[WestLander]

Quote:

Ah, this makes things complicated for me! This user's impressions seem to be fantastic. But you told me the LCD3 scale higher in your opinion so now I'm tempted to hang on to them for a bit longer! 

 
As I said, so far the HE-6 is a favorite, but by no means is largely better. I guess I'll have to hear both my orthos through the amp before buying it and selling one of the phones 

 
To fill in a bit of context on my impressions I guess I'd say I'm not a fan of the Audeze "sound" in general. The meet was the first time I got to hear the LCD-2.2 and the -3 so all the appropriate caveats apply. But A/B'ing the -3 and the HE-6 out of the GSX, I soon found myself leaving the -6s on and forgetting all about the LCD-3...if you can get a chance to audition the two out of the GSX, I would highly recommend it. 
 
And congrats to all the lucky folk who are getting one soon! 

 

[Cante Ista]

Quote:

 
To fill in a bit of context on my impressions I guess I'd say I'm not a fan of the Audeze "sound" in general. The meet was the first time I got to hear the LCD-2.2 and the -3 so all the appropriate caveats apply. But A/B'ing the -3 and the HE-6 out of the GSX, I soon found myself leaving the -6s on and forgetting all about the LCD-3...if you can get a chance to audition the two out of the GSX, I would highly recommend it. 
 
And congrats to all the lucky folk who are getting one soon! 

Same here. I was all about the 6 from the GSX. I was A/Bing the LCD 3 and the HE 6 so much so that I was afraid I was gonna break Justin's amp -- pulling stuff out and plugging in. I preferred the HE-6, and so much so that I got myself a pair. Just like WestLander I have to say though that I am not a really a great fan of Audeze. However, if I already had the LCD-3, I would grab the GSX in an eyeblink! The pairing was really good. The precise and tight GSX sound is perfect for the 3s, IMO. of course it depends on what sound sig you like, and type of music and what you look for in that music.  

 

[justin w.]

i agree, if you prefer the HE-6 or you prefer the LCD-3 the GS-X isnt going to change your mind

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

first of the new modules being shipped tomorrow
 
 

Yippeee...one of those boxes should be mine!
 
 
 

 
 
 
Aw man - a early X-Mas present for someone.  
 
Is this Peter's?  

 
Fingers crossed...but I did pay about 1 hour after receiving the email that they were up for sale. 

 

[safeandsound1]

I'm hoping beyond hope that the GS-X front plates get delivered to Justin before everything shuts down for the year.  I'll see the light at the end of the tunnel once all of the vendor work is done and all is left to Justin.

 

[justin w.]

Quote:

I'm hoping beyond hope that the GS-X front plates get delivered to Justin before everything shuts down for the year.  I'll see the light at the end of the tunnel once all of the vendor work is done and all is left to Justin.

 
i will get to check the holes in the first panel but thats it

 

[K3cT]

Wow, I haven't opened this forum in a while so this is a nice surprise. I have an unfinished Dynahi somewhere in the closet but this new GS-X is quite tempting indeed because of the beautiful casework, it would make a nice comparison with my old and trusty β22. 

 

[safeandsound1]

There's lots of talk in the Schiit Mjolnir thread about the Mjolnir being the only balanced amp and that dual differential amps like the GS-X being "fake balanced" because they use four amp modules to run dual mono.  I may not have an electrical engineering degree like, apparently, everyone else has but this doesn't make sense to me.  The GS-X keeps the signal balanced from input to output.  Does that not mean that a balanced signal coming in from a differential dac will leave the amp with exactly the same balanced signal just with gain?  Does this not mean that the common mode rejection benefit started at the differential dac with carry through the GS-X?  With all of that being true, why is the GS-X "fake balanced"?

 

[longbowbbs]

Quote:

There's lots of talk in the Schiit Mjolnir thread about the Mjolnir being the only balanced amp and that dual differential amps like the GS-X being "fake balanced" because they use four amp modules to run dual mono.  I may not have an electrical engineering degree like, apparently, everyone else has but this doesn't make sense to me.  The GS-X keeps the signal balanced from input to output.  Does that not mean that a balanced signal coming in from a differential dac will leave the amp with exactly the same balanced signal just with gain?  Does this not mean that the common mode rejection benefit started at the differential dac with carry through the GS-X?  With all of that being true, why is the GS-X "fake balanced"?

+1...That thread has been very interesting.EE's and EE wanna-be's only need participate.
 

