[Golfnutz]

Quote:

Reading again the reviews from playback magazine linked at the beginning of the thread, and comparing against all the impressions of users so far,I can't help but think the reviewer has mistakenly swaped his review notes for the BHSE and LL. So weired to read these now.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Somehow the LL gets 9.5 for input/output flexibility. 1 set XLR and 1 set RCA inputs, 2 output jacks. Where the BHSE gets 8 for 1 set XLR, 2 sets of RCA inputs, 2 output jacks and 1 XLR and 1 RCA loop out. Am I missing something or as you suggest are they getting their notes mixed up?

 

[El_Doug]

hah I never noticed that - very funny
 
Quote:

Yeah, I don't get it either. Somehow the LL gets 9.5 for input/output flexibility. 1 set XLR and 1 set RCA inputs, 2 output jacks. Where the BHSE gets 8 for 1 set XLR, 2 sets of RCA inputs, 2 output jacks and 1 XLR and 1 RCA loop out. Am I missing something or as you suggest are they getting their notes mixed up?

 

[justin w.]

in case no one else noticed, the reviews were written by different people

 

[Golfnutz]

Quote:

in case no one else noticed, the reviews were written by different people

It doesn't matter, they should be using the same system to determine their ratings. 9.5 for basically the minimum? What else is skewed?

 

[Radio_head]

Justin's comment applies to much more than just input/output ratings - how can comparisons be made if the two reviews were written by different people?  The only way to reconcile them would be if they both heard both amps and agreed with 100% of each other's writeups, which is highly unlikely.

 

[MorbidToaster]

I never really understood ratings for inputs. I tend to only see reason for ratings when something is not so black and white.

 

[arnaud]

I had not realized the articles were from different authors. It is particularly misleading because:
1. The article formatting is the same in all reviews, with similar volume of content, same discussions on the attributes
2. The 3 articles were written "back to back", posted in succession and are cross-referenced including sonic impressions
3. The whole works main point was comparison of totl amps for the 009 so you'd think the reviews should be comparable.

Yet, even the one and only piece of potentially objective comparison (the metrics from 0 to 10 at the end about functionality such as inputs) show how much opinions vary among the reviewers about the scale units which makes the whole exercise a moot point at least, and a gross misleading source of impressions at worse.

Oh well, this is where I can only hope for people like mwilson to carry on with home auditions of all the contenders... There is still potential bias but at least, it is from a unified voice...

 

[IanG]

Quote:

The LL is anything but dull. I have no idea where this came from, but it's simply incorrect. This is almost like some complaining about the electrostats lacking bass - they don't; it's just more refined and better in quality/extension. I also didn't say the BHSE introduced detail - wouldn't that be called distorsion? 

 What I did say, however, is that the details, as rendered by the BHSE, tended to become distracting at times, to me and to my ears, at least.
 
I found that both the BHSE and the LL handle frequency extremes very well; I didn't find one better than the other in this regard.
 
Let's not forget though that I'm nitpicking; they both are exceptional amps, and, should there be no LL, I'd be very happy to consider a BHSE/009 combo.

 
I agree entirely.
 
A colleague here also finds some "detail" issue with his BHSE/009 combination - having to turn down what he thinks is a satisfactory volume level on some tracks or track openings to more manageable levels later.  
 
To be fair I don't get that with his BHSE/009 - our ears, hearing, preferences differ - to a far larger degree than the amplifiers, I suspect.
 
As you say, both exceptional amplifiers - and most of us want to reinforce the perceived wisdom of our purchase - so I declare my bias for the LL just as others have the same bias for the BHSE.

 

[David1961]

I'm not sure what headfiers are trying to achieve in doing a comparison between the LL & BHSE, SQ wise they're both excellent amps and I'm sure owners of either are extremely happy with theirs. Hi Ian, I'm assuming you're referring to me regarding some songs I listen to being harsh at certain points. This is true but only with a few, the ones in particular are Sledge Hammer and Big Time [ Peter Gabriel ] which I'm not sure if you've heard with the BHSE/009, in fact I don't think you've heard any of the songs I find that way. When you visit my place you can listen to some of those songs.

 

[mwilson]

Quote:

I'm not sure what headfiers are trying to achieve in doing a comparison between the LL & BHSE.

 
Such comparisons are kinda the reason for places like head-fi....

 

[David1961]

Quote:

 
Such comparisons are kinda the reason for places like head-fi....

True, but it seems some are trying to prove one is better than the other.

 

[mwilson]

Quote:

True, but it seems some are trying to prove one is better than the other.

 
One will always be better than the other, but which one exactly differs from person to person. This is perfectly normal - if one were to tabulate and average these opinions, they would most likely yield some sort of balance between the BHSE and LL.
 
Besides, if you're happy with your BHSE, why in the world would you care what others think of it?

 

[David1961]

Quote:

Besides, if you're happy with your BHSE, why in the world would you care what others think of it?

 
I am very happy with the BHSE and it doesn't bother me what other's think of it, so on that I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

 

[Golfnutz]

Quote:

Justin's comment applies to much more than just input/output ratings - how can comparisons be made if the two reviews were written by different people?  The only way to reconcile them would be if they both heard both amps and agreed with 100% of each other's writeups, which is highly unlikely.

I understand your point, it's normal with equipment reviews.
 
Except if you read the review of the WES there was obvious collaboration between all 3 amps. I just find it misleading.
 
Quote from the WES review:
Given that the WES is quite good but not perfect, you will want to consider how the WES compares to other electrostatic headphone amps. While we haven’t completed our work on this, we would say that the Woo majors in clarity and dynamics, the Head Amp Blue Hawaii SE majors in harmonic richness and warmth, and the Cavalli Liquid Lightning falls somewhere in the middle.
 
You can find other comparisons in all 3 reviews.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote from the WES review:
Given that the WES is quite good but not perfect, you will want to consider how the WES compares to other electrostatic headphone amps. While we haven’t completed our work on this, we would say that the Woo majors in clarity and dynamics, the Head Amp Blue Hawaii SE majors in harmonic richness and warmth, and the Cavalli Liquid Lightning falls somewhere in the middle.

Either the WES has had a major sonic alteration since CanJam 2010 - I think it might have - or the reviewers are tone deaf. This is way beyond opinion. The BHSE was powerful, precise and neutral; the WES was the most lush tube amp we had heard in years.