Soundsgoodtome
Headphoneus Supremus
Edited my impression above. I'll be letting another local member to try this for a week or so, maybe he can compare it directly to his Asgard 2 which is within similar price range.
New from Garage1217, the solid-state Project Polaris!
- Thread starter Asr
- Start date
Soundsgoodtome
Headphoneus Supremus
I've been asked by a couple of members to a/b the ember and Polaris on the 560. That'll be next on another thread.
For those interested I will be at the LA show this weekend and I will have a table setup with a Ember and Polaris.
If you make it to the show then by all means swing by my table and play with both amps. I'll also have around 10-11 tubes to listen to depending on your preferences.
I can say that both these amps work very well and sound great. Depending on the tube the Ember can sound better or worse but after testing A/B the past week I have come to the conclusion that the Ember is the better kit. IMO of course.
I'll have a CD player and laptop so bring a CD or bring files..
If you make it to the show then by all means swing by my table and play with both amps. I'll also have around 10-11 tubes to listen to depending on your preferences.
I can say that both these amps work very well and sound great. Depending on the tube the Ember can sound better or worse but after testing A/B the past week I have come to the conclusion that the Ember is the better kit. IMO of course.
I'll have a CD player and laptop so bring a CD or bring files..
Soundsgoodtome
Headphoneus Supremus
I've got the rig set up at work and now the wait time for a quiet noise floor. Will be doing some switching between the Ember and Polaris via Schiit Sys (full volume as I'm using it in reverse 2 outs and 1 in). Running off the Yulong D100 as a DAC with a V/Link 192 transport using all CD FLAC and a few Hi-Rez files.
YtseJamer
Headphoneus Supremus
Can't wait to hear your comments!
I'm still hesitating in between the Ember, the Polaris and the Lyr 2 for my HE-560.
I'm still hesitating in between the Ember, the Polaris and the Lyr 2 for my HE-560.
If you can't listen to them before buying then get the Ember. It is one awesome amp and considering the amount of tubes you can roll it's just fun. The right tube and it goes from great to awesome.
My two fav tube models for this amp are the 12AT7 and 12AX7.
My two fav tube models for this amp are the 12AT7 and 12AX7.
YtseJamer
Headphoneus Supremus
I've got the rig set up at work and now the wait time for a quiet noise floor. Will be doing some switching between the Ember and Polaris via Schiit Sys (full volume as I'm using it in reverse 2 outs and 1 in). Running off the Yulong D100 as a DAC with a V/Link 192 transport using all CD FLAC and a few Hi-Rez files.
So who won that battle ?
Soundsgoodtome
Headphoneus Supremus
Apologize for the delay in write-up. The difference between the two really relies on the tube being used and you can definitely tell that the design of both amps would make them siblings and less like cousins (as I’d presume between one of the two amps and an earlier model). With both being flagships of Garage 1217 and being excellent for the money being clean, powerful, and flexible with different headphones and their sensitivities. My most transparent tube without adding much sound coloration to the frequency is the Tungsram so comparing was done with that with the incoming caps bypassed.
Clearly both had enough power to drive the 50ohm HE560 (at 2W)! Low gain on the Polaris, the 560 would be at 70-80db around 11 o’clock for newer masters and 12-1 o’clock for classicals and lower output mastering. Whereas the Ember seem to be in medium gain, even if it was the jumpers were set to low, in comparison to volume pot position in comparison to the Polaris. This could be an effect of the tube and gain properties.. basically subtracting 1 hour on the volume pot to equal the Polaris in sound level.
Although not used in the comparison, the Polaris has a nice feature similar to a pre-amp in that it can attenuate the incoming line-in to lower the volume even further for those sensitive HPs and IEMS and to allow a bit more volume travel. I would presume this to change the sound somewhat but I honestly couldn’t hear the difference but just an overall attenuation of all frequencies, still very clean sound out at a lower volume.
Both amps has excellent soundstage, the Polaris has equivalent width as the Ember being wide with an out-of-the-head experience on the 560s. The ember however adds a bit of effect to this soundstage and imaging via decay/distortion. When the back end of the sound extends, there’s an effect that mimics a different room where the Polaris would be like sitting in a dampened room and the Ember would be sitting in a hardwood floor and the sound bounces creating an effect of decay. Nothing drastic but the extra touch can be perceived as added soundstage and depth. Also some tubes (like my Sylvania BH7) has even wider soundstage than the Tungsram. Not so much depth but more so on width, this is one advantage on the Ember where you can change characteristics of the sound and frequency response.
Separation and clarity on both amps are outstanding, the 560s really shine with both amps. Following instruments is a breeze, pick an instrument and hear all the detail/nuisance. The Polaris does this a little better than the Ember in part because of it’s speed and tightness. The Polari’s speed is a definite step above the Ember but depending on taste, this can be taken as a good or bad thing (tube vs ss). This can be heard more dramatically on bass (want speed and detailed bass? get the 560). The Polaris will allow you to hear every detail and extend deep in the 20-30hz area while giving good and tight impact. The Ember on the other hand has less control in this section and also has more bloom/decay in the bass. Depending on the headphone, in this case the 560, one can perceive the Polaris leaning more towards the analytical side but still keeping musicality. Whereas the Polaris is accurate and tight, the Ember adds that musicality of a nice decay and sustain.
