RE: Jot vs Rag and Sound Fields
Many HP related posts here at Head-Fi mentioning the sound field seem directed at discussing stage width and stability of imaging. Few discuss the depth aspects and it's possible this is just not as important with non classical genres of music recorded in small specialized studios as opposed to the large spaces of concert halls. Ideally a sound field should be like a holograph; if it was visually perceivable it should define a 3D space with width, height, and depth components. Over the years I’ve heard and owned speakers that throw a huge sound field with stable imaging such that you could point to specific spots and sense the sound of an instrument or group of instruments halfway or all the way at the back of the stage within the sound space. This illusion is very recording dependent. I don’t hear this type of specificity in the concert hall, sounds blend much more and the point to a spot business tends to fall apart. However, somehow (and maybe it’s a result of phase and timing cues) my ears always get the sense, when I go live, that the sounds coming from the violins and cellos are at the front, woodwinds behind them, and horns and percussion behind them, a nebulous layering type of effect from front to back, even with my eyes closed and the farther from the stage the more noticeable it can be. The larger physical space of the concert hall with the longer reflection times may result in this blending effect. Home listening rooms are like phone booths with all those early reflections, but if a recording and the reproducing chain can generate this faux depth with specificity it helps me to suspend belief that I’m in a tiny room and have a full size orchestra in front of me adding to my enjoyment of the in-home listening experience. I'm headphones only at this point, wrestling with how to squeeze a couple boxes with cones or stats into my limited space.
A generalization I tend to find holds true with reproduced sound, be it headphones or speakers; if the recording and chain all the way to the transducer is relatively flat in frequency response through the crucial midrange and lower highs, this sound field with a depth component will be as large and specific front to back as the recording allows for. Elevate those frequency ranges slightly and the front to back component gets squashed and comes forward. Recess that frequency range slightly and it expands from front to back but loses the “it sounds like I could reach out and touch it” element.
All of the foregoing is related to my concert hall and in home listening experience and with orchestral recordings with headphones and speakers. None of it is original to me. Decades ago I was introduced to all these concepts through the likes of J.Gordon Holt, Harry Pearson, and others. I make no claim to guru-hood, to having better ears than others, or a better understanding of the art and science of music reproduction. These are just my observations in conjunction with what I learned from others as applied to my "live" and "canned" listening experiences.
Anyway, some random musings on my Schiit boxes, MJ2 vs Rag vs Jot, as I revisited the A/B/C arena with regard to the sound stage once again over this past weekend. I'm not making any recommendations on which I think is best, just my thoughts on my 3 headphone amps.
If Schiit has a house sound tailored to appeal to different categories of listeners I don’t hear it. These 3 are all basically neutral but with minor deviations from each other, and those differences are mole hills and not mountains and it took me a lot of listening hours to reach my conclusions, which will not necessarily be anyone else's conclusions. The sound field generated with the HP’s I used (HD800 and Utopia) in conjunction with these amps made the differences noticeable. Comparing the Utopia and HD800 on the Rag made for some very interesting listening sessions, but that’s another story.
Turning to the MJ2 first you’d think the tubes would make a big difference. Every time I fire up mine up I’m surprised at how un-tube-like it is. But then I do associate typical old school tube type sound with output transformers in power amps, not necessarily with small signal tubes or hybrid amps like the MJ2. I guess a designer could play with distortion parameters to make for a more tube-like sound in an OTL or SS pre or power amp, but I don’t hear what I remember as typical tube-y coloration's here, just a softening of details at the extreme top and bottom of the frequency range in the MJ2 coupled with a beautiful sounding midrange. It really shines with my HD800.
I also find the MJ2 is like a chameleon. Roll different tube pairs with LISST’s and get a lot of subtle variety in the sound. Picking a winner on what tubes to stay with has become as difficult for me as answering the question “What’s your favorite color” before crossing the Bridge of Death.
As regards the Rag, when I used the word “unexciting” in an earlier post in reference to my Rag I didn’t mean it in a negative way. My Rag gives me the sense that the sound stage perspective and frequency balance is neutral with respect to distance from the players or groups of players and the air between the players and of the hall and how the instruments sound tonally. It may sound a bit laid back and softer on top by comparison with the Jot which strikes me as a bit forward and brighter with a more compact sound stage from front to back and I don't hear the "air" I sometimes get with the MJ2 and Rag. I get the sense of a bigger picture on the orchestra with my Rag which works better with the music I listen to most and depending on the recording comes closer to what I experience live from a point in the audience as opposed to on (or hanging over) the stage which is a tendency of overly miked recordings. Going from the Jot to the Rag could initially be like going from "exciting" to "unexciting" but over time the Rag just gets more "real" for my listening preferences, lack of a better explanation.
