Heed Canamp review: can someone decipher this?
Dec 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 11

pp312

Hoping to be taken seriously for once in his life
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Posts
4,095
Likes
243
Just reading a review here:

Heed Audio CanAmp :: AboutHIFI

Came to the eagerly awaited conclusion only to find this gobbledygook:

"My motto (one of them actually) is that a lie is the truth’s human interface. The reason? A convincing lie has to be >90% percent truth, but the truth must solely consist of 100% true elements. Therefore, a good lie is so deceivingly close to the truth whilst so much more appealing, it works fine for most if not all – let alone it is the only way that can lead you there eventually, if you wish so. Well, this is where the Canamp’s mature sonic ID is lying about.

Avoiding to easily resort in a light, detail-bespeckled phantasmagoria, in order to weave a permeable, see-through, harmonic fabric, the Canamp had rather follow a more tangible, more earthly musical scope, where it will even show some teeth, if cornered.

Religiously preserving each instrument’s body as an essential structural fund of large, dense musical ensembles, it transmutes level fluctuation into rhythm and air into pause and breath, filling the gaps of an otherwise flimsy harmonic web with real timbre and resonance, as light would fill a kaleidoscope. Therefore, the Canamp does not so much invest in recasting delicate melodic outlines as it excels in reading between them."

I've read it several times and still can't make any sense of it. Am I dumb, or are audio reviews getting more and more arty these days?
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 12:50 PM Post #3 of 11

SemiAudiophile

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Posts
1,953
Likes
471
Sounds like the author is trying to say the CanAmp is more musical vs. analytical sounding, but trying too hard and using way too many words. That's what I decipher from that passage.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM Post #4 of 11

lecky

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
425
Likes
35
The Canamp's OK, but this 'review'... miserable. To call it arty does art a disservice: it's pretentious, not arty. He doesn't seem to even say what equipment he's using with the amp. It says almost nothing, and does so in a way that is all but indecipherable. It's almost as if it's a badly executed pastiche, but I'm guessing it isn't.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM Post #5 of 11

oqvist

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Posts
8,064
Likes
261
It´s bad because it only make some sense if you have already heard or own the Canamp I suppose. And then you can´t be sure exactly what he means.

The way I see it is that is not neutral it´s instead as mentioned giving more weight to the sound more like you are used to with speakers. All without shrinking the soundstage quite the opposite which is a total contradiction
smily_headphones1.gif
That is the most impressive feature of it.

I wouldn´t mate it with bass heavy headphones to much of the good. Main reason I went away from it. There is a reason why it´s much more popular with the K701 then the HD 650 for example.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM Post #6 of 11

gbacic

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Posts
717
Likes
11
I second that.
It sounded gross with my HD650 when I was auditioning it.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 7:01 PM Post #8 of 11

estreeter

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Posts
8,336
Likes
477
I think was the reviewer was trying to say was I am a pretentious audiophool with a thesaurus, bad breath and a wardrobe consisting entirely of black clothing.

fwiw, I am with gbacic, but perhaps we need to hear a run-in Canamp with the K701.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 10:04 PM Post #10 of 11

tintin47

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Posts
2,007
Likes
13
Writing and writers like that make me wish that I could take away the hit that the website got as a result of my visit.
 
Dec 13, 2009 at 12:11 AM Post #11 of 11

MomijiTMO

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Posts
3,659
Likes
30
Location
Brisbane, Austalia
What I don't get is the HD650 and Canamp mismatch that Head Fi spurts out every single time. Go back to 2006 and it was recommended by several long standing members.

I gave it a whirl and it sounds alright. It makes it have even more low end than it kind of needs. I wouldn't say it's sloppy either. Maybe it's because I have the new version which supposedly isn't the same bass monster. Still, can't really confirm that either because for all I know it's just another Head Fi tall tale.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top