TheSloth

Hey now! I decided to plug in the K1K into the convertible after a head-fi'er asked me to try it - he swore that it sounded pretty good in his system. And it did. Yep, no dynamics whatsoever but the tone was smooth and balanced, which is much more than I can say for a lot of other amps I've heard powering the K1K. I did for fun try out one of the original module designs and it sounded pretty disastrous.

ABUSE OF MODERATOR PRIVILIGES :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police:

Technically true, but that little convertible produced some of the nicest sounds I've heard out of a K1K within its volume limits! With doubled up modules, it might do quite well for less dynamic music. And GE (who happens to be first in line), you'll have to get in line!

That's a weird post.

Yep, the Max DAC upsamples to 192kHz, the Home DAC doesn't upsample at all.

Because the desktop DAC already has 134's, and adding class A biasing wouldn't really enough of a performance change to justify the difference - in the Home Module, the class A biasing is signifciant as it applies heavily to the output buffer stage as well as the voltage gain, and is therefore justifiable without an opamp change. Also, with the Modules, there is only the option to change biasing and opamps as you go up the line, whereas with the DAC they had the option of adding upsampling as well, as they did with the Max DAC.

I'm trying not to shill with this one, but I really never found much of a signature to the 627 modules. In fact it was the other way round - all the other opamps were realtively warm and fuzzy, with the 627 to my ears sounding just right. So the Home Modules with the 2134's don't have quite the same clarity and texture that the 627 based modules do, but yet balanced drive, particularly with 650's is considered to improve those qualities so it would be an interesting challenge.

I still use 650's as my reference, so if you throw in a balanced cable... I like the simpliciy of this one, in that it doesn't have the preamp section which adds circuitry and switches etc. This is a plain headphone amplifier, with a single (unless you count the DAC) input and single output. And it's dinky. I'm also interested in what supply you found, especially as you say it's a switcher which ought to sound worse than the linear one you are currently including, shouldn't it? Though it does present a difficult choice in the Desktop line: you can go all Max in single ended, or all Home in balanced. That would actually be a fascinating comparison to see whether the drive scheme itself will make up for the difference in the modules, and how different the two will actually sound.

And you never told ME Tyll?! Well I suppose you did say you'd do it at some point, but still!!! I have been out of it, headphone wise recently though. Glad things are going well over there!

Spendor s5e, used. Maybe even a s6e if you are lucky.

The Casino needs a new subsection - 'The Vault'. To get into that, not only do they interview you, but all your family and friends as well.

At least they tried to deliver them to you. They delivered one of the stands for my QUAD's to some random other building, but the other one that was on the same waybill was delivered to me...

What the hell is this guy's problem? Collective Head-Case apology. Now that some people have heard the Tomahawk, and they thought that it was the best evaaaaar, we take back everything we have ever said about not only the Tomahawk but all of Ray Samuels' design ability and overall personality. It is clear that if some people heard it, and then they liked it, that makes it a Good Thing?. Any criticism of the design that we may have been stupid enough to make on technical grounds has been completely annihilated by the impressions of these Godly figures. We will become believers, and if someone's ears say that you can drive a pair of 300ohm headphones with a 3V supply, we will throw down science, intelligence, education and good judgement, for we have a new reason to live: RAY SAMUELS, and your wisdom. Billy, do us all a favour and apply for a job at Bose.

They look like they are meant to compete with the Sennheiser CX300's, but they seem to cost more than the Super.Fi 3...?

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/all-headphones/ultimate-ears-metrofi-2.php Sorry if there is loads about this on head-fi, but I try not to go there as much as possible...

A very questionable move. They don't wobble or flex a great deal within their own structure, they just don't sit very well on a floor. I might try to remove the feet and see if I can replace them with something - they are just lumps of hard plastic, and not adjustable in any way. I can see the brace as being useful for the 2905 with the extra height and consequently extra leverage of the panels against the base. I get the impression it is partially there to look 'cool'. I can't say I like the move, as it makes the speakers bigger and bulkier in all directions, and makes them modern. I find the simple wood panels on the 63 to be particularly elegant.

Not in the slightest. The Tomahawk is not 'designed for IEM's'. It is 'only suitable for IEM's' because the circuit design is not sufficiently advanced to drive anything else. The implication of 'designed for IEM's' is that there is something in the circuitry that makes it better at driving IEM's than competing amplifiers. Anyone who has even the slightest grasp of physics will know that is complete bullshit.

They are a refurb pair of 63's with new panels, 988 grilles + protection circuits and proper WBT binding posts (and nice new black cloths). I think the old 63's look rather handsome - more so than the new ones, but the lack of tilt is an issue. They are very directional in the vertical plane, so I have some stands with adjustable tilt so I can get the central ring structure on axis for proper listening. They also wobble around like crazy as evidently PJ didn't see any need for proper feet on the bottom, so that needs addrssing as well. I used to have a pair of 988's in another life so this is like coming home. This has surprisingly little to do with headphone amplification.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? There will be people who praise Ray (or fill in any other manuf. here instead) whatever he does, and it is only natural to balance that with those who will find fault with everything he does. It seems perfectly fair to be a naysayer if you back up your criticism on each occasion. It is called a point of view, and if someone's point of view, backed up by valid points is that Ray couldn't design his way out of a paper bag, why are we criticising the man rather than the message? If you disagree with the point of view, write counterpoint. Wouldn't everyone benefit from a genuine argument of both sides of an issue such as this? I remember many threads that had a seemingly pointless anti-HeadRoom bias, which I jumped in to balance out a bit. However on occasion some posters have pointed out genuine flaws in some of the designs at HR. Whether or not they have an anti-headroom history behind them or not does not invalidate their point. I remember arguing about the relevance of the use of the integrated HA5002 buffer chip, and in the end, compared to a truly well engineered solution, particularly with low impedance headphones, it is a plain bad performer. That is just the truth. Whether you care, or even like the sound or not is just opinion, but no need to shoot down the fact to feel better about yourself or your fav. equipment.

I don't know ??? ;D ;D ;D ;D

If they are both called Fred, then OK.

That sounds fun! They'd have to be very thin to fit on a 12" deep base...

I have two new toys arriving tomorrow. They are 37" tall and 26" wide. Any guesses...?

Aren't iPod's 3.7V? Though even that is higher than the 3V max of 2AAA's. Unfortunately Ray is going to sell a lot of these.