[GirgleMirt]

Yeah agreed for detail/resolution being hard to quantify... Which is where at least theoretically those who own the headphones should be able to present the most accurate depiction, as opposed to just demo'ing the products for a short while... But even then it's not consistent due to opinions being subjective...

Really not quite sure about the "Slower drivers can sound more detailed on a quick listen. Why? Because they reduce or don't even play all the ambient cues." though. As it's information contained in the signal, it is played, just not rendered properly or mushed/meshed/distorted. And I've never experienced a case where crap gear sounds more resolving because it's less resolving, ymmv... Peaky frequencies & FR aberrations sure are in my opinion the worse offenders for fake detail, good/strong bass (confuse amount for quality, etc), etc., but never heard worse detail/resolution mistook as great detail/resolution...

For EQ, you & Schiit are wrong though, digital EQs do not negatively affect the signal like analog does. See here. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/q701-impressions-thread.582276/page-637#post-14513162

 

[Shane D]

Yeah agreed for detail/resolution being hard to quantify... Which is where at least theoretically those who own the headphones should be able to present the most accurate depiction, as opposed to just demo'ing the products for a short while... But even then it's not consistent due to opinions being subjective...

Really not quite sure about the "Slower drivers can sound more detailed on a quick listen. Why? Because they reduce or don't even play all the ambient cues." though. As it's information contained in the signal, it is played, just not rendered properly or mushed/meshed/distorted. And I've never experienced a case where crap gear sounds more resolving because it's less resolving, ymmv... Peaky frequencies & FR aberrations sure are in my opinion the worse offenders for fake detail, good/strong bass (confuse amount for quality, etc), etc., but never heard worse detail/resolution mistook as great detail/resolution...

For EQ, you & Schiit are wrong though, digital EQs do not negatively affect the signal like analog does. See here. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/q701-impressions-thread.582276/page-637#post-14513162

I am not going by anybody else's opinion. I don't care what reviewer said what. I love these headphones with EQ and I think the Loki does a great job. And if you have never heard it you can't really have an opinion right?
In my listening system, there is no option for a digital EQ (I have a computer in my office which is a secondary listening area where I buy and store my music) and besides I have no urge to play with a ton of bands.

I find that the Loki has very subtle bands that don't distort anything. I play with four bands until it sounds like I want. It does raise the volume noticeably though.

I would not own the ESP/E95X system without EQ'ing.

It sounds like this system is not for you. I would not have this as my only set-up. It is a fun option though.

Shane D

 

[Fickle-Friend]

I’m going to order the Loki and mate it with the Airist R2R. I’ve come across the Stax 252s energiser for £300. Is that worth getting?

 

[Geezer Rock 001]

I’m going to order the Loki and mate it with the Airist R2R. I’ve come across the Stax 252s energiser for £300. Is that worth getting?

After two weeks of ownership I have no problems with the stock energizer. I am looking hard at a linear 9 volt power supply though.

I spent two hours with my 95X this afternoon, eq ed with a Jolida FOZ SS-X and it was outstanding.

 

[GirgleMirt]

Digital eq does mess with sound quality. Schiit designed the Loki because they thought most implementations of digital eq sounded bad. A digital eq designer still has to choose from different filters and algorithms.

You can even find here; https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/mixing-techniques/impact-eq-phase-314168/ a youtube video which demonstrates at 55m45s that there is zero negative impact to EQing digitally even with 10dB of boost... So it does appear that it's the opposite; digital EQ should sound superior to analog EQ. Basically digital should be completely transparent. And if analog sounds different/better, then it is likely an artifact that is introduced by the analog EQ rather than some fault in digital EQ...

And if you have never heard it you can't really have an opinion right?

Just to be clear, I've not commented on the Loki particularly. I was simply correcting the statements of an earlier post; one which can and has been demonstrated to be false. It's not about the Loki per se, it was digital vs analog EQ, which is flawed and which isn't. We know for a fact that digital EQ can be 100% transparent (you could reverse it via inverse curve and result is identical to original), as far as I know, this has not been done for the Loki, and given the nature of analog EQ, it would and could not be perfect. Not saying it sounds bad at all or anything of the sort though, but as I said, there's no question digital EQ is superior to analog, I can't even see how that would be an arguable statement, maybe except in simplicity / ease of use. But that would be akin to saying that a tricycle is better than a road or mountain bike because it's easier to use... Just learn to use the superior product!

