[Jema]

Hello!
 
I'm about ready to purchase my first amp, to be used mainly at home. I want something that will give me a good bang for the buck and work decently with a variety of phones - the idéa of having several amps to fit different headphones sounds far to combersome and expensive. Maybe that's something I would do later on for more synergy, or gather over the years anyway after some gold deals, but for now I would be happy with a good all-rounder that can drive some of the hungrier cans (and it's of course a bonus if it can improve more easily driven phones too).
 
My budget goes up to maybe 300 dollars. Cheaper would be better, and I'm up for DIY though I've never done anything like it before - I've heard a lot of good things about the mini^3 and M^3 (though this touches the debate wether DIY is worth it economically or not). If someone would argue though that a more expensive amp would be better in the long run or more fitting my needs, then I would by all means consider it.
 
As of now I would use it mainly for my HD580, but I'm thinking about getting an MS1 and later maybe an AKG - k240 sextett, k340 or perhaps k70x. The source is high bit rate mp3 and FLAC through my PC (it's cheap and old, so probably not a very good sound card) or MP3-player (you guessed it - also cheap), but I will most likely upgrade this later on. I listen mainly to progressive and symphonic rock and some metal, but to a lesser extent also pop and indie. I wouldn't describe myself as a bass head, and I'm a bit sensitive to shrill highs.
 
There are very few places to audition here, and amps go for far more than in the US. To ship would probably add at least 50 dollars to the buy, maybe more. Recently though, I saw someone selling his Harmony Design EAR 90, balanced, for about 460 dollars, and I'm thinking of grabbing it quick. Assuming it's a few years old (I don't know if all the new EAR 90's are black as in Harmony Designs website, but this is white/silver) and therefore without some of the upgrades they recently put into the balanced model, then it probably did cost something like 600-700 new - I just sent the owner a message asking about these details. The few things written about it here seems favourable, and It's quite a good price. I'd love it if someone who owns it could comment on if it's worth the step up from my budget, or compare it to some of the other popular choices.
 
Any opinions are most welcome!

 

[Jema]

Just heard back from the owner, and he believed it to be made 2003-07. This means it was one of the early versions to hit the market, with the only upgrade being at the input stage. I don't know how much of a difference there is from the ones they sell today, but one of the members here on Head-Fi that tested a pre-production sample was not very impressed, although he suspected it might have been defective or that the problems were later fixed.
 
Here's a link to that thread.
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/33995/harmony-design
 
The seller I've contacted said he had compared his to later high end-models from other brands, and in regards to the upgrades made to the product he believed that "the possible improvements are good for peace of mind more than any audible change". He might very well have a point. For comparison though the price new for this back then was about 630 dollars, now with the upgrades it's just below 1000. Quite a difference.
 
Just to clarify; I'm not thinking of ordering a new one - I would just like to know if some of you here thinks this would be a good buy and suiting my needs. I've read a review in a swedish magazine late 2008 comparing it to both the X-can v8 and Naim Headline, and according to that it holds up very well (I'm very sceptic of reviews such as these though).
 
So, anyone that can say anything about the EAR 90 - either an older or newer version - fire away. And like I said before, I'd also like some suggestions on other amps for up to 300-ish.

 

[Jema]

Anyone? I'd like to get some opinions so I can get back to the seller soon.
 
And, once again, any other amp suggestions are welcome.

 

[fhuang]

have you use search? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i'm just bugging you here.  i guess i'm probably the only current user here at head-fi that has this amp.  nobody really like or try it.  i bought one last year(xlr version) and i really like it.  it sound great with my akgs except k340.  k340 really need some juice.  not saying it doesn't have enough juice but i think k340 sound better with tubes.  anyway, i really enjoy this amp with k400 and grado gs1000i.  the bass hit quick and hard, might lack some detail but it has enough.  the mids is, at the right place, not too forward or laid back.  treble can be harsh to some but not me.  soundstage is decent.  it's slightly bright. 

 

[Jema]

Thank you so much for your reply!
 
I did search quite a bit actually

 I've more or less come to the conclusion that you brought up - not many people at this forum has one (few distributors outside Europe maybe?) . I was just hoping someone had tried it or heard something about it. It's sound signature from what I've read is quite neutral, controlled bass, and decent detail, and doesn't seem far away from how you describe it.
 
Could you comment on how it performs next to some of your own and other amps you've heard in that pricerange? I also see you have a HD600 - how does it do with the EAR 90?
 
As you might have noticed, I'm a bit undecisive, but as mentioned in the title, this buy would be my first amp - I've never even heard a system with a headphone amp before. I'm simply going on the good will that it would improve my listening experience, but diminishing returns makes me sceptic to buy an amp that expensive (for me anyway). To make things worse, I'm currently living away from home for a while, so even if I found someplace to try some amps (maybe even the EAR 90 - after all, it's produced here), it would probably be on a system far off from my own equipment. Then again, that is true for asking anyone here for advice too

 

[fhuang]

i still have hd600 but hd600 is probably my least favorite headphone AND it hasn't been on my head for quite some time.  anyway, i remember plugging hd600 or hd650 with it and i much prefer tube amps. 
 
for about the same price, i much prefer this because i have a tube amp so i wasn't looking for a smooth one(symphony or a rudistor).  didn't like ha160 or lehmann audio black cube(don't want much(bad) because those are two very popular amp here).  i like spl auditor but i slightly perfer this.  i like how ear90's presentation.  i guess ps audio gcha and headamp gs-1 is in the same league. 

 

[Jema]

Sorry to hear you don't like your 600's - the reason I asked of course is that it's the closest thing to my HD580.
 
I don't really want tube amps - I think I would prefer a more transparent/neutral presentation that leaves it to the headphones to do the work.
 
