Which do you prefer Ear + HD or HD2 ???
Aug 27, 2007 at 8:14 PM Post #16 of 33

Rav

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Posts
1,143
Likes
27
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootleg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
On the whole, the HD2 clearly wins out for three main features: (1) the use of more readily available tubes, (2) the dual headphone jacks, and (3) the need for only two tubes as opposed to three (meaning its less expensive over the long haul, albeit only slightly).


They were my main reasons for picking the HD2 over the HD, although i think i prefer the looks of the HD with the symmetrical layout of the tubes. I also asked Dr Lloyd if he could make mine with 2 low impedance jacks, so i can directly compare my HF1 to RS1 (and as i have no other phones, it made more sense)
cool.gif
 
Aug 27, 2007 at 8:58 PM Post #17 of 33

sacd lover

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Posts
8,190
Likes
34
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootleg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Riceboy and I have recently done a head to head comparison of the HD vs the HD2.

I am preparing a full review/comparison, but here is the brief version:

I did both blind and non-blind comparisons between the two amps and I must say that I do not have much confidence that I could tell them apart in a controlled blind test if the levels were truly matched within 0.5 db or less.

That being said, I was able to distinguish some very slight differences when comparing them openly. In short, the HD sounded a bit more "warm" and "tubey" while the HD2 sounded "cleaner" and more "accurate", but again we're talking small differences.

On the whole, the HD2 clearly wins out for three main features: (1) the use of more readily available tubes, (2) the dual headphone jacks, and (3) the need for only two tubes as opposed to three (meaning its less expensive over the long haul, albeit only slightly).



I dont think two of your reasons are valid. The 12b4a is more readily available from most tube dealers. The main dealers I use doesn't even carry the ECC99. Two 12b4a's will almost always run less than one ECC99. The ECC99 is not going to last as long as the nos 12b4a tubes even if the prices are similar.
 
Aug 27, 2007 at 9:56 PM Post #18 of 33

Gradofan2

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Posts
3,819
Likes
40
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rav /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They were my main reasons for picking the HD2 over the HD, although i think i prefer the looks of the HD with the symmetrical layout of the tubes. I also asked Dr Lloyd if he could make mine with 2 low impedance jacks, so i can directly compare my HF1 to RS1 (and as i have no other phones, it made more sense)
cool.gif



Until... you go to resell it...
 
Aug 27, 2007 at 11:53 PM Post #20 of 33

mrarroyo

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
19,073
Likes
29
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootleg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Riceboy and I have recently done a head to head comparison of the HD vs the HD2.

I am preparing a full review/comparison, but here is the brief version:

I did both blind and non-blind comparisons between the two amps and I must say that I do not have much confidence that I could tell them apart in a controlled blind test if the levels were truly matched within 0.5 db or less.

That being said, I was able to distinguish some very slight differences when comparing them openly. In short, the HD sounded a bit more "warm" and "tubey" while the HD2 sounded "cleaner" and more "accurate", but again we're talking small differences.

On the whole, the HD2 clearly wins out for three main features: (1) the use of more readily available tubes, (2) the dual headphone jacks, and (3) the need for only two tubes as opposed to three (meaning its less expensive over the long haul, albeit only slightly).



Dr. Lloyd will add two headphone jacks as well as two sources and its selector switch if you ask him. For example:



Note: Mine is the HD100 but both options I mentioned above can be added to an Ear + Purist HD.
 
Aug 28, 2007 at 8:04 AM Post #21 of 33

Bootleg

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 23, 2007
Posts
1,602
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I dont think two of your reasons are valid. The 12b4a is more readily available from most tube dealers. The main dealers I use doesn't even carry the ECC99. Two 12b4a's will almost always run less than one ECC99. The ECC99 is not going to last as long as the nos 12b4a tubes even if the prices are similar.


I am not a tube-savant, so I will not argue those points. If true, my apologies. I was merely echoing Dr Lloyd's stated position on the HD2 tubes.
 
Aug 28, 2007 at 8:09 AM Post #22 of 33

Bootleg

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 23, 2007
Posts
1,602
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrarroyo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Dr. Lloyd will add two headphone jacks as well as two sources and its selector switch if you ask him. For example:



Note: Mine is the HD100 but both options I mentioned above can be added to an Ear + Purist HD.



ahhhh...but not for free.

