These day's there are a plethora of excellent options to help get more out of a basic Computer Audio System and for a lot of music lovers these systems are excellent! But, if your like us, then your likely curious about that next level.

For this review we wanted to take a look at the iFi Audio iDSD Neo as an excellent gateway into the next level of Computer Audio playback!

More than Just Sound Quality
While sound quality is often first and foremost what we're looking for from an upgrade or step into that "next level," features and added convince are also hallmarks of truly lasting upgrades! iDSD Neo in particular offers additional digital inputs and full size line out connections over the Zen Dac. In my own system I found these allowed me to integrate iDSD Neo with more than just my Computer, I was able to integrate it into my home theatre system using the optical input and a secondary work station via a coaxial SPDIF input. Additionally I found the full size dual 3-pin XLR jacks more accommodating to longer cable runs over the 4.4mm Pentaconn to dual 3pin XLR adapter I used with Zen DAC.

While it retains the iconic natural iFi house sound I did find iDSD Neo both more powerful and resolving than Zen Dac. This improvement in power output was particularly noticeable with the Audeze LCD-2 and the increased resolution was quite discernible with HIFIMAN HE-R10D dynamic closed-back headphone.

Additionally for this review we're going to take a look at iDSD Neo as both an All in One using it's built in 4.4mm balanced output section and as a standalone DAC when paired with our GS-X Mini balanced headphone amp hooked up using the full size dual 3pin XLR output section.

Full Setup & Track List
Playback for iDSD Neo utilized SPDIF Input via ASIO Output from FooBar2000. All files were locally hosted an sourced as either 16/44.1 Redbook CD Rips or 24/96 WEB Downloads. Zen DAC was fed USB Input via a Samsung Tab S4 running USB Audio Player Pro set to bit-perfect playing the same locally hosted files. Levels between all three output stages where matched for each comparison. Track-list is as follows:

• Pistol Annies - Hell on Heels: #2 Lemon Drop (16/44.1 CD-Rip)
• Avenged Seven Fold - The Stage : #17 Wish You Were Here (2016 WEB 24/96)
• Jennifer Warnes - The Songs of Leonard Cohen : #11 Ballad of the Runaway Horse (20th ANV Gold CD-Rip 44.1/16)

ZEN Dac vs iDSD Neo with Hifiman HE-R10D

Both Zen Dac and iDSD Neo have excellent timbre and tonality from their 4.4mm balanced outputs but what I appreciated about iDSD Neo over Zen Dac was the improvements to both the size and cohesion of the sound stage. iDSD Neo brings just a touch of openness with better micro-dynamic contrast to create a more believable presentation of music within recorded space. Additionally while I am enamoured with the slightly intimate charm of Zen Dac, iDSD Neo brought a much appreciate level of slam and punch that would likely over power Zen Dac's slightly more intimate presentation.

In particular with iDSD Neo it was easier to discern the unique tone and texture of each member of the Pistol Annies and still hear the depth of the space they recorded in. What we love about the vocal trio of Miranda Lambert, Ashley Monroe, and Angaleena Presley featured in Lemon Drop is there position to one another on the recording and their use of harmony. This sense of space in relation to one another was more vivid with iDSD Neo without losing the magic of their harmony!

iDSD Neo 4.4mm Out VS GS-X Mini With Hifiman HE-R10D

For those who want even more resolution, texture and realism GS-X Mini proves itself as an immediate linear upgrade. It retains and compliments the timbre and tone density of iDSD Neo while offering an elevated performance in comparison to an already amazing amp stage. The most immediate improvements we noticed were in the bass texture and extension, dynamic contrast and sound stage depth.

Ballad of the Runaway Horse as performed by Jennifer Warnes features an outstanding double bass performance, an we found ourselvs mesmerized by the balance of warmth, body and texture GS-X mini has with HE R10D. This natural timbre and texture alongside the distinctly open staging of HE R10D blend together to present a beautiful sense of realism and immersion. While iDSD Neo's built in amp stage sounds grounded and real it wasn't quite as addictive as the combo of GS-X Mini and iDSD Neo!

We also noticed a smoother more refined top-end presentation that really pulled us deeper into the music. The gentle trill of crickets, distant percussive sound and aimbent string work become easier to discern within the soundscape. GS-X Mini presented slightly less top end fatigue and better clarity which made it even easier to discern all of the intricate nuance present.

iDSD Neo 4.4mm Out VS GS-X Mini With Audeze LCD-2

In terms of power iDSD Neo is no slouch offering a full watt into a 32ohm load and while this is sufficent for most modern efficent headphones there are a few instances where it's good but not quite the best option. GS-X Mini in comparison offers upwards of 6W into 32ohms, so six times as powerful, making it functionally and excellent compliment to iDSD Neo. The Audeze LCD 2 in particular has a good full bodied tone and clean texture with the 4.4mm balanced out of Neo, however there is a slightly softened sense of slam or immediacy in the lows. Moving up to GS-X Mini resolve this allowing us to retain the gorgeous tone of the headphone but also gain weight and power in the lows.

Heavier genres like Metal of rock will appreciate this added impact and weight, GS-X Mini whith Neo as it's source presents both the explosive quality of big drums and the nuance and sustained weight of their decay. Thus we find GS-X Mini to build on everything that we enjoy about iDSD Neo while serving as a better amplification option for less efficent harder to drive options.

Conclusion
The iFi Audio iDSD Neo makes an excellent option for any one looking to expand their Computer Audio system into the next level. It's lush detailed presentation and combination of input and output options alongs make it easy to integrate within existing systems as an all-in-one while also providing a solid foundation for future upgrades.

In the many years I've enjoyed in this hobby I've owned a few AKG Headphones, each was special and unique in their own way. Still they always had quirks, some of which made them truly one of a kind like the magical mids of the bass light K501 others like the original K550 were truly outstanding... when you maintained perfect posture and stillness sufficient for it to actually retain it's seal.

With the sale of Harmon to Samsung many in the hobby including my self worried about what would happen to AKG. I'll admit that their most recent flagship headphones have left me with a luke warm impression... however I'm excited to say I feel with the K371 they've finally started getting it right...again! Namely, producing a product that is mostly free of those "quirks" and simply excels at it's given price point! Speaking of price, it's new in store MSRP is $149, how ever there are retailers that often have them at $129 new and there's an abundance of second hand and slightly used "open box" stock that sits just below $99.



Comfort and seal have always been kind of hit or miss in my experience. The aforementioned K550 while it sounded amazing did not keep a seal on my head. This "quirk" basically removed all low frequency energy... which isn't something I wanted nor enjoyed.



Thankfully the plush pads and overall shape of the K371 maintain a seamless seal on my head even with glasses. The headband and gimbals, while made of light weight plastic, have a nice mix of strength and flexibility. I don't have any concerns of them breaking nor do I find the clamp to be overwhelming.



You'll also notice these have maintained the removable single entry cable set up and there is both a straight and coiled cable included at no cost! There's also an included cloth carrying bag made of a nice grey cloth material bearing the AKG logo.

Sound Signature

The bulk of this review was performed with the Bricasti M3H Direct Stream all in one, I used jRiver for network interface with the M3H functioning as both a streamer, DAC and Amp. As per usual any and all comparisons to this system or the AKG K371 headphone were performed with volume levels matched via Pink Noise.

I felt overall the K371 has a slightly bright neutral sound with a lean harmonic presentation. There is a slight sub-bass boost with a fairly linear mid range and some slight top end emphasis. It's sound stage was sufficiently open with average precision and cohesion overall. It's presentation was fairly natural, neither aggressive nor too relaxed with better than average detail and transient clarity.

It reminds me a lot of how I remember the original K550, well balanced and fairly linear, but without the often unpredictable seal. I'm quite happy to see another headphone on the market which achieves this level of balance.

Source and Amplification Pairing and Scale

With a more modest entry level portable DAC/Amp, the new Fiio Q3S in this case, I found much of it's tonality remained however it's presentation lost some clarity. Additionally there was a slight, but mostly negligible, loss of detail. Overall I don't feel the headphone really scales well enough to necessitate the purchase of a higher quality source or amplification. In fact I appreciate how much balance it retains both on both entry and top of the line systems.

Comparisons
Comparisons were done volume matched and will be listed initially with a Greater Than Rank ( x > y ). Details regarding the individual comparisons will follow as in some cases I felt there were qualities regarding an individual trait that were more different than simply better or worse. In those cases an equal sign ( = ) is used.

For this review I listened to K371 alongside a few other headphones while enjoying music, television and some gaming.

Relating to the Low Frequencies I'm listening for texture, body, and impact

Body

• E-MU Purple Heart > DT 177X GO > HD 25-1 ii = K371 >Sony MDR V6

Texture

• Sony MDR V6 > DT 177X GO > K371 > HD 25-1 ii > E-MU Purple Heart

Bass Impact

• DT 177X GO > Sony MDR V6 = K371 > E-MU Purple Heart = HD 25-1 ii

Regarding the Mid-Range Frequencies I'm listening for richness, detail, and naturalness

Richness

• DT 177X GO = E-MU Purple Heart > K371 = HD 25-1 ii > Sony MDR V6

Detail

• Sony MDR V6 = DT 177X GO > K371 > HD 25-1 ii = E-MU Purple Heart

Naturalness

• DT 177X GO > K371 > E-MU Purple Heart > HD 25-1 ii > Sony MDR V6

Regarding the High Frequencies I'm listening primary to the Response, so Withdrawn vs Forward

Withdrawn or Dark

• E-MU Purple Heart > DT 177X GO > K371 > HD 25-1 ii >> MDR V6

Forward or Bright

• Sony MDR V6 >> HD 25-1 ii > K371 > DT 177X GO > E-MU Purple Heart

Regarding Sound Stage I focused on "Openness" or a lack of congestion and excessive overlap between various audio elements of the composition.

Openness

• Sony MDR V6 > DT 177X GO = K371 > HD 25-1 ii > E-MU Purple Heart

Regarding the Presentation or qualities of the Envelope I'm listening for emphasis on either the;

Leading Edge, Trailing Edge and balance between the two.

More Aggressive

• Sony MDR V6 >> K371 = HD-25-1 ii > DT 177X GO > E-MU Purple Heart

More Laid Back

• E-MU Purple Heart > DT 177X GO > K371 > HD 25-1 ii >> Sony MDR V6

Balance

• K371 = DT 177X GO > E-MU Purple Heart = HD 25-1 ii > MDR V6

Regarding Detail I'm listening for how audible and discernible transients are.

Detail

• DT 177X GO > MDR V6=K371 > HD-25-1 ii = E-MU Purple Heart

While I love the overall performance of the K371 I feel it has the MOST value as a first headphone or an upgrade from older outdated entry level headphones or newer "consumer" headphones in and around the $100 price point. While I appreciate that it is able to outperform higher priced headphones like the V-Moda M200 both for all purpose listening and as a studio headphone, it doesn't quite have the same level of detail and nuance as a product like the DT 177X GO which can be found for around $325 second hand or $449 new when it's in stock.

I did enjoy it quite a bit more than my own older 2015 HD 25-1 ii, but that is a headphone that I own and use while for it's robust overbuilt build quality and aggressive passive isolation. Mostly when I'm working out, running or flying with a dedicated DAP and some heavy EQ!

For individual comparison I choose to focus on two well know closed back headphones, one a more modern offering and another an older well known but still some what relevant "vintage" product.

E-MU Purple Heart with CAL Pads vs K371

Readers of my content may remember a few years back the did a review of about 8 $100 or less closed back headphones. At that time I choose the E-MU Purple Heart as the best sounding alongside of the more sturdy and practical Audio Technica M40X.

