[vonBaron]

Meze is "meh" headphones, only their comfort is great.

 

[jlbrach]

for sure they are well made and comfortable...but sadly their performance lags their comfort

 

[all2ofme]

I don’t think the Empyrean is up there with the other headphones I’ve had (or have), but the system I listed is genuinely fantastic to my ears. Especially for electronica.

Is it as all round wonderful as a well driven Susvara (had one), an X9000 out of a T2 (have one), or a Phi TC from something like an AIC-10/CFA3 etc. (have one of the latter)? No. But it’s a shitload cheaper and not too far off in my opinion. Especially for electronica

For me, anyway! It’s good enough at some things to stick around when even the Susvara has gone to a new home. I use them for different things. If those things are what you’re into I reckon the Empy is a great value beast.

 

[newToAudio100]

I really enjoy using the ab 1266 for gaming, movies and ambient soundtracks. I use the ab1266 for music as well but lately I've been going for susvara for music most of the time. Haven't tried meze elite yet and I don't have very much interest to. Between the susvara and abyss I feel mostly covered for everything I listen to.

The atmosphere and realism ab 1266 can provide for gaming really is something else. Susvara has better timbre for most music to me at the moment.

 

[Frankie D]

The original Empyrean with a good cable (silver, from @skedra for me) and a CFA3 is an incredible pairing in my opinion. (From Rossini Apex, in case that helps give an idea of the rest of the chain.)

A stock-cabled Empy with a less forceful amp didn’t do it at all for me. But the above is absolutely fantastic. And it has bass that I enjoy just as much as my Phi TC with the same cable. (Skedra’s top-of the-line cable was better than the Superconductor I had for a year or so.)

A second-hand Empy is quite reasonable at secondhand prices, too.

The Empy is an excellent HP, but not in the same league as the 1266 or Sus IMHO. I do still have mine and enjoy it, but as time goes on it becomes too smooth sounding to me.

 

[Exekuhtor]

Can it be that simple?
Extremely euphonic & lush 6SN7's into the Envy and the 1266 sounds so much better.
I think i lost a bit of instrument seperation / details, but female voices do sound so much better. Before with Nightwish songs i could only focus on the drumset and Floor Jansen was doing "her thing" but i was too focused on the background, now the balance is there, of course it's not Susvara level, but it's so much more enjoyable. The bass is still going strong, as expected from the 1266, lol.
I'll probably get the Tung Sol Round Plates from this guy too so i have that insane soundstage with details.

I didn't listen to the Empy, but i tested the Elite for a week, wasn't for me. Midbass was way too much and not clean, of course in comfort this thing is in another league than the 1266, but the sound was just not there for that price tag. Everything sounded veiled (even in comparison to an Arya Stealth which is 1/3 of the price).

 

[krude]

Can it be that simple?
Extremely euphonic & lush 6SN7's into the Envy and the 1266 sounds so much better.
I think i lost a bit of instrument seperation / details, but female voices do sound so much better. Before with Nightwish songs i could only focus on the drumset and Floor Jansen was doing "her thing" but i was too focused on the background, now the balance is there, of course it's not Susvara level, but it's so much more enjoyable. The bass is still going strong, as expected from the 1266, lol.
I'll probably get the Tung Sol Round Plates from this guy too so i have that insane soundstage with details.

I didn't listen to the Empy, but i tested the Elite for a week, wasn't for me. Midbass was way too much and not clean, of course in comfort this thing is in another league than the 1266, but the sound was just not there for that price tag. Everything sounded veiled (even in comparison to an Arya Stealth which is 1/3 of the price).

Interesting tube, thanks for sharing.

When I had Empy I thought it actually has good detail. I was comparing with Utopia and HEKse at the time and to me it didn't sound veiled at all and really enjoyable. I was using it with Hugo 2 at the time.

I have no idea how I would react to it now on a totl TC and Utopia system I think I'll have to get the Elite to check it out at this level.

 

[Not so fat head]

I will suggest a few things ...

1. Bravura is not necesserily your endgame becase you look for something else clearly. Endgame means you don't look for anything anymore and are just excited to power up your system every single time.

2. You clearly like punchy dynamics and good bass performance, so Susvara was never for you anyway. Been there, done that.

3. In the long run forget about EQ. This may be hard to believe when you're stuck in midfi land, but good systems that you've built for your taste do not need ANY EQ, in fact the moment you add EQ you ruin it, that's how it should feel.

