[Culverin]

i think i'm pretty set on this, but i thought you guys might be able to offer some advice on this?
i own neither of them, and can't really test them out, but it's westone and RSA, i can't really go wrong with them right?

so i was just wondering how the um2's would match up for a hornet.
The impedence of the um2's is 27 ohms.

thanks

 

[lz7j]

the hornet has a gain switch. you can set it to 'low' impedance for iem's.

I have the westone um2's and have experimented with the hornet m for a few days only to find out that iem's don't generally benefit from amps. the difference is so small that you have to critically listen to the music. imo, it's not worth to amp unless you have very demanding headphones.

 

[grawk]

The gain switch has nothing to do with impedance.

That said, lots of people like the UM2s with the hornet. Didn't do it for me, but that's why it's personal opinion.

 

[Advil]

If you're only going to use this amp with your IEM, you might want the tomahawk instead.

 

[CMasten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif The gain switch has nothing to do with impedance. That said, lots of people like the UM2s with the hornet. Didn't do it for me, but that's why it's personal opinion.

via Rays website:

In the back panel where the battery compartment is you will find the DC connector for the 90-240 AC regulated adaptor which serves as a charger too. Next to that you have the three position switch which is located more toward the inside of the amp which will expose very little extension tip of the lever that gives you the three gains to accommodate all the high impedance headphones like Sennheiser HD600/650, AKG 501s and the Bayer DT880. The middle gain will be right for all low impedance phones like Grados and Sony's while the low gain will be great for the very sensitive in ear canal phones.

 

[vorlon1]

I think you will get a full, rich, detailed sound with the Hornet and UM 2's, far superior to unamped.

 

[mriguy2]

I use the UM2s with a Tomahawk. I find there is a significant improvement with the Tomahawk. Without it, music becomes more 2D. With it, music expands in front-to-back depth and the music feels much more relaxed. I've shared the with/without Tomahawk experience with probably 6 different people. All have heard the difference and preffered it with the amp (some would perhaps argue that they were just being nice, but I don't think so).

The other debate is the question of is the above difference, the amplifier, the bypassing of the iPod's D/A converter by using a CryoDock or both? I personally think it's both.

In summary, for casual listening it probably doesn't matter, but if your really listening and purposfully out to listen and get into the music, there is no comparisson, IMHO (of course).

 

[mrarroyo]

The UM2 sound great out of the Hornet "M". However if you listen to very low volumes you may want to consider the Tomahawk, which has a gain of 1 with the gain set on low.

FWIW the Tomahawk IMO sounds almost the same as to the Hornet "M". However to achieve this it needs well over 600 hours of burn in, for some reason after 600 hours it has the same impactful bass as the Hornet "M" and IMO a wider soundstage. Good luck.

 

[Culverin]

well, as of right now, i'm trying to go the planned purchase route to skip all the upgraderitis (booo, i know...

). Just these 2 and a sound card to hold me over.

i'm starting from scratch again. ditched my X-fi for the computer. and i will be using the Hornet to power something from it (i'm not sure what, but probably higher impedence cans like the 880's).

mrarroyo, you said the low volume listening is better with the tomahawk? does that mean the hornet is losing some clarity because it can work with a wider range of impedences? and how low of a volume can it go and still give clarity? because if i control the volume on my IFP-799 there is a huge drop in clarity, like not everything is coming through.

 

[Romanee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrarroyo /img/forum/go_quote.gif The UM2 sound great out of the Hornet "M". However if you listen to very low volumes you may want to consider the Tomahawk, which has a gain of 1 witht the gain set on low. FWIW the Tomahawk IMO sounds almost the same as to the Hornet "M". However to achieve this it needs well over 600 hours of burn in, for some reason after 600 hours it has the same impactful bass as the Hornet "M" and IMO a wider soundstage. Good luck.

My ES2 IEMs are extremely sensitive, and I use both my Hornet and Tomahawk with them.

To my ears the Hornet provides a more robust sound. I sometimes feel that the Tomahawk has more upward extension until I compare specific passages and find that the information is present with the Hornet but seems a bit sweeter and presented with a greater sense of ease or reserve power.

The TH does have the wider sound stage and perhaps more sense of "air", but the Hornet still has a bit more punch and energy to the bass.

The TH certainly has more volume latitude and better low-level dynamics, but I can still use the Hornet with the ES2s at low levels; it just requires very adept handling of micro-volume adjustments, generally playing between 7:45-8:00 on average recordings, and occasionally 8:30-9:00 on very low-level recordings.

I've just gotten so used to the comfort of the tiny size and huge battery life of the TH that I most often save the Hornet for desktop play, alternating with the TH, depending on mood and music.

I find that they're well suited for the Westone IEMs and also the DT880-250/2005, HD600 & HD650. The TH sounds nice with K701, but those phones need more juice to really shine.

 

[teddysaur]

For some reason, my Bose QC2 goes much better with TH than my UM2.