CFA3 vs Studio B: Synergy with Atrium and VC
I should preface this by saying that I am generally not a big fan of SS amps with ZMFs and mostly got the Dukei built CFA3 for 1266 TC which I almost always use with Studio B as a tube pre. Dukei had mentioned that although CFA3 would work with efficient loads like ZMF and Sennheisers, it really likes power hungry planars. But seeing all this talk about CFA3 in this thread got me curious and thought it might be fun to try some ZMFs so here is a mini comparison with Studio B till
@goldwerger gives more detailed comparisons, especially with Caldera.
Disclaimer I am not a reviewer and this is all very subjective and qualitative without any measurements and should be only taken as a comparison and not an absolute review of any sort.
Chain
Source: Qobuz -> Roon -> iFi Zen Stream (ethernet) -> May KTE (BNC)
Tube Amp - Eddie Current Studio B (Wireworld Silver Eclipse 8 RCA), Tube Complement - Elrog 300B Mo, Tung Sol 2C51 1954 (NOS), Mullard metal base 1957 (NOS)
SS Amp - Dukei built 2 chassis CFA3 (Nordost Blue heaven XLR)
Headphones - Atrium (Viking Weave Ansuz XLR), VC (Forza Noir hybrid HPC XLR)
Music Variety of Black Sabbath, Rammstein, Pink Floyd, Black Keys, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan
Impressions Admittedly I was going into this with a bias against SS so I did enlist my wife who pretty much exclusively listens to the VC on BF2-64/Jot2 stack but we ended up with pretty similar conclusions. Here are the key observations:
- The first thing immediate thing of note was that the full bodied sound on Studio B vs very clear and perhaps slightly thinner sound on CFA3. This was to be expected from the 300B nature of the tubes but it was cool how obvious it was.
- Next, the stage although almost identical in size, was again obviously more holographic on Studio B when compared to CFA3. Again, not a surprise given the conventional wisdom of tube amps vs SS amps.
- Now this next one is a bit weird and could be due to sound matching which I tried very hard to do but it's always the hardest part of A/B for me. I don't think changing amps should change frequency response of a headphone but it certainly sounded like the "highs were higher and lows were lower" on Studio B than CFA3 which sounded a bit "compressed", for lack of a better word. I know that sounds very vague but I am not sure how else to explain it and also not sure why that would be.
- Last major thing I noticed was the difference in decay: CFA3 sounded dryer than Studio B which is interesting because Studio B is usually described as a dry tube amp. I am now even more curious to try DNA amps which are described as wetter than EC amps. Perhaps this is specific to Atrium which has longer decays because I didn't notice it as much on the VC.
- Summary - if I close my eyes, the music sounded more natural (analog?) with the tubes on Atrium which is my personal preference.
I did compare Studio B vs CFA3 + Studio B pre which helped provide a little bit of the holographic sound of the tubes but overall the sound was still closer to SS sound than tube. I am now very curious to try the same comparison with Caldera at some point!