What I found however is the E-MU Purple Heart even with upgraded pads sounds some what stuffy in comparison to the K371. Vocals have a nice rich body but come across a bit muffled as do a variety of other instruments. All of this is further compounded by the recessed top end response as well.

The K371 on the other hand has less congestion without the stuffy or muffled vocal response. Some may find the K371 to be a tad bit bright but I don't consider it offensive or intrusive by any means. K371 provides better detail and clearer transient edges as well.

An as much as I like the Purple Heart I don't feel it's really competitive these days given it's limited availability and poor durability.

Sony MDR V6 vs K371

Sony's classic studio monitor offers amazingly taut well extended bass, withdrawn mids and piercing sharp highs. On older audio gear with excessive top end roll off it sounds stellar but with most modern gear it's almost un-listenable.

So that said, I wouldn't advise purchasing a MDR V6 these days and if you own one I feel K371 would be an excellent upgrade. While it's not quite as detailed or open the MDR V6 is most often painful to listen to give how rough and excessively forward it's top end is.

Not to mention the non removable coiled cable on MDR V6 is heavy and cumbersome, K371 has both a removable straight and coiled cable.

Concluding Thoughts
I found K371 to be excellent, it's build quality, overall ease of use and sound are outstanding at this price point. I really enjoyed it with iFi Zen Dac as well as a variety of other products, but even without a dedicated Dac/Amp K371 sounds fantastic.

There are more detailed headphones with the same overall tonal balance but most that I've heard cost around twice as much, for music enthusiasts and really any one wanting an affordable closed back headphone I feel the K371 is the choice to pick!

In a world with so many options and ever decreasing levels of distortion one has to ask what separates the many acceptable solid state amplifiers from the truly great! There's a dozen designs that all push the lower limits of measurable distortion, all of which falls far below our human threshold of hearing.

To explore that concept I figured it would be worthwhile to start by having a set standard for absolute greatness, and I'm happy to say the Bricasti M3 with Headphone is exactly that for me. After years of reviewing and Hi-Fi show demo's, press exclusive listens it is the only product offering that long awaited greatness I've been hunting for! With a truly amazing solid-state amplifier and top of the line DAC in tow I feel fully equipped to explore and discover what separates solid state amplification. In the entry level market segment. I'll be primarily reviewing the Topping L30 Linear with comparisons to SMSL SP200 and the JDS Labs ATOM.

Some factors at play will be;

• Gain Stage & Options
• Total Power Output
• Build Quality
• Sound Quality

In the entry level point of the market I feel the combination of these four things to be the deciding factor. An a shout out to the Appos Audio Team for shipping L30 out to myself for review! I always enjoy both their customer service and timely shipping.

Build Quality
Each of the products in this review are well manufactured, no sharp or sloppy seams in the chassis, good action on the knobs and switches alongside sturdy input and output jacks.

SP200 is the heaviest and most robust, however it houses a portion of it's PSU within it self. Atom and L30 both have external switching power supply units so their considerably lighter. From a build stand point I enjoy having an internally housed PSU so I'm able to just use a PWC-143 IEC C13 connector. The PWC-143 IEC C13 is the trapezoidal "computer power cable" connector I'm confident most all of us are familiar with.


I also like that SP 200 has dual 3 XLR input and 4pin XLR output despite technically being a single end'd amplifier. Bonus points there, how ever sadly SP 200 falls short in one crucial area...Volume Pot or volume knob!


The potentiometer and attached knob on SP200 are... soft and flimsy. Honestly there's as much precision when adjusting the volume either. Matching was a bit hard as I usually couldn't get SP200 dialed in to L30 and Atom... rather I had to set SP200 and adjust the other two to match it.


The undisputed champion however for Knob Feel in this review has to be Topping L30. Good weight and a buttery smoothness with just the right amount of resistance make L30's knob feel just right. Tho L30 has another advantage when it comes to volume adjustments in it's three different gain stages.



Build quality is good, I found no deficiencies with how L30 is built and operated. Each of the switches have good action and all the input and output jacks are solid without any wiggle.


JDS Labs Atom is the lightest and it sits kinda in a unique spot for a few reasons. Firstly, it's volume pot isn't as nice as L30 but it's a step up from SP 200. Also the Power switch is built into the Vol Pot! While not every one will enjoy this as I do, I found it's resistance for an "on switch" to be good. I experienced no issues with accident power cycling. I also liked the feel of Atom's buttons more so than the metal switches on the other two units. So functionally it has a different feel and operation to it which some may enjoy more.

Sadly tho in some systems or stacks I found Atom to weigh too little, so much that it was often at the mercy of heavier RCA Inputs that needed a slight angle in their routing.

Power and Gain Stage
Power and Gain are as follows for each amplifier;

• SP 200
  • 3W x2 into 32ohms
  • 440 x2 mW into 300 ohms
  • 220 x2 mW into 600 ohms
  • With Two Gain Stages at
    • +6dB (Low-gain)
    • +18dB (High-gain)

SP 200's high output power is well suited for difficult to drive headphones like Hifiman HE 6 or vintage dynamics like older AKG K series open backs. In many cases tho I felt it had too much gain for really smooth precise volume control with the myriad of sensitive and low impedance cans on the market today.

• JDS Labs Atom
  • 1W into 32ohms
  • 502 mW into 150 ohms
  • 125 mW into 600 ohms
  • Two Gain Stages at;
    • 1.0x
    • 4.5x

I enjoy Atom's gain options as it's allows for use with more sensitive headphones while maintaining good precise volume control and it the same precision is available for harder to drive dynamics. I will mention with some of my low sensitivity Planar-Magnetic headphones ATOM often ran out of steam and had some negative impacts on their sound quality. More modern Planar's like the Hifiman HE 4XX and Audeze LCD X did fine!

• Topping L30
  • 2.3W x2 into 32ohms
  • 280 x2 mW into 300 ohms
  • Three Gain Stages at
    • -9 dB
    • 0 dB
    • +9 dB

Finally! A buttery smooth volume knob and three different gain stages!!!! This advantage of having additional options for gain stage really allows us as listeners to have very fine precise volume control. That and enough gain is always better for overall sound quality, excessive gain is never beneficial.

Overall I feel only L30 has enough suitable options for gain to cover the widest variety of headphones. Atom does better with lower impedance headphones and SP 200 excels with lower sensitivity and/or higher impedance headphones. But neither of these amps provide correct amplification for as many loads as L30 does. Correct being neither to little power nor too much gain for the given load and source material being listened to.

Sound Quality
The listening chain for this review was as follows;

• jRiver Network Output into;
  • Network input Bricasti M3 [Direct Stream DAC] output into;
    • SP 200 via XLR
    • L30 via RCA
    • JDS Labs Atom via RCA

I also picked a single track I was familiar with for each headphone to gauge the amplifiers performance.

• Pistol Annies - Lemon Drop
  • Picked for the Audeze LCD 2 PreFazor
• System of a Down - Mind (Vinyl Re-Issue)
  • Picked for Dan Clark Audio Aeon 2 Closed
• Alice in Chains - Rotten Apple
  • Picked for HD 600
• Rob Wasserman: Duets - Ballad of Runaway Horse Sung by Jennifer Warnes
  • Picked for Ether CX
• Lisa Hannigan - Sea Saw
  • Picked for AKG K501

For this review subjective comparisons and all listening was volume matched.

To establish my base point I did some listening with my 2012 PreFazor LCD 2.2, I chose this headphone as it's a bit more demanding from an amplification stand point than most newer modern Planar magnetic headphones in it's price bracket. Additionally it's shining quality is a powerful, clean and detailed low frequency presentation. Tho when under driven it's bass quality diminishes.
That said, technically M3's headphone amp is only "$500" I say that in quotes as it's unavailable separate from the DAC. Thus it does not exist separate of M3 and has a unique relationship of being built to function directly with/from M3. That said, I didn't find any of the "entry" level amps to match M3h's staging, detail or overall presentation.

But that's no knock again'st them as again M3's Headphone Amp is built specifically to and for M3's unique balanced topology. Still tho I will admit as of lately I have not really enjoyed my LCD 2 PreFazor as I feel when it's under-driven it's not really better than the the current production Audeze LCD 2 Classic Open with Vegan Pads.

However on a truly top of the line amplifier the legacy LCD 2 Prefazor out performs it's replacement!

Still before focusing on how the budget amps compare to one another, allow me to take a moment to examine a single transformative benefit that the top of the line solid state implementation brought to one of my favorite headphones!


"Lemon Drop" by the Pistols Annies features one of the best recorded Kick Drums I've heard. The sheer impact and weight captured and mixed into the track is stunning. LCD 2 PreFazor's appeal to me is it's powerfully realistic WEIGHTY low end and on a lot of amplifiers and systems it's some what lacking.
So when I'm listening to a track and honing in on the low frequencies I'm focused on two things;

• Impact
  • Composed of Body and how the Attack and decay of the envelope are presented
• Detail
  • Both how much texture is discernible both in the sustain and release of lower frequencies

Plenty of systems capture and recreate detail, but each struggles with impact differently. Even with M3 as a DAC L30, SP 200 and Atom all failed to present enough force on the attack and a clean enough transition thru the envelope and sustain to recreate that kick drum in a truly realistic way. While none of them sounded "fake" they all lacked about a half second on the release, and this lack of resolved force on the tail end of the kick drum is what makes it genuinely REAL for me!

With amplification that can allow the driver to fully recreate that wave form as M3h does, the PreFazor LCD 2 proves it's worth and provides a realistic immersive low end response.

As a whole, each of the budget amps lacked the cohesion and overall level of micro-detail and discernment M3h brought. There were many occasions where M3h resolved just an extra few moments of sound on the tail end of both vocalists, drum kits, brass instruments and more. The presence of these added final moments are the kind of nuance top of the line amplification brings to most quality transducers or headphones.

Moving on, readers of my content in the past may remember my frustrations with the JDS Labs Atom and my own Pre Fazor LCD 2. For this review I chose only to compare L30 and SP200 again'st Atom with my HD600 and my AKG K501. I found ATOM had NO subjective advantages over L30 with planar magnetic headphones. Given how close the two are in price I felt it's exclusion to be justified.


What I like about "Rotten Apple" as a track is the tone of the guitars. There's a very bluesy feel to both the 6 string lead, back up and bass guitar tracks. With some amplifiers there's a noticeably dry fatigue that can be present on these guitar mixs, additionally the vocals feature some over-dubbing to create both a unique tone and texture. I can't say there's only one lead vocalist as I hear two distinct voices in the mix. I also enjoy the overall position of the bass and drums within the mix with the drums placed distinctly back in the mix and often panning from left to right.

For low frequencies I found L30 had both the best detail and most defined attack. SP200 and Atom where both rounder in the sense that there was some exaggeration on both the decay and sustain of those low frequencies.

The kick drums and bass guitar also had way to much body on both SP200 and Atom for my tastes, enough that these instruments lacked a sense of impact, impact that was present on HD600 with L30.

Regarding the mid-range frequencies I will admit I enjoyed Atom's softer presentation. It help de-emphasis the slight bit of shout HD 600 has and really maximized the natural tonality of the headphone. However this also made it difficult to discern or hear the distinction between the two over-dubbed voices in "Rotten Apple." SP 200 some how overemphasized them enough that the harshness really took away from the "bluesy" feel of the vocal track. There was too much rasp and emphasis on breath without sufficient body from their chest.

I found Topping L30 to yet again perform best here as well, it maintained excellent body without sacrificing tone or discernment.