More to come:
If you guys want to get interactive and ask questions, I'll reserve the next slot.
Clearly both had enough power to drive the 50ohm HE560 (at 2W)! Low gain on the Polaris, the 560 would be at 70-80db around 11 o’clock for newer masters and 12-1 o’clock for classicals and lower output mastering. Whereas the Ember seem to be in medium gain, even if it was the jumpers were set to low, in comparison to volume pot position in comparison to the Polaris. This could be an effect of the tube and gain properties.. basically subtracting 1 hour on the volume pot to equal the Polaris in sound level.
Although not used in the comparison, the Polaris has a nice feature similar to a pre-amp in that it can attenuate the incoming line-in to lower the volume even further for those sensitive HPs and IEMS and to allow a bit more volume travel. I would presume this to change the sound somewhat but I honestly couldn’t hear the difference but just an overall attenuation of all frequencies, still very clean sound out at a lower volume.
Both amps has excellent soundstage, the Polaris has equivalent width as the Ember being wide with an out-of-the-head experience on the 560s. The ember however adds a bit of effect to this soundstage and imaging via decay/distortion. When the back end of the sound extends, there’s an effect that mimics a different room where the Polaris would be like sitting in a dampened room and the Ember would be sitting in a hardwood floor and the sound bounces creating an effect of decay. Nothing drastic but the extra touch can be perceived as added soundstage and depth. Also some tubes (like my Sylvania BH7) has even wider soundstage than the Tungsram. Not so much depth but more so on width, this is one advantage on the Ember where you can change characteristics of the sound and frequency response.
Separation and clarity on both amps are outstanding, the 560s really shine with both amps. Following instruments is a breeze, pick an instrument and hear all the detail/nuisance. The Polaris does this a little better than the Ember in part because of it’s speed and tightness. The Polari’s speed is a definite step above the Ember but depending on taste, this can be taken as a good or bad thing (tube vs ss). This can be heard more dramatically on bass (want speed and detailed bass? get the 560). The Polaris will allow you to hear every detail and extend deep in the 20-30hz area while giving good and tight impact. The Ember on the other hand has less control in this section and also has more bloom/decay in the bass. Depending on the headphone, in this case the 560, one can perceive the Polaris leaning more towards the analytical side but still keeping musicality. Whereas the Polaris is accurate and tight, the Ember adds that musicality of a nice decay and sustain.
More to come:
If you guys want to get interactive and ask questions, I'll reserve the next slot.
J&J
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Posts
- 254
- Likes
- 37
Just rec'd my built project Polaris today. Just some brief impressions. I currently have for comparison a Schiit Valhalla, Project Horizon +SC and Goldpoint ss amp. All really good amps . Headphones available HE 400, Senn 600, AKG Tiesto167, Roland RH A30 again all really good phones
The Polaris is very small, beautiful, well constructed, and surprisingly powerful, easily drives the HE 400 planars.
It shares the house sound that being very resolving, tons of detail and speed especially bass No mushy bass here.
Very good 3 dimensional presentation (sound stage).
Treble a bit bright but nice sparkle can adjust bandwidth and output impedance that might tame treble
Overall an easy to recommend amp for a range of headphones with SQ/$ hard to beat. Nice synergy with the AKG Tiesto
The Polaris is very small, beautiful, well constructed, and surprisingly powerful, easily drives the HE 400 planars.
It shares the house sound that being very resolving, tons of detail and speed especially bass No mushy bass here.
Very good 3 dimensional presentation (sound stage).
Treble a bit bright but nice sparkle can adjust bandwidth and output impedance that might tame treble
Overall an easy to recommend amp for a range of headphones with SQ/$ hard to beat. Nice synergy with the AKG Tiesto
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,327
- Likes
- 309
Hi J&J
I was really interested in your results with your present set up as I also use the HE400 and have an Horizon 3+SC. I have been wondering how this combination compares with the HE400/Polaris in terms of sound-stage, imaging, instrument separation, pace, slam, headroom.
I mainly listen to Classical and like it loud!
Do you think I will gain anything with a Polaris?
I was really interested in your results with your present set up as I also use the HE400 and have an Horizon 3+SC. I have been wondering how this combination compares with the HE400/Polaris in terms of sound-stage, imaging, instrument separation, pace, slam, headroom.
I mainly listen to Classical and like it loud!
Do you think I will gain anything with a Polaris?
stjj89
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Posts
- 591
- Likes
- 91
Any thoughts on how the Polaris and/or Ember would go with a HE-500?
mandrake50
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Posts
- 2,235
- Likes
- 728
I have a couple of Sunrise III amps which I really like. I did add heat sink extensions to try to cool off the regulator an output devices some. It runs hot. The Polaris is supposed to run at room temperature for the most part. It also has about double the output of the Sunrise and close to three times that of the Horizon. If you have any hard to drives phones, that could be big.
I have always liked the FET sound going back to vintage gear that I have owned. The Polaris is an FET design. It is also more portable and should be more rugged without a tube to worry about.
I can't yet comment on the sound. I have not got mine yet. Jeremy said it was finished on 8/14. I was hoping to get it today, but that didn't happen. I can comment more once it is here. Hopefully Monday.
Users who are viewing this thread
