[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRedwings19 All though I do find one thing confusing though. Some people say they all sound the same as the full sized offerings and some say there is a difference. Now for a newcomer it sounds either like you are buying something which has an inconsistent sound quality, another that the full size rigs are not worth the money, or people are talking out of their asses.

Well, leaving aside the question of value for the moment, the truth is that Ray has two house sounds. One is dark and luscious and is embodied in the HR-2, XP-7 and SR-71. The other is more forward with a more pronounced midrange and is evident in the Stealth, Raptor and Hornet. Now, to get back to the value judgement. Before the SR-71 came along portable amps played a serious second fiddle to the home amplifer. Portable amps just didn't have the guts to play with the big boys and many felt they never would. Enter the SR-71 which was the first portable amplifier that could (and did) give a home amp a run for it's money. Now the question of value becomes a lot less clear, could you use your SR-71 for everything, yes, but it was inconvenient because of the batteries, either you're charging batteries all the time or you're buying 'em. Could you use your XP-7 for everything? Yes, but it was a bit too big for easy portability. Now, it becomes a question? Do you really want to bring your portable amplifier home and use it with your main rig, consider the plugging/unplugging to swap back and forth. Could you? Yes. Would the Hornet look as cool sitting there next to your main rig as a Raptor or be as functional as the Stealth? No. I'm not going to give an answer to the question since I don't have one, but they both have their strong points...

 

[plainsong]

FWIW, when I read posts saying reporting that it's nearly impossible to tell the Hornet (portable, solid state) from the Raptor (tube), I can't really take that literally. I've heard solid states do a good job of sounding like tube before, but I think there's a fundemental difference there.

But I do take it figuritively to mean "The hornet is very good and is up there in quality as really do a good job of sounding tube-like."

I hope that doesn't offend anyone, but hype and excitement can bring out strange statements at times.

What it all comes down to is, the hornet will most likely be killer, but is a different beast than the Raptor, and sr71.

 

[GoRedwings19]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks well then, based on reports, it seems to run hot.

Okay now you have stated your opinion then I will agree with you that the Raptor runs hot.

Jahn>This was my initial thought when I used my Raptor that the red led although nice is causing the volume dial to heat up and act like a heat sink. It is probably the hottest thing on the operational temperature of the Raptor.

Now I am thinking of disenaging the red led as it serves no real purpose besides eye candy. Now if this reduces the volume control temp then I am all for it.

 

[erikzen]

I think the marketing comes from RS Audio being "market oriented". In other words he is listening to what the marketplace wants and is delivering. When the SR-71 came out people were in love with it at first but then people said they wanted something smaller, could run on AC, and could recharge batteries internally - like the Super Macro. Ray listened to what people said, watched what the competition was doing, and tried to capitalize on an opportunity. This is straight out of the business school text books and there's nothing wrong with that, IMHO. (Of course I went to business school so of course I don't find anthing wrong with that.)

The hype comes from the people that he is satisfying. Give people what they want and they will become excited about it, talk about it incessantly, line up to buy it. It's not like he's The Wizard of Oz or something. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore 1) There was a lot of hype of the little SR-71 (black bird) being the sonic equal of the XP-7, HR-2.

Which it pretty much was...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore 2) The SR-71 was declared the ultimate headphone amp, combing power, authority, with portability.

Which it was, let's face it, it was the first portable that didn't sound bad next to a stationary home amplifer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore 3) People flooded to the SR-71 in droves.

Yes, they did and for good reason, there wasn't much thast could compete with it sonically either in portable or home amplifiers at the price point. Amps like the Super Dual just couldn't hit the same performance level, but they did offer more features. The SR-71, as with all amplifiers, did have shortcomings. The Hornet addresses the major drawbacks such as the lack of a built in charger and makes the Ray Samuel's line comptetive feature wise with the rest of the market. In this case, at least in my opinion, there is less reason to flock, but this will vary for other users.

 

[ampgalore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen The hype comes from the people that he is satisfying. Give people what they want and they will become excited about it, talk about it incessantly, line up to buy it. It's not like he's The Wizard of Oz or something. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

If all hype came out of thin air, then all the advertising agencies would be out of business.

 

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpalmer Which it was, let's face it, it was the first portable that didn't sound bad next to a stationary home amplifer.

i would personally qualify that statement. i am borrowing an SR-71 right now and while it sounds quite nice for a portable, it sounds rather wretched compared to my PPX3 using both the Sony CD3000's and the Etymptic ER-4P/S.

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks i would personally qualify that statement. i am borrowing an SR-71 right now and while it sounds quite nice for a portable, it sounds rather wretched compared to my PPX3 using both the Sony CD3000's and the Etymptic ER-4P/S.

The PPX 3 is portable?

EDIT - OK, I think I understand what you meant, but then I think that might be more a matter of tubes vs solid state. (And if I remember correctly, the PPX3 did not exist then, though I might not be right there).

 

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpalmer The PPX 3 is portable?

no. i was responding to the fact that you said the SR-71 didn't sound bad next to a home amp. i think it sounds bad next to my PPX3.

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks no. i was responding to the fact that you said the SR-71 didn't sound bad next to a home amp. i think it sounds bad next to my PPX3.

Heh, try any of the other portable amps that were out at the time and report back your results...

 

[ampgalore]

I have heard both the SR-71 and the HR-2. And the two are NOTHING alike.

Most people who purchased the SR-71 have never heard the HR-2. So they take a few people's claims of sonic equality at face value. This is the power of marketing. The power of BS.

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore I have heard both the SR-71 and the HR-2. And the two are NOTHING alike.

I own both and I have to completely disagree with you there, but thanks for playing...

 

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpalmer Heh, try any of the other portable amps that were out at the time and report back your results...

i have. in certain ways, for instance, i think the Bithead is better than the SR-71. while the Bithead has some major issues, it doesn't suffer from the same lack of instrument separation and congested soundstage that the SR-71 displays. the SR-71 does sound significantly better than the bithead, in general. regardless of that, you posted that the SR-71 was pretty much the sonic equal of the HR-2. considering that statement, it seems that it would be perfectly valid to compare to the SR-71 to the PPX3 in terms of pure sonic ability while ignoring the portability factor completely.

 

[GoRedwings19]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks i have. in certain ways, for instance, i think the Bithead is better than the SR-71. while the Bithead has some major issues, it doesn't have the suffer from the same lack of instrument separation and congested soundstage that the SR-71 displays. the SR-71 does sound significantly better than the bithead, in general. regardless of that, you posted that the SR-71 was pretty much the sonic equal of the HR-2. considering that statement, it seems that it would be perfectly valid to compare to the SR-71 to the PPX3 in terms of pure sonic ability while ignoring the portability factor completely.

Dude Gpalmer has only recently got the sr71. How can you compare the sr71 to a HR2 or a PPX3 when he has only just recieved it? I am not sure if he has listened to it yet.

 

[raaj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore Frankly I am sick and tired of all this marketing BS. Certain amp manufacturer's marketing strategy should really be written into business school's textbooks.

Wei, I thought you would be through with your disillusionment/disenchantment with all things head-fi related a long time ago !! Having returned to head-fi after a rather long hiatus myself, I find it heartening that you stuck around, trying to educate head-fi n00bs from falling a prey to the marketing "schemes" this place is riddled with.

My dear friends, always be skeptical, and anything that costs more than a few hundred dollars could most certainly be snake oil. Read all positive reviews with skepticism, for there are business interests behind the said prouct. Nothing that sounds good should cost you what the manufacturer asks for it.

Cheers !! and EOS.