bright, and the lcd2 isn't very bright indeed, that might not be a bad thing. Haven't heard the pre, though.

 

[fishyee]

Thanks ardilla.  That was my thinking ...  system matching is key to good sound.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

But Taurus HP does have pre amp too, plus balanced HP out. From this perspective, correct me if I am wrong, HP looks like a superset of Pre, but again as John mentioned Pre could have slightly different tuning more suitable for speakers. And of course Pre has a bunch more inputs.

 

[fishyee]

Andrew, I agree with you.  If I had any other headphones, I would go with the HP.  The Pre is more neutral, has more sparkle on top, which is preferable for speaker use.  For that reason, I want it for the LCD-2 v1 since they would benefit from that additional sparkle.

 

[project86]

  Andrew, I agree with you.  If I had any other headphones, I would go with the HP.  The Pre is more neutral, has more sparkle on top, which is preferable for speaker use.  For that reason, I want it for the LCD-2 v1 since they would benefit from that additional sparkle.

 
Makes sense to me. AURALiC seems to make good gear based on the Taurus mkII and the Vega, so it's a safe bet the Taurus Pre is good as well. 

 

[MIBViking]

Anyone with Vega and Taurus MK2 combo needs to turn the volume control very low at normal listening level?  That's the case if I leave Vega vol at 100.  With my LCD-X and Fostex TH600, I can't turn knob pass 9 o'clock.

What output works best from the Taurus to the LCD-X? 1/4" has more power than balanced, but power isn't always everything

 

[nine93]

I like the balanced output, it seems to be more spacious.  But in my case, I have balanced connection from the DAC all the way to the headphone.

 

[MIBViking]

  I like the balanced output, it seems to be more spacious.  But in my case, I have balanced connection from the DAC all the way to the headphone.

I`m waiting for my LCD-Xs and contemplating a cable upgrade quickly (artemis cable Bow (UP-OCC 24 awg silver, medusa version (12 strings) I also run the Taurus mk1 balanced from DAC, and to the HD800s now, but I saw the power graph of the Taurus and it has about a 4 Ohm output on the XLRs and under 1 Ohm on the 1/4" jack so I wondered, any other differences than the spaciousness? Bass?

 

[MIBViking]

And why the decrease in weight from mk1 (12pounds) to mk2 (8pounds)??

 

[LukeSena]

Dear fellow Head-Fi'ers,
 
As this is my first post, please forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong thread...
 
I've been following Head-Fi for about one and a half years and today I decided to finally jump in.
 
So, after reading some of the posts here and in "auriculares.org" (the Spanish headphone forum), I took the plunge and ordered the Taurus mk2 for my wished "desert island"-setup... Yeah, I know, a perfect setup does not exist, but at least I thought I might give it a try anyway...
 
So, since it's here, why not share some very early impressions... Of course, early impressions mean a big grain of salt - it is not fair to compare a reasonably burnt-in Lyr to a brand new Taurus.
 
Right before the arrival of the Taurus, my setup consisted of:
 
- Source: NAD M51 DAC, fed by iPad 3 (Retina) using the USB CCK (Camera Connection Kit) and the music app + Onkyo HF Player OR alternatively iPad -> Apple TV (AirPlay).
- Amp: Schiit Lyr with stock NOS GE 6ZB7 tubes, connected to the M51 with a Chord Company Cobra vee2 RCA interconnects
- Headphones: Hifiman HE 500 with stock silver cable (SE)
 
- New: Auralic Taurus MKII, now with about 30 hours burn-in, Std mode (single-ended), RCA inputs (same Chord Cobra interconnects)
 
Unfortunately, since I'm new to the forum, can't post pics yet (need to post 5 messages I think), but I will once I pass the mark
 
These are some of my first observations with the Taurus and some comparisons to the Lyr:
 
First some straight "objective" differences between both:
 
- Lyr has very slight hum and background hiss with volume at 12 (reasonably loud for most material on the HE 500), Taurus has complete black background
 
- Lyr is considerably louder at 12 and overall winner in terms of raw output power (no surprise here) - I set Taurus anywhere between 12 and 14 for acceptably loud sound pressure levels, with the NAD at 0 dB
 
- Taurus does not completely mute when volume set at minimum (i.e. max attenuation), Lyr does mute
 
Tone / "musicality":
 
- Bass: good out-of-the-box on the Taurus, however, Lyr has the advantage (noticeably more authority down lower octaves, slightly tighter). I expect/hope Taurus will develop
 
- Midbass/low midrange: Lyr has more warmth (colored); Taurus more neutral (it helps tame some of the colorations I found in my copy of the HE 500s)
 
- Midrange and vocals: good on both; however, I find the midrange on the Taurus slightly unnatural - perhaps I'm too used to the Lyr?
 
