[EVOLVIST]

Haha, you are ridiculous!!

I guess that the Icon Audio amp didn't sound toooo bad though? Maybe you should see if you have a hear to an 845 tube amp but I suspect your heart isn't in it?

What's so ridiculous?

The Icon amp sounded very shouty with the Omega speakers, but pretty damn good with the Andra IIs, only there wasn't enough power with this model Icon to drive them with authority.

I would be gear to try the mono blocks, only there's nobody in the States that have them in stock for an audition, or I would have tried those, first (even though they would have been overkill for the Omega speakers).

Though, if you're going to come off pretentious, don't bother, as most of us should know, and I've never argued, that synergy and subjectivity drives a lot of our listening preferences.

 

[Weatherlight]

The only question mark is what amp I end up using.

How about Chord's TOTL integrated, CPM 3350? And pair it with Magnepan 20.7. I think that's well within your budget since you're considering the Andra II. The Maggies doesn't require much room treatment, also.

 

[EVOLVIST]

How about Chord's TOTL integrated, CPM 3350? And pair it with Magnepan 20.7. I think that's well within your budget since you're considering the Andra II. The Maggies doesn't require much room treatment, also.

That's a good suggestion, and something I'm considering, but I don't want to flip-flop on speakers anymore. Ha! But yeah, I'm looking into various Chord amps, only not integrated...and not closing my mind to tube/valve gear, either.

After all, I have to do something to occupy my hobby while awaiting the Blu2.

 

[ray-dude]

For those using the Dave in a home theatre setup, what have you settled on to mix dedicated 2 channel audio through the Dave + 2 channel amp, with a multi-channel setup through an AV receiver?  (Dave does not seem to have a home theatre bypass mode)
 
My Dave should be arriving soon for my 2 channel set up, and at the same time I'm researching components for a multi-channel set up

 

[Triode User]

What's so ridiculous?

The Icon amp sounded very shouty with the Omega speakers, but pretty damn good with the Andra IIs, only there wasn't enough power with this model Icon to drive them with authority.

I would be gear to try the mono blocks, only there's nobody in the States that have them in stock for an audition, or I would have tried those, first (even though they would have been overkill for the Omega speakers).

Though, if you're going to come off pretentious, don't bother, as most of us should know, and I've never argued, that synergy and subjectivity drives a lot of our listening preferences.

The ridiculous comment was only an attempt at humour having one minute said you were going after some 99dB speakers and the next you have bought the Andra IIs!
 
I am not surprised that the valve amp didn't suit the Omega speakers. I suspect it was emphasising their shortcomings.
 
The Andra II speakers look totally awesome! I am glad your domestics are sorted out so you can give some Andra IIs a home!

 

[rgs9200m]

The Andras were designed by Albert Von Schweikert, a legendary speaker designer.

 

[EVOLVIST]

The ridiculous comment was only an attempt at humour having one minute said you were going after some 99dB speakers and the next you have bought the Andra IIs!

I am not surprised that the valve amp didn't suit the Omega speakers. I suspect it was emphasising their shortcomings.

The Andra II speakers look totally awesome! I am glad your domestics are sorted out so you can give some Andra IIs a home!

Thank you!

Even though my heels are a bit cooled because of the delay in the Blu2, I got word today that I have that TToby coming in for review. It will be great to plug it into DAVE and feed those speakers. It hasn't gotten a lot of press, but this amp is John Franks putting quite a bit of power into a wee box.

In other new, DAVE is still the best DAC on the planet. I like that.

 

[EVOLVIST]

The Andras were designed by Albert Von Schweikert, a legendary speaker designer.

'Tis true. I've never heard a better set of speakers, and I've tried for years to find some that fit my taste enough to abandon headphones.

I'm not saying they are the best in the world. I'm only saying they are the best that I've personally heard, out of maybe at least 50 rigs. Some of those rigs being worth as much as a few small countries.

 

[Crgreen]

That's a good suggestion, and something I'm considering, but I don't want to flip-flop on speakers anymore. Ha! But yeah, I'm looking into various Chord amps, only not integrated...and not closing my mind to tube/valve gear, either.

After all, I have to do something to occupy my hobby while awaiting the Blu2.

There's always the option of last resort - listening to some music, for pleasure

 

[TheAttorney]

Since getting my HEK V2s a few months ago, I've very much warmed to Dave's cross-feed feature.
Amongst other things, it reduces the perceived soundstage's width and slightly increases depth, resulting in more solid holographic images.
I imagine other headphones with large (and particularly wide) sound stages would also benefit considerably.
I could do with even more depth, but hey, one step at a time.
 
But there's a downside in that the sound gets smoother/duller, with an apparent loss of air, sparkle and fine detail.
The greater the cross-feed the greater this smoothing effect.
 
Option 1 has the lowest cross-feed and the least loss of air/sparkle/detail. I like this best for some tracks. .
Option 2 has more cross-feed and more air/sparkle/detail loss, but I use it most because it gives the most holographic result.
Option 3 I can't work this one out. It doesn't seem to follow the same change progression as the first two, and is just too smooth for me. It's got something going for it, but I can't put my finger on what that is. 
 
When I tried Roon's new cross-feed function. this is fully configurable, but the provided defaults gave an even greater smoothing/dulling effect, so I prefer Dave's versions as a start point..
 