4. I would recommend taking 1 or 2 sets, and maxing out a chain for it to really experience how high-end feels like.

I can advise on maxing out TC and Utopia, these are not fully compatible, meaning you will compromise one fully maxing out the other, but you can max one out and have a great performance still from the other. The good thing also is that the difference is small enough that rolling tubes and cables maxes our the system for one or the other.

Some ground rules for TC (and Utopia by extension) :

1. You need a natural sounding DAC with punchy dynamics. Some ideas are Holo May + Bliss, Holo Spring 3 with pre-amp, Chord TT2 (or Dave if you have the $$$) although Chord is definitely less natural sounding than Holo ... I run May + Bliss but I will be putting it against Ferrum Wandla + Hypsos in a few weeks to see if I can get similar performance from that.

2. I strongly recommend a tube amp with variable output impedance. The cheapest I would get is HA-6a, then some 2A3 / 300B like HA300MK2, Woo WA5LE, DNA amps ... and then tweak this setup with rolling tubes, cables, power conditioning etc. until you get to the sound you're after.

Unfortunately there is no getting performance from anything in audio on the cheap. Bass is tighlty linked to all other performance aspects ... is the treble harsh? is your midrange fleshed out? deoes your system have good dynamics?

I went through trying to get audio on the cheap, it's a waste of time and money. If you max out one headphone that floats your boat, be it TC, Utopia, Empyrean, Elite, D8k PRO, whatever, all of those should be able to deliver more less what you want, being great audio performance, including great slam and deep bass.

Worth adding that each headphone (or speaker) needs a system built for it to trully hear what it can do. This is not easy, nor cheap, but less is more. A good life hack are tube amps because you can tweak how they sound rolling tubes, so you can get away with a single amp powering 2 or 3 sets. Source is also key, it has to synergise with the upper chain and give a solid foundation. Source output voltage and the pre-amp section (or volume control ability) are key for example.

Also ... bass from my experience is the last thing that appears in finishing the system. Obv you need to know the potential is there, but when the system opens up with the right synergy and setup, you start getting the effortless bass slam.

Hope that helps.

What’s the difference between rolling tubes and EQ’ing?
“This is not easy, nor cheap, but less is more. A good life hack are tube amps because you can tweak how they sound rolling tubes,”
I EQ all the time, it’s there, so why not?

 

[Polygonhell]

What’s the difference between rolling tubes and EQ’ing?

If you were to measure the frequency response between say 2 different 6SN7 tubes, you'd likely see no difference.

It's not EQ in the sense it's usually used.
Which means your hearing something different than just a shift in FR, could be the relative mix of 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion in a particular frequency range.

But it's hard to guess, there is a thread over on SBAF trying to understand with measurements the difference between two 300B tubes that sound different Elrogs and WE, and there just isn't a meaningful difference in all the obvious measurements. But they do sound different, and it's usually described in terms of emphasis in one place or another of the frequency response, though often descriptions include changes treble/bass extension, air, and stage.

 

[krude]

What’s the difference between rolling tubes and EQ’ing?
“This is not easy, nor cheap, but less is more. A good life hack are tube amps because you can tweak how they sound rolling tubes,”
I EQ all the time, it’s there, so why not?

I was also EQing for a few years building my system up. I actually finished BA in audio engineering and I spent a decade in studios doing music production ... so I know a thing or two about EQ ...

But in hifi EQ ruins the SQ. What you want is the purest signal you can get from the digital source to your ears, because that's where the SQ hides. In hifi you EQ to make up for deficiencies of your system, but the price is high which you may not realise.

Firstly you loose the bit-perfect playback from your digital, this in turn compromises headroom and dynamics. If you EQ in analogue domain you most likely introduce phase artifacts, unless you have a REALLY HIGH END EQ ... I think Acuphase has this in their higher level amps, so that's the tier of gear you look at if you want decent analogue EQ ...

Secondly you mess up the timbre. There is no way to "make up" for gear deficiencies setting EQ by hand, you would have to have some sort of manufacturers EQ like Audeze provides to even get close.

Thirdly, you won't get the same effect from EQ and changing gear, because gear (like tubes for example) affect a lot more than just FR. You're talking dynamics accross the FR and a lot of other "phase" effects that give certain sound ... in case of tubes, effects that even modern science doesn't fully understand.

So no, you won't get the same SQ from EQ. You can get mediocre gear sound "better" or more to your liking by sacrificing some SQ, but with mediocre gear it probably doesn't matter. On a good system, the moment you engage EQ, you immediately notice it sounds worse and "not right". That's a hallmark of a good system.

