[c34webb]

I have the non pro ADI-2 and it gets to decent listening levels at near max output. Almost no headroom, through. So i think the new 2/4 pro version probably has enough power.

3.4 Watts balanced at 32 Ohms isn't going to cut it. Need serious current to get the full dynamic range.

 

[psy472]

3.4 Watts balanced at 32 Ohms isn't going to cut it. Need serious current to get the full dynamic range.

As we discovered with the MJ3, the conventional math on Watts = dynamic range is not holding up. The MJ3 with only 2 Watts at 32 Ohms should not be able to drive the Susvara or Tungsten, but other reviewers who own both are noticing they work just wonderfully.

 

[gKalkin]

3.4 Watts balanced at 32 Ohms isn't going to cut it. Need serious current to get the full dynamic range.

MJ3 has 2W @ 32 Ohms and drives Tungsten DS just fine. I think the power myth is a bit overblown here.

I think many desktop amps will have enough juice to power Tungsten. As long as the amp can get the headphone to a reasonable listening level, people will have a great time. You can always upgrade later too eek out better performance; that is part of the fun of the hobby.

I have also tried listening out of MJ3 single-ended, which has 1W at 32Ohms, and I was still able to get it to a good listening level with plenty of headroom. Given that manufacturers don't give us an output curve, it is hard to tell what any given amp may output with Tungsten as a load. The curve may not be linear between any two data points.

I am listening to the DS out of my RME AD-2 right now and it still sounds great. I prefer it with the MJ3 but I don't see any reason to dissuade someone from getting the Tungsten if they have a decent amp.

 

[Hoondarrh]

While we're on the topic—I have a Jotunheim 2 just sitting around, and I am wondering if it'd be worth pre-amping the Mjolnir 3 with it. I think @psy472 was the one that actually tested it out and gave some insight earlier this week that seemed positive, but not on the Tungsten's. I should be the first order in the November 3rd batch, so hoping to test all this out for myself soon on the SS.

 

[Slackaveli]

As we discovered with the MJ3, the conventional math on Watts = dynamic range is not holding up. The MJ3 with only 2 Watts at 32 Ohms should not be able to drive the Susvara or Tungsten, but other reviewers who own both are noticing they work just wonderfully.

Ive seen just as many say it's not enough as I have saying it is. "Just fine" for some is decidedly not enough for others. Even Jason Stoddard said "Just get the Ragnarock".
But also, MJ3 is different. It's fully choked class-A. It hits above it's rated levels.
That doesnt have anything to do with ADI though.

People saying it's overblown are kidding themselves. It's math. 155ohm is very high for planars. 76 db is very low sensitivity. Both of those things make them harder to drive than almost any other cans.
Objectively harder to drive properly than Susvara. Ryan says at least 20v.
I don't think it's right to let people think some regular middling amp will get the most out of Tungstens with the cost , waiting time, and ordering struggles.

For instance the most comprehensive review on them on Head-fi (Goldwerger) says -

"Schiit Mjolnir 3
I tried this newly released amplifier and, regrettably, it was not great fit (it may be great with other headphones, which I didn’t try). It lacked headroom and sounded anemic with the Tungsten."

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/mod-house-tungsten.26823/reviews

 

[psy472]

I don’t know how he drove his Tungsten. He listed his gears but didn’t tell me how he chained them. Right now I’m preamping my Jot 2 to MJ3 and I am loving the bass timbre and punch and the honey smooth mids. So either way, if MJ3 fail I can just reverse the amp chain. The Jot2 has 6W at 32 Ohms.

If I recall correctly, he was also having some clicks and sound issues with his MJ3. Did he have a defective product?

 

[Slackaveli]

I don’t know how he drove his Tungsten. He listed his gears but didn’t tell me how he chained them. Right now I’m preamping my Jot 2 to MJ3 and I am loving the bass timbre and punch and the honey smooth mids. So either way, if MJ3 fail I can just reverse the amp chain. The Jot2 has 6W at 32 Ohms.

If I recall correctly, he was also having some clicks and sound issues with his MJ3. Did he have a defective product?

Who knows, but, it's certainly confusing. I wish we had real numbers on MJ3 so we'd have a bit more clarity.
I'm absolutely happy for you that you are enjoying yours (if that was lost in translation).

 

[psy472]

Who knows, but, it's certainly confusing. I wish we had real numbers on MJ3 so we'd have a bit more clarity.
I'm absolutely happy for you that you are enjoying yours (if that was lost in translation).

It’s either the MJ3 or the Flux. But my OCD self would have bought both those as a dual block instead of a single amp which would cost quite a lot more money.

 

[goldwerger]

I don’t know how he drove his Tungsten. He listed his gears but didn’t tell me how he chained them.

I’m pretty sure I’ve listed this in my review, but will iterate - I’ve used AK SP2000 (output set to 6V) connected via 4.4mm to dual XLR out (or 3V via 3.5 to dual RCA in rare cases balanced inputs weren’t available).

A very broad comment for this discussion - these issues about amps and power get heated and debated ad nauseam. It’s been the same way on the Susvara thread for years. One problem that makes these discussions so hard is that so many people have so many strong opinions about gear they never tried.

Some amps may seem to sound good with the Tungsten, and I believe the inputs from users trying them are genuine and enthusiastic. But they lack the reference point of what great sounds like when the Tungsten is actually driven to its potential.

In my experience, the Tungsten scales incredibly. It doesn’t mean that there is a lack of great cheaper options, just that not everything that can get volume will sound its best.

If anyone is going to CanJam NYC, do yourself a big favor and try demoing for yourselves with a wide selection of amps (ask nicely to borrow a headset for a couple minutes here and there). It may be a real eye opening experience, not to mention tremendous fun!