In that case, my Point 1 would be altered to read: The modded HD is more expensive.

Please let me repeat that I did hear some small differences in the non-blind listening sessions, and if you are really in love with the tube sound I would have no qualms at all suggesting the HD...its just that I really thought it was splitting hairs to hear a difference.

What did that psychologist say? "If you have to try that hard to find fault with yourself, its probably not worth the effort."

My feelings exactly on the differences between the HD and HD2...nominal, minimal, probably not worth the effort, and possibly not there at all.

Just one man's opinion...please, don't shoot!
 
Aug 28, 2007 at 8:14 AM Post #23 of 33

Bootleg

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 23, 2007
Posts
1,602
Likes
10
One more advantage to the HD2: A stepped attenuator is available. Probably (almost certainly) overkill, but this is audiophile territory isn't it!
 
Aug 28, 2007 at 10:25 AM Post #24 of 33

LoweArt

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Posts
334
Likes
13
I have to admit that if didn't have my custom Ear + purist and I had to make a choice between the HD and the HD2, the HD1 would win out because -

1) I get the satisfaction of building my own headphone amp

2) I enjoy tube rolling and the HD2 with it's ECC99 tube by JJ/Telsa limits
your choice of other brands for a suitable tube replacement

3) The symmetry of the HD with it's tubes & relative positioning looks better than the HD2 ( to my eyes )
 
Aug 28, 2007 at 12:23 PM Post #25 of 33

osocan

New Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Posts
32
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by LoweArt /img/forum/go_quote.gif

2) I enjoy tube rolling and the HD2 with it's ECC99 tube by JJ/Telsa limits
your choice of other brands for a suitable tube replacement



One of the first questions that I asked Lloyd when deciding on the MAD was the tuberolling options. It may seem silly to you guys but in fact I wanted an amp that didnt really have that many options as far as tuberolling is concerned. Being a noob to tubes, I didnt want to get confused by the multitude of tube options available out there; and perhaps regretting that the amp didnt get that perfect tube to make it sound its best. I am not too sure now that this is as important as it was then. IMHO, the HD2 is a marvellous amp and there is always the MPX waiting for me somewhere if I ever wanted to get into tuberolling
wink.gif
 
Aug 29, 2007 at 6:16 PM Post #26 of 33

Voodoochile

Supafly & The Funky Pimps
Joined
Sep 13, 2002
Posts
4,882
Likes
13
My experience was pretty much the same as Miguel's. I owned an Ear+ Purist HD, then a year later built a customized version of the same, a bit tweaked out. Sold the first Purist and kept the custom.

Another year later the HD-150 was announced, and I bought that, owning it concurrently with the Purist. I liked them both a lot, and felt that perhaps the HD150 (aka HD2) had perhaps an ever so slightly sweeter top end. However, the difference in the bass performance was notable. The HD150 sounded good, but the Purist felt stronger, and faster as well.

Ear+HDx2.jpg
 
Aug 29, 2007 at 8:41 PM Post #27 of 33

fc911c

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Posts
622
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voodoochile /img/forum/go_quote.gif
My experience was pretty much the same as Miguel's. I owned an Ear+ Purist HD, then a year later built a customized version of the same, a bit tweaked out. Sold the first Purist and kept the custom.

Another year later the HD-150 was announced, and I bought that, owning it concurrently with the Purist. I liked them both a lot, and felt that perhaps the HD150 (aka HD2) had perhaps an ever so slightly sweeter top end. However, the difference in the bass performance was notable. The HD150 sounded good, but the Purist felt stronger, and faster as well.

Ear+HDx2.jpg



Wow, another beauty, how about some details on the custom. So you feel the HD has better bass?

Thanks
Frank
 
Aug 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM Post #28 of 33

Frihed89

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Posts
1,449
Likes
54
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
The 3 main advantages of the HD2, cited here, do not appear to have much to do with sonic differences.

I have not heard the HD2. I own a modified HD (dual volume, high-low gain, plus some internal options i have long since forgotten). I use it with NOS 5751s and have recently been rolling current production 12AX7s as inputs.