It sounds like this system is not for you.

Yeah that's where I'm leaning too. The worse is that I'm sure I'd enjoy it, just at one point buying multiple $500+ headphones is getting redundant and wasteful... I'd rather just get one which ticks all the boxes and can be my end game, without being exorbitantly priced.. If there is such a thing... *cries!* :\

 

[Shane D]

Just to be clear, I've not commented on the Loki particularly. I was simply correcting the statements of an earlier post; one which can and has been demonstrated to be false. It's not about the Loki per se, it was digital vs analog EQ, which is flawed and which isn't. We know for a fact that digital EQ can be 100% transparent (you could reverse it via inverse curve and result is identical to original), as far as I know, this has not been done for the Loki, and given the nature of analog EQ, it would and could not be perfect. Not saying it sounds bad at all or anything of the sort though, but as I said, there's no question digital EQ is superior to analog, I can't even see how that would be an arguable statement, maybe except in simplicity / ease of use. But that would be akin to saying that a tricycle is better than a road or mountain bike because it's easier to use... Just learn to use the superior product!


Yeah that's where I'm leaning too. The worse is that I'm sure I'd enjoy it, just at one point buying multiple $500+ headphones is getting redundant and wasteful... I'd rather just get one which ticks all the boxes and can be my end game, without being exorbitantly priced.. If there is such a thing... *cries!* :\

If I could only have one headphone, it would be my Grado's or perhaps the Elex. However, I do love variety more than the "ultimate" sound, and so I will always be hunting for a fresh sound. I do not find different sounds redundant.

As I mentioned earlier, if I could only afford/have ONE headphone it would not be the Koss.

As far as EQ goes, I could not relax hooked up to a computer in my office. It requires a lazy boy, a full system and a nice view to work.

I rarely use the Loki, but it is manatory with the Koss.

Happy hunting for your new phones!

Shane D

 

[barondla]

Yeah agreed for detail/resolution being hard to quantify... Which is where at least theoretically those who own the headphones should be able to present the most accurate depiction, as opposed to just demo'ing the products for a short while... But even then it's not consistent due to opinions being subjective...

Really not quite sure about the "Slower drivers can sound more detailed on a quick listen. Why? Because they reduce or don't even play all the ambient cues." though. As it's information contained in the signal, it is played, just not rendered properly or mushed/meshed/distorted. And I've never experienced a case where crap gear sounds more resolving because it's less resolving, ymmv... Peaky frequencies & FR aberrations sure are in my opinion the worse offenders for fake detail, good/strong bass (confuse amount for quality, etc), etc., but never heard worse detail/resolution mistook as great detail/resolution...

For EQ, you & Schiit are wrong though, digital EQs do not negatively affect the signal like analog does. See here. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/q701-impressions-thread.582276/page-637#post-14513162

You are correct, digital EQs do not negatively affect the signal like analog. But, they do negatively affect the signal. Analog has flaws as does digital. Unless you believe man has managed to build something perfect.

Here is what Schiit Audio digital guru Mike Moffat says about digital EQ. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...n-robert-hunter.784471/page-322#post-13748153.

Hmm, measureable resolution loss doesn't seem to go along with transparent. Nothing's perfect.

 

[GirgleMirt]

You are correct, digital EQs do not negatively affect the signal like analog. But, they do negatively affect the signal.

False. Even from your linked schiit post, your statement is incorrect due to your usage of 'do'. They do not negatively affect the signal. They 'could' though. But there's a huge difference between 'do' and 'could'. Even Schiit is talking about clipping. Well, just don't clip it, if there's no room to boost, just attenuate instead. An analogy would be: "Commercial flights today are very safe. No it isn't if you fly into a mountain it would kill every passenger!". They're obviously trying to sell their Loki, so please, consider the source and don't fall prey to marketing. Again, please watch that 2 minute clip, digital EQ are 100% transparent and do not 'negatively' affect the signal, unless you do something really really bad if you absolutely need disclaimer...

Here's with an 18dB boost, digital EQ. According to Schiit, he'd 100% clip the signal as it's far more than 5dB.

