[Anaxilus]

You TF10 users should inquire as to what the output impedance is on the Leckerton.  The TF10 has been known to be picky w/ amps.

 

[Scudbot]

10 dBV max output level into high-impedance load (>600 Ohms)

 

[aamefford]

Quote:

I've always wondered about the UHA-4 but didn't want to buy one to find out. I'm glad some people are getting it.
 
@aamedford: can you try it out of a computer with your quads and let me know how it goes? I want a smaller dac/amp for my netbook when I leave the house and I was looking at this before I got lazy and just stuck with my current dac/amp which sounds great but I would prefer a smaller package.

Listening now, from my hackintoshed dell mini 10v into the UHA-4, into the Quads.  It sounds really surprisingly good!  Good enough that I am considering ditching my high(ish) end bedside set-up in favor of this setup.  It isn't as nice as the D7000's out of the Headroom UDA, but it is surprisingly close enough, and a lot more convenient and useful to me.
 
 

 

[rawrster]

If there's no channel imbalance with your quads then it would be quite the winner. My current dac/amp has some imbalance but it doesn't get to the point where it is too loud before the imbalance is gone. It sounds like it is something that was built for sensitive iem or headphones.

 

[bulmanxxi]

The UHA-4 has electronic volume control so there is no channel imbalance.

 

[bulmanxxi]

Bass is great with MTPC as well as overall SQ.

 

[Kunlun]

could people compare the uha-4 with the ttvj slim in greater detail, please?

 

[nico_g]

I actually own a RSA Tomahawk with my Westone UM3-X.
I'm satisfied with this combo, except some minor points : the Tomahawk, even in low gain mode has to much gain : the volume control adjustment has a very short range for my listening level taste.
So I would like to know if the Leckerton would be a great improvement...
Does it produce any hiss (in low gain mode) with IEM ?
How could it be compared to RSA amps like Tomahawk or P51 or Shadow ?
Its low gain position is -6db so it would be perfect for my IEM.
Any information and advice would be very appreciated.
 

 

[aamefford]

I had a tomahawk with shure se530's.  It was a nice pairing.  I think I had the Pico with my UM3X's and Westone 3's.  The tomahawk was a nice amp as I recall.  My UHA-4 with my 1964 Ears quads is a great setup.  The quads are fairly sensitive, they hiss out of my headroom UDA.  I can't guarantee, but I suspect the UHA-4 will work nicely with the Westones, which I think are also very sensitive.  Another excellent iem amp is the HeadAmp Pico Slim.  A bit spendy, but it is a nice amp.  It has been a while since I've heard one, and I am not running out to get one over my new Leckerton.  Partly because the DAC seems decent, and handy out of my netbook, and partly because I like crossfeed.  The Leckerton works very well for my needs, and sounds great.
 
As a side note, I am considering scaling back my bedside rig.  I am considering the flagship Leckerton - the UHA-6S or whatever the model is with the optical in, as my source is a mac or an airport express.  The dac chip in that one is (I'm pretty sure) the same chip as what is in my Headroom Ultra Desktop.  I guess I am impressed enough to consider another Leckerton amp.

 

[shotgunshane]

^Nice. How many steps of volume do you get to use before it gets too loud?

 

[aamefford]

The volume is a soft switch that you move right to increase, left to decrease, and hold left or right to continue to increase or decrease.  I can hold it quite a while (couple of seconds maybe?) and go from silent to listening level.  I don't know how many single clicks from silent to to loud, but I find the graduations provide almost infinite steps like a regular pot, but it is digital, so no channel imbalance, and no hiss for me anyway.

 

[bulmanxxi]

No hiss with MTPC and volume adjustment seems to have a rather significant range but not so much as to be impractical or a hassle.
 
From memory, the UHA-4 is better than the RSA Shadow (and more than two times cheaper!) as it has a built in DAC, crossfeed, gain switch.  UHA-4 SQ is also more satisfying than the Shadow - the Shadow is very good and clean but rather dry and sterile in contrast to the UHA-4, which is rather musical and just slightly warm perhaps.  The UHA also has a better soundstage/3d.
 
