To somehow contribute on this site, i decided to do a subjective test/comparing three headphone amplifiers with two headphones. I know, all these are old devices, but not all are well known or reviewed on the net. I hope that, i will not be sent to the museum for these words, or for the amplifiers which i tested, they are unmatched.
First a few words about my test. It is a subjective test, made by human. And each of us has our shortcomings, tastes or preferences. Therefore, it cannot be taken as 100% truth or objective evaluation. I will try to avoid assessing in terms of better or worse. Rather on character or differences, more appropriate use, etc.
For the test, I used two very know, but also very different headphones. Different not only technically, but also in sound. However, I do not think it is right to say which are better or worse. Both are loved, only on opposite poles. For a better understanding of my assessment, it will be better to write a few words about them, as I perceive both models, their sound character.
Tested / compared amplifiers:
IPAR-1023A / lamp amplifier /
Creek OBH21-MK II
S.M.S.L. Sanskrit Pha
Used headphones:
MrSpeakers Ether - No Flow / modified as closed, with my self /
ATH - W5000
Signal source:
QLS-360 MOD
A few words about QLS - 360 MOD. Personally, I see it as a forgotten, underrated player. His sound is very soft, silky, extremely balanced. Sometimes it feels like a lack of emotion in music or a less of musicality. But it is rather due to its neutrality and balance. The character is closer to the cold than the warm, but it's very subtle. The sound scene is wide enough and there is a high hint and depth. I tried to improve the sound with an external DAC, but only when the DAC was above the price of QLS itself, there was a slight improvement in the sound. The sound became closer to the living as the good reproduced sound, which i feel from QLS. Directly compared to the Colorfly C4PRO which I have, the sound is closer to audiophile. Colorfly will play more for the listener's emotions.
To headphones. Ether are planar, with slightly higher impedance, ATH dynamic. With both are used basic cables.
Ether vs ATH - Ether sound is more out from the head than ATH. I would say in front of my forehead. ATH play more in the head, even though their sound scene is wide enough. This causes a deeper sound scene for Ether. Ether goes clearly deeper, bass is fuller, even physical. ATH does not reach such a strong sub bass, but it is slightly more accurate (but it may be because they can't play that deep). ATH is the king in the midrange zone. The voice of the singers is literally felt on the face. Ether voice plays as if from a slightly larger distance. It is gently in the background of the rest of the spectrum. The high notes are clearer, more crystal on ATH. However, this sometimes causes glazing of the soundtrack. Ether have high tones more subtle. At higher volumes, Ether plays clearly better, fuller, and everything gets more balanced. ATH excel in silent listening, high volume does not suit them. The sound becomes very clear, presentable, feeling sharp in the sound. This charater, on the other hand, pulls out even the smallest micro-details in music, various noise and movements of musicians. Everything that materializes where the recording was made with errors from that. The Ether have a very quiet background, but this is because many of the micro details have been lost. All involved in the music can be heard clearly, clean, very real and with the body, but they are as if they are placed in a sterile space. ATH´s are at the opposite pole in this. Sometimes there are those micro revelations but more than enough. ATH excel in vocal albums, smaller musical ensembles, soft ambient or neoclassical. Ether again in rock music, large ensembles, jazz scene, or even with modern electronic music.
Amplifiers:
Ipar 1023A:
The design is larger and heavier than the other two. It has a large ring transformer, separate solid state preamplifier and a separate tube headphone amplifier. 4 separate inputs, selectable by microswitcher. It is very seriously made, designed. I would say only seriously in terms of - the impossibility of interfering with it. It has enough power, switches for gain. The only technical weakness at first glance is the used not ALPS potentiometers, but basic Chinese. Plus, the design that prevents customer tube replacement - I solved this problem with my modification. It's about 2kg of technique, so no cheapness.
I will not evaluate the preamplifier. I focus on the headphone section. I used a new Sylvania lamp. The original is not bad, but Sylvania has given the sound precision, clarity, more dynamism. On a fine scale. The tubes started to play after about an hour of heating. Then the tube calmed down, stopped bursting and got alife. The sound is clearly tube. But it is not unpredictable or unstable. The bass have great power and thrust, but it is still warmer and rounder than the other two solid state models. The midrange are purely human really feel, such a magic color or mood from the voices, as alived. The high notes are soft. The overall scene is quite wide and deep. However, it is not accurate, as the other two amps. Everything, what is on the sound scene, is no exactly accurate or have perfect clarity. But on the other hand, everything seems to be more related. Amp is better friend with ATH headphones than Ether. Ether was playing gently overshadowed. Even i try to use maximum volume, sound was still under control, nothing sharp or etc. Some „sound“ from the amp/trafo/tube come to the sound, but very very cently.