At the top end I'll admit SP 200 took the lead. It presented high hats with excellent extension, that slightly more defined release helped create a more convincing sense of width and space within the track. Tho there was sometimes a slight clash between the harsh shout and emphasized breathing in vocals again'st the drums. Topping L30, while not having quite as much extension, proved it self far more cohesive having better nuance! Yes at times it was not as extended, but created a more cohesive space despite not having as much perceived width. I also felt ATOM had this strength as well.

Despite costing almost twice as much I was a bit disappointed to find SP200 didn't really prove it self advantageous over the Topping L30... an the JDS Labs Atom while respectable, didn't quite keep up with L30 either. For users of 300 Ohm Dynamic Headphones I'd strongly recommend spending the extra $39 for Topping L30 over something like the JDS Labs Atom.


Lisa Hannigan's "I Don't Know" has both her rich vocals layered atop an excellent performance of strings and brass. Double Bass, Guitar and Violin are all present here alongside a well mic'd drum kit. The double bass in particular can sound distant and thin when there's not enough voltage present to drive K501 properly.

The AKG K501 has both 120 ohm resistance and a lower sensitivity of 94 dB/mW, this combination makes K501 a bit more difficult to drive compared to a lot of more modern headphones. I ran L30 on it's +0 setting, SP200 on Low Gain and Atom on it's High Gain setting.

While listening particularly to that double bass I felt only L30 had the right mix of body and punch. SP200 had a lot of impact and PUNCH but lacked any kind of dynamic contrast and came across as mostly a blurred kind of thud. Less like a large stringed instrument and more like some one beating on a drum sort of, granted the THUD had some weight and force behind it but not much definition.

Atom while having better definition still couldn't quite bring enough body and umph to the sound of it, L30 again proved to have the best mix of both definition and body.

Moving on into the mid-range I was shocked to say that L30 lacked a bit of discernment here. There is a distinct texture to the bowing of the Violin right after Lisa's vocals come into the mix. It's quiet but the musician sustains a single note but there's a tiny bit of vibrato that can be heard. However with K501 and L30 on +0 that slight shift in tone or the vibrato just comes off as noise? More of a sort of buzzing or humming than a discernible shift in the sustained note. SP 200 proved to be a touch better in this regard but not by much, interestingly enough I enjoy Atom the most for this portion of the track. It was a touch airy but still allowed that discernment to be evident plus that slightly smooth presentation of Atom helped the Brass Instruments maintain a proper timbre.

At the top end I found SP200 had the best extension, the drum kit in particular was more defined with more nuance and dynamic contrast.


I love this piece of music this rendition sung by Jennifer Warnes features what is essentially a duet of her voice and a double bass. However there is a plethora of smaller, quieter sounds in the background. A ever constant but quiet stringed instrument strummed rapidly, background vocalists who occasionally harmonizer with Jennifer and a cello that creeps into the track ever so quietly from time to time.

Starting with that beautiful double bass, with L30 set to -9 dB I found it performed best. Noticeably round but with acceptable definition. A good mix of body and texture, I found Atom (1.0x Gain) was too soft with too much body and SP200 (+6 dB "Low" gain) was a tad too hard with over-emphasized texture. The envelope as a whole was more even with L30 than either other amplifier for Ether CX.

Moving onto the Mid-Range I again found L30 had the best presentation, again SP 200 was a bit too hard. Some texture in both vocals and strings overshadowed finer details and Atom was a touch too soft, that big beautiful double bass simply had too much decay and I couldn't quite discern as much with it over-shadowing the mid range. I feel a lot of these advantageous may have to do with L30's lower gain output when I switched into +0 gain and volume matched I started to have similar issues with an uneven envelope and excess texture.

At the Top End I found L30 to be a touch rolled off missing some finer detail but SP 200 put emphasis on the more prominent "sssss" sounds in Jennifer's Vocals. Atom actually did the best up top!


My rip of System of a Down's "Mind" is pulled off a vinyl system I know from a ripper whose system I feel is clean enough to review with. What I like is the track is mastered much better on Vinyl than previously on CD. Dynamic Range is right at 9 dBs. I prefer to have at least 10 but for a Nu Metal band this is pretty great, I'll also add this is a track I like to listen to at an average of 86 dB's so peaks of around 90 dB's and as low as 82. Given it's a fairly quiet rip I find I usually need a touch more POWER to get the listening level I enjoy. There's also a touch of low level noise off the Vinyl it self that is sometimes masked on less resolving amplifiers.

The track it self features a hard hitting bass riff, Serj's beautiful complex and unique vocal tone, fast guitar shred and really explosive drums. That and it alternates between quiet and LOUD passages often! Just the sheer aggression of the song as a whole really makes an excellent track for testing I feel! When under-driven Aeon 2 Closed presents underwhelming dynamics and excessive bass bloat taking away from the the overall high energy aggressive feel this track has.

Starting with the bass, it's just such a nasty riff. The release of each of the low notes extends all the way out until the next strum hits, there's a metallic sharpness on some of the higher notes that really plays nicely again'st the sheer power and weight of those lowest lows.

That said, given that I enjoy this track a little louder I've got the gain of L30 set at (+0) and SP 200 still on it's low (+6) and this is one track where SP200 proves to have better definition and nuance. It maintains that power longer as each note is released, and hits HARDER at the start of each attack. L30 is in this instance the slower less defined amp. Atom again has no real say here as it's a slow soft mess when I push the volume up with this track and load.

Now regarding the vocals and guitar I did find L30 to once again take the lead. It rendered a more even mixture of Serj's rasp and the chesty depth in his voice.

On the top end I did prefer the slight lack of extension on L30, it masked enough of the rip's noise to have the same perceptive extension as SP 200 which had some issues with perceptive detail given how the more discernible noise also detracted a bit from extension and shimmer of the high hats themselves.

Concluding Thoughts
At only $139 I really feel Topping's L30 lands it self as the true king of entry level solid state amplifiers. It's three optional gain stages and overall power output allowed it to handle a wide range of headphones well. An while it's no giant killer nor replacement for a truly top of the line solid state amp, I feel overall L30's even presentation and detail are more than enough to allow a lovers of music to simply sit back, listen and enjoy!

I want to start by thanking Andy of Cayin for giving me a chance to hear the N6ii with both it's A01 and T01 modules thru a brief in home demo. I've had a chance to hear quite a few of the Cayin Digital Audio Players over the years and they've always impressed me!

Some history for my self, I am a happy owner of a Hifiman HM901 that I run exclusively line out into a Custom iBasso PB2 amp. Sound quality of this system has for years been unchallenged by all of the modern Digital Audio Players I've heard. Still this old vintage player has terrible battery life, no streaming support and the amp it self is twice as thick as the already large player. So my little tower is by no means a shining example of "portable" sound quality. Price was around $1500 when all components were available.

That said, I'm really impressed with the N6ii with it's T01 module. I feel it may be the first modern all in one DAP to match the quality of my transportable tower with dynamic headphones! As of the writing of this article, N6ii with it's stock A01 module is $1119 and the T01 module is avalible for $339. Bringing the total cost of the system as I am reviewing it around $1450.

Regarding the A01 module, I found it's performance was rather average when compared again'st both vintage and more modern Digital Audio Players. I'll cover it's performance briefly but will focus most of this content around N6ii with the T01 Module.
User Interface & Build Quality

N6ii runs off a custom android core and comes with Google's play store pre-installed, it's swipe down menu has a few custom audio specific audio options listed in addition to the normal options for android devices.


It's lock screen also features some meta-data that's relevant to the music your listening to at the time as well as some play back options.

For this review I did stick to using the pre-installed Cayin Music App for offline files and had success in running the Qobuz and Tidal Apps.

Physically the N6ii is well built, the side buttons and volume wheel have good tactility. Their responsive and have a sturdy feel to them, additionally each of the input & output sockets are solid without a soft feeling or any wiggle from the jacks.


Both the stock A01 and T01 cards have 4.4mm balanced and 3.5mm single ended output and with each performance is best out of the fully balanced 4.4mm socket. Cayin also included a 4.4mm to 2,5mm adapter, a smart and thoroughly appreciated included accessory given the popularity of 2.5mm in balanced portables over the years.
Sound Quality

Given how drastically the sound quality changes between the Modules I'd like to start with how A01 compares to something with a similar sound signature.

Both A&K Kann and the A01 module feature a robust AKM 449# DAC chip-set that embraces the "velvet sound" in AKM's Velvet series of DACs.

In theory you'd expect A01's 4497 chip-set to bring forth a more resolving presentation over Kann's older 4490 but I felt both were more or less on par with one another. Each has a similar "romantic" presentation. Soft round lows, sweet highs and a lush mid-range. Both A01 and Kann's envelope feature an exaggerated decay and sustain with de-emphasized attack.

There's weight to the sound, body and a rich fullness but everything's heavier, softer and slower than what feels natural. "Fun" or "V-Shaped" headphones will benefit from this kind of presentation, I however don't really own or enjoy headphones with that kind of sound. I will say A01 did prove to have more headroom than Kann and handle'd harder to drive headphones with more authority and clarity overall. HD 600 saw no difference but Aeon Closed 2 did perform worse with Kann than N6ii A01.

N6ii T01 - Dual PCM1792A
Frankly to my ears I've always enjoyed the presentation and implementation of the Texas Instruments or TI PCM Dac chips. When correctly implemented they are mostly linear with a tiny bit of "air" on the top end.

I'm happy to say I feel Cayin has perfectly nail'd the spirit and majesty of the TI PCM series of Digital Audio Converters. Linear bass reproduction, perfectly natural mid-range and a slight bit of air on the top end. Overall the envelope is to my ears perfectly balanced from the lows up through the central and upper mid-range. Technically this "air" or "airiness" is to some extent an exaggeration. However I don't find that the top end has any emphasis on the attack but rather some exaggeration on the sustain and decay.

With bright headphones this can be a bit distracting but I much prefer even this slight exaggeration over the sluggishness of the "Velvet" Sound.


My long standing tower stack is composed of the Hifiman HM901 which itself features a dual arrangement of ESS Sabre 9018 DAC chip-sets. In stock form and most implementations the Sabre DACs are mostly linear in the bottom end with an aggressive presentation in the mid range and top end.

What I love and have loved about HM 901 is it's "vintage" High Frequency roll over filter, I typically don't enjoy these filters but on HM 901 it removes that slightly aggressive presentation and adds helps improve mid-range tonality.

Each of the internal AMP-Cards for HM901 were disappointing, so over the years after hearing many different amps and topologies I settled on the iBasso PB2 amp with a quad of LME 49990 OP Amps with an Energizer Linear Battery Pack.

With my Sennheiser HD 600 I was hard pressed to find a real discerning difference between my existing stack and N6ii T01.

However with my Aeon Closed 2 there was better presentation of textures in sub bass frequencies with the HM901/iBasso PB2 stack. I also felt the HM901/PB2 Stack presented a more discernible and cohesive sense of space especially for tracks where large drums or heavy bass lines are present. Which I feel is related directly the amplifiers improved control over A2C.

Tonally tho I did feel at times N6ii T01 was maybe at times just a tiny bit more energetic, maybe airier but for as many tracks as N6ii T01 was better there are tracks where it was worse.
N6ii T01 Headphone Impressions

I quite simply loved N6ii T01 with my HD 600 which I run it with a balanced ZMF Atoms Copper cable.