This amp equals the best 5687 or 6BL7GT + all but one driver input (6SN7GT) combination on my SP MPX-3 SLAM SE, but does not approach the refinement I can get using 6SN7GTs as outputs on my SP. So, what I am saying is: take the 6SN7GT away from the MPX-3 SLAM SE and the HD is a better amp.

Not everyone will agree this, but the HD is very versatile amp that will play anything well with Slam or refinement into any set of headphones. Rolling the 5751 will get you more/less tightness in the bass, warmer/colder mid-range, and more/less extension in the trebble, but nothing like the SP can do when you consider all the tubes you can use.

Making an HD that will work with 12AV7 school of tubes is probably also a good idea if you can find the right output tubes. I think that was an interest of SACD Lover to begin with.
6SN7GT away from the SP an
 
Aug 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM Post #29 of 33

sacd lover

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Posts
8,190
Likes
34
Quote:

Originally Posted by Frihed89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The 3 main advantages of the HD2, cited here, do not appear to have much to do with sonic differences.

I have not heard the HD2. I own a modified HD (dual volume, high-low gain, plus some internal options i have long since forgotten). I use it with NOS 5751s and have recently been rolling current production 12AX7s as inputs.

This amp equals the best 5687 or 6BL7GT + all but one driver input (6SN7GT) combination on my SP MPX-3 SLAM SE, but does not approach the refinement I can get using 6SN7GTs as outputs on my SP. So, what I am saying is: take the 6SN7GT away from the MPX-3 SLAM SE and the HD is a better amp.

Not everyone will agree this, but the HD is very versatile amp that will play anything well with Slam or refinement into any set of headphones. Rolling the 5751 will get you more/less tightness in the bass, warmer/colder mid-range, and more/less extension in the trebble, but nothing like the SP can do when you consider all the tubes you can use.

Making an HD that will work with 12AV7 school of tubes is probably also a good idea if you can find the right output tubes. I think that was an interest of SACD Lover to begin with.
6SN7GT away from the SP an




You are right, some wont agree.
wink.gif


I am one of those as I dont agree with your statement at all. The best gain tube combos with 5687 outputs, and especially the 6bx7gt, are non 6sn7gt tubes in my system. I am currently using ZERO 6sn7gt's in my SP amps because I like tubes like the 7062/12az7/6cg7/12fq7/5670 etc... better to much better.

The Ear+ is a nice amp but properly setup the SP amps have more PRAT, dynamic contrast, refinement, bass slam, soundstage size a more realistic tonality and simply resolve more information. There is no question which are the superior amps in my mind. My two favorite headphones .... the Alessandro MS2 and the Senn 580/600 are decidely better on the SP amps. Even adding twice the power, the ability to use the 12av7 series of tubes and a switchable hybrid tube/SS bridge rectifier in the Ear+ Super does not get the Ear+ on the level of any of my SP amps.

I still enjoy the Ear+ with grados and I am taking the amp to work. The small size and ease of placement is a big plus in a cramped environment. But, for serious listening sessions I use the SP amps, or a Sound Quest SQ-84 with MS2's, or a heavily modified and rebuilt Doge 6210 with Senn 580/600's.
 
Aug 30, 2007 at 2:37 PM Post #30 of 33

Voodoochile

Supafly & The Funky Pimps
Joined
Sep 13, 2002
Posts
4,882
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by fc911c /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wow, another beauty, how about some details on the custom. So you feel the HD has better bass?

Thanks
Frank



Thanks, I like it too. It has a hybrid Graetz bridge, and the B+ psu has an LC filter stage added to it- it's an exceptionally quiet power supply. Other than that, mostly feature stuff, like three grayhill-switched inputs, an alps black beauty pot, and the power transformers are potted in thermal epoxy.

I've got some plans in the works for a different incarnation building off this design, but it's pretty early on.

I think that the Ear amps are very good sounding in any form, and represent a respectable value. An excellent balance of performance and reasonable affordability.

You can do better, and you can spend more, but you had better be sure the rest of your rig is up to snuff, especially your source, or you may not realize any benefit.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top