 

[squashi]

I was also EQing for a few years building my system up. I actually finished BA in audio engineering and I spent a decade in studios doing music production ... so I know a thing or two about EQ ...

But in hifi EQ ruins the SQ. What you want is the purest signal you can get from the digital source to your ears, because that's where the SQ hides. In hifi you EQ to make up for deficiencies of your system, but the price is high which you may not realise.

Firstly you loose the bit-perfect playback from your digital, this in turn compromises headroom and dynamics. If you EQ in analogue domain you most likely introduce phase artifacts, unless you have a REALLY HIGH END EQ ... I think Acuphase has this in their higher level amps, so that's the tier of gear you look at if you want decent analogue EQ ...

Secondly you mess up the timbre. There is no way to "make up" for gear deficiencies setting EQ by hand, you would have to have some sort of manufacturers EQ like Audeze provides to even get close.

Thirdly, you won't get the same effect from EQ and changing gear, because gear (like tubes for example) affect a lot more than just FR. You're talking dynamics accross the FT and a lot of other "phase" effects that give certain sound ... in case of tubes, effects that even modern science doesn't fully understand.

So no, you won't get the same SQ from EQ. You can get mediocre gear sound "better" or more to your liking by sacrificing some SQ, but with mediocre gear it probably doesn't matter. On a good system, the moment you engage EQ, you immediately notice it sounds worse and "not right". That's a hallmark of a good system.

To add to this. my own observations:

-EQ really reduces the sense of how "realistic" instruments sound. Yes it also reduces other sound quality that I haven't been able to put my finger on.
-With that, EQ is a budget way to change sound. The best test: A/B a series of tracks, with and without EQ. Yes audio relys on gear, but what's most important is: what music do you listen to (well mastered? acoustic?)? and do your ears care enough about the difference? Most people aren't audiophiles, their ears simply don't care, or they don't love music as much.

For the absolute best sound quality, don't use EQ, but only your music and your ears can determine how much you care for an audiophile sound.

 

[squashi]

If you were to measure the frequency response between say 2 different 6SN7 tubes, you'd likely see no difference.

It's not EQ in the sense it's usually used.
Which means your hearing something different than just a shift in FR, could be the relative mix of 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion in a particular frequency range.

But it's hard to guess, there is a thread over on SBAF trying to understand with measurements the difference between two 300B tubes that sound different Elrogs and WE, and there just isn't a meaningful difference in all the obvious measurements. But they do sound different, and it's usually described in terms of emphasis in one place or another of the frequency response, though often descriptions include changes treble/bass extension, air, and stage.

There is clearly something else not well researched that changes sound.

We don't have graphs to measure detail retrieval, do we? similarly, all I can scientifically say, is it's inconclusive what tubes/cables etc do. But anecdotally, HUGE differences. Cables can make or break a chain.

 

[paradoxper]

What’s the difference between rolling tubes and EQ’ing?
“This is not easy, nor cheap, but less is more. A good life hack are tube amps because you can tweak how they sound rolling tubes,”
I EQ all the time, it’s there, so why not?

When you do it right, you don't lose information. It's done wrong and often.

Between masking or injection of over-warmth, tubes can be too much.

If you can, listen to the bigger DHT options, listen to how these present space in particular then check against what EQ can't do.

 

[carboncopy]

To add to this. my own observations:

-EQ really reduces the sense of how "realistic" instruments sound. Yes it also reduces other sound quality that I haven't been able to put my finger on.
-With that, EQ is a budget way to change sound. The best test: A/B a series of tracks, with and without EQ. Yes audio relys on gear, but what's most important is: what music do you listen to (well mastered? acoustic?)? and do your ears care enough about the difference? Most people aren't audiophiles, their ears simply don't care, or they don't love music as much.

For the absolute best sound quality, don't use EQ, but only your music and your ears can determine how much you care for an audiophile sound.

Strange but oversampling does the same for me (without EQ). It sucks the rawness/liveness of the music out. HQ Player was the best I tried but ultimately I left that too (as my system got better).

 

[JooLoo]

I was reading some of the older posts in this thread about the midrange on these cans and realized I never did a comparison for the 1266TC on the different amps I own.

To my surprise this combination has smoother, warm, lush mids….


Tung-sol 6L6GC


Than this combination….

WE300b

Never thought I’d say that.

Where are you at on the volume dial for the ab1266 on the bigger ben when listening ?