Overall I was impressed with both it's detail and overall staging and cohesion. Tonally quality was excellent to,

• Lows
  • Taut
    • Snappy with an even envelope
  • Textured
    • Without sounding over-emphasized or too fast
  • Full
    • Easily discernible sense of weight and body, reverb in larger instruments was apparent
• Mid-Range
  • Natural tonality
    • Smooth but not lacking texture
  • "Airy"
    • In that you could discern the literal nature of vocals - the movement of air
• Highs
  • Extended
  • Smooth
    • But not smoothed over

Overall I felt the overall transparent quality of both HD 600 and N6ii T01 made for a complimentary system. Now some who find the slight upper mid emphasis on HD 600 offensive or unpleasant will notice N6ii T01 does not tame or remove that quality of HD 600.

In contrast the A01 and "Velvet" AKM sound does help to tame HD 600's slight shout, but for my tastes I again felt HD 600 was slow and veiled with the A01 chip.

I'll also add that T01 does not help with HD 600's rolled off sub bass, tho it doesn't draw attention to nor away from it either.

Again I felt this combination as a whole was mostly transparent.

Dan Clark Audio's new Aeon 2 Closed is one of my favorite closed backs right now, while it's low impedance makes it some what easy to drive it's low efficiency does hinder bass extension when amplification is not sufficient.

In the case of N6ii T01, unfortunately I did find it's amplification to be insufficient for driving A2C at it's full potential. There was a discernible lack of authority and definition in the sub bass especially.

Which for some tracks where I find A2C to be too bass heavy the lack of authority and power is sorta of pleasant tho the lack of detail is not a worthwhile trade off.

However, I will say using the line out of N6ii T01 into my iBasso PB2 was excellent.
Conclusion
Cayin N6ii T01 is for me the first Digital Audio Player to fully eclipse my old HM901 stack, its user interface is quick and both it's amplification and analog line out stages are excellent. For any one looking for a transparent portable digital audio player I highly recommend the N6ii with T01 module!

TR-Amp is a new portable Dac/Amp from Earmen priced at 249.99 via their website, for those who don't know Earmen is the portable division of Auris Audio. Based in Serbia Auris develops a wide array of tube amplifiers and digital audio products built around the idea that equipment should not only sound beautiful but look just as good!

Now I've had a chance to hear and review a few products from Auris including the Euterpe which I also helped organize a US Tour for. As a fan of their products I'm happy to now have a chance to review their Earmen TR-Amp! While I did receive the unit from them at no cost, I did not receive any monetary compensation for this review.

Build & Function
Overall I found TR-Amp to be perfectly seamless in real world use. With my android devices I had no issues getting bit perfect playback through USB Android Player Pro with both Qobuz and Tidal. Power is built into the Volume knob with a nice bit of initial resistance to prevent accidental switching on or off. The pot it self has a suitable taper and I didn't have any issues getting the volume to a level that I wanted with a variety of headphones.



While not seamless the screws are recessed and sit flush with the chassis. The overall fit and finish feels good in the hand. Both the 6.5mm and 3.5mm outputs have a nice firmness to them.


I'm also a big fan of the individual USB C inputs for power and data. It works well functionally and adds some long term durability I feel is worthwhile on an all in one portable. The addition of RCA line out's is also greatly appreciated and a refreshing feature to see at this price point!


My only qualm with TR-Amp is the size, while I'm used to carrying much larger portable systems I can't say that everyone will be as accustom to something this large. Still I didn't find it to be cumbersome to carry with me around and outside of my home.

Sound Quality & Headphone Pairing

I find that overall the TR-Amp has an energetic presentation, with average staging, detail and depth. What stands out to me the most is the power output! I've not come across a lot of devices in this price point that pack the sheer heft TR-Amp does.

It's presentation has a vivid sense of attack and decay with an abundance of texture tho there were times I wasn't able to discern the sustain and release of sounds as much as I'm used to. Tho I didn't find the envelope distracting nor particularly offensive. All in all I find it's rather complimentary to a lot of today's more popular headphones in and around the $500 price point, which I think is a rather smart tuning decision by the Earmen team!

TR-Amp & LCD 2C

The thick full bodied Audeze LCD 2C finds it self fully complimented by TR-Amp. The added focus on attack and decay help to balance out the some-what excessive release in LCD 2C's envelope.

I had no issues with noise nor a lack of gain either, all in all the energetic TR-Amp was an excellent match for the more laid back Audeze LCD 2C.

Dan Clark Audio Aeon 2 Closed

TR-Amp's powerful amp stage and low frequency control complimented Aeon 2 Closed hefty bass, how ever I found the pairing had a slight glare in the mid range and top end that I wasn't a fan of.

Fans of an IN YOUR FACE presentation and aggressive envelope will likely appreciate this pairing.

Once again TR-Amp proved more than capable to handle Aeon 2 Closed's low sensitivity and hunger for current!

TR-Amp & HD 600

Unfortunately TR-Amp was not a good match for HD 600, there was too much harshness in the upper mid range and top end. HD 600's rolled off sub-bass was not complimented by TR-Amp either as it's relative Mid-bass "hump" was emphasized.

I will say tho it's likely HD 650 would prove far more complimentary, it's darker top end and fuller bass would appreciate TR-Amps energetic and aggressive presentation to help define it's envelope.

Product Comparisons
Something I appreciate is how difficult it was to find something priced around TR-Amp that had both it's feature set, connectivity options and overall power. This it to say there's not really anything quite like TR-Amp under $250, specifically the RCA out is what has really set it apart. Some background for myself, my first "Audiophile" system when I was a student was portable based, a DT 880 with a Hifiman HM601 and a JDS Labs cMoy BB. I later added a Indeed G3 Hybrid Tube with some mods that I fed line out from my HM 601. Back then I would have LOVED to have a RCA out on my portable, seeing as my time was evenly split between home and campus.

Even now often times I recommend portable DAC/Amps and DAPs to new community members who like my self are split between home and everywhere else as having one device to interface with all your sources makes more sense then recommending a full desktop set up as your first.

Still these comparisons will only be again'st other portable DAC/Amps. If you do NOT need a portable I strongly suggest you NOT buy a portable product. In today's market $250 will get you a better sounding desktop set up than any portable product... period!

These comparisons where made level matched with my HD 600 and Aeon 2C, each headphone presents both a different load for amplification and has a different tuning so I felt they'd help me gleam how well competing portables do with a wider array of headphones.

TR-Amp vs xDSD

For this comparison I did keep xDSD set to it's "listen" filter with the xBass and 3D+ deactivated.

Overall my only qualm with xDSD was it's output power, a minor deficiency that was only evident when I pushed the volume to around 91 dB peaks [ 85 dB average] with Aeon 2 Closed. At that volume level there was a slight bit of distortion in the bass, especially with Electronica or any tracks with a heavy Synth Bass presence.

HD 600 had no qualms on xDSD either and frankly sounded more correct off of it. An while TR-Amp performed better at keeping texture and control in it's low frequencies at higher output levels I didn't feel it out performed xDSD anywhere else in terms of overall sound quality.

Geek Out v2+ vs TR-Amp

Unfortunately there was no upside for TR-Amp again'st the GOV2+, well it has a line out, but other wise it presented no sonic benefits.

Still GOv2+ is more or less unavailable at this time, while it pops up second hand from time to time around $300 or so the manufacturing company doesn't service them and so it's difficult to say long time how it will age. So yea technically GOv2+ is the far better listen, but I find it's not playing nicely with my newer android devices, even on my older LG V20 where it works well I still have the occasional drop out while playing local files. Which is enough of a frustration to limit my own personal use of it in my own home!

So while I found higher priced products did better than TR-Amp I again feel it's still an amazing product, so much so I couldn't find anything worthwhile comparisons around it's price point.

Conclusion


TR-Amps straight forward plug and play integration with Android, powerful output and energetic tuning I feel make it an excellent portable DAC/Amp especially when paired with a darker more lush sounding headphone like HD 6XX or Audeze LCD 2C. I personally pair my Ether CX with TR-Amp any time I want to stream Qobuz off my cellular devices and just mellow out in my living room.

All in all I give the TR-Amp my highest recommendation! I feel it's tuned smartly and presents and amazing value.

As a huge fan of the Topping D10 I was excited to hear about the E30, and after a few weeks of listening I'm happy to say my excitement was warranted! Priced at only $130 over at Apos Audio, E30 redefines what we should expect from DACs at this price point.

Let me also give a big thank you to the Apos Team who provided me with a review sample of this DAC in exchange for my honest thoughts and opinion.
Build Quality & Function
Similar to D10 and Schiit's own Modi 3, E30 features a modest but functionally competent metal chassis. It's construction features clean seams with no sharp edges or roughness and a seamless black front display panel.



The rear panel assembly is clean and each input socket is seated firmly without any wiggle or movement when plugging in RCA and USB jacks. E30 differs from D10 functionally in that is only has analog RCA Line outputs and no Digital Coax out. It does how ever have Digital Coax input which I used for this review.


I'm also happy to see a dedicated 5V power input present and separate from the USB Data input alongside two other common digital inputs, Coaxial SPDIF and Optical, which allow it to interface with a much wider range of devices.

Sound Quality & Comparisons
For this review I ran USB out form my Dell Laptop running Foobar 2k, WASAPI into my Topping D10 and fed Coaxial out into the E30, my listening impressions where done with my Koss ESP95X and stock energizer all plugged into a Furman M-8X power conditioner.

E30 also includes a wireless remote that is needed to adjust change between 6 digital filters. For my review I changed from the Default #3 Filter to #1 Sharp Filter.

Overall I found E30 has a leaner energetic presentation with above average staging depth and detail, but only average staging cohesion. Vocals and other mid-range heavy spectra where often a little drier than I preferred but low frequencies where taught and it's top end wasn't overly exaggerated.

It's envelope had some slight emphasis on Attack without much discernible loss of perceived decay, sustain and release. I appreciate it's slight tactile edge without losing the ability to sustain quieter sounds as they fall into silence.

E30 vs D10

As much as I love D10's function, namely it's seamless and driverless USB to COAX conversion, I find it's presentation of space rather flat. Tonality is fairly clean with only some slight top end emphasis and it manages to reproduce audible width sufficiently but presents a below average sense of depth.

E30 in comparison offers a real palpable sense of depth! Quite literally reproducing the audible nuances that are present when recording music in a real space. This nuance is most audible when listening to live recordings and material where the acoustics of the room, space or venue can be heard. Now not every piece of music will have that "sound" of the room captured and preserved, some studios will likely work to remove it from the master especially if the room itself has bad acoustics. Still, I have found labels like Chesky Records and Mapleshade Records not only capture these acoustics but often record in spaces that are complimentary to the music it self! An I value having accurate reproduction of these acoustics regardless of whether or not they're favorable.

E30 vs Modi 3


I'll admit, tonally I like Modi 3 more than E30, Modi 3 also presents better staging cohesion and brings a realistic richness to the mid-range. My qualm with Modi 3 tho is the way it reproduces low frequency spectra. Modi 3 often softens these frequencies making them too round and full. While it's not obvious on every piece of recorded music I own, it's unmistakable and difficult to ignore when present.

E30 on the other hand presents clean taut lows, and while I'd like a bit more naturalness in the mid-range the lack of it isn't distracting or ultimately detrimental. So I while Modi has it's strengths it also it's fair share of possible detriments where as E30 is overall a cleaner and easier to integrate DAC.

Conclusion
Overall E30 proves itself amazingly competent. It's clean tonality, taut response and of detail make it hands down one of the very best DACs I've heard around $100! I think the $30 stretch over $100 is well worth it given the clarity and detail you get, so the Topping E30 get's my full recommendation.

