[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

In the two years I've owned the SR-1a's, I have tried every adjustment you can imagine....and have found they sound their best with the wings opened up about 30 degrees.

 

[Lokust]

In the two years I've owned the SR-1a's, I have tried every adjustment you can imagine....and have found they sound their best with the wings opened up about 30 degrees.

Exactly

 

[LucyWu]

If you can incorporate high quality EQ the bass on the SR1a is deep and satisfying. No sense of anything lost, unless you really miss tuneless thudding

 

[MokhaMark]

In the two years I've owned the SR-1a's, I have tried every adjustment you can imagine....and have found they sound their best with the wings opened up about 30 degrees.

For me it is very genre specific. For large scale orchestral, yes, a wider angle creates a better impression of the hall and placement. But for anything with pedal tones way down low, I'm happy to sacrifice some of what is already TOTL soundstage for a bit more sub bass. As an example, I recently found Liam Bailey's 2023 release Enfant Terrible. Despite its distinctly lo-fi over all sound, the bass is so satisfying in a reggae/dub fashion. Normally, I'd shut down the VM and grab the D8K or Utopia, but if I close the SR panels in pentode mode, I can get much of the way there. The SR will never move as much air as a DD, but they can be manipulated to get closer. A bass shelf helps too. Fun stuff.

 

[jlbrach]

I listen pretty open actually. I prefer the larger soundstage. I’ll try them more closed, and hopefully the VM-1a will help too.

the more open the less bass response, I too like the wide soundstage but found a compromise where I get a fair bit of bass especially with the barnett filters and VM

 

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

For me it is very genre specific. For large scale orchestral, yes, a wider angle creates a better impression of the hall and placement. But for anything with pedal tones way down low, I'm happy to sacrifice some of what is already TOTL soundstage for a bit more sub bass. As an example, I recently found Liam Bailey's 2023 release Enfant Terrible. Despite its distinctly lo-fi over all sound, the bass is so satisfying in a reggae/dub fashion. Normally, I'd shut down the VM and grab the D8K or Utopia, but if I close the SR panels in pentode mode, I can get much of the way there. The SR will never move as much air as a DD, but they can be manipulated to get closer. A bass shelf helps too. Fun stuff.

It isn't the slight collapsing of the soundstage that bothers me if the wings are too closed. Instead it's the subtle blurring and congestion of the upper bass/lower midrange. In other words, it begins to replicate what bothers me about virtually every other headphone I've listened to. It starts to take away from what makes it special, what makes it stand apart from the rest.

Regarding the soundstage, width isn't quite as important to me as is the front to back placement of the images within that soundstage. To me, that's what separates the men from the boys. Of course....all of that is dependent on the recording, and the system chain upstream of the headphones.

 

[Angaria]

Tested the newish (TI-1b) Raal headphone interface with a couple of amps:

Review: Low power amps with the Raal Sr1a? - the TI-1b interface

Background:
Traditional headphone amplifiers, and even SETs that output 2+ watts, perform poorly with several of the top planar magnetic headphones. For instance, I've always wondered how my favorite 2a3 SET amp would sound, if it magically was strong enough to drive the SR1a. The new interface claims to make this possible. Like the original interface box that shipped with the SR1a, the TI-1b increases the impedance and performs some EQ. However it has much greater efficiency that could make SET's or traditional headphone amplifiers an intriguing option - their romantic presentation paired with very high resolution transducer.

Therefore my main objective was to test how the new interface (TI-1b) works on low-powered amps. A more unusual secondary objective was to hear if there was any difference between the two interfaces when using high-powered amplifiers - which is relevant to original owners of the SR1a who might be interested in the new interface.

The most common question in the marker for the new interface: Can I use it with my 'low-powered amp? I tested the new interface with my all time-favorite SET with JJ 2a3's and Sophia Electric 6sn7's. The output of this amp is still going to be greater than most headphone amps - I'm going from the 16 ohm speaker taps to the new interface box with a cable, also from Raal. I found that three and a half watts going into the new interface can be deafeningly loud, so dynamics are unconstrained at normal listening levels. The sound is an interesting mix of the romantic haze of a SETs along with the incredibly high resolution of the Raal. This made me not be what you want on complex orchestral works, but I'd say for female vocals it is a benefit. Later testing with solid state amps showed the additional harmonics are coming from the SET, not the interface. Given the propensities of SETs, you might be concerned about bloated bass or rolled off treble, but the interface shows none of that, even at high volume. This is in contrast to the original interface where both I, and apparently JonL with the same amp, thought it was very inadequate.