I can think of at least 3 possible explanations about the loss of air/sparkle/detail:
 
1. There is no loss in detail, it's just our brains not used to the sound entering our ears in a more natural way - so it's a reduction of a certain kind of distortion that previously gave the false illusion of detail.
 
2. The cross-feed algorithm directly reduces Higher Frequency content as part of its design, so I'm hearing a direct drop in HF content..
 
3. It's a form of DSP, and all DSP will lose transparency to some extent.
 
Or could be any combination of all three.
 
Maybe Rob or someone could shed some light on this? 
 
Overall, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages - to the point I can barely listen to my HEK's on Option 0 anymore on some tracks     

 

[Rob Watts]

The cross-feed function includes EQ to compensate for the head shadowing effect; this means that LF's are boosted by 1.5dB and this would account for the warmer balance.
 
Since I have been using Hugo 2 a lot on my travels, I find the cross-feed is absolutely essential to get good depth. I was listening music that had some bells, and it spookily sounded like the bells were in the aircraft; I was so stunned by it I took the headphones off, and realized it was on the recording! But with cross-feed off that "out of your head" illusion completely collapsed.
 
Rob

 

[JaZZ]

  Since getting my HEK V2s a few months ago, I've very much warmed to Dave's cross-feed feature.
Amongst other things, it reduces the perceived soundstage's width and slightly increases depth, resulting in more solid holographic images.
I imagine other headphones with large (and particularly wide) sound stages would also benefit considerably.
I could do with even more depth, but hey, one step at a time.
 
But there's a downside in that the sound gets smoother/duller, with an apparent loss of air, sparkle and fine detail.
The greater the cross-feed the greater this smoothing effect.
 
Option 1 has the lowest cross-feed and the least loss of air/sparkle/detail. I like this best for some tracks. .
Option 2 has more cross-feed and more air/sparkle/detail loss, but I use it most because it gives the most holographic result.
Option 3 I can't work this one out. It doesn't seem to follow the same change progression as the first two, and is just too smooth for me. It's got something going for it, but I can't put my finger on what that is. 
 
When I tried Roon's new cross-feed function. this is fully configurable, but the provided defaults gave an even greater smoothing/dulling effect, so I prefer Dave's versions as a start point..
 
I can think of at least 3 possible explanations about the loss of air/sparkle/detail:
 
1. There is no loss in detail, it's just our brains not used to the sound entering our ears in a more natural way - so it's a reduction of a certain kind of distortion that previously gave the false illusion of detail.
 
2. The cross-feed algorithm directly reduces Higher Frequency content as part of its design, so I'm hearing a direct drop in HF content..
 
3. It's a form of DSP, and all DSP will lose transparency to some extent.
 
Or could be any combination of all three.
 
Maybe Rob or someone could shed some light on this? 
 
Overall, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages - to the point I can barely listen to my HEK's on Option 0 anymore on some tracks     

 

  The cross-feed function includes EQ to compensate for the head shadowing effect; this means that LF's are boosted by 1.5dB and this would account for the warmer balance.
 
Since I have been using Hugo 2 a lot on my travels, I find the cross-feed is absolutely essential to get good depth. I was listening music that had some bells, and it spookily sounded like the bells were in the aircraft; I was so stunned by it I took the headphones off, and realized it was on the recording! But with cross-feed off that "out of your head" illusion completely collapsed.

 
Yes, indeed the Hugo's and the DAVE's crossfeed add a slight bit too much bass for my liking, although I would still have it activated (I equalize anyway) if I weren't using my own crossfeed, comprising five intensities. It doesn't – perceivedly – add any bass at all. I need crossfeed with my DAPs, too, which I often use on their own, e.g. for jogging, therefore I have to crossfeed my music collection manually.
 
@TheAttorney: A solution for you may be attenuating the 60 Hz band by ~1 dB with a Q of 1 (or lower).

 

[TheAttorney]

Hmm, I'm a bit skeptical that a slight bass boost would fully explain the effects I'm hearing.  It seems to me to be more of a transparency thing.
Still, I never dismiss ideas until I try them, so I'll see if an EQ change to the bass counters the effect I'm noticing.
 
I may have missed something here, but if the bass boost is put into cross-feed in order to counter a tonal anomaly fundamentally caused by headphone listening, then I wonder why headphone designers don't incorporate that into their own designs at the start?

 

[JaZZ]

  Hmm, I'm a bit skeptical that a slight bass boost would fully explain the effects I'm hearing.  It seems to me to be more of a transparency thing.
Still, I never dismiss ideas until I try them, so I'll see if an EQ change to the bass counters the effect I'm noticing.
 
I may have missed something here, but if the bass boost is put into cross-feed in order to counter a tonal anomaly fundamentally caused by headphone listening, then I wonder why headphone designers don't incorporate that into their own designs at the start?

 
To my ears the amount of bass with the HE1000 has an enormous effect on the perception of transparency – the frequency response generally. That's why I swear by equalizing.

 

[TheAttorney]

To my ears the amount of bass with the HE1000 has an enormous effect on the perception of transparency – the frequency response generally. That's why I swear by equalizing.

 
I'll give it a try when I get back home at the weekend.
 
@Rob, is the amount of bass boost the same for all three cross-feed options?