Introducing the Dan Clark Audio X Drop Aeon Flow Open X , I'd like to start by thanking Drop for giving me the chance to review headphone. This is a Dan Clark Audio Aeon Flow Open tuned by the Drop Team, so it's a collaboration! Having not heard the original tho I can't say what they've changed. Price is at $499 via Drop. I did receive this just before launch on a temporary in home demo with the understanding that I share my thoughts of my own accord without any compensation. Moving forward tho I'll be shortening the Aeon Open X by Dan Clark Audio & Drop to just simply AFO-X.

Build
Overall AFO-Xs build quality is consistent with what we've seen and come to expect from Dan Clark Audio. Even the packing is identical to the original AFO except for the labeling which identifies it as the Aeon Flow Open X Drop Collaboration with Dan Clark Audio.





Tuning pads are included with the White 1 Notch Filter pre-installed, best of all the original Mr.Speakers headphone carrying case is also included!



Sound Quality
Overall I find AFO-X to have a thicker tonality with a beautifully natural mid-range and lots of detail. However it's tonal balance is a bit off and with really any piece of music consisting of more than 2 instruments the overall coherency tends to break apart. I'll also add the pre-installed 1 notch White filters didn't add anything worthwhile to my ears as they only smoothed the top end and further proved a detriment to the already warm tonal balance.

So all of my listening was done without them.

For this review I choose to stick with the SMSL SP200 for it's transparent presentation and truly colorless amplification. Given how much personality and character headphone brings I found it performed best with a clean powerful amp. I did try a couple of Hybrid Tubes and each had more drawbacks than real worthwhile benefits. Namely they overemphasized problem area's with AFO-X's response and presentation.



All listening for this review was done offline with 16/44.1, 24/96 or 24/192 offline lossless recordings, track list is as follows

• Hotel California - Eagles [Hell Freezes Over] (Simply Vinyl 180g Rip)
• Guess I'm Doing Fine - Beck [Sea Change] (MoFi UDCD 780)
• Good Man - Ne Yo [Good Man] (Motown Records Deluxe Edition)
• Drum Kit Dynamic Range Uncompressed: Test - Dr. Chesky [The Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disc]
• 7: Gigue - Eugene Drucker [J.S Bach - Sonata & Partitas for Solo Violin]

I don't have a definite opinion on "burn in" however I respect those of you that do and I do run about 5 days of 24/7 pink noise before I do any listening. I also like to spend a full day just exploring music before I start comparisons and any critical listening with the playlist listed above.

Bass
Synthesized low frequencies such as what we enjoy in modern Pop, RnB and Hip Hop are presented with both speed an authority. However I found that with both natural acoustic instruments and even electric stringed instruments the overall presentation was stuffy, sluggish and ill defined. There was a serious lack of definition and an overabundance harmonic overtones that resulted in a some what flat or smashed/squashed tonality.

So the bass lines in songs like the Hotel California and Beck's "Guess I'm Doing Fine" has insufficient texture or definition, how ever the powerful deep kicks on Ne Yo's "Good Man" had genuine speed and authority. An getting back to this idea of simplified less complicated and populated mixs, I did enjoy a few simply drumming tracks with AFO-X.

Mid-Range
The star of the show and often the soul music are the beloved mid-range frequencies. This is where AFO-X really excelled, bring both a sense of warm naturalness but with insane speed, definition and presence. I was time and time again impressed with how accurately AFO-X presented the mid-range, even given the poor overall tonal balance and kinda flat often stuffy presentation I never found my self unable to enjoy and appreciate AFO-Xs beautiful mid range!

Highs
Overall I found AFO-X to be a little hot and splashy up top, this often bleed into the upper mids resulting in some emphasis on breathing and mouthy noise from singers in addition to an oddly dry or weirdly aggressive presentation. I'd be lying if I didn't admit to enjoying this presentation with a few specific tracks, but for long term use I wasn't really too impressed.

Detail and Dynamics
The mid-range was in particular exceptionally detailed with AFO-X, almost shockingly so, how ever problems with an excess in the lows often de-emphasized some of this detail. Which made it detail difficult to perceive but never impossible to find. Still as detailed as it is the overall dynamics or presentation of quite and loud sounds overlapping and within the same space was extremely damped or muted. Sadly AFO-Xs does not do much to truthfully present the full dynamic range of even well recorded and mastered passages of music.

Staging & Image
Despite everything I was surprised at how precise the image AFO-X presented was, movement both vertically and lateral was easily discernible. However, there was still this unpleasant boxy sound to it all. Not to mention if there was a kick drum in the mix it's sound alone ate up around half the audible space presented. Still my critical listening tracks are split between a Drum & Bell, just Vocals and a "Shaker Test" and while I respect it's technical performance within these given Test Tracks that technical prowess does not translate well beyond very simple straight forward compositions and music.

AFO-X vs ESP 95X


I'll start by admitting the overall tuning goals here are different, AFO-X is characterized by it's engaging warmth and body where as the Koss 95X is more or less dis-engaging or tuned to by far more linear and transparent. That as a listener I find myself more engaged while listening when my system as a whole has less emphasize. 95X certainly embodies that mindset tho quite a few who have heard it don't quite agree and find it "boring." That said;

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Not as rich or sweet
• Equally as detailed
• Resolved a little more depth within a given stage/acoustic space
• Never stuffy
  • There where times while listening with AFO-X that singers in particular sounded incredibly boxy. 95X had NONE of this boxy or stuffy sound

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Recessed
• More vividly detailed and textured
  • AFO-X simply lacks detail, resolve and texture in the lows for many stringed instruments

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Not as forward or in your face
• Better extension or more balanced/resolving envelope
  • Clean, Clear and well defined leading edges and decay from that initial attack
  • Vivid sustain and exceptional clarity when presenting the trailing edge of high frequencies
• Drier
  • As in not as "wet" sounding

Overall technically and for my personal tastes I found 95X to be superior overall, the only Genre where AFO-X was more enjoyable was EDM given it's fuller and more prominent sub bass response.

AFO-X vs HE 4XX


With these two there are tonal differences but I find the Mid Range to be the strength of each with each bringing a richer or wetter presentation to mid range frequencies.

I am happy to admit that technically the HE 4XX doesn't quite compete with AFO-X. AFO-X has better resolve and provides a more spacious and precise image. Tho I do prefer the overall tonality of HE 4XX more so, so I perceive a lot more detail with HE 4XX where as I do have to listen for it on AFO-X. An indeed when I'm listening more critically it is apparent that AFO-X is technically better.

Compared to AFO-X, I found HE 4XXs presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• A touch emphasized
  • But not as boomy
• Better tonality
  • With Texture proving easier to perceive

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Not Quite as Tactile
• More even or correct timbre without being drier or lacking warmth/wetness
• Not quite as detailed or resolving

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Touch more forward
• Not quite as detailed

Staging tho is a bit... flat compared to AFO-X, HE 4XX often lacks a real sense of defined space. Things that are in front can come across as above, where as AFO-X does a better job at preserving and presenting a more three dimensional sense of space. The Chesky Binarual Disc is a nice listen for this kind of presentation and thankfully most of the time with actual Music AFO-X translates this precision.

AFO-X vs LCD 2 Classic


Now these two headphones do share a some what similar warm thick presentation. Both even share a similar price and topology!

Compared to AFO-X, I found LCD 2Cs presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Weighty when needed
  • Never too excessive or boomy
• Thicker with Synth Basslines
• More resolving,
  • With better detail and power!

So just better, while AFO-X presented Synth Basslines with more speed and didn't quite capture the fullness or warm tone that ole school Dub Step often has. Again the Dub being in reference to Dub Music an offshoot of Reggae which saw a heavy use of round wound stung bass guitars which often had a warm cozy bass line. AFO-X was sometimes too punchy so kinda off to my ears. Ironically tho with actual Bass Guitars AFO-X consistently lacked punch comparatively and sounded TOO warm and cozy...

Compared to AFO-X, I found LCD 2Cs presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Slightly recessed
• Not as rich nor as full
• Lacking a little texture/edge
• Presented with better depth relative to the acoustic space

Compared to AFO-X, I found LCD 2Cs presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Slightly recessed
• Equivalent extension and detail

Now what I like about LCD 2C is it takes quite nicely to amplification like the Schiit Lyr 3, and such a pairing maintains a lot of LCD 2C's strong points but add's a little richness without a massive loss in texture or edge. Where as with AFO-X anything outside of a clean solid state will only further detriment it!

AFO-X vs HD 600


Simply put I found HD 600 to be simply better across the board, while not as spacious in terms of width the image it presented was more cohesive with better precision. HD 600 had far more detail, transient response is incredibly vivid and dynamic contrast was vastly improved.

Tonally even tho HD 600 is rolled off it presented more detail and texture in the low frequencies, relative to about 40 hrz. There was and is just a sense of clarity, precision and naturalness with HD 600 that is lacking in AFO-X.

Compared to AFO-X, I found HD 600 presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• More textured an detailed within limits of response
• Vivid
• Rolled off
  • Only obvious and problematic with deeper synth bass lines

I'd say the only genre of music where AFO-X excels and HD 600 falls short is EDM that feature a lot of heavy deep bass lines.

Compared to AFO-X, I found HD 600 presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Lively without a lack of naturalness
  • Vocals have a more defined body and place within the recorded space
• Textured with a clean envelope
  • Slight upper mid-range forwardness adds presence and texture without being detrimental
• Slightly drier
  • Or lacking added warmth/wetness

Compared to AFO-X, I found HD 600 presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Well extended without added emphasis

Sadly the only thing preventing HD 600 from being hands down a better buy is it's lack of low bass extension as the roll off can really be a detriment to some genres of music. However with all acoustic music and anything above about 40 Hz I do feel HD 600 is better.

An I'll also add that HD 6XX/650 will likely compare similarly except it'll have that slightly wetter/richer mid range and improved low bass response.

AFO-X vs Mr. Speakers and Dan Clark Audio Family of Cans


Right off the bat I'll start by saying I don't feel AFO-X is in even the same league as the new Dan Clark Audio Aeon 2 Closed. A2C has a tiny smidge of warmth and fullness but provides a significantly cleaner, more nuanced and resolved presentation. It's both technically and tonally better in every regard to my ears.

Original AFC and Ether CX prove to be better comparisons, with CX proving to be subjectively about as Open as AFO-X to my ears. While AFO-X has a nice open airy sound at times, it's overly forward ill-defined bass stifles any perception of "spaciousness."

Where as with CX there isn't quite the same openness but there's also not this constant stifling boxy low end either. I also felt CX was equally as detailed in the mid-range with better top and bottom end resolve and more or less equivalent dynamics. An while CX is not as rich as AFO-X it isn't too lean by comparison to my ears.

Compared to AFO-X, I found Ether CX's presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Not as forward or powerful
• More detailed & textured
• Cleaner audible extension
• Not "flat" sounding

Compared to AFO-X, I found Ether CX's presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Still rich but more balanced
  • Not as "thick" or "syrupy"
• Without audible stuffiness
  • does NOT sound like it's coming from within a box or small cramp space
• More detailed

Compared to AFO-X, I found Ether CX's presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Slightly recessed but with cleaner more audible extension
• Not as wet or splashy

AFC on the other hand is quite different in terms of presentation from AFO-X. I felt AFC was never quite as "open" sounding as AFO-X could be however, AFC had better precision and cohesion within the audible space.

Compared to AFO-X, I found AFC's presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Recessed
• Cleaner sense of power and extension
• More detailed/textured
• Not flat sounding

Compared to AFO-X, I found AFC's presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Noticeably drier
• Presented with a more vivid vibrato
  • For both vocalists and horns especially
• More detailed

Compared to AFO-X, I found AFC's presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Equally extended
• Similarly wet or splashy
• Not as open or airy

Overall I still prefer AFC at this given price point despite it being a closed back.



