walker.777
New Head-Fier
Size Comparison 433 vs 394 vs 465 (old 406)
The Legendary Japanese Headphone Amplifiers MASS-Kobo 475, 433 Arrived at MusicTeck
- Thread starter MusicTeck
- Start date
Zaek
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Posts
- 104
- Likes
- 110
Is 394 enough to drive Susvara?
The guys over at Elise Audio claim it is an amazing pairing. I personally have my doubts given the 394 II only does 2.2W into 32 ohms...
Wattage isn't the whole story. For example, Questyle CMA Fifteen can drive SUS despite having even less watts @32ohms
I believe their claim as it is not the only guys i've seen reporting it. They also said it couldn't drive Tungsten (prototype) so my guess is that Susvara has probably reached the limit for this amp.
I wish manufacturers would follow the same method of measurements and publish a more detailed specs of their amps, it would make less confusions for the consumers. Like for starter telling us the whole range 8/16/32/50/100/150/300/600 ohms but also the voltage and whatnot. One of the few i've seen being transparent about this, is Violectric.
THe 394 II drives my 1266 TC to very lound volumes... very transparent, clean, natural sound.
normie610
Headphoneus Supremus
How are you liking it so far compared to your CFA3?
I need time to evaluate- as I just got it yesterday.
However- initial comparison: (dont hold me to it- as I need time to burn in and tweak)
394 II is tonally brighter, noticeably more transparent,- a very crisp, clean sound, and a sweet, effortless, slightly warm analogue roundness. CFA-3 is sharper, less colored, more neutral, drier.
The brightness of the 394 II is not fatiguing AT ALL. On the contrary, the 394 II is extraordinarily natural sounding, and has a certain delicateness to the delivery which is lovely.
Sounds more like a tube amp. than any SS amplifier I ever heard. Most SS amps and Dac's that people claim sound like tubes are fuller and perhaps more tonally saturated but lack the tube sparkle and holographic delivery that really makes tubes sound like tubes. The 394 II really has that airy holographic tube sparkle. Sounds like bright tubes rather than warm tubes. Again- positive brightness-- but still- if one likes a neutral or darker sound- this is not the address IMHO.
Burn-in may alter this somewhat- as is often true. I'll have to see. Also need to see if my ear adjusts to the brighter tonality.
Last edited:
By the way- dont confuse "bright tonality" with thinness. This amp. is quite full bodied and tonally saturated in its delivery- more so than the CFA-3. Definately the most unique delivery I ever heard from a headphone amplifier. It is more "different" than anything I have ever heard.
Last edited:
I feel obligated to report already- that my initial impression of the 394 II was not completely correct. After one day of of burn-in- things have already changed.
The bright character is completely gone. In fact- I would say now that things lean slightly to the dark side of neutral. Texture and bass have improved markedly from overnight burn-in. Glad I said my erlier reactions were initial- and don't hold me to it. Transparency remains fabulous- but much more texture in midrange and bass.
I believe I need to give the unit one good week minimum before coming to a more accurate impression. I do NOT want to mislead anyone- so reporting here for this purpose.
The bright character is completely gone. In fact- I would say now that things lean slightly to the dark side of neutral. Texture and bass have improved markedly from overnight burn-in. Glad I said my erlier reactions were initial- and don't hold me to it. Transparency remains fabulous- but much more texture in midrange and bass.
I believe I need to give the unit one good week minimum before coming to a more accurate impression. I do NOT want to mislead anyone- so reporting here for this purpose.
Last edited:
Could you give a brief rundown on how these amps compare?
Sure thing!
MK475 - Extremely clean and neutral with slight treble emphasis. All technical aspects improve by a bit especially in transients and explosive dynamics. The main focus here is just how clean and transparent this amplifier was. This was something immediately noticeable and you know that it doesn't just happen without reason, far different to any other amplifier I have heard in this regard. You can tell the quality of the design, selection of parts, and build process in the sound.
A&K PA10 - Little to no improvement on any department, I personally think this is a waste of money. Unfortunately A&K struggle to produce anything good in the amplification department. There was a slight increase in staging but that's all I really noticed. I would not recommend this and think there is no point, you'd be better saving for a better portable amp (used perhaps) or putting it into a DAP/spruce upgrade.
Cayin C9 - Truly phenomenal. I have made a full review on my YouTube. C9 has many output modes but I think the differences aren't that night-and-day significant. Therefore in summary, it is a warm amp with full range bass and lower mids emphasis, adding much more power here. Upper regions are more smoothened put but maintains great dynamics and transient attack. All technicals improve, particularly staging depth. Full review linked here :
Brise Tsunaragi - This one I haven't gotten to spend enough time with but from memory, it is more of a tonally lush and full amplifier with midrange emphasis. Strikes a middle point between my descriptions of the MK475 and C9. All round upgrade in pretty much every department yet not being overly emphasised on anything. It is just something you would want for what we like to associate as being extremely "musical". Tonally lush, rich and beautiful with all round improvement.
I think your pick should be based around what IEMs you pair it with. Personally with STORM, an IEM that is dead neutral reference type sound, I much prefer C9 and Tsunaragi over MK475 for that extra bass and mid range fullness, but there are also people who love MK475 with STORM for even maximum explosive dynamics. Pick to your, IEM synergy and preference! C9 is especially good value on the used market right now compared to the MK475 and Tsunaragi which are still quite high up on the pricing even as used.
The Rupert Neve Fidelice Precision DAC/amp is "only" rated at 1W into 16 ohms yet it powered everything we threw at it (Susvara, K1000, Storm, MySphere, 1266 Phi TC, etc).