The UHA-4 and TTVJ Slim are actually quite on par SQ wise, but the UHA-4 seems to have better control over the bass, where the TTVJ seems a bit loose if not boomy.  Both great amps though and the UHA-4 has a better DAC than the TTVJ Slim with DAC.  UHA is also shorter, has better battery life and it's almost three times cheaper!
 
Leckerton also has a 30 day money back guarantee, which I'm not sure if either RSA or TTVJ have.

 

[Kunlun]

Quote:

No hiss with MTPC and volume adjustment seems to have a rather significant range but not so much as to be impractical or a hassle.
 
From memory, the UHA-4 is better than the RSA Shadow (and more than two times cheaper!) as it has a built in DAC, crossfeed, gain switch.  UHA-4 SQ is also more satisfying than the Shadow - the Shadow is very good and clean but rather dry and sterile in contrast to the UHA-4, which is rather musical and just slightly warm perhaps.  The UHA also has a better soundstage/3d.
 
The UHA-4 and TTVJ Slim are actually quite on par SQ wise, but the UHA-4 seems to have better control over the bass, where the TTVJ seems a bit loose if not boomy.  Both great amps though and the UHA-4 has a better DAC than the TTVJ Slim with DAC.  UHA is also shorter, has better battery life and it's almost three times cheaper!
 
Leckerton also has a 30 day money back guarantee, which I'm not sure if either RSA or TTVJ have.

Thanks! Could you compare the mids, treble, soundstage, detail, etc, too, please?

 
 

 

[bulmanxxi]

This is from memory as I no longer have the shadow or ttvj:

All three are top tier amps.
Detail - almost equal with the shadow seeming more analytical due to sounding a bit dry but only relative to e Ttvj and UHA-4
Mids - ttvj and UHA-4 more lush and musical but shadow is not bad
Highs - all are pretty good and nothing stands apart but shadow is quite clear and maybe just slightly flatter where ttvj and UHA-4 are a bit more music/mid centric
Soundstage - UHA and ttvj deeper and wider than shadow but again shadow is very clear but more two dimensional perhaps

All three are great amps but ttvj and UHA-4 are really really close to each other in SQ whereas the shadow is a rather different but still great. Shadow is very very small and I found it a bit impractical as it was difficult to reach and find and adjust volume in a pocket as it is much smaller than iPod or iPhone.

Ttvj has a very nice volume control although not digital but actually I prefer it over the rocker switches that the UHA and shadow sport but the UHA has a bigger one so it's a bit easier to work than the shadow. The shadow has a crazy long battery life.

Given all of the above and factoring price, I can't justify spending more on the ttvj or shadow over the UHA-4 unless there is some synergy issue related to specific equipment.

 

[edvardd]

Thank you for your impression bulmanxxi! Have you tried UHA-4 with some full size headphones or just IEM´s? I'm wondering if it will be able to drive LCD2, Ultrasone 900 and such phones without clipping or distortion. btw, have you compared it to headstage Arrow? looking forward to hear some of your thoughts.
Quote:

This is from memory as I no longer have the shadow or ttvj:

All three are top tier amps.
Detail - almost equal with the shadow seeming more analytical due to sounding a bit dry but only relative to e Ttvj and UHA-4
Mids - ttvj and UHA-4 more lush and musical but shadow is not bad
Highs - all are pretty good and nothing stands apart but shadow is quite clear and maybe just slightly flatter where ttvj and UHA-4 are a bit more music/mid centric
Soundstage - UHA and ttvj deeper and wider than shadow but again shadow is very clear but more two dimensional perhaps

All three are great amps but ttvj and UHA-4 are really really close to each other in SQ whereas the shadow is a rather different but still great. Shadow is very very small and I found it a bit impractical as it was difficult to reach and find and adjust volume in a pocket as it is much smaller than iPod or iPhone.

Ttvj has a very nice volume control although not digital but actually I prefer it over the rocker switches that the UHA and shadow sport but the UHA has a bigger one so it's a bit easier to work than the shadow. The shadow has a crazy long battery life.

Given all of the above and factoring price, I can't justify spending more on the ttvj or shadow over the UHA-4 unless there is some synergy issue related to specific equipment.