The big question tho is how does AFO-X compare to a my personal favorite headphone with a similar presentation?

Let's start with it's strengths, compared to my PreFazor LCD 2.2 AFO-X is;

• More open or spacious with regards to the "width" or the perceived space
  • Only when there isn't any low bass spectra in the mix
    • So what with a third of my music...
• A bit more natural with Spoken word and some vocals
  • Assuming the vocalist doesn't have a deep voice
  • Watching a few TV shows with AFO-X wasn't bad, more often than not vocals sounded more correct with AFO-X than PreFazor LCD 2.2

An that's pretty much about it, AFO-X is and can be spacious but it's loose ill defined and overly forward yet still flat bass really kills the perception of "space" and air for me.

Technically my 2012 PreFazor LCD 2.2 is;

• More detailed
  • Easier to hear and discern transits
  • Presented a cleaner envelope
• Sharper more distinct dynamics
  • Both Macro and Micro

An tonally;

• Even more power in the lows without any loss in detail/texture or definition
• Thick rich mid range with good presence and "bite"
• Dark or recessed top end yet still presents a more natural sounding extension

Now oddly enough with vocal heavy Music PreFazor LCD 2.2 sounds fine, just spoken word like what we find on TV for some reason comes across a bit odd on it.

Granted, not every one will be able to find an equivalent sounding PreFazor LCD 2.2. Non the less, I just don't feel AFO-X really measures up to my personal standard for how an "organic" or "natural" tuned headphone should sound.

Overall
Again given it's many many flaws I can't quite say AFO-X gets my recommendation. It may have brought improvements over it's 1st gen counterpart but I don't feel it's competitive enough in today's market to merit my recommendation.

The Jade II from Hifiman is their first mass production foray into an entry level electrostatic headphones. While there was an original Jade manufactured and distributed, it's difficult to find and apparently quality and frequency response varied from unit to unit. Non the less here in 2019 Jade has resurfaced and been brought back to life! The headphone itself is available for $900 via the Hifiman website with an optional amplifier for $1600. Seeing as Electrostatic headphones operate vastly different from traditional planar-magnetic or dynamic headphones a dedicated Electrostatic amplifier is needed! So the system I'll be reviewing as a whole costs $2500 straight from the Hifiman Website. However it would seem local dealers do have a more competitive price for the system around $1800 as well, heck Bloom Audio has it for $1700 as of the writing of this article!

I'll also mention I received the system in my own home for a temporary in home listen direct from their team in exchange for my thoughts and this review.

Build and Construction

The Amplifier is self is quite massive, heavy and sturdy. My only qualm with it was the some what loose and not quite fully seated feel to the front panel buttons and even the volume knob. I wasn't a huge fan of the knob's taper either as it only had around 12 or so discernible steps, so I was either listening a bit quieter or louder than I wanted for some tracks.

The rear panel proved much more robust as all inputs were fully seated with a firm grip and contact. I had no issues with seating my kinda bulky Pangea Power-cable either.

It's ultralight weight stiff frame is barely above what I'd consider acceptable in terms of overall construction quality. Thankfully I had no issues with fit or wear, the headphone was comfortable and I got an acceptable seal each time. Still I wouldn't advise or encourage purchasing this one second hand.

Presentation & Quality of Sound

So my first few listens of Jade II where positive! It was snappy, detailed, super quick, open and spacious with a lush mid-range and sparkly top end. However... the more I listened with Jade II the less impressive it became and more problematic it sounded.

For listening purpose I used my RME ADI 2 Dac with XLR Into the Stock Jade II amp, track list is as followed;

• Beck - Guess I'm Doing Fine
• Best of Chesky Jazz - Dynamic Test
• Goat Rodeo - No One But You

The overall tonality of Jade II was mostly uneven at the top and bottom ends with a rushed presentation or envelope to my ears. There's a obvious forwardness to the upper mid range with a rolled off Low Bass response. I wasn't a fan of it's lack of a certain decisive weight or force on the leading edge of sounds and an overall poor ultra low level resolve. To my ears that lack of resolve manifested in that the trailing edge of sounds were often cut short or faded into silence to quickly.

Jade II presents an open and spacious stage with good precision and layering, tho at times it's a bit incoherent so it sounded fake or a bit forced.

Technically it's not terrible but the problems with it's frequency response and presentation make it difficult to appreciate the detail and resolve that is present. An given the price I don't see any reason to recommend it when there's options that cost less and simply outperform it without departing from it's rich light weight and quick presentation.

Headphone Comparisons

Now of the many times I heard Jade II at trade shows I loved it! An I was absolutely ecstatic about getting to hear it in my own home.

I usually prefer headphones with a more lean, clean quick and open presentation. Like my own SDR Modded HD 800 [Non S] so given the price that comparison was natural, I also wanted to include the Koss ESP 95X as it's the only other Electrostatic I have experience with.

95X vs Jade II
Now to my ears while 95X wasn't technically on par with Jade II it's far more even presentation allowed for a plethora of resolve, detail and technical prowess to shine thru more naturally. With 95X the more I listened the more detail I noticed, the more correct it sounded. Quite literally the opposite experience as Jade II, tho where as Jade II has some top end Sparkle 95X is a little darker. However the two share a similar reserved sub bass response and lusher low mid range.

With Vocals I found Jade II sounded;

• Disconnected
  • Oddly forward with emphasis on the chest and lips without as much in between
• Rich but smeared
  • A good sense of harmony between male and female singers when listening with a duet but lacking some low level detail & texture of the individuals

With just Drums Jade II sounded:

• Off or uneven
  • Toms are kind incoherently in your face and the high hats have an intermittent presence or defined place in space relative to the rest of the kit
• Compressed
  • Lacking cohesive dynamic contrast as a whole

Worst of all is the sound of Strings or Stringed Instruments, this is where Jade II was the most offensives to my ears. It was simply wrong time and time again it sounded off and too rushed. Vibrato was hard to discern and the whole presentation was too quick, there was simply a lack of information being presented to my ears. The leading edge of fundamentals in the strings strummed was very in your face followed by a quick settling silence and a lack of harmonic overtones. This was spectra where Jade II had the most if any kind of leading edge to the sound and I frankly found it more distracting than anything.

Information, detail and sound that was present with the $500 Koss ESP 95X system without all the other glaring faults or distractions.

HD 800 vs Jade II
Track-list was the same but I ran my RME ADI 2 Single Ended into my Modded APPJ PA 1502A Set Amp, which including labor and parts cost me around $500. I again used the stock Amp with balanced input for Jade II

Frankly this section will be short as I don't wish to beat the dead horse. For my tastes I saw no advantage that Jade II had over HD 800. It was simply worse across the board, and given that a second hand HD 800 Non S can be had for around $800 I don't see any reason why you want to spend more on Jade II. Even during some brief listens of HD 800 on my JDS Labs Atom I again found nothing Jade II does better than HD 800.

Conclusion
I cannot recommend Jade II at least not without also suggesting a small box fan to accompany it. When I listen to Jade II with about 55 dB[a]'s of ambient background noise it doesn't sound so bad! In fact a lot of the problems area's aren't as obvious even with the addition of literal noise, I mean there's still about the same level of detail and resolve overall too. So maybe if your in a noisy environment and your insistent on an open back headphone with a lively, rich open presentation then yea maybe Jade II is the headphone for you. Heck I really feel Jade II is one of the best sounding headphones in noisy environments I've heard.

Otherwise if your listening in a quite space I'd encourage trying the Koss 95X as your first foray into electrostatic headphones or putting together a system for one of the many competitive and highly resolving dynamics on the market today.

Featuring the THX AAA 888 linear bipolar amplifier circuit, SMSL SP 200 is the newest product from SMSL line of Audiophile Headphone amplifiers. It's available stateside for $289 via Apos Audio who were kind enough to ship me a loaner unit to listen to and review. That said my thoughts are my own and I received no compensation for them.

Build Quality
SMSL SP200 is built well, aside from the odd slant I found no real problems with build quality. Power, gain and input are controlled by one of three switches. Each switch has a smooth firm action and is set perfectly centered.



The reverse houses the power input alongside a pair of RCA and XLR inputs each. The overall construction feels solid with no gaps in the chassis or protrusions. The screws are flush and each input has a solid firm fit.



My only real complaint with the unit is the taper of the volume knob. I only got volume adjustments from about 10% to 75% rotation with little to no changes above 75% or under 10%. Additionally I had no issues with unbalance while using headphones ranging from 13 Ohms at 92dB/mW, 33 Ohms at 100dB SP/mW and upwards to 300 Ohms at 102dB/1V RMS.

Sound Quality
While I did work through more than a few songs in my Library to confirm my findings, my primary track list was simple consisting of;

1. Eagles - Hotel California [Hell Freezes Over (Simpy Vinyl 180g 24Bit Rip)
2. Hwayoon Lee & Daniil Trifonov & Roman Patkoló & Anne-Sophie Mutter & Maximilian Hornung - Schubert: Piano Quintet In A Major, Op. 114, D 667-"The Trout"-4. Thema-Andantino-Variazioni I-V-Allegretto [Forellenquintett - Trout Quintet (Live)].

I found the overall characteristic of SMSL SP 200 to be simply powerful and transparent. I didn't feel it really added or detracted from the tonal presentation, nor lacked any detail and the staging was cohesive with above average precision.

An outside of my reference system I could hear some slight bass to low mid forwardness which lead to a kinda blur to the staging and overall precision of the perceived sound stage. Honestly I feel it might be a side effect of some 60hz hum off inbound from the Power supply, I used to have issues with that so I swapped my entire reference review system over to Pangea power cables and I run two Mid Range Furman Power-conditioners, each with both analog and digital noise filtering. This system also has a Schiit Etir running USB to COAX and even my USB is a dedicated PCI card with it's own PSU lead within my desktop. So while I get that not every one buys into the effects of power conditioning I've found benefits and within my reference system with what I feel is a set up that effectively removes the majority of " 60 hz Mains Humm" I don't hear or perceive forwardness in the bass and low mids.

That said, removing THAT literal noise really opened this unit up, as I found a lot of the issues I had with staging also dissipated once there was better clarity in the low end. As I was able to discern longer reverb trails and a more vivid sense of space. I certainly felt that the 60hz mains humm was masking and overlapping with those lower frequency reverb trails just a bit. An with that noise gone it was like a fenced in space had it's boundaries knocked down.

Headphone Specific Amp Comparisons
For comparison to other solid state amplifiers I used my HD 600 and compared SMSL SP 200 to the HiPower Output of my RME ADI 2, a JDS Labs Atom and a RNHP Precision Headamp.

An I used my Prefazor LCD 2 to see how SMSL SP 200 compared to my other high powered amp the Project Ember II which has all bypasses active with a Psvane CV181-TII [6SN7].



RME ADI 2 HiPower Out

• Clean Envelope and Tonality
• Lacked some Dynamic Contrast
• Lacked clarity during busy passages
• Staging was a little disjointed sometimes but not "intimate"

JDS Labs Atom

• Slightly Soft Envelope
  • Slight demphasis on attack or leading edge of sound
• Clean Tonality
• Good Dynamic Contrast
• Slightly Smeared Clarity during busy passages
  • Better than RME ADI2 hiPower Ou

RHNP

• Slightly Soft/Slow Envelope
  • Slight emphasis on sustain and release
    • Added a sense of heft and weight in the lows and mids without being "soft"
    • Presented a "sweeter" top end
  • Attack was still well defined
• Slightly Thick/Wet Tonality
• Slightly Intimate Staging
  • Good precision and cohesiveness but not as "open"

To my ears RHNP was as detailed as SP 200 despite not being as transparent. I'll admit I really enjoy RHNP with dynamics that have rolled off bass so HD 600 and K501 pair quite nicely. However there were some headphones where RHNP unique character is a poor match. HD 800 in particular sounded a bit dull and overly thick with RHNP in particular.