I must try one of these amps with a difficult to power headphone myself at some point!
I have the 394II and it sounds absolutely beautiful. I have two hard to power headphones- the DCA Expanse and the 1266. Both are powered to loud volumes that would please 90% of listeners without breaking a sweat. - but if I jack up the volume all the way- as I like to sometimes because I like super loud sometimes, the amp. looses it's composure and the sound breaks up and even clips at around 4 o'clock with these headphones. This is using balanced 4.6 volt inputs from a dac.
By the way- my CFA-3 at 16 wats- did the exact same thing in almost the exact same location on the volume knob- but the 394 sound so so much more transparent and round and analogue- really special.
By the way- my CFA-3 at 16 wats- did the exact same thing in almost the exact same location on the volume knob- but the 394 sound so so much more transparent and round and analogue- really special.
My conclusions on the sound of the MK 394 II after one week of burn-in.
I owned a Duki built maxed out CFA3 for around a year. I listened to music on it daily and know it well; very well- so my comparisons will be to it as my reference point.
First, the 394 II drives my 1266 TC with approximately equal authority, speed, and dynamic punch as the CFA3 even though it is rated at 2.2 watts while the CFA-3 is (I believe) 16 watts. Nevertheless, the TC from the CFA-3 on high gain reaches a louder volume on high gain. The 394 II still gets the TC to way above any normal listening level volumes (very loud) but the CFA-3 pushes the headphones to even louder volumes.
The CFA is drier, leaner, more sterile, overtly uncolored, and incredibly muscular. The 394 II is fuller, wetter, more transparent, more analogue, more rounded, more textured. Really sounds like a powerful, yet delicate ss/tube hybrid presentation. I did think the 394 II was bright for the first day or two, but after one week- all brightness is completely gone. The tone is a neutral; perhaps slightly warm; with noticeably superior texture relative to the CFA-3, but not a heavy, thick, more bloated presentation like Enlum.
IMHO, in my setup the CFA-3 is unlistenable without a tube preamp behind it or at least a very meaty, tonally saturated sounding dac. I understand good and well why the CFA-3 users often put a tube preamp behind the CFA-3, as the sound is too dry and sterile without it. Ironically, my 394 II (alone) sounds amazingly similar to my CFA-3 with my audio-gd HE-1 Vacuum tube preamp behind it. Just fuller, more textured, more holographic, more sparkle, more musical sound.
Now, the 394 II also reacts beautifully with my tube preamp behind it- and gives an even whetter, fuller sound. Still fantastically crisp, smooth, and ultra transparent. Of course with the tube preamp, the 394 II pushes the TC to just as loud volumes as the CFA-3...
The 394 II is a miracle.......... stunning, beautiful, ultra- transparent, full bodied, ultra detailed, crisp yet round, textured, but not bloated sound. I vastly prefer it over the CFA-3 with no preamp. With my audio-gd HE-1 tube preamplifier, the CFA-3 improves many rungs, but so does the 394 II- and although the gap does close somewhat in this configuration, I still clearly prefer the 394 II; although with a different tube preamp or the right tubes.- things could in theory favour the CFA-3.
These are my thoughts. It is my opinion only. Nothing more.
I owned a Duki built maxed out CFA3 for around a year. I listened to music on it daily and know it well; very well- so my comparisons will be to it as my reference point.
First, the 394 II drives my 1266 TC with approximately equal authority, speed, and dynamic punch as the CFA3 even though it is rated at 2.2 watts while the CFA-3 is (I believe) 16 watts. Nevertheless, the TC from the CFA-3 on high gain reaches a louder volume on high gain. The 394 II still gets the TC to way above any normal listening level volumes (very loud) but the CFA-3 pushes the headphones to even louder volumes.
The CFA is drier, leaner, more sterile, overtly uncolored, and incredibly muscular. The 394 II is fuller, wetter, more transparent, more analogue, more rounded, more textured. Really sounds like a powerful, yet delicate ss/tube hybrid presentation. I did think the 394 II was bright for the first day or two, but after one week- all brightness is completely gone. The tone is a neutral; perhaps slightly warm; with noticeably superior texture relative to the CFA-3, but not a heavy, thick, more bloated presentation like Enlum.
IMHO, in my setup the CFA-3 is unlistenable without a tube preamp behind it or at least a very meaty, tonally saturated sounding dac. I understand good and well why the CFA-3 users often put a tube preamp behind the CFA-3, as the sound is too dry and sterile without it. Ironically, my 394 II (alone) sounds amazingly similar to my CFA-3 with my audio-gd HE-1 Vacuum tube preamp behind it. Just fuller, more textured, more holographic, more sparkle, more musical sound.
Now, the 394 II also reacts beautifully with my tube preamp behind it- and gives an even whetter, fuller sound. Still fantastically crisp, smooth, and ultra transparent. Of course with the tube preamp, the 394 II pushes the TC to just as loud volumes as the CFA-3...
The 394 II is a miracle.......... stunning, beautiful, ultra- transparent, full bodied, ultra detailed, crisp yet round, textured, but not bloated sound. I vastly prefer it over the CFA-3 with no preamp. With my audio-gd HE-1 tube preamplifier, the CFA-3 improves many rungs, but so does the 394 II- and although the gap does close somewhat in this configuration, I still clearly prefer the 394 II; although with a different tube preamp or the right tubes.- things could in theory favour the CFA-3.
These are my thoughts. It is my opinion only. Nothing more.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
