Treading on. Brutally.
I would encourage you to give the thread a read as
ssnorry provides interesting commentary pertaining to the design parameters of his drivers.
I parsed what I could for reference.
* high There was a similar experience. At that time, I had a Lynx earphone, Myst ISO-60 and v1 Abyss. The abyss from the amplifier played sadly: lightened, almost without bass, approximately like Myst from the phone. On the Lynx, the Mists sort of defeated the Abyss. Then came clean class A35W @ 4 ohms. Nobody trampled anyone in the mud, my misty finalized Snorry, placing it in a carbon case, giving melody ears to the ears. But the Abyss in the macro aspect turned out to be like huge speakers up to the ceiling against compact bookshelf speakers. The detail is also higher, without brightness, clicks and sibilants (that is, without highlighting a part of the frequency range). Then the DAC is normal: the sound went up through the headphones, to the sides, to the depths. V1 - not the most technical headphones, but in the aspect of macro, scale, they are still a unique sample, not yet surpassed by anyone, we must give them their due. A huge thread is dedicated to them on Doctorhead, the owners have noted all this in detail ... Therefore, I call for the correctness of the comparison.
From SW.
> 35W @ 4 Ohm
This infa itself does not give anything, because at least it is not clear what its output impedance is.
nergosergo V1 - not the most technical headphones, but in the aspect of macro, scale they are still a unique sample, not yet surpassed by anyone, we must pay tribute to them
I don't know what you mean by macro, I mean punch, meat and that's all, feeling that the sound flow, as it were, carries with it, pressure, from what I
remember it was not, they have a good midbass (abyss), good percussion, fast enough, in that model (old) there were no sibilants. At the time, I mostly
didn't like this aspect, but technically they were not bad. New abyses generally xs that, they even can't win against he6, while they have a sound
rather unpleasant for my taste and some kind of oddity with the "scene", to me personally it seems bloated and with poor localization, at least in both versions of the
abyss I did not like it.
Again, I have heard that they are supposedly capable of something, but this does not agree with common sense, because the same nm1 are tighter.
And they play well even on an amplifier that was not created for them, there will be new ones, let's see what they show, but in theory, the gap should just become even greater.
However, I still don't have the first version right now, but I didn't like the new ones, to put it mildly.
* high In short. 1266 v1 seem to be more effective and expressive. Vocals, solo instruments are closer and larger than most paths I've heard. A little overkill + inaccuracy in the 1 ktsg zone - emotional and thus a little tiring. NM-1 vocals, lead instruments are further away and seem less expressive than the same in most paths in my experience. Perhaps they were built in a path with a pronounced middle. Why not. However, there are more emotional gradations, they have a more delicate and refined presentation, there are also more information gradations, and they listen for a longer time without fatigue - and this despite the fact that in my tract they are brighter on HF. It turns out that Abyss are much more forgivable to the tract and their main requirement is impeccable gain and good nutrition. NM-1 is more detailed, cleaner, more sophisticated in presentation, more accurately and significantly better cope with the truly complex structure of composition and mixing. Compared to the Abyss v1, it sometimes seems like it lacks depth and reverb - but that is the effect of more expressiveness, the genius of tonal adjustment and sound marketing.
I was worried about the dynamics and energy of NM-1 vs Abyss. In vain, almost do not concede. The Abyss still has the effect of large speakers, the NM-1 may be slightly smaller, but not much.
The NM-1s were bought when I realized that the narrowest link in my path was the power cables. With the replacement for even and completely non-budgetary power (although I understand that for many it may sound wild) NM-1, one might say, just jerked, Abyss grew, but not so noticeably.
Stock cables. There are mono conductors for both pairs, they are more uneven. I listened, the essence does not change.
Signature tract Rendu SE - Denafrips Gaia - Denafrips Terminator - Noosfera Echo
source Roon + HQplayer. Wi-fi bridge - opto-decoupling (filtering in-phase + constant), switch (filtering in-phase + constant + differential) - if it tells anyone what. Three dedicated power lines.
There is a desire to further open the headphones one way or another, to achieve a little more presence in the middle
stopped by to listen to this ...
Violectric V590 + Nimbus HPA US4,
Audeze LCD-MX4, Abyss Diana V2 vs Snorry NM-1
qsk In 1 hour it is quite difficult to understand what is what in detail, but conclusions about the general level are, of course, you can.
What conclusions did I make for myself:
- The NM-1 were and remain TOTL-level headphones, the difference with the top-end (near top-end) Audeze and Abyss is more tasteful, and I liked the MX-4 more than Diana.
Diana sounds strange in general, a little detached in the middle, albeit on a large scale. But here it should be noted that all the headphones were on balance, while Diana was on SE.
- My home combo Burson (Composer 3XP + Soloist 3XP) is no less than a 590 combo from the Germans. The V590 is more colored, warmer. Purely taste preferences, to whom what.
- Nimbus is a complete full end game! ) If someone has an extra 270 thousand rubles, you can take it without thinking) - purely, powerful, neutral, articulated, large-scale!
First I listened from the V590 combo, then I connected the Nimbus and the 590 worked purely as a DAC.
He listened exclusively to jazz with a pronounced rhythm section with double bass, acoustic bass (Avishai Cohen, GoGo Penguin).
L7 For the "headphone starry sky" scheme, I compared SI-2 with what was at hand from a relatively similar character at hand - LCD-2, Odin and naturally NM-1. In short, the results.
LCD-2 has nothing to oppose to SI-2 - they are much simpler in resolution. The "trick" of a powerful bass does not bring the final result to a competitive level. (-Less resolution + More bass + Darker)
C LCD-X can be compared, alas, only from memory, but they are objectively stronger than SI-2. For all the unbalanced neutrality of LCD-X, the overall class is still noticeably higher. SI-2 are more honest, perhaps, but in comparison with LCD-X it would be boring to listen to them.
In the person of Odin, they are worthy of a close rival. The resolution is generally lower in Odin, but the timbres are more interesting. SI-2 are too restrained and rather dry compared to Odin. Odin's juiciness is perhaps less natural and adds something that is absent in the source material, but without overkill, the feeling of unnaturalness does not arise much. (-Slightly less resolution -Less neutral + More interesting timbre).
Compared to the NM-1, the result is pretty straightforward. The NM-1 has the most. Higher resolution overall. The stage is wider and more interesting. Greater naturalness of timbres with less schematics. More impressive bass. And with all this, the general character of the handwriting is very similar.