This comparison was closer than I thought, in the end for my LCD 2 I still felt my Ember was the better amp but here's how the two units differed.

SMSL SP 200

• Drier yet Smoother Tonality
• Better Defined Macro-dynamics
• Even Envelope
• Slightly diffuse Micro-Dynamics

Mshenay's Project Ember II

• Slight Upper Mid & Top End Emphasis
• Richer Tonality
  • Proportionate sense of heft and weight
• Better Defined Micro Dynamics
• Sharper Envelope
  • Slight emphasis on the attack
  • Slight emphasis on the release or reverb trails
• More precise cohesive imaging
• Reserved Macro-dynamics

Despite Ember II's slight emphasis creating the perception of more detail I did feel the two units had the same level of total resolve and detail retrieval.

What was lacking with SMSL SP200 and my LCD 2 was a lack of weight and presence, things were often too quick and lacked heft with SMSL SP200. Ember II had a more grounded presentation which not only sounded more natural to my ears but also allowed for a greater perception of detail. Tonally drums often sounded a little thin and one dimensional and Cello's had too much emphasis on the rasp of the body & bow vs the weight and reverb of the instrument. Lifeless is sadly the best way to describe the synergy between Prefazor LCD 2 and SMSL SP200, my LCD 2 sounded much more ALIVE with Ember II.

But overall though what I appreciate about SMSL SP200 is it's consistency and uncompromising power. While subjectively didn't enjoy it as much with my Prefazor LCD 2 I also understand part of that subjective experience has to do with the unique presentation of the headphone it self. Part of why I enjoy Ember II so much is it's kinda odd presentation and ultimate synergy with my DAC an preferred headphones in MY system. Ember II is a tool I've learned how best to use and I don't always like recommending it as not every one will appreciate nor experiment with it sufficiently to get it to perform at it's best within their system. Granted there are no massive LIFE changing tweaks that make Ember II something it isn't in terms of resolve and presentation but the devil is in the details and the small details are what you can fine tune with Ember II. Heck I also have a second tube for my Ember II is quite dry and has a slightly different presentation.

Conclusion


Ultimately SMSL SP 200's even envelope, linear frequency response, clean high power output and transparent presentation make it one of the best solid state amplifiers I've heard. While it will not help address faults or problematic traits within your system or Headphone of choice it will provide clean uncolored amplification, thus it certainly earns my recommendation to any one looking for a powerful and truly transparent amplifier capable of driving most any headphone on the market today!

Cobalt is the latest flagship from from the Audioquest Dragonfly series of portable dongle style digital audio converter with built in amplification products. Price new is currently at $299, the unit I've gotten in for review is a temporary loan from Todd of TTVJ and I was not compensated for my thoughts.

Just to set the tone, I don't feel at this time the Cobalt is competitive given the iFi xDSD is on the market and even at the xDSD's full $399 asking price I feel it's overall just a better product given all factors.

So that said here's what I like about Cobalt

• Size
• Aesthetics
• Included Accessories

An what I wasn't a fan of was it's performance. Starting with my all stock HE 4XX I experienced the following technical drawbacks

• Slow to start - literally took about 10 seconds before my V20 and G8 recognized the device and were listening ready
• Volume often reset to MAX - Neutron was the worse but uDAPP had it happen to. After a pause and resume the volume would sometimes be at MAX output

Music wise I listened to all of the 1995 Chesky Demonstration Disc before moving into one of my usual track sets consisting of

• System of a Down - Mind Vinyl RIP from the 2018 Reissue
• The Eagles - Hotel California Hell Freeze's Over Simply Vinyl 180g RIP
• Precious Fathers - Brad Quin, Medicine Man

I'll also add I don't necessarily like bright sounding systems and headphones but have a higher tolerance for it or I'm less offended/distracted or fatigued by them. Bright it usually not as offensive to my ears as others, so for me when something is TO bright or leaves me fatigued it's indicative of what I'd considered not really "worthwhile" performance.

And yes I volume match with pink noise and these days my average listening is right around about 79 dbs, peaks of 87 an dips as low as 71.

Overall sound wise I felt the unit was

• A bit exaggerated sounding and often congested
• Kinda bright with evident top end emphasis
• Presentation and envelope were a touch aggressive
• Emphasized macro detail or "noise"
  • So breathing, fret work, foot steps the occasional air conditioner and any other incidental noise captured during the recording process

Dare I say noisy?

• Drum kits often had obvious overlap to my ears and with a lot of instruments it presentation makes it not as easy to really discern a clear position and sense of space between everything.
• Really a lot of top end spectra was just overly aggressive and it was hard to discern as much as I would have liked.

As a heads up I had some technical issues with it namely my subjective impression may have been a result of poor amplification among other things. I also had issues with my V20 maxing out it's volume into the Cobalt and again when I switched between Neutron, Tidal and Amazon HD Music and the steps were not as precise as I would have liked. I did volume match as close as possible but it could be that the device simply did not behave as it should have with my V20. It could be possible those sudden jumps to max volume left my ears more sensitive and my brain with a stronger impression of how cacophonous it sounds at MAX Output.

Where as the xDSD was both more natural on it's "listening" filter and presented less overall congestion. And for what it's worth I also feel that xDSD can be a touch bright

Still starting with the envelope I felt the xDSD presented;

• A more vivid release or reverb trail
• Tactile without excess emphasis on the attack

Dynamics were also more vivid as well so the difference between quiet and soft sounds were more discernible an there was more evident micro detail with xDSD as well, an to be clear I also feel the xDSD is kinda bright an sometimes aggressive but it's not so overdone!!!!

I will say it Cobalt was more detailed than my Shanling M2S and both had issues with congestion though the M2S presents more of an overlap of “reverb” or the body of different instruments. So it sounds kinda smoothed over, VS Cobalt which presents congestion more so as an overlap between the initial attack of sounds.

Frankly I’d rather experience congestion as a smoothing over rather than a cacophony of noise. An despite being technically more detailed I again wasn’t a fan of Cobalt at all. I also didn’t really feel compelled to listen to Cobalt with any of my other headphones as I’d have to pair it with something dark like my E-MU Purpleheart to get a nice “pairing” though again you can enjoy the Purpleheart more with other ultimately more resolving devices with a"bright" presentation.



Now I did take a moment to switch over to a different playback solution this time I used USB Android Player pro with exclusively MQA featuring the following tracks

• Beck - Guess I’m Doing Fine
• Schubert Piano Quintet - A Major D667 “The Trout”

Headphones used here where the HD 600 and a WabiSabi MapleSleeved BlackLimba Magvnum V7 Build which sounds like a more refined/detailed Grado RS2E.

As mentioned subjectively the Cobalt has a rich organic tone due in part to it’s heavy top end roll off. Overall with these dynamics I found Cobalt to have;

• Soft but full bass response
  • More quantity but with a loss of texture and impact
• Tonally rich presentation of Vocals
  • This helped mask a lot of coarseness or excessively forward breathing
  • An honestly I felt Cobalt’s tuning really reproduced a more natural presentation to vocals
• Heavy Unevenness in the mid to upper mid transition
  • Stringed instruments sounded off just simply wrong
  • Lacked detail and was overly “romantic”
  • Literally slowed some faster more complex string passages
• Fairly closed staging with what was often congested imaging
  • Lacked air and precision when presenting passages with multiple instruments and musicians within a shared space

An to make matters worse I often had the volume output maxed with my HD600 to achieve a meager 81 dB peak with more dynamic/quite classical pieces.

While it wasn’t as “noisy” it still lacked detail and presented a congested image, overall I still feel it’s not a worthwhile purchase. xDSD sounds more tonally even and presents better detail, interestingly enough Bluetooth with xDSD was tonally flatter and about as detailed as cable’d listening with Cobalt. An from time to time I often use xDSD in such a manner, tucked away in my pocket connected wireless to my cell.

In conclusion I just don’t find any value in Cobalt unless you listen with easier to drive headphones and enjoy mostly vocal heavy music. Big thanks of course to Todd for sending the unit my way!

I don't often hand out five star ratings but I really feel Auris has nailed this product. An given their target market and overall performance I really do think this is on of those rare products that earns and deserves it's 5 star rating! The Euterpe is their newest all in one Dac Linear Tube Amp with PreAmp all in one an it's retailing in the US for $1700.



I heard it first at Axpona this year with my Mr.Speakers Aeon Flow Closed and right away I went straight to listening to it with a few other dynamics. An in those short few moments with my own Aeon Flow Closed and some ZMF Dynamics I could tell this was a game changer. I've yet to come across another non hybrid all in one tube design that pairs nicely with both my planarmagnetic Aeon Flow Closed and a ZMF, so this was one of the few products there that grabbed my attention!

Design and Build Quality

In terms of design though overall I felt the Auris team really designed this product for a more modern ever evolving marketplace, which makes sense. In speaking with the Auris team their goal is really to combine beautiful aesthetics with traditional audiophile fidelity in such a way to gain both the approval of those concerned with performance and those who look first at aesthetics! Both spousal personalities or varying members of the household as it were.

They create products that not only perform well technicality but also fit into a well designed existing living spaces within a home or office, spaces that have maybe in the past been inaccessible or rather unable to support space for some of the larger more industrial looking products that are abundant throughout the Audiophile Community and marketplace!

Euterpe is an all in one unit, so both a Dac, Preamp and Headphone amp with both digital and analog inputs. I had no issue feeding digital input into Euterpe from both my Cellphones, Tablets, Laptops and desktop computers. An best of all I didn't have to download a single driver! I also found it worked seamlessly with a variety of playback applications, from Tidal, to Spotifiy on Mobile jRiver and FooBar on desktop plus quite a few other video apps, platforms and programs!

The hardware itself is sandwiched between two beautiful pieces of hardwood with four metal bars at the top to protect the delicate tubes beneath. Really a beautiful marriage of function and aesthetics! Additionally the volume knob feels smooth and house the power switch within it's rational axis and each of the input jacks are solid with no wiggle.

That said again Euterpe is both pleasant to listen to, pleasant to look at and pleasant to own and integrate! As an all in one it takes up very little space, it also doubles as a headphone stand eliminating the need for more hardware in existing spaces and best of all it's powered by a dedicated linear power supply unit.

An what I love about the LPSU is the rather long cord it has, again the Auris team designed the product to be incredibly easy to work into existing spaces and having taken the unit to about 6 head fi meets I always found Euterpe to be the easiest product to get set up and tear down! Again very little fuss or effort is needed to get Euterpe up and running.

Sound Quality

Overall Euterpe is lean and transparent without a cold or dry presentation. I found it most similar to something like a Schiit Valhalla but with a bit more detail and slightly more natural tonality.

The only real issue I had with it's tonality was a slight top end emphasis evident with some of my brighter headphones like my Sony MDR V7 or Superlux HD 668B. But for the most part it was airy without coming across as bright.

It presented bass with a polite but evident authority without any emphasis or added weight and heft.

Mid-Range tonality was even and the envelope featured a slight emphasis on release, this emphasis really helped to maintain a rich fullness without coming off as thick or smeared. Additionally this slight emphasis allowed for a vivid attack and presence without sounding shouty.