The secondary question - does the TI1B offer improvements over the original, if you already have plenty of power? Swapping between interface versions on a high-power amp, even knowing full well which interface I was using, my first thought was, "wow, these are gonna be hard to tell apart". You do gain several dB of efficiency with the new interface, so I always level-matched. I listened to each for several hours back and forth, and ultimately I did spot a reliable difference. There's a slight emphasis in the new amplifier around 3kHz that does make the original sounds slightly muffled in direct comparison. However, this is on a pair of headphones with the greatest level of detail to begin with, so it's a slight difference and I think it's a matter of different emphasis rather than an increase in clarity. You can learn to recognize this difference, and if you listen to the same part of the same track it's possible to blindly tell the difference between interfaces. I found this to be the case on both Hypex and Purifi amps.

Conclusions: If your current amp struggles to power the Sr1a, or you want to try low powered amps, the new Ti1b interface will likely allow you to do that. While I didn't have anything to test below 3.5 watts (nominal), the amount of headroom available makes me think you could probably go down to a single watt and be fine.

It's a harder question if you already have enough power for the original interface. To put the magnitude of the differences in perspective (on high-power amps) it's in the ballpark of what you get when swapping between headphone cables. It is far less than the difference that you'll hear using Mitch's filters. Incidentally I highly recommend those, as they take the Sr1a from being overly midrange-y (vocals are very forward) to being much more balanced and pleasant long-term. If you would like a bit more upper midrange emphasis, you might want to consider the new interface, but again the effect size is on par with most cable swaps.

Limitations:
Raal didn't have the OB compensation adapters in stock at the time I got the TI-1b, so instead I adjust for this with PEQ in Jriver according to their recommendations, so I can't speak to any performance differences they make. Also I'm using Raal's cable between the amplifier and the new interface box and a different cable from them that came with the original interface (so theoretically that might contribute to differences, though I doubt it). For both interfaces, I have Mitch's convolution filters running.

 

[MokhaMark]

Tested the newish (TI-1b) Raal headphone interface with a couple of amps:

Review: Low power amps with the Raal Sr1a? - the TI-1b interface

Background:
Traditional headphone amplifiers, and even SETs that output 2+ watts, perform poorly with several of the top planar magnetic headphones. For instance, I've always wondered how my favorite 2a3 SET amp would sound, if it magically was strong enough to drive the SR1a. The new interface claims to make this possible. Like the original interface box that shipped with the SR1a, the TI-1b increases the impedance and performs some EQ. However it has much greater efficiency that could make SET's or traditional headphone amplifiers an intriguing option - their romantic presentation paired with very high resolution transducer.

Therefore my main objective was to test how the new interface (TI-1b) works on low-powered amps. A more unusual secondary objective was to hear if there was any difference between the two interfaces when using high-powered amplifiers - which is relevant to original owners of the SR1a who might be interested in the new interface.

The most common question in the marker for the new interface: Can I use it with my 'low-powered amp? I tested the new interface with my all time-favorite SET with JJ 2a3's and Sophia Electric 6sn7's. The output of this amp is still going to be greater than most headphone amps - I'm going from the 16 ohm speaker taps to the new interface box with a cable, also from Raal. I found that three and a half watts going into the new interface can be deafeningly loud, so dynamics are unconstrained at normal listening levels. The sound is an interesting mix of the romantic haze of a SETs along with the incredibly high resolution of the Raal. This made me not be what you want on complex orchestral works, but I'd say for female vocals it is a benefit. Later testing with solid state amps showed the additional harmonics are coming from the SET, not the interface. Given the propensities of SETs, you might be concerned about bloated bass or rolled off treble, but the interface shows none of that, even at high volume. This is in contrast to the original interface where both I, and apparently JonL with the same amp, thought it was very inadequate.

