Xin SuperMicro IV - 1st Impressions
Oct 3, 2006 at 9:18 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 19

FreeBlues

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Posts
324
Likes
39
Location
Northern New Mexico
I finally received my new SuperMicro IV (V?) yesterday after waiting over two months from the date I ordered it. Naturally, I opened the box and immediately put it into my system. I listened for over an hour then connected it to a radio and headphones and let it burn for another 14 hours. I gave it another listen today, again for about an hour

In the hopes that maybe I’m wrong or missing something, I want to post my initial review.

In short, I’m very disappointed.

For reference, I’m using a 5g iPod, 30gb, ALAC, to an AudioLineOut Cryo Dock, to a Hornet M (400+ hours), to Westone ES2’s. I listen to electric blues, blues rock, acoustic guitar and some classic rock. For these listening sessions I used tunes I’ve been listening to for years (and years), things I know quite well.

Now, to be fair, my reference system uses a Hornet M that is fully burned in and almost 2X the cost, so comparing a brand new Micro to this wonderful little amp is not fair, but then again, this is the real world. My impressions of the Micro are that is seems to process everything through a layer of grit, like looking through a dirty window. Highs are grainy, not quite harsh but certainly not natural, the bass is okay but not very well defined and images are very 2D. In particular, the sound space in my head is much more “sound in my left ear,” “sound in my right ear.” There is almost a hole in the center of my head. Instruments and singers are pretty flat, no body or depth. Music I really like just doesn’t bloom. Definition, while good, seemed sort of unnatural, perhaps because the high end seemed a bit emphasized. I

After about an hour I really couldn’t take it anymore and reconnected my Hornet. Instant relief! Music is easy again, there is air and space around all the players, details are perfect. The bass on my combo is deep, tight and very well defined. Cymbals have shimmer as well as copper (brass?) bodies. The soundstage is both wide and, in particular, deep. Most of all, music is involving, exciting and full of life.

This isn’t a happy review. It’s what I hear, but is it fair? I’m hoping that additional burn in will greatly improve the Micro. Other suggestions or input is welcome.
 
Oct 3, 2006 at 9:31 PM Post #2 of 19
What chips does your Supermicro use?
 
Oct 3, 2006 at 10:33 PM Post #4 of 19
very interesting impressions. Vorlon1 mentioned in the xin waiting thread that his supermicro is better than the SR-71 (just a general quote). is this a case of 'different ears hear different things'?
 
Oct 3, 2006 at 11:24 PM Post #5 of 19
It sounds not like a normal Micro, imho as Micro's has really good soundstage, at least in my case. two quick thoughts for your reference.
1. There's quality problem with this Micro.
2. The Micro uses DC-DC boost and doesn't like Alkaline battery. Ni-HM battery is better;
 
Oct 3, 2006 at 11:29 PM Post #6 of 19
I just got a super micro iv too, and I'm tempted to think that something is wrong with yours. Right out of the gate mine sounds great, the sound is lush and full-bodied and I don't hear any graininess or distortion. Granted I'm coming from an XMoy2 (cmoy-style) amplifier that's nothing like your Hornet, but I have pretty good ears and I don't hear anything like what you're describing. I'd email Xin if I were you and ask what he thinks.

Gary
 
Oct 4, 2006 at 12:00 AM Post #8 of 19
Some answers to your problems may be addressed on Xin's website. Check it out and Google Xin Feng, if you don't have his site bookmarked already. Think it's fix-up.net, or some similar title. Anyway, lots of gurus on there that can probably help
 
Oct 4, 2006 at 3:05 AM Post #11 of 19
Actually, I said that the soundstage and transparency of the micro were better than the SR-71, but the SR-71 had more weight and impact and slightly better background detail. I really like the micro sound though, the soudstage is the largest of any of my portable amps and very analogue sounding and fluid. Also the detail on female vocals and the tonality of them are excellent. I am using an alkaline duracell at the moment and have noticed no difference with a rechargable nimh.
 
Oct 4, 2006 at 3:35 AM Post #12 of 19
Quote:

Originally Posted by goto2003
It sounds not like a normal Micro, imho as Micro's has really good soundstage, at least in my case. two quick thoughts for your reference.
1. There's quality problem with this Micro.
2. The Micro uses DC-DC boost and doesn't like Alkaline battery. Ni-HM battery is better;



Quote:

Originally Posted by vorlon1
I am using an alkaline duracell at the moment and have noticed no difference with a rechargable nimh.;


Well, I guess this means I'll be contacting Dr. Xin. My Micro isn't really bad, I mean, like really bad, but it is nowhere near as good as others are describing. Perhaps something is not right with mine.
 
Oct 4, 2006 at 6:39 AM Post #13 of 19
Even so, try NIMH (or if you have no NIMH AAAs, Lithium). Alkaline and carbon-zinc just fall on their faces when used with switching voltage boosters, even with low current demand. It might not be a problem here, or it may need a few hours (as Vorlon1 suggested elsewhere), but using a better battery is certainly a good option to try.
 
Oct 4, 2006 at 1:43 PM Post #14 of 19
Because of this battery discussion I decided to re-check my impressions and did some swithcing between Alkaline and Nimh and in paying closer attention I do notice some differences. The highs are a bit brighter and the overall sound has a bit more oomph with the NIMH battery, and background details like say, high hats on a jazz recording that are behind the vocal lead and other instruments are a bit more prominent and crisp in the background. These are subtle differences, but discernable, and I'd be very surprised if the battery turned out to be responsible for the problems FeeBlues is having with his micro, because the unit does not sound constricted or grainy with the alkaline battery, and it has an excellent soundstage, but is just a bit more energetic and crisper with an NIMH.
 
Oct 4, 2006 at 1:53 PM Post #15 of 19
Quote:

Originally Posted by vorlon1
Actually, I said that the soundstage and transparency of the micro were better than the SR-71, but the SR-71 had more weight and impact and slightly better background detail. I really like the micro sound though, the soudstage is the largest of any of my portable amps and very analogue sounding and fluid. Also the detail on female vocals and the tonality of them are excellent. I am using an alkaline duracell at the moment and have noticed no difference with a rechargable nimh.


Isn't the Supermicro offered with a few different chips? If so, couldn't it be where the different judgments of you and FreeBlues come from?


edit- ouch, just realized that perhaps I've been confusing Supermicro & Supermini
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top