Creek OBH-21 MK II
Generally, very well known headphone amp on the market. Very priced, winner of many reviews or test batles. His design is minimalistic at first glance, but on the other hand it is clear with what care the amplifier is made. All components are of high quality. Plenty of power, two outputs and the possibility to use it as a priced quality preamplifier. As one special „feature“ of the amplifier I see in its two headphone outputs. They are fully identical, regulated by a single potentiometer, and do not switch off each other. Even if I use identical headphones, the listener will not be identical, certainly not in volume. Here's the question - why? If they were fully independent or different headphones in impedance, everything is clear.
Sound – He is one of the most versatile piece from the amplifiers I describe. The bass stretches to great depths, while avoiding the rest of the spectrum. The whole spectrum is balanced. So are the heights. No voices or unnatural feelings in the voices. Maybe he lacks a bit of speed and clarity to perfection, but at this price? Background clean, without any noise. Alps works gently, beautifull, clean. The sound stage is wide enough as well as deep. But here comes the place of comparison with Sanskrit Pha or IPAR. If I were to compare them or describe them on a metric scale, I could say that:
Creek played 15cm wide, and 5cm deep.
IPAR played 16cm wide, and 5cm deep.
Sanskrit Pha played 14cm wide, and 6cm deep.
Creek had moderate localization and transparency in everything that was on the sound stage, the width gently fading in "infinite".
IPAR had the slightest lower localization and transparency in sound, but the space behind everything seemed to have no boundaries. Even there was nothing, but the fluid feeling that it was there some open space.
Sanskrit Pha - the purest localization, very transparent separation in the sound scene, clearly defined, but the space is bounded as if there is nothing, it does not play anything, nothing.
I'll go back to Creek. When pairing him with headphones, he understood better with ATH than with Ether. Not that he wouldn't tighten or control them. But its slightly slower speed or lower transparency couldn't transmit all the information over the Ether. On the contrary, the lack of ATH in the bass component, Creek's strength has shown that ATH can play deep bass. I would include the entire sound spectrum between IPAR and Sanskrit Pha. The first has a warm sound signature, with the addition of an analogue flavor sound. Sanskrit is silky soft, crystal clear, but at the edge of a certain sterility of sound. Creek have very full body sound, everything is under his control, and make sound good for long listening. Whatever, he don´t touch emotions from Ipar. Just close to him.
Sanskrit Pha
The last of the three is the smallest, lightest, cheapest, and least powerful amplifier. But will it be the worst, the weakest in performance and sound quality?
It is designed in a simple way at first sight, but the relation is different. It can be seen that this amplifier was once the flagship of S.M.S.L. High-quality components, relay at on/off. No clicks or shocks after switching. The only thing I personally perceive as not the best option is volume control. A good ALPS potentiometer could be used instead of electronic buttons. The buttons are non-ergonomic, step-by-step volume control, miniature, very close to the on/off switcher or the preamp position.
Sound - I was surprised by the subtlety, purity of the sound from the first run. However, I cannot say that the sound character is cold. Amplifier performance is sufficient despite the technical parameters, maximum volume I did not reach, it was already a sufficient big noise. At the same time, its purity was not lost, not did the sound begin to be unpleasantly poured. All the instruments, every part of the music was clear, and clearly rendered. I could clearly distinguish which musical instrument is playing. But it wasn't sharp, the sound still retaining its silky softness, with plenty of dynamism. Although, it was already on the edge of sterility in music. The space was thus clearly defined, each key on the piano clearly seen, as well as the string on the guitar. However, as I mentioned above, space is as if clearly defined by a width beyond which there was nothing, or echo from empty space. Even the depth was slightly shorter than that of Creek, but not noticeably. Clearly this amp best understood with the Ether´s. Gone was any obscurity on the bass, a feeling of slowness or uncertainty. Although the bass string was not as deep as the Creek or Ipar, I heard exactly when the bass string was playing, when the drum was striking, and when their sound ended. The whole band is balanced, nothing exceeds one or the other. The midpoints are soft, as well as high notes. The cymbal sound was really metallic. All of his qualities made him most critical of the quality of the recording, giving it a subtle sense of losing music at the expense of clarity. When listening neoclassics, ambient music or smaller musical bodies, vocals, the amplifier showed its strengths. The background is very quiet. For electronic or heavy metal music its purity was no longer the right attitude. Using ATH headphones, its purity has become less comfortable for longer listening. Only at low volumes.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I decided to make a personal ranking in certain criteria.
