Good review. I agree that the Ember doesnt work as well with sensitive, low impedance headphones. There is hiss as you mentioned and it also sounds brighter. Using medium or high output impedance helps though.
Got to hear the Ember last night and was fairly impressed. Since you're keeping the Polaris, what would you say you like more about it? How is soundstage between the two? I also felt that bass extension and speed on the Ember weren't as good as my Purity Audio KICAS, so curious as to whether the Polaris is better in this regard as well.
I don't find either the Ember or Polaris to be slow or lacking bass.
This came up in DIYAH after I saw another review on the Polaris here saying something similar and so Frans replied:
I too have a lack of understanding where the 'lacking speed' could originate from though as the amp itself is technically capable of high speeds.
But that's not what sometimes is perceived when doing subjective evaluations.
I thought it might have had something to do with the BW settings but Jeremy mentioned you had the R1.1 on 'wide setting' so that couldn't be it.
The Gilmore lite also has JFET input and bipolar output (but his are symmetrical) and is comparable.
On a test bench they will probably be about equally fast.
Kevin makes some really nice and well designed amps.
Test graphs show that both go very low and re well extended in the treble. Perhaps the 'slowness' perceived is because of the tube?
Speed is a non issue with the Ember due to it being a hybrid IMO. I never experienced any less prat or attack/decay myself compared to other SS amps I have used. Considering it is a hybrid I feel it has the advantage in this area over OTL tube amps.
Basically, that's what Frans said. He has been quite puzzled by subjective reports saying that it sounds 'slow' so he compared it technically with other amps and didn't find it lacking at all.
Makes me wonder if timbre is being confused with 'speed'. A tubey sound may well 'sound' slow due to a difference in timbre, which is perhaps what some are reporting. Some people in the past reported the Senn HD650 as being a slow headphone, when in fact, it really isn't. The timbre kind of skews their impression of speed.
Another guy on HF brought this up and we discussed it on DIYAH but Frans did follow it up by testing and remained puzzled why this guy had felt it to be slow. In fact, Jeremy sent me the very same amp which I have here and I directly compared the Ember with the Polaris for members on my site.
The thing is, things are said on forums and it soon becomes fact with no reference to measurements etc. I even mistrust myself after 45 years of headphone use!!!! I'd rather have the tech detail as measured for real than guess, although I do write subjectively myself, but try to research if I can first.
Guys... I was trying to say that compared to my KICAS (which has awesome bass), extension and speed OF THE BASS were lacking. My apologies if that wasn't clear... And perhaps a different tube would help. With the setup I heard, sub bass was very loose, almost like a singer trying to hit notes just a little below his range.
Edit: It's also just a bit patronizing to imply my impressions are the product of what people have said on the forums, particularly since I outright stated that I had just heard the Ember.
Basically, that's what Frans said. He has been quite puzzled by subjective reports saying that it sounds 'slow' so he compared it technically with other amps and didn't find it lacking at all.
Makes me wonder if timbre is being confused with 'speed'. A tubey sound may well 'sound' slow due to a difference in timbre, which is perhaps what some are reporting. Some people in the past reported the Senn HD650 as being a slow headphone, when in fact, it really isn't. The timbre kind of skews their impression of speed.
Another guy on HF brought this up and we discussed it on DIYAH but Frans did follow it up by testing and remained puzzled why this guy had felt it to be slow. In fact, Jeremy sent me the very same amp which I have here and I directly compared the Ember with the Polaris for members on my site.
The thing is, things are said on forums and it soon becomes fact with no reference to measurements etc. I even mistrust myself after 45 years of headphone use!!!! I'd rather have the tech detail as measured for real than guess, although I do write subjectively myself, but try to research if I can first.
I already wrote over at DIYAH that I found the Polaris to sound slow relative to the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, an amp that's been available since 2005 (although it was discontinued in 2010) and shouldn't be too hard to acquire now second-hand. And as a musician, I'm well aware of timbre is, and isn't. It would be impossible for me to confuse it for speed/impulse response.
I'm well aware of what the measurements might indicate and only reported my subjective perceptions for whatever those are worth to certain people.
Since this is the Ember's thread and not the Polaris', if you want to continue this discussion please consider moving it there.
My understanding of speed seems to be the amps power ability to control the heaphones. Thus easy to drive headphones sound faster on a low power tube amp.
The feeling of amp speed can even be increased on high power tube amps. The results are more detailed bass and faster transitions in songs.
The music of choice seems to help this critical perception. Dance is OK on a slow amp, as is some classical and jazz.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