 

[paradoxper]

The differences have already been discussed. And no one said anything about the GS-X being fake balanced. It's simple there are different ways to achieve balanced.....
 
 
Loves more of it. 

 

[safeandsound1]

Quote:

There's lots of talk in the Schiit Mjolnir thread about the Mjolnir being the only balanced amp and that dual differential amps like the GS-X being "fake balanced" because they use four amp modules to run dual mono.  I may not have an electrical engineering degree like, apparently, everyone else has but this doesn't make sense to me.  The GS-X keeps the signal balanced from input to output.  Does that not mean that a balanced signal coming in from a differential dac will leave the amp with exactly the same balanced signal just with gain?  Does this not mean that the common mode rejection benefit started at the differential dac will carry through the GS-X?  With all of that being true, why is the GS-X "fake balanced"?

 

[safeandsound1]

Quote:

The differences have already been discussed. And no one said anything about the GS-X being fake balanced. It's simple there are different ways to achieve balanced.....
 
 
Loves more of it. 

Didn't you yourself say this in that thread, "I think the term "balanced" used in bridged configuration is wrong (even though they technically are balanced impedance wise) and just causes confusion."  Since the GS-X is bridged, are you not saying that it is fake balanced?

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

Didn't you yourself say this in that thread, "I think the term "balanced" used in bridged configuration is wrong (even though they technically are balanced impedance wise) and just causes confusion."  Since the GS-X is bridged, are you not saying that it is fake balanced?

You're misunderstanding. An example would be: "If you take two amplifiers and simply bridge them together to make a "balanced" amp, the resulting input is not differential. Any common-mode noise will simply be amplified and passed on to the output".
 
I have never implied a bridged amp is fake. Neither did Solude. (Which I'm sure he'll input his own 2cents).
 
All of this really got started because of Mjolnir's topology which is based on Circlotron. A singe amplifer with a balanced input and balanced output.
 
For clarification sake, Chris pointed out that does not mean the topology of the Bryston is not a balanced one. It is.
It does the same but in a different way.
 
 
 
It is truly balanced input to output.
 
Oh and to further clarify Solude was only saying the Mojo is the only balanced amp that isn't bridged or a single ended amp who's output runs one leg
and an inverter to create the other leg. 
 
 
Hence why I said there are different ways to achieve balanced.
 
Sorry to derail, I won't say anything more. You are misunderstanding a few things. We can PM if you'd like. If not, ok. 

 

[safeandsound1]

Quote:

You're misunderstanding. An example would be: "If you take two amplifiers and simply bridge them together to make a "balanced" amp, the resulting input is not differential. Any common-mode noise will simply be amplified and passed on to the output".
 
I have never implied a bridged amp is fake. Don't put Solude's words in my mouth. (Which I'm sure he'll input his own 2cents).
 
All of this really got started because of Mjolnir's topology which is based on Circlotron. A singe amplifer with a balanced input and balanced output.
 
For clarification sake, Chris pointed out that does not mean the topology of the Bryston is not a balanced one. It is.
It does the same but in a different way.
 
 
 
It is truly balanced input to output.
 
Oh and to further clarify Solude was only saying the Mojo is the only balanced amp that isn't bridged or a single ended amp who's output runs one leg
and an inverter to create the other leg. 
 
 
Hence why I said there are different ways to achieve balanced.
 
Sorry to derail, I won't say anything more. You are misunderstanding a few things. We can PM if you'd like. If not, ok. 

I'm not confused at all.  My point is that the other thread is full of posts splitting hairs on the definition of balanced for, IMHO, the purpose of somehow elevating one amp above all the others by declaring it the only truly balanced amp. No matter what a person with a real (or imagined) EE degree says, the GS-X is fully balanced input to output and will pass along CMR.
 
There is potential for mass confusion over there.  I wanted to make the point clear here.

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

I'm not confused at all.  My point is that the other thread is full of posts splitting hairs on the definition of balanced for, IMHO, the purpose of somehow elevating one amp above all the others by declaring it the only truly balanced amp. No matter what a person with a real (or imagined) EE degree says, the GS-X is fully balanced input to output and will pass along CMR.
 
There is potential for mass confusion over there.  I wanted to make the point clear here.

They may have been splitting hairs on topology. It was a discussion after all.
 
As for declaring one amp as the only truly balanced amp, you must be skimming over the fact they're both differential.
So again, I think you misunderstood.