META vs. Cosmic
Jul 3, 2002 at 1:43 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 36

lextek

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Posts
4,428
Likes
38
Has anyone compared these two amps? If The META could run on battery power,what would be the battery life?
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 2:02 AM Post #3 of 36
I'll let you know in a few weeks.
smily_headphones1.gif


Audio&Me says the meta is vastly superior. Who knows? I'm sure when more people build it/buy it, we'll get MANY more reviews.
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 2:52 AM Post #4 of 36
Im also pretty interested in this because if the meta42 is that good while being so cheap im going to have to consider buying one. does any1 know how well the meta42 / Grado SR-225 combo is?
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 5:18 AM Post #5 of 36
I don't know about the 225s, but the META/HP-1, MS Pro, SR-325 combo is pretty damn incredible.
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 5:26 AM Post #6 of 36
The Cosmic is a very good amp.

A well built meta42 could be better, but it won't be vastly better.
You also will not get some of the features of the Cosmic, crossfeed and variable gain.

I strongly believe the meta42 opamp -> buffer multiloop configuration is superior to whatever circuit the Cosmic uses. (I've never read anywhere exactly what the Headroom amps are, opamp -> discrete, or opamp -> opamp ???).

But! The design and implementation of the Cosmics circuit board/connections etc. etc. are better than the meta42. And those kind of details are important.

The meta42 can be made alot smaller than the cosmic which is a huge advantage if you're looking for portability.
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 11:33 AM Post #7 of 36
Quote:

The meta42 can be made alot smaller than the cosmic which is a huge advantage if you're looking for portability.


tangent's board is very compact and perfectly suited for the case it was designed for but for ultimate compactness you can roll your own.

This is Sijosae's latest effort.
META42-1.jpg

I love his work! This amp is about the same physical size of tangents board minus the power supply and volume bits. Granted, this doesn't have a power supply either. You can shrink it further by standing the resistors on end. Building a compact amp section leaves room for crossfeed of some sort as well.

I built one like it over the weekend as my test mule. I can't wait to play with it next week (awaiting parts)



ok,
erix
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 9:15 PM Post #9 of 36
Quote:

I strongly believe the meta42 opamp -> buffer multiloop configuration is superior to whatever circuit the Cosmic uses. (I've never read anywhere exactly what the Headroom amps are, opamp -> discrete, or opamp -> opamp ???).


The cosmic is a very professional design (ie done by real engineers), with discrete push-pull output stage, and OPA627 opamps feeding it...

Meta is also a nice design, and tweeked for maximum performance... But at this level its more about personal preference than "strongly superior"
 
Jul 3, 2002 at 9:30 PM Post #10 of 36
Quote:

Originally posted by thomas


The cosmic is a very professional design (ie done by real engineers), with discrete push-pull output stage, and OPA627 opamps feeding it...

Meta is also a nice design, and tweeked for maximum performance... But at this level its more about personal preference than "strongly superior"


Ah, cool, so it does have a discrete output stage. I was looking at the modules closely at the headroom tour, and I thought I saw 4 opa627's on the modules. Maybe they use two of them for the crossfeed then.

And btw. I did not say the circuit in the meta42 is 'strongly superior', just superior.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 4, 2002 at 1:08 AM Post #11 of 36
lex, I did a side by side comparison at the Boston tour, the HeadRoom portable system was Pana 470 - Kimber cable - Cosmic - HD600, mine was Pana570 - Bolder - ETA42 - HD600 and I felt that my system sounded much better, though not really portable.
biggrin.gif
But I would bet that a real portable one would still sound better to me even with the limitations that a small enclosure bears. I will say that it is a preference thing, hell everything is.
 
Jul 4, 2002 at 5:52 AM Post #12 of 36
A&M, if you're going to insist on making this comparrison then at least qualify the differences with adjectives other than "better." Which aspects of the META42 were better than the Cosmic and which were worse? This might help people more who are trying to decide one way or another but have different priorities than you have.
 
Jul 4, 2002 at 6:06 AM Post #13 of 36
Quote:

You also will not get some of the features of the Cosmic, crossfeed and variable gain.


This is DIY, remember: you can add crossfeed and variable gain if you want it.

I won't comment on sound, since I haven't heard a Cosmic. However, one clear advantage of the Cosmic is the nicer enclosure -- DIY efforts just can't achieve that kind of appearance. And one clear advantage of the META42 is that you can't spend $700 for one unless you go absolutely insane on the parts.

Quote:

Sijosae's work is beautiful as always, but it is not a META42. The circuit is not the same, it is missing the FET cascode current sources.


It's also got a much simpler power supply.

Quote:

what would be the battery life?


Extremely variable. It depends on the op-amp, the number and type and arrangement of batteries, the kind and amount of buffers you use, your source, your listening habits, your headphones, and the phase of the moon.
 
Jul 4, 2002 at 4:21 PM Post #14 of 36
detailed (more extension too)
resolving
airy
spacious (open, the soundstage with this amp and Equinox cable is awesome)
textured
balanced
oh and MUSICAL
tongue.gif


I don't think the Cosmic did anything better, the body sounded fat, some people might like that, and bass had more weight (emphasized), I believe Tyll likes lots of punchiness.
 
Jul 4, 2002 at 4:51 PM Post #15 of 36
A&M

Cool, thanks.
smily_headphones1.gif


What do you mean when you say balanced? Do you mean tonally? (In other words, you think the HeadRoom amp sounds bass heavy, but the META42 seems more tonally flat to you?)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top