Many of the early Jot posters raved about the sound of vocals and I think it speaks to the Jot’s midrange clarity and ability to make voices “pop” sounding very “there” and I do like my Rock and Jazz music on the Jot, very energizing. Going from the Jot to the Rag it’s conceivable that the Rag could come off as less squeaky clean in its presentation of the midrange with less “pop” to vocals, and I remember a comment or two that the Rag might be veiled in comparison to the Jot (which I don’t hear). I also sense the Rag delivers with a greater sense of ease, it’s more relaxed and its sound field is bigger than the Jot’s in depth regardless of whether I use SE or Balanced connections The Rag provides me with what I prefer in a complete sound presentation. But, I like the variety of having the additional amps (especially the MJ2) just as I like having multiple headphones at my disposal.
I think all 3 of my Schiit amps would measure almost identically for practical purposes and in most aspects, and at these vanishing levels of distortion I wouldn’t attribute any perceived subjective differences as discernible from looking at those measurements. I’ve owned them for; (MJ2 – 15 months, Rag – 11 months, Jot - 10 months).
Comparing my 3 Schiit amps with HP’s (Mostly the HD800 and Utopia) over the past year turned out to be a lot more difficult than I ever imagined because I found matching volume levels in open air even with a decent sound level meter notoriously difficult but a must as it affects so many sound characteristics. I also find it much easier to fine tune the rotary volume pots on the MJ2 and Jot than with the Rags attenuator so I always had to set the Rag volume first and then dial the MJ2 and Jot in with the meter and test tone using the Rag as the reference level, before making listening comparisons. With the Rags attenuator of 64 steps of 1.2 db each it’s fairly easy to hear the difference in sound level between steps even at the lowest gain setting. This tells me that a difference of only 2 db between the 3 units might change my perception and is why if Schiit ever offer an upgrade to 128 steps for the Rag I’ll take advantage of it. Given that there is no standardization with recording levels I always end up with different volume settings every time I put on a different CD to get the sound to what I feel is appropriate for the type of music and how and where the recording was made. So I would always need to reset the volumes all over again. Too high a volume level and the music can get shout-y and/or distorted, too low and it get washed out sounding lacking presence and body. And louder always sounds closer. I also find there is a relatively small range of volume or a sweet spot in volume setting for any given recording where it comes to life as realistically sounding as the recording is capable of allowing it to be.
As far as moving up (?) to a Rag, it’s not 4+ times better in any aspect. Can you benefit or make use of the additional inputs/outputs? Do the speaker taps matter to you? The third gain option? They certainly didn’t to me but I handled it like I did my purchase of the Yggy, why start at the bottom and work my way up. I was already sold on the MJ2 for my tube option and it seemed to be Schiit’s statement amp with its tube/FET topology in a headphone amp. I then decided to just go straight for their SS statement amp for headphones. I should also mention that the Rag generates significantly more heat than the Jot and will need more breathing space along with its larger footprint. But, I still keep coming back to the Rag for my music of choice most of the time and fire up the MJ2 when I’m feeling decadent.
Satisfaction of ownership can play into all this as well. A Hyundai or Kia will move me from point A to point B very cost effectively, but I want, and am willing to pay for, all the performance, comfort, and bling features that come from the more upscale car makers. The Rag comes with most every option I can think of (except a remote control, power switch on the front, VU meters, and a dimmer for its LED, if such things matter to you).
With regards to upgrading; I subscribe to all the Schiit related threads here at Head-Fi and it seems to me that at least 90% of all the posts along the lines of “I got a problem with the sound” have to do with downloaded music content and playback from PC’s over USB, HDMI, etc. D/L'd music content also seems to be the format of choice among posters. These issues could be various noise issues to no sound, or something else. If I were thinking of upgrading my existing signal chain I would assess my front end and conclude whether or not I can improve it within my budget to get the best quality signal out of the original source, be it CD or D/L content, before it gets to the DAC. If I were already satisfied with the front end I would next focus on the transducer, followed by the DACs/preamps/amps, and lastly, the connecting wires. Nothing new here, but that’s how I'd approach the process and spend my money if I already had a complete rig and was looking to “improve” it.
Even with my CD player and DAC there are things like jitter, clocks, algorithms, bits, filters, and lots of other pieces parts and details that are beyond the scope of my knowledge but that need to be addressed and done right. Based on my exposure to Yggy I trust in Mike get those things right for me, so I don't have to think about them, LOL!
The last thought I want to leave you with (and I’ve said it before), “The harder I listen, the less I hear” All this A vs B vs C stuff is interesting and fun but it is also time consuming, tedious, tiring, and frustratingly difficult at times. As a lifelong audiophile I’ve always found that as time passes with exposure to some new piece of gear I will eventually reach a point where I stop listening to the equipment, like a dog on point, in any structured way. Preconceived expectations and biases will gradually fade into the background. I will find myself focused more on the music; the sound of the individual notes, the body sound of the instruments, the various textures, musical structures, clarity of inner detailing, the sound of the hall, and how it was all captured by the microphones and balanced in the final mix. That’s when I find the truth of the sound for me.
As always, trust your own ears.