The secondary question - does the TI1B offer improvements over the original, if you already have plenty of power? Swapping between interface versions on a high-power amp, even knowing full well which interface I was using, my first thought was, "wow, these are gonna be hard to tell apart". You do gain several dB of efficiency with the new interface, so I always level-matched. I listened to each for several hours back and forth, and ultimately I did spot a reliable difference. There's a slight emphasis in the new amplifier around 3kHz that does make the original sounds slightly muffled in direct comparison. However, this is on a pair of headphones with the greatest level of detail to begin with, so it's a slight difference and I think it's a matter of different emphasis rather than an increase in clarity. You can learn to recognize this difference, and if you listen to the same part of the same track it's possible to blindly tell the difference between interfaces. I found this to be the case on both Hypex and Purifi amps.

Conclusions: If your current amp struggles to power the Sr1a, or you want to try low powered amps, the new Ti1b interface will likely allow you to do that. While I didn't have anything to test below 3.5 watts (nominal), the amount of headroom available makes me think you could probably go down to a single watt and be fine.

It's a harder question if you already have enough power for the original interface. To put the magnitude of the differences in perspective (on high-power amps) it's in the ballpark of what you get when swapping between headphone cables. It is far less than the difference that you'll hear using Mitch's filters. Incidentally I highly recommend those, as they take the Sr1a from being overly midrange-y (vocals are very forward) to being much more balanced and pleasant long-term. If you would like a bit more upper midrange emphasis, you might want to consider the new interface, but again the effect size is on par with most cable swaps.

Limitations:
Raal didn't have the OB compensation adapters in stock at the time I got the TI-1b, so instead I adjust for this with PEQ in Jriver according to their recommendations, so I can't speak to any performance differences they make. Also I'm using Raal's cable between the amplifier and the new interface box and a different cable from them that came with the original interface (so theoretically that might contribute to differences, though I doubt it). For both interfaces, I have Mitch's convolution filters running.

Thank you for sharing your experience here! Very interesting.

 

[rlawry]

One thing that unnerves me about driving the SR-1b/Ti-1b is the level required from my Benchmark HPA4 headphone amp as compared to the level required when directly driving the much more sensitive headphones in my collection, in my case about 100 to 116 dB/mw.

The Benchmark amp has a stepped relay attenuator with readouts in dB below maximum output level, so it normally shows levels from about -50 to -30 dB for my other phones. In other words, the level is attenuated 30 to 50 dB below the zero gain level. The lower the number, the higher the amp's output level. When the level reaches 0 dB, the amp is fully attenuated and then there is another 15.8 dB of additional gain available above unity gain. So the volume control attenuates the power down to 0 dB and then can drive an additional +15.8 dB of gain.

When I drive the SR-1b using the Ti-1b transformer interface (a sensitivity of 91 dB/mw) the attenuation level is much lower, so I usually get readings of -20 dB or so, meaning the volume control is attenuating the full level less than with the other headphones. On some recordings on Qobuz, for some reason they transferred the music files at a significantly lower level, requiring me to drive the SR-1b/Ti-1b at an even lower attenuation level of -9 dB or sometimes even lower. At this level for a 16 ohm load and knowing full level is 6 W, I calculated the level at 24 mW, which is way below the maximum output level of 6 W into a 16 ohm load, but it still is somewhat disconcerting to require these higher amplifier levels. So far I have never driven the amp into clipping, which would cause the amp to mute its output until its level were lowered into an acceptable range, so I am probably not taxing the amp to any significant degree.

So the takeway is that my reluctance to drive my BM amp to these required levels is really not an issue and more of skittishness on my part. I also think that an amp that outputs less than a watt (maybe as little as 100 mW) into 16 ohms would work well with the SR-1b/Ti-1b unless you listen at headbanging levels, although I seriously doubt anyone listens to these phones at headbanging levels.

 

[KaiSc]

One thing that unnerves me about driving the SR-1b/Ti-1b is the level required from my Benchmark HPA4 headphone amp as compared to the level required when directly driving the much more sensitive headphones in my collection, in my case about 100 to 116 dB/mw.