Sound clarity and transparency:
1 - Sanskrit Pha
2 - Creek
3 - Ipar
Dynamics and speed:
1 - Sanskrit Pha
2 - Creek & Ipar
Musicality and emotionality:
1 - Ipar
2 - Creek
3 - Sanskrit Pha
Soundstage, 3D sound scene:
1 - Ipar & Creek
2 - Sanskrit Pha
Universality of use:
1 - Creek
2 - Ipar
3 - Sanskrit Pha
Power and control in music:
1 - Creek
2 - Ipar
3 - Sanskrit Pha
Balance, sound neutrality:
1 - Sanskrit Pha
2 - Creek
3 - Ipar
Background cleanliness and silence:
1- Creek & Sanskrit Pha
2 - Ipar
As I wrote at the beginning, I do not want to do courts that, which one is better or worse. It is a matter of personal taste and proper pairing with the headphones. My ears are no longer as sensitive as when i was young.. J , I don't have so much listening experience. More with loudspeakers with which I always compare music in the subconscious. Also, I haven't tested the preamplifier function since I don't have a power amplifier. However, I think Creek would be the best in this category.
PS: I apologize for the weak English and grammar. Please do not condemn me. Thanks ...
Test tracks:
11000 pannen – Antiphon I & II - Album: Harmonia mundi, Label of the year
Khalif Schumacher Tristano – Afrodiziak – HiRes sampler
Missa Mexicana – Negrilla – A siolo flasiquiyo – Album: Harmonia mundi, Label of the year
Oscar Peterson trio – You look good to Me - Album: Marantz all that Jazz
Richard Müller – Tlaková níž – Album: Müllenium live
Romain Collin – Press enter – Album: Clockwork
Deat can dance – Rakim - Album: Toward the within
Diana Krall – I´m an Errand girl for rythm – Album: All for you a dedication to the Nat King Cole trio
Tierney Sutton – Just squeeze me (but don´t tease me) - Album: Blue in green
Ben Lucas Boysen – Spells
Porcupine Tree – Fear of a blank planet- Album: Ilosaarirock /live/
Scann tec – Snova I Snova- Album: Unyt
First a few words about my test. It is a subjective test, made by human. And each of us has our shortcomings, tastes or preferences. Therefore, it cannot be taken as 100% truth or objective evaluation. I will try to avoid assessing in terms of better or worse. Rather on character or differences, more appropriate use, etc.
For the test, I used two very know, but also very different headphones. Different not only technically, but also in sound. However, I do not think it is right to say which are better or worse. Both are loved, only on opposite poles. For a better understanding of my assessment, it will be better to write a few words about them, as I perceive both models, their sound character.
Tested / compared amplifiers:
IPAR-1023A / lamp amplifier /
Creek OBH21-MK II
S.M.S.L. Sanskrit Pha
Used headphones:
MrSpeakers Ether - No Flow / modified as closed, with my self /
ATH - W5000
Signal source:
QLS-360 MOD
A few words about QLS - 360 MOD. Personally, I see it as a forgotten, underrated player. His sound is very soft, silky, extremely balanced. Sometimes it feels like a lack of emotion in music or a less of musicality. But it is rather due to its neutrality and balance. The character is closer to the cold than the warm, but it's very subtle. The sound scene is wide enough and there is a high hint and depth. I tried to improve the sound with an external DAC, but only when the DAC was above the price of QLS itself, there was a slight improvement in the sound. The sound became closer to the living as the good reproduced sound, which i feel from QLS. Directly compared to the Colorfly C4PRO which I have, the sound is closer to audiophile. Colorfly will play more for the listener's emotions.
To headphones. Ether are planar, with slightly higher impedance, ATH dynamic. With both are used basic cables.