From seeing your suggestions of other amps, it seems like the EAR 90 plays in leage with some very expensive gear. I'm going to try to get to listen to some amps in the weekend, and see if I think the upgrade would be worth it. I'll post my thoughts here later.
 
If anyone has anything else to bring to the conversation, please do.

 

[Jema]

Things just got slightly more complicated - a second (!) used EAR 90 just showed up, this time the unbalanced one and probably a newer version, for about 310 dollars (not counting shipping). For comparison, it costs 600 new. This more or less meets my original demand, but now I got curious if the extra cash for the balanced one might actually be worth it...
 
I'm awaiting a reply from the seller about what year model it is, the condition etc.

 

[fhuang]

actually the rca version is the older version.  if you don't have a true balanced source.  go for the rca version.  and 300 dollars is a robbery!!!

 

[Jema]

Well, according to their website they always made both the balanced and unbalanced from the start, and have made improvements on both (but the balanced a bit more so). Heres a translation from the versions history:
 
2010-05: The balanced version gets a better amplifying stage.
2010-02: New and improved transformer.
2008-10: Better power cable and filter.
2007-01: Better output stage..
2006-05: Ear 90 is made with soldering free from lead.
2003-05: The balanced version gets a better input stage..
2002: Production starts.
 
Seller nr2 said his was made 2005, so it's also an early one. I've read a bit about balanced vs unbalanced, and the balanced could still be used without a balanced source if you use a phase splitter (and a balanced construction seems to have a few advantages). Maybe I won't have to choose though, since the first seller had another buyer (the price of being undecisive), but would contact me if it did not go through. I'm thinking of waiting untill then, especially since I now know of some stores where I can try out amps on monday, but I'm afraid someone will beat me to the rca-one.
 
Also, an X-can v3 just popped up for 250, which is cheap enough for me to consider a tube amp (this is amazing - I've been looking for a used amp for weeks, and now it's raining). I'm leaning towards the EAR 90 though.
 
Sorry if I'm a nuisance - just be patient a little while longer.

 

[fhuang]

i thought the rca version came out first. 
 
there's a place here in Hong Kong where you can try both the rca and xlr version.  i played with it and there's a difference between the two versions.  and it's true you can use unbalanced source for the xlr version but you are not fully taking the advantage of it. 

 

[Jema]

Maybe it did come out first, but in that case the balanced one seems to have come out not far behind it.
 
I heard you could use an unbalanced signal with the balanced amp, and that it would then function like the unbalanced one, but I thought the point of using a phase splitter was to convert the unbalanced signal into a (for the amp at least) balanced one? Shure, you won't have the advantages of an actual balanced source, but shouldn't the amp itself then function as it should and give the improved slew rate etc?
 
Nice to hear you've compared the different versions. Do you remember what kind of differences you percieved, and how big they were? I found out about a store that sells EAR 90 nearby, so I'm gonna try to go there later today. Hopefully they have both versions so I can compare them myself.

 

[Jema]

So, I tried the rca model yesterday - unfortunately they didn't have the balanced model out for testing. I tried it with the HD600, and used both a 10 000 dollar source and my MP3-player. I switched between using the headphone output on the source, and the amp.
 
The results were a bit unsatisfying I'm afraid. It wasn't bad, it just didn't scale up the sound as much as I thought - I actually found it barely audible. It was a little better at dealing with transients at the low end, possibly a minimal improvement in soundstage, and maybe a little extended lows and highs (though the last might as well have been my imagination). At a quick listen I don't really know if I could have told it apart from simply using my MP3. I didn't expect any real changes in FR, but I did expect the HD600 to scale up more. Maybe it simply doesn't, or the EAR 90 is to weak. I also did a very quick listen of a Burson HA-160, but heard very little difference with that too.
 
So, is the HD600 not a good choice for this? I'm thinking of going back there today to try it with other headphones. I'm still considering buying it just to give it a more detailed listen over a longer time, since I think I could sell it off with little loss if I'm ultimately dissatisfied.

 

[fhuang]

maybe it's very picky with the source?  i prefer my cheaper cd player, shanling cd300 to my opera cd2.2. as for headphone, like i said, and i think a lot of people too think hd600(even 650 and 800) sound much better with tubes. and i only use my ear90 with akgs, mostly k400 and grado gs1000i.  
 

 

[Jema]

[size=15pt]I don't think source is the villain - as I said, I also tried it on a high-quality CD-player, and with SACD - didn't make a difference (could be that the CD-players output has a good amplifier though that diminishes the differences).[/size]
 
[size=15pt][/size]
[size=15pt]Anyway, I went back to the store yesterday and made a quick try-out of the EAR 90 with different headphones - HD650, 595, 598, AKG k701, and for fun Porta Pro. I only had about an hours time, so I switched between amped and unamped about 5-10 times per can, listening to the same passage of a few songs several times for about 10s each. This time there was in general a much more noticable difference, especially with the bassier, muddier HD650 and porta pro. It took back a lot of low end and made it tighter, bringing out mids and highs, and on some cans improved soundstage a little bit. I agree that it is a little bright - on the brighter 595 it almost made them thin. Don't know about detail.[/size]
 
[size=15pt]The k701 did not improve much - only a small step more than HD600. I guess this shows that those cans simply need even more juice. In a few weeks I might go back to try them with some stronger amps (I have to go back there sometime anyway - they had a realizer A8 and I simply must experience this gizmo!).[/size]
 
[size=15pt]So, in the end I was quite pleased with it, and even though It probably isn't good for my HD580, I think I'm going for it since I do have other cans (and so the forum has at least two owners...). If I stumble onto something better I could probably sell it without to much loss.[/size]
 
[size=15pt]Thanks for all your feedback, it's been a great help. After I'm more familiar with it I might get back to give a more detailed review of how it does with my cans.[/size]