The Benchmark amp has a stepped relay attenuator with readouts in dB below maximum output level, so it normally shows levels from about -50 to -30 dB for my other phones. In other words, the level is attenuated 30 to 50 dB below the zero gain level. The lower the number, the higher the amp's output level. When the level reaches 0 dB, the amp is fully attenuated and then there is another 15.8 dB of additional gain available above unity gain. So the volume control attenuates the power down to 0 dB and then can drive an additional +15.8 dB of gain.

When I drive the SR-1b using the Ti-1b transformer interface (a sensitivity of 91 dB/mw) the attenuation level is much lower, so I usually get readings of -20 dB or so, meaning the volume control is attenuating the full level less than with the other headphones. On some recordings on Qobuz, for some reason they transferred the music files at a significantly lower level, requiring me to drive the SR-1b/Ti-1b at an even lower attenuation level of -9 dB or sometimes even lower. At this level for a 16 ohm load and knowing full level is 6 W, I calculated the level at 24 mW, which is way below the maximum output level of 6 W into a 16 ohm load, but it still is somewhat disconcerting to require these higher amplifier levels. So far I have never driven the amp into clipping, which would cause the amp to mute its output until its level were lowered into an acceptable range, so I am probably not taxing the amp to any significant degree.

So the takeway is that my reluctance to drive my BM amp to these required levels is really not an issue and more of skittishness on my part. I also think that an amp that outputs less than a watt (maybe as little as 100 mW) into 16 ohms would work well with the SR-1b/Ti-1b unless you listen at headbanging levels, although I seriously doubt anyone listens to these phones at headbanging levels.

Two remarks:

1. The Benchmark HPA4 is analog only, no internal DAC with defined level.
Therefore HPA4‘s volume setting does not represent a certain output voltage, instead the source’s level needs to be taken into consideration too.

2. Raal does not give exact sensitivity figures.
To my knowledge the only figures published are a vage 111 dB max. SPL and a suggested power of 3 - 6 W for the amp driving Ti-1.
Based on these figures, SR1a/b with Ti-1a/b/c has a sensitivity of 73-76 dB/mW.
The exact figures depend on the flaps opening too.


No wonder and no reason to worry you have to up the volume compared to other, traditional ’phones.

 

[ruhian]

Hi if anyone has a Jot R for sale, please drop me a PM thanks!

 

[KaiSc]

Hi if anyone has a Jot R for sale, please drop me a PM thanks!

At Schiit b-stock sales there are still 3 Jotunheim A, the improved version of Jotunheim R, that works with both Raal ribbons and AUDEZE‘s LCD-R.
It‘s the US version for 115 V mains.

https://www.schiit.com/b-stocks

 

[MokhaMark]

At Schiit b-stock sales there are still 3 Jotunheim A, the improved version of Jotunheim R, that works with both Raal ribbons and AUDEZE‘s LCD-R.
It‘s the US version for 115 V mains.

https://www.schiit.com/b-stocks

Was it an improved version, or one tweeked for the Audeze? My recollection is it has lower gain and no open baffle adjustments, so it might only be appropriate for the CA maybe (unless one uses the new filters or compensators). Not saying with confidence, just asking in case.

 

[rlawry]

Was it an improved version, or one tweeked for the Audeze? My recollection is it has lower gain and no open baffle adjustments, so it might only be appropriate for the CA maybe (unless one uses the new filters or compensators). Not saying with confidence, just asking in case.

Using the barrel compensators or parametric equalizer in Roon or other programs works well but I would highly recommend using the Mitch filters that incorporate the frequency compensation if you want to hear the SR-1b at its best. So an option is the Jotunheim A, a great deal for $199, which is the same price as the Mitch filters.

 

[Jon L]

Was it an improved version, or one tweeked for the Audeze? My recollection is it has lower gain and no open baffle adjustments, so it might only be appropriate for the CA maybe (unless one uses the new filters or compensators). Not saying with confidence, just asking in case.

It was just tuned for Audeze. Jot-A still had a switch for "Bass Shelf" for more bassy presentation on LCD-R. I wonder if that bass shelf was tuned/tailored for LCD-R, or whether it's the same baffle step correction circuit left over from Jot-R that is now being used as bass boost..