Josz27
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Posts
- 173
- Likes
- 84
The RNHP is not more diffuse than the asgard, it may even have a tighter/clearer imaging than asgard.What is your perception of the strength of the stereo image of the Asgard and Burson vs the RNHP? Is it just as defined or slightly more diffuse? What about the strength of the center of the image?
But the Stage Width, Depth and Height just cut off before the others, when volume matched, my ATH A1000Z almost sound like an open pair with asgard( I don't like soloist 1000z pairing but it is also bigger than rnhp).
The Rnhp has a very precise imaging , good textures and good imaging clarity, but the overall size and limit distances of the sounds that are placed in the soundstage, are smaller.
I still need to compare against the Asgard since I don't know if rnhp separation is better, but it could be.
It is just that the soundstage size is not as big as those discrete design Class A/B (asgard) , class A( burson) Amps.
Stage presentation it's also different, It may be smaller but it also made to appreciate things in way asgard/soloist does not.
I compared rnhp against ifi gryphon and it showed me more things in the soundstage, in that case I'm sure rnhp is "better" but against asgard I would have to compare much more since it is very different stage presentation.
Asgard is more forward but also bigger,wider sounding.
Rnhp has very very precise but "smaller" sounds, it has a sharp imaging, that is not the issue, is just that I noticed in ALL my a/b that it had less stage size than A3/3xp