Regrading the MJ3, to my ears purely, it was a poor fit relative to the much better sounding combinations both within that budget range and beyond.

 

[psy472]

nvm I misread. I was referring to Melinious’s review.

 

[invisiblekid]

It’s fickle world this when you get to this level.

It’s not his fault, but I do think Ryan has caused a bit of poop storm with the value of these things and the backwards power requirements.

But at the same time, I kinda like the disruption? They also prove the validation to the doubters that amps do make a f’king difference.

But if there is anything that proves camjam and such like events are great test beds it’ll be these for sometime to come.

It will be close to London CanJam if I get these in time. But I’ll sure be there hoping there is chance to try them on different rigs.

 

[ThanatosVI]

Haha, fun in here.
The amp talk reminds me of the talk back then in the Susvara thread.

As always, it's totally overblown. If the math says that a specific amp can drive it, it will get the Tungsten loud enough. Wether it'll sound good is the open question, and that's where many say you need even more power to not work at the amps limits all the time.

It doesn't help if the amp can burst out the power but distorts heavily while doing so.

Topping amps in particular, measure well with lots of power, but always sound flat.
That's when one Camp would describe them as sufficient and the other as lacking.

The Tungsten has a Sensitivity of 76 while the Susvara has 83. That difference means the Tungsten requires 4x the power of a Susvara. Or in other words, if an amp can drive 4 Susvara at once, it can drive a Tungsten.

Susvara is low Impedance, which means it always needed high current and therefore many used speakeramps to drive it. For the Tungsten this is less the case since it's high Impedance which requires more Volt than current. (Still with the 4x power requirements it doesn't really need less than Susvara either)

Something like a Topping A90 or Jotunheim 2 will drive the Tungsten loud enough, the Tungsten doesn't bend physics, but it will certainly scale and sound better with better gear

 

[martel80]

Haha, fun in here.
The amp talk reminds me of the talk back then in the Susvara thread.

As always, it's totally overblown. If the math says that a specific amp can drive it, it will get the Tungsten loud enough. Wether it'll sound good is the open question, and that's where many say you need even more power to not work at the amps limits all the time.

It doesn't help if the amp can burst out the power but distorts heavily while doing so.

Topping amps in particular, measure well with lots of power, but always sound flat.
That's when one Camp would describe them as sufficient and the other as lacking.

The Tungsten has a Sensitivity of 76 while the Susvara has 83. That difference means the Tungsten requires 4x the power of a Susvara. Or in other words, if an amp can drive 4 Susvara at once, it can drive a Tungsten.

Susvara is low Impedance, which means it always needed high current and therefore many used speakeramps to drive it. For the Tungsten this is less the case since it's high Impedance which requires more Volt than current. (Still with the 4x power requirements it doesn't really need less than Susvara either)

Something like a Topping A90 or Jotunheim 2 will drive the Tungsten loud enough, the Tungsten doesn't bend physics, but it will certainly scale and sound better with better gear

And would it be fair to say that “better” is subjective? I’m talking strictly based on the fact that an amp has the power requirements to drive some cans, obviously.

Personally, when I read people describing an amp as “flat” or “analytical “, it really reaches me as I want the source material to be reproduced as faithfully as possible . I really don’t want anything added. If anything, I would actually be after any measuring rig services to get a calibration profile for my amp + cans combo, just like I do in my work environment so I get the flattest representation of the signal as possible.

So the fact that nothing is actually mythical or science bending about those cans seems more rational to me.

But one thing I really like about those type of conversations is the enthusiasm that people put into their preferences and that often come out as unquestionable truth when all there is to it is really just preferences for embellishments of the source material by the signal path be it wider, bolder, bigger bass, more top end that gives a sense of openness ….and so on and so forth.

 

[ThanatosVI]

And would it be fair to say that “better” is subjective? I’m talking strictly based on the fact that an amp has the power requirements to drive some cans, obviously.

Personally, when I read people describing an amp as “flat” or “analytical “, it really reaches me as I want the source material to be reproduced as faithfully as possible . I really don’t want anything added. If anything, I would actually be after any measuring rig services to get a calibration profile for my amp + cans combo, just like I do in my work environment so I get the flattest representation of the signal as possible.

So the fact that nothing is actually mythical or science bending about those cans seems more rational to me.

But one thing I really like about those type of conversations is the enthusiasm that people put into their preferences and that often come out as unquestionable truth when all there is to it is really just preferences for embellishments of the source material by the signal path be it wider, bolder, bigger bass, more top end that gives a sense of openness ….and so on and so forth.

Absolutely, better is very subjective here.
For me nothing beats good tubes amps, even though the introduced Harmonic distortion wouldn't classify as "as faithful as possible "

 

[invisiblekid]

And would it be fair to say that “better” is subjective? I’m talking strictly based on the fact that an amp has the power requirements to drive some cans, obviously.

Personally, when I read people describing an amp as “flat” or “analytical “, it really reaches me as I want the source material to be reproduced as faithfully as possible . I really don’t want anything added. If anything, I would actually be after any measuring rig services to get a calibration profile for my amp + cans combo, just like I do in my work environment so I get the flattest representation of the signal as possible.

So the fact that nothing is actually mythical or science bending about those cans seems more rational to me.

But one thing I really like about those type of conversations is the enthusiasm that people put into their preferences and that often come out as unquestionable truth when all there is to it is really just preferences for embellishments of the source material by the signal path be it wider, bolder, bigger bass, more top end that gives a sense of openness ….and so on and so forth.

Absolutely, better is very subjective here.
For me nothing beats good tubes amps, even though the introduced Harmonic distortion wouldn't classify as "as faithful as possible "

Given how poor some modern recordings are produced, adding a little “something” isn’t always bad thing.