Ether vs ATH - Ether sound is more out from the head than ATH. I would say in front of my forehead. ATH play more in the head, even though their sound scene is wide enough. This causes a deeper sound scene for Ether. Ether goes clearly deeper, bass is fuller, even physical. ATH does not reach such a strong sub bass, but it is slightly more accurate (but it may be because they can't play that deep). ATH is the king in the midrange zone. The voice of the singers is literally felt on the face. Ether voice plays as if from a slightly larger distance. It is gently in the background of the rest of the spectrum. The high notes are clearer, more crystal on ATH. However, this sometimes causes glazing of the soundtrack. Ether have high tones more subtle. At higher volumes, Ether plays clearly better, fuller, and everything gets more balanced. ATH excel in silent listening, high volume does not suit them. The sound becomes very clear, presentable, feeling sharp in the sound. This charater, on the other hand, pulls out even the smallest micro-details in music, various noise and movements of musicians. Everything that materializes where the recording was made with errors from that. The Ether have a very quiet background, but this is because many of the micro details have been lost. All involved in the music can be heard clearly, clean, very real and with the body, but they are as if they are placed in a sterile space. ATH´s are at the opposite pole in this. Sometimes there are those micro revelations but more than enough. ATH excel in vocal albums, smaller musical ensembles, soft ambient or neoclassical. Ether again in rock music, large ensembles, jazz scene, or even with modern electronic music.
Amplifiers:
Ipar 1023A:
The design is larger and heavier than the other two. It has a large ring transformer, separate solid state preamplifier and a separate tube headphone amplifier. 4 separate inputs, selectable by microswitcher. It is very seriously made, designed. I would say only seriously in terms of - the impossibility of interfering with it. It has enough power, switches for gain. The only technical weakness at first glance is the used not ALPS potentiometers, but basic Chinese. Plus, the design that prevents customer tube replacement - I solved this problem with my modification. It's about 2kg of technique, so no cheapness.
I will not evaluate the preamplifier. I focus on the headphone section. I used a new Sylvania lamp. The original is not bad, but Sylvania has given the sound precision, clarity, more dynamism. On a fine scale. The tubes started to play after about an hour of heating. Then the tube calmed down, stopped bursting and got alife. The sound is clearly tube. But it is not unpredictable or unstable. The bass have great power and thrust, but it is still warmer and rounder than the other two solid state models. The midrange are purely human really feel, such a magic color or mood from the voices, as alived. The high notes are soft. The overall scene is quite wide and deep. However, it is not accurate, as the other two amps. Everything, what is on the sound scene, is no exactly accurate or have perfect clarity. But on the other hand, everything seems to be more related. Amp is better friend with ATH headphones than Ether. Ether was playing gently overshadowed. Even i try to use maximum volume, sound was still under control, nothing sharp or etc. Some „sound“ from the amp/trafo/tube come to the sound, but very very cently.
Creek OBH-21 MK II
Generally, very well known headphone amp on the market. Very priced, winner of many reviews or test batles. His design is minimalistic at first glance, but on the other hand it is clear with what care the amplifier is made. All components are of high quality. Plenty of power, two outputs and the possibility to use it as a priced quality preamplifier. As one special „feature“ of the amplifier I see in its two headphone outputs. They are fully identical, regulated by a single potentiometer, and do not switch off each other. Even if I use identical headphones, the listener will not be identical, certainly not in volume. Here's the question - why? If they were fully independent or different headphones in impedance, everything is clear.
Sound – He is one of the most versatile piece from the amplifiers I describe. The bass stretches to great depths, while avoiding the rest of the spectrum. The whole spectrum is balanced. So are the heights. No voices or unnatural feelings in the voices. Maybe he lacks a bit of speed and clarity to perfection, but at this price? Background clean, without any noise. Alps works gently, beautifull, clean. The sound stage is wide enough as well as deep. But here comes the place of comparison with Sanskrit Pha or IPAR. If I were to compare them or describe them on a metric scale, I could say that:
Creek played 15cm wide, and 5cm deep.
IPAR played 16cm wide, and 5cm deep.
Sanskrit Pha played 14cm wide, and 6cm deep.
Creek had moderate localization and transparency in everything that was on the sound stage, the width gently fading in "infinite".
IPAR had the slightest lower localization and transparency in sound, but the space behind everything seemed to have no boundaries. Even there was nothing, but the fluid feeling that it was there some open space.
Sanskrit Pha - the purest localization, very transparent separation in the sound scene, clearly defined, but the space is bounded as if there is nothing, it does not play anything, nothing.
I'll go back to Creek. When pairing him with headphones, he understood better with ATH than with Ether. Not that he wouldn't tighten or control them. But its slightly slower speed or lower transparency couldn't transmit all the information over the Ether. On the contrary, the lack of ATH in the bass component, Creek's strength has shown that ATH can play deep bass. I would include the entire sound spectrum between IPAR and Sanskrit Pha. The first has a warm sound signature, with the addition of an analogue flavor sound. Sanskrit is silky soft, crystal clear, but at the edge of a certain sterility of sound. Creek have very full body sound, everything is under his control, and make sound good for long listening. Whatever, he don´t touch emotions from Ipar. Just close to him.