At 55:35, he provides 10 dB of boost with 3 wide bands, and with an inverse curve, reverses it back to original, and it is identical... Anyone has anything similar with the Loki? No? I didn't think so... Honestly, I'm not vehemently opposed to the Loki, but I mean you can't spread disinformation just to sell a product... :\ (Not the literal 'you'; anyone)

 

[timb5881]

Digital is ok with 24 bit music files to be equalized . 16 bit files loose to much dynamic range in comparison. If you listen to dsd files you can only be equalized with an external eq device, unless you convert it to pcm. Analog sources also need an external eq unless you digitize them first.

 

[mroneto]

I've had these on and playing for only 2 hours now...and I now understand the statement "Once you go 'Stats (Stax?) you can't go back".
If these are any indication of what the electrostatic world has to offer, I may have to end up selling everything else I own at this point.
It's the sound I have been searching through planar after planar and never really finding one that hit the spot.
Thank you for this entire thread for contributing to my decision to slam that 'Buy' button on Drop.

 

[Geezer Rock 001]

May Day!

Yesterday evening when I turned on my 95X there was a scratchy hiss coming from the left driver. I tried a couple of light taps on the housing and it was still there. I shut it down and used my V9 build for the session.

Today I tried it on another circuit in the house. Same scratchy sound. I pulled the rca inputs, same sound. Removed the extension cable, no change.

It has me baffled as nothing has been added or removed from the circuits in my listening room. The headset has been stored in a fabric headphone bag when not in use.

Do any of you longer term 950 or 95X owners have any ideas of a possible cause or a cure?

Thanks

 

[JTori]

After two weeks of ownership I have no problems with the stock energizer. I am looking hard at a linear 9 volt power supply though.

I spent two hours with my 95X this afternoon, eq ed with a Jolida FOZ SS-X and it was outstanding.

I purchased a lightly used Teddy Pardo for my ESPs; I consider it a worthwhile investment.

 

[JTori]

I am not going by anybody else's opinion. I don't care what reviewer said what. I love these headphones with EQ and I think the Loki does a great job. And if you have never heard it you can't really have an opinion right?
In my listening system, there is no option for a digital EQ (I have a computer in my office which is a secondary listening area where I buy and store my music) and besides I have no urge to play with a ton of bands.

I find that the Loki has very subtle bands that don't distort anything. I play with four bands until it sounds like I want. It does raise the volume noticeably though.

I would not own the ESP/E95X system without EQ'ing.

It sounds like this system is not for you. I would not have this as my only set-up. It is a fun option though.

Shane D

Like you, I experienced real benefits with EQ. Until recently, I used JRiver Media Center, which offers great options for EQ'ing. About a month ago, however, I switched to Audirvana, which doesn't offer any EQ options. The Loki sounds interesting, but I'm hesitant to add another device in the signal path. Current path is: iMac Pro/Audirvana 3.5 > Benchmark DAC3-DX > very high-quality DIY switch box > ESP-950.

 

[Shane D]

Like you, I experienced real benefits with EQ. Until recently, I used JRiver Media Center, which offers great options for EQ'ing. About a month ago, however, I switched to Audirvana, which doesn't offer any EQ options. The Loki sounds interesting, but I'm hesitant to add another device in the signal path. Current path is: iMac Pro/Audirvana 3.5 > Benchmark DAC3-DX > very high-quality DIY switch box > ESP-950.

I have not found anything amiss with the Loki in my chain. I mostly only use it with the Koss (Mandatory for me). The Loki DOES raise the volume, but that's not an issue for me. I just turn the volume down if I need it.
For $150.00 in US funds, you can't beat it. I rarely ever see them for sale used so you could probably unload it pretty quickly if the sound wasn't for you.

Shane D

 

[Geezer Rock 001]

I purchased a lightly used Teddy Pardo for my ESPs; I consider it a worthwhile investment.

The Teddy Prado power supply looks interesting. On their site they do not say if the 9 volt out is AC or DC. You need DC for the 95X. I have a 9v 2 a power brick inbound. I will report on that when I get it.

Drop jacked the ESP 95X price back up to $500. Still a bargain but I am happy that I got in at $400!