- High midrange/lower treble: Lyr a bit more subdued, Taurus flatter, bringing more information forward from the background
 
- Treble: Taurus seems more extended in the upper harmonics, but lacks some of the sparkle, speed and attack at the middle treble. "Feeling" is Taurus has slighlt flatter but "hotter" treble. For the moment, I prefer treble on the Lyr
 
Dynamics:
 
- Unfortunately, at this stage in its burn-in process I find the Taurus a little on the slow / "polite" side. PRaT is somewhat missing. Treble needs more speed and attack. Again, I hope this will get better in time.
 
Resolution / detail retrieval:
 
- This is where I thought the Taurus shined. First song I played on the Taurus was "Dreams" from Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" and my first reaction was wow! The difference in extracting background information when you move from the Lyr to the Taurus is not subtle. It's very obvious. Synths and pads buried into the background are now easily tracked. Noises such as sustain pedals on a piano, metronomes and clicks from instruments were easily missed on the Lyr. However, after further listening, I notice some kind of "compression"-effect on the Taurus, perhaps only psychological. Lead instruments and vocals now somewhat mesh within the structure of the song and loose some focus, making the song sound more "complex" and slightly congested.
 
Transparency:
 
- I find the Taurus (again, at this early stage) to be middle of the way in terms of transparency. It does get out of the way sometimes and with certain songs, while with others it does not and I can hear its signature, even after long-enough listening sessions.
 
"Visual" experience (soundstage and imaging)
 
- I have read a couple of times before that he ability of the Taurus to recreate a multidimensional hearing experience is not one of its strongest points. Well, I don't know how to say this but, IMHO, I would go as far as to say that, at least through its SE output, the Taurus fails to present any kind of believable 3 dimensional stage. All the glorious detail is drawn and painted on a seemingly flat 2D canvas. The Lyr on the other hand seems to extract phase information and track phase changes from the signals mixed on the song's master with great ease, creating a very rich end enjoyable visual experience. On the Taurus, the only aspect of the sound that can be used to help give an impression of a soundstage are reverbs and echoes, but these are no replacement for a good "real" soundstage. In this sense, the problem would not seem to me related to a lack of "air" around instruments and voices. An interesting test I've made is that EQ'ing helps the Lyr a lot in terms of opening the soundstage, while, on the Taurus, it doesn't seem to make any contribution at all. In summary: soundstage lacking in height but mostly depth; imaging OK as far as left to right goes.
 
As with music genres, I wouldn't say the Taurus favors any style in particular but, I have found the best results with 70s and dark sounding albums, like Grover Washington Jr's "Winelight", which do not contain much of, what I'd call "3D material", and show a much richer and detailed recording than other amps. Classical seems to suffer with the lack of soundstage and slower pace; with trumpets and other brass sections lacking attack and realism; on the other hand strings generally sound pleasing. Timpani’s would benefit from a little more speed, while bass drums slightly trail the transient response and depth from the Lyr. The lack of soundstage and speed affects mainly modern recordings and all genres, not only classical.
 
The Lyr, despite some of its defects and shortcomings, has been quite an enjoyable and involving experience.
 
I must say with some sadness, I don't find too many reasons to be overly enthusiastic about my purchase. I thought, especially at this price level and also because of the positive (albeit very limited in number) reviews so far, this would be a quantifiable improvement on the modest 450 euro Lyr and a good foundation for my headphone system.
 
I guess I must be patient, give it some time and, in the meantime, purchase some XLR cables and see how that goes.
 
@ Ardilla: out of curiosity, how do you connect your HE 500s to the Taurus?
 
Thanks a lot for reading and please forgive me for the very lengthy post!
 
Luke
 
P.S.: I'll post any developments in the burn-in process as soon as I hear them