Sanskrit Pha
The last of the three is the smallest, lightest, cheapest, and least powerful amplifier. But will it be the worst, the weakest in performance and sound quality?
It is designed in a simple way at first sight, but the relation is different. It can be seen that this amplifier was once the flagship of S.M.S.L. High-quality components, relay at on/off. No clicks or shocks after switching. The only thing I personally perceive as not the best option is volume control. A good ALPS potentiometer could be used instead of electronic buttons. The buttons are non-ergonomic, step-by-step volume control, miniature, very close to the on/off switcher or the preamp position.
Sound - I was surprised by the subtlety, purity of the sound from the first run. However, I cannot say that the sound character is cold. Amplifier performance is sufficient despite the technical parameters, maximum volume I did not reach, it was already a sufficient big noise. At the same time, its purity was not lost, not did the sound begin to be unpleasantly poured. All the instruments, every part of the music was clear, and clearly rendered. I could clearly distinguish which musical instrument is playing. But it wasn't sharp, the sound still retaining its silky softness, with plenty of dynamism. Although, it was already on the edge of sterility in music. The space was thus clearly defined, each key on the piano clearly seen, as well as the string on the guitar. However, as I mentioned above, space is as if clearly defined by a width beyond which there was nothing, or echo from empty space. Even the depth was slightly shorter than that of Creek, but not noticeably. Clearly this amp best understood with the Ether´s. Gone was any obscurity on the bass, a feeling of slowness or uncertainty. Although the bass string was not as deep as the Creek or Ipar, I heard exactly when the bass string was playing, when the drum was striking, and when their sound ended. The whole band is balanced, nothing exceeds one or the other. The midpoints are soft, as well as high notes. The cymbal sound was really metallic. All of his qualities made him most critical of the quality of the recording, giving it a subtle sense of losing music at the expense of clarity. When listening neoclassics, ambient music or smaller musical bodies, vocals, the amplifier showed its strengths. The background is very quiet. For electronic or heavy metal music its purity was no longer the right attitude. Using ATH headphones, its purity has become less comfortable for longer listening. Only at low volumes.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I decided to make a personal ranking in certain criteria.
Sound clarity and transparency:
1 - Sanskrit Pha
2 - Creek
3 - Ipar
Dynamics and speed:
1 - Sanskrit Pha
2 - Creek & Ipar
Musicality and emotionality:
1 - Ipar
2 - Creek
3 - Sanskrit Pha
Soundstage, 3D sound scene:
1 - Ipar & Creek
2 - Sanskrit Pha
Universality of use:
1 - Creek
2 - Ipar
3 - Sanskrit Pha
Power and control in music:
1 - Creek
2 - Ipar
3 - Sanskrit Pha
Balance, sound neutrality:
1 - Sanskrit Pha
2 - Creek
3 - Ipar
Background cleanliness and silence:
1- Creek & Sanskrit Pha
2 - Ipar
As I wrote at the beginning, I do not want to do courts that, which one is better or worse. It is a matter of personal taste and proper pairing with the headphones. My ears are no longer as sensitive as when i was young.. J , I don't have so much listening experience. More with loudspeakers with which I always compare music in the subconscious. Also, I haven't tested the preamplifier function since I don't have a power amplifier. However, I think Creek would be the best in this category.
PS: I apologize for the weak English and grammar. Please do not condemn me. Thanks ...
Test tracks:
11000 pannen – Antiphon I & II - Album: Harmonia mundi, Label of the year
Khalif Schumacher Tristano – Afrodiziak – HiRes sampler
Missa Mexicana – Negrilla – A siolo flasiquiyo – Album: Harmonia mundi, Label of the year
Oscar Peterson trio – You look good to Me - Album: Marantz all that Jazz
Richard Müller – Tlaková níž – Album: Müllenium live
Romain Collin – Press enter – Album: Clockwork
Deat can dance – Rakim - Album: Toward the within
Diana Krall – I´m an Errand girl for rythm – Album: All for you a dedication to the Nat King Cole trio
Tierney Sutton – Just squeeze me (but don´t tease me) - Album: Blue in green
Ben Lucas Boysen – Spells
Porcupine Tree – Fear of a blank planet- Album: Ilosaarirock /live/
Scann tec – Snova I Snova- Album: Unyt
