Quote:
MacDEF wrote: again: would you give up fidelity while listening to avoid any pot noise while changing the volume? |
I vote for #3 and #2 over #1, and I'm sure I speak for this entire forum and the population of China
. I live every day with the mechanical power-switching noises of my mega-buck NAD amp, annoying digital miscues between my CDP and DAC, and heck, without just about any "normal" convenience of a typical cheap Sony receiver, because it sounds GREAT. My friends think I'm daft, loving such a cranky, "simple" system, but they just have different priorities.
Believe me jpegl, I understand how frustrating the little inconveniences can be. When I first tried out a Little many years ago, I was disheartened to discover that the pot mistracked at not-so-low volumes. My Sony boombox had better tracking, fer crying out loud! So the Little went back, even though at that time I had heard only one person complain about it (Greg Smith on SoundStage).
But it's obviously not HeadRoom's fault I didn't like their amp; I'm just that way about channel imbalances and HeadRoom can't be expected to cater to all idiosyncrasies. Similarly, I agree with MacDEF that it's not fair for you to complain authoritatively about defects and quality control just because HeadRoom's design philosophy doesn't adhere to your conceptions of high-end audio. And it's certainly unbecoming to gripe about the $15 or so it costs in shipping to audition a nice headphone amplifier, especially when you didn't give HeadRoom a chance to explain before bursting into song here on head-fi.
Quote:
jpegl: I do not feel this information was offered freely. |
It was offered freely AND readily AND at an early date to anyone who asked (I heard it from Todd over the phone long before your complaints started, albeit without so much detail). Dan Wright, Jan Meier, Joseph Lau, Tyll Hertsens -- all these guys are not expected to stoop to our every demand, but it's admirable that they so often try. The RA-1 is designed for low-impedance headphones: does Joe Grados warn potential consumers about this? Heck no, but no one knocks
him.
Quote:
Coming out with a "new, improved" version of an existing product, ought to imply that there are no shortcomings as compared to the original. I feel that there are some such shortcomings (ie. "noise" issues) which, at least, should have been openly declared so that consumers could make an informed choice. |
With all due respect, do you have any idea how crazy this sounds? I don't think anyone should expect that the latest iteration of anything should be expected to perform better across the board than the previous version. Not every new Lamborghini Diablo was better in all ways to its predecessor, not every "NEW, IMPROVED!" detergent cleans better than the last. The new TAH sounds brighter than the old one, with less full but much punchier bass: is that better or worse? It has louder "pop!" when you switch on the amp: is this therefore, like the noises on my NAD amp, a defect?
Quote:
... that doesn't work completely as stated? |
That doesn't work completely as "expected," perhaps, and that's no one's fault but your own.
Bottom line: it is apparent to me that HeadRoom tries their damnedest to make the best-sounding amps for our money and to provide a informative and supportive relationship with its customers. The vast majority of their patrons agree, as you've mentioned disbelievingly. If that's not your cup of tea, c'est la vie, but dissing them is not warranted.
James
P.S. You can completely avoid the crackling if you take your time turning up the volume. This makes sense from Danny and Tyll's technical explanation, although it's probably small comfort to you now.