[lsantista]

What is the star-8 cable? Not so simple to find it using simple google search, I remember also
Looking for a star-87 cable once with no luck

 

[Homrsimson]

about right with the ca-1a but not the sr1a which requires far more gain

Thanks all for the helpful insights. My biggest reservation is the gain issue, since I have the sr1a and don’t like the idea of having to drive my CFA so hard. Also the Ti-1b box is quite a expensive right now.

 

[normie610]

What is the star-8 cable? Not so simple to find it using simple google search, I remember also
Looking for a star-87 cable once with no luck

Raal's new upgrade silver headphone cable for both CA1a and SR1a to be used in conjunction with TI-1b or Raal's direct drive amps.

 

[Hiker816]

Thanks all for the helpful insights. My biggest reservation is the gain issue, since I have the sr1a and don’t like the idea of having to drive my CFA so hard. Also the Ti-1b box is quite a expensive right now.

I think it depends on your CFA3. I can drive my SR1a with the CFA3 via the Ti-1a box with about 10 times more headroom than I would ever need. (Listening to it right now, at 8 o'clock).

 

[Homrsimson]

I think it depends on your CFA3. I can drive my SR1a with the CFA3 via the Ti-1a box with about 10 times more headroom than I would ever need. (Listening to it right now, at 8 o'clock).

I have a solid CFA unit but no speaker taps, purely an xlr based amp. So I believe I would need the ti-1b. Running the abyss TC on my unit I tend to run at 10 or 11

 

[Hiker816]

I have a solid CFA unit but no speaker taps, purely an xlr based amp. So I believe I would need the ti-1b. Running the abyss TC on my unit I tend to run at 10 or 11

By TI-1a I meant the first version of the TI-1b box, but in the metal enclosure instead of the new polycarbonate enclosure used with the TI-1b. My TI-1a connects to the XLR out, not speaker taps like the resistor box. As far as I know, the TI-1a and TI-1b are identical internally--the only difference is the enclosure. (In fact, if you look at RAAL-requisite's website listing for the TI-1b, it refers to the TI-1a throughout, presumably because they just haven't updated it yet: https://raalrequisite.com/product/ti-1b/).

 

[Homrsimson]

By TI-1a I meant the first version of the TI-1b box, but in the metal enclosure instead of the new polycarbonate enclosure used with the TI-1b. My TI-1a connects to the XLR out, not speaker taps like the resistor box. As far as I know, the TI-1a and TI-1b are identical internally--the only difference is the enclosure. (In fact, if you look at RAAL-requisite's website listing for the TI-1b, it refers to the TI-1a throughout, presumably because they just haven't updated it yet: https://raalrequisite.com/product/ti-1b/).

thanks for the info, that’s really helpful. Also nice to know I can hunt for the 1a as well

 

[jlbrach]

I think it depends on your CFA3. I can drive my SR1a with the CFA3 via the Ti-1a box with about 10 times more headroom than I would ever need. (Listening to it right now, at 8 o'clock).

has to be an attenuation issue because with mine out of my chord dave and sr1a I am around 3 o clock

 

[paradoxper]

I had the CA-1A with the TI-1a interface that I used with my CFA3. If memory serves, the CA-1A needed approximately the same amount of gain (within 1db or so) as the Susvara for the same db. Plenty of headroom in my use case and didn't leave me wondering if I was getting the best out of the CA-1A. Ultimately they went to the market, as I wasn't reaching for them very often and hoarding headphones isn't my end game.

I missed that you parted with. Honeymoon couldn't last. It's why I didn't bother. Well, in part, mostly because I'm too happy with things as they are.

 

[genefruit]

I missed that you parted with. Honeymoon couldn't last. It's why I didn't bother. Well, in part, mostly because I'm too happy with things as they are.

I never dabbled with the SR1a so I figured this was a way to kill my curiosity for the essence of it and the CA1a in one take.

 

[paradoxper]

I never dabbled with the SR1a so I figured this was a way to kill my curiosity for the essence of it and the CA1a in one take.

I believe you got the gist as they both follow the same traits and are specialty presentations. I hardly ever listen to the SR1a for enjoyment.

 

[rsbrsvp]

The CFA-3 NEEDS "saturation" for full and proper enjoyment as others have said.... I have not heard much tube equipment- but my Hibiki SDS dac saturates the sound with ultra thick sonic density which I have never heard from any solid state dac or amplifier in my life and is a superb match for the CFA-3 in this regard. The thing I cant get over is that with this level of stunning saturation and smoothness, I would have thought detail and speed would be lost, but the detail is also the best I have ever heard-only that it's presentation is smooth rather than crisp- which IMHO is so so much more natural. Regarding speed; this thing is seriously dynamically explosive. The bass has a kind of deep grunt, like the engine of the best sports car.

No 300B for me for the time being....

 

[lsantista]

This bird has flown.. from Northern Europe to its new home in South America for the past few weeks, and today it rises again! What a beautiful, open, detailed, addictive sound

Thanks to Kevin Gilmore, @RudeWolf for building it and @Sandro Sena and @ericohgb for pointing me the way

 

[lsantista]

also playing so beautifully the K1000. Yes it will demand near or max volume for loud levels on most classical recordings... That said, it is a night and day difference to a 100w Denon receiver I was using priorly to power the AKG, and I didnt listen to anything unpleasant with the volume control at max. The CFA3 tops it everywhere with good marging other than loudness, as expected. Even dynamics didnt suffer IMHO. Of course an AV receiver is not what most here would use to power the K1000.
With the HD800/800S it is transformative compared to the Meier Symphony I mostly used before, more open in all directions, highs are sweet, bass is improved but not overwhelming, it doesn't sound coloured. Same with my 500 series sennheisers, the CFA3 bettered them by far margin. Even the 800, the most hard to drive of my "normal" headphones, gets deafning loud (but not shouty) before 12 o clock to me.
My non elaborate audiophile lingo is probably limiting my description, but well, count me as one more very happy CFA3 user with the most demanding headphone I know. Plus Rudi's build it is the most beatiful audio gear Ive owned and by far my favorite looking SS amp.
Using it with the Spring 3 with preamp and I dont feel need for a tube pre. Actually, Maybe I should mention a non direct comparisson: I had a kgsshv carbon and I would rate it a spot on neutral and SS sounding; the CFA by comparisson sounds more tubey for me already.

 

[rsbrsvp]

I'm curious to ask those who use a tube preamp with their CFA-3- if you use the preamp as the volume control, or if you set the preamp to a certain volume and then user the CFA-3 volume control. I believe the second option would really redefine the preamp as a "tube buffer" instead of a "preamp" as the preamp is technically made to be a volume control.

I have little experience with tube amps in the last 15 years but using my audio-gd vacuum tube HE-1 with my CFA-3 and having tested both options- I vastly prefer the "tube buffer" option as I find the bass much tighter and focused and overall detail retrieval noticeably better. Using the audio-gd as the preamp IMHO and in my system is just to bloated, to round, and involves to much sacrifice of technicalities. This could be due to my dac already being extremely saturated in its presentation and therefore in combination with the tube pre, it is to much of a good thing. Using the audio-gd as a "tube buffer" instead of a preamp increases detail, and soundstage while imparting a very linear tube sound with no loss to bass focus and tightness. Meaning- there is ZERO tradeoffs using the audio-gd as a tube buffer and only gains IMHO.

I would appreciate others to share their insights with me on this issue...