Finally while it was often airy and well extend up top, though there were times where it was a touch overemphasized. While this helped darker headphones have a more lively presentation with brighter more "fun" sounding headphones some tracks were a bit too hot for my tastes. Still I had no issues enjoying all genres of music including Heavy Metal, though tracks that are mastered less than ideally or have some purposeful top end emphasis like Drum n Bass were again sometimes mildly fatiguing with some of my brighter headphones.

Details, dynamics and precision in the sound stage were excellent tho I find it best to draw comparisons to my existing equipment to really ground it's technical performance.

Dac/Amp Comparisons

Modi 3 & Schiit Lyr 3 with Electro Harmonix 6SN7

Overall I did find Euterpe had a cleaner more focused envelope

• Less added body or no emphasis on decay and sustain
• Natural but not "thick"

Compared to Lyr 3 and Modi 3 Euterpe was more resolving

• Of both texture in the lows and through the mids and top end
• Vibrator in stringed instruments and vocalists was cleaner
• Fret and string noise for larger stringed instruments and electric bass was more defined
• Able to more clearly discern pattern or "beat" shifts in drumming
• More vivid PRAT again able to resolve quicker more subtle changes in rhythm, pace and timing
• Better or more apparent micro detail or resolve of transients throughout the spectrum

Euterpe also presented a more defined and precise sense of both air or distance between instruments and musicians as well and placement of instruments within the audible space or "room" an often time it's slight top end emphasis helped to better define the sound of the recorded space as well as everyone/thing within it.

The only drawback to Euterpe VS Lyr 3 and Modi 3 was in the lows, one of the things I love about the Lyr 3 is the added heft and authority it brings! A real sense of power without sounding bloated, it makes even my HD 600 really KICK.

Planarmagnetic Headphone Pairings

That and one of the only faults of Euterpe is be all end all power, as much as I loved it with my Aeon Flow Closed and Hifiman HE 4XX it did slightly dull the overall dynamics of each of those headphones. Where as with more powerful hybrid tube designs like the Lyr 3 and Ember II I get a slightly fuller more robust dynamic range. Still unlike other non Hybrid tube design's I've heard in the past, Euterpe didn't soften the overall texture of individual instruments or smear in the bass with more efficient planars like Aeon Flow Closed and Hifiman HE 4XX. Plus these days with an abundance of more efficient and non traditional planarmagnetic designs like that of the Meze Empyrean I don't see this lack of power as a huge problem. Though owners of more traditional planarmagnetics like Hifiman HE 6 or something like my own Hifiman HE 560 V1 and 2012 PreFazor Audeze LCD 2 will find the more powerful line of dedicated amplifiers offered by Auris to bring out the full potential in those less efficient more difficult to drive headphones.

JDS Labs EL Dac & Ember II [With Noise Nuke] + Heavy Modded SET Tube

Again the lack of power was evident for less efficient planars when compared to the Ember II , but as with the previous comparison Euterpe brought a more detailed presentation with overall better technicalities and more even tonality.

An actually I was surprised at how similar the voicing of Euterpe was to my own modded APPJ PA1502A SET and when I fed analog in from EL Dac to Euterpe [bypassing it's internal DAC] I found the performance between the two amps on par, though Euterpe is blacker during quite passages, more resistant to outside noise and hum with some low impedance dynamic headphones. That and it's build quality and literal between your fingers feel are vastly improved. Combined with it's much smaller the footprint and linear power-supply even as just an Amp Euterpe proves itself much more practical to own and operate than my own heavily modded SET.

Though my modded APPJ PA1502a SET Tube Amp was the result of months of research and tube rolling and some luck in terms of picking the right components to get the desired improvements I wanted over the rather lackluster stock performance. But again with Euterpe the performance is outstanding with 100% stock components so there's no guess work or time spent experimenting with tube rolling and the like.

RME ADI 2 + Amplification

While functionally different, I did find the overall technicalities of Euterpe to be only marginally better than RME ADI 2 with ATOM and my RME ADI 2. The real benefit of the Euterpe here though was it's slightly more natural tonality and ever so slightly more spacious presentation, and both amps have around the same power output and handle planarmagnetics similarly.

However the big difference here is the DAC Performance,

Compared to my "reference" system I did find Euterpe to fall slightly behind in terms of resolve, detail, tonality and sound stage precision. An frankly feeding the digital out of my RME ADI 2 into the analog of Euterpe was at best a marginal improvement. The only noticeable difference was less slightly fatigue when listening with my brightest headphone out of my own modded SET.

However in terms of costs my complete system is a a bit more than Euterpe and has some digital interface hardware in the form of a Schiit Etir feeding exclusively COAX into my DAC plus a lot of back-end power filtering hardware in the form of both power conditioners, aftermarket cables and a single massive stage LC filter "Noise Nuke" for use with my Ember II. Both amps also have modifications and tubes hand picked for my DAC and collection of headphones, I also have two different tubes for Ember II depending on the voicing or presentation of the planarmagnetic headphone I'm listening too.

My point here, in terms of be all end all resolve and detail it is possible to piece together something better for less than the cost of Euterpe. An many of you likely will, part of what I enjoy about this hobby is exploring, tinkering, modding and experimenting. Chasing down what ever I could to get the most of my system as a whole. With each incremental improvement carrying onward each time I drop in new components, but compared to just simply purchasing and owning Euterpe this method is hardly cost effective, quick or straight forward. Heck for this review I had it plugged right into an outlet on my wall using a regular or basic power cable. Still I'll touch on what I feel is the real value or Euterpe later in this review in my conclusion.

Dynamic Headphone Pairings

Overall I really felt Euterpe performs best and most consistently with dynamic Headphones especially those above 80 or so ohms. I did have some slight hum with 32 ohm Dynamics such as the Grado White but such hum wasn't always present with my own Symphones Magnum V7 Build, but my HD 800, HD 600 and AKG K702 had zero hum or noise what so ever! Euterpe proved to be entirely black and silent during any and all quite portions of music.

Still the output impedance is listed as "32-80" on the Low Gain setting and "150" for the High Gain setting, so I cannot say for sure how it will interact with all lower impedance dynamic drivers. I will say I didn't hear any audible low frequency boost as a result of high output impedance.

Aside from being ever so slightly bright with HD 800 and K702 on some less than perfect or hot recordings, I thoroughly enjoyed Euterpe with all my more resolving dynamics! I did find it to be much to bright with my Superlux HD 668B but that headphone has a lot of top end emphasis no matter what it's sourced from.

I in particular really loved the sense of depth Euterpe brought to my HD 600, with the Modi 3 and JDS Labs EL Dac systems the HD 600 sounded a bit shallower. However similar to my own reference system, I found Euterpe really allowed the HD 600 to present a more real sense of how the recorded space sounds.

I particularly enjoyed how far back the release and reverb of the cello reached into the room while listening to Sarah Jarosz's "Simple Twist of Fate."

With my HD 800 I appreciated how the Euterpe was able to bring both a sweetness and immediate sense of tactility to the guitar track in Marta Gomez's Celito Lindo.

I also loved how full yet still dynamic and explosive War from Explorations in Space and Time was with my AKG K702.

Really again the amp was quite transparent and maintained a consistent presentation with a variety of dynamic headphones with some brightness only evident with a headphone that itself places some emphasis in the top end.

Conclusion
What I absolutely LOVE about Euterpe it's beautifully straight forward implementation within a space and effortlessly high fidelity presentation. When I started this hobby I worked around 30 or so hours and attended college, I had much more time to research and experiment.These days I work around 70 hours a week, I'm no longer living with parents with just a tiny bedroom all to my self. Rather I've a full furnished apartment, a small dog and friends I like to entertain with little to no free time to spend reading and researching online like I used to.


Granted the young college kid I was continued on in life and eventually worked to furnish an entire dedicated room for all my Gear. But had I started this hobby now at this point in my life I likely would have gravitated to a cheaper single bedroom apartment with a bigger kitchen and purchased Euterpe for it's beautiful wood finish and straight forward ease of use alone. An in my eye's the real value in Euterpe is as an all in one, it's beautifully assembled, and it fits right into an existing multi media system. In my own home I can feed analog line in from the digital receiver partnered with my TV and use the Pre-Amp to function alongside my 2.1 Sound System to enjoy movies and television and also run the digital connection out form my laptop and tablet to enjoy my high-res music collection.

I don't quite feel it's suited to those of you with large collections of headphones each needing vastly different amplification needs. Nor those of you who like to tinker, mod and experiment. However I am confident that for those of you who love music, the design and layout of your home as it is but and are still interested in high fidelity play back but don't have the time, nor space to piece together large complex multi-component systems Euterpe is the perfect all in one. It's overall transparent presentation pairs well with many of the well established high fidelity dynamics, such as those form the ZMF and many of the newest cutting edge planarmagnets like Empyrean. Add in it's simple plug and play USB interface and you'll be hard pressed to piece together a better system without having to devote the needed time, expense and space to house a complex and well matched system of individual components!

I figured for my first ever wireless headphone review I'd start out with an Audio Technica Product! I've typically found their products usually meet my criteria in this $150 price point. That said, I did receive the ATH ANC700BT at not cost as a review sample from an indsutry assocaite.

Build Quality and Function
The ATH ANC700BT feels good in the hand. Plastic is light weight but not flimsy, gimbals and headphones have a smooth swivel and just enough flex to accommodate larger heads.

Headphone paired easily with cell phone and seamlessly switched from calls to media within and well beyond a reasonable range of 15 feet or so.



The Audio Technica ANC 700BT has a looser fit, an I did find the ANC700BT provided more active isolation via it's ANC than passive. So in busier environments it excelled at maintaining clarity at all times.

Rather than buttons, toggles and switches the ANC700BT features all controls built into the earcup. An often times a lighter more decisive touch allowed for quicker response from this system.

Overall call quality on the Audio Technica was clearer given the more aggressive noise cancellation. An while it does fold, it does so some what cumbersomely and fits into a very generic draw string bag.

Sound Quality ________________________________________________
Overall I found the ATH ANC700BT brighter, more energetic and lean sounding ATH ANC700BT.

So it has some slight emphasis on macro detail and amibent noise, so you'll find some emphasis to sounds such as the breaths taken by muscians and vocalists as well as string noise, fretting, as well as mechanical noise, foot steps and other sounds more related to the muscians an instruments themselvs.

You'll also notice some emphasis on higher frequcanies with percussion being the most noticeable, such as high hats and tom drums. An while the mid range is a bit drier, I didn't find it too distant in relation to the highs and lows.

Finally, the low end was failry taut with a mild mid bass hump which gives the headphone a punchy presentation.

This presentation works really well for electronic music and a lot of modern pop, rock and country. I did fine with some mild EQ I was able to correct the presentation in such a way that it presented genres like classical, orchestral symphonies, jazz and folk more naturally.

Though how do they compared to similarly tuned wired headphones.


I found that the ATH ANC700BT did compare favorably to Sony MDR V6. Both offer a brighter, leaner more clarity focused presentation. An while the MDR V6 is ever so slightly more resolving and more precise with less emphasis overall in it's presentation, I did feel that ultimately with EQ the ANC700BT was a happy middle ground of both sound quality and convenience. Plus the Active isolation on the ATH ANC 700BT is much better than the passive isolation of the MDR V6! An while it's no giant killer I did feel over all given it's price point and feature set the ATH ANC700BT met my expectaions.

So in conclusion, if your in need of a wireless headset, limited to big box brands and your not opposed to using some EQ I can recommend the Audio Technica ANC700BT for it's exceptional clarity, isolation and overall ease of use.

As always, your experience my vary and please leave any additional questions and comments you have below!

So up for review/comparison is a Modded APPJ pa1502a an stock G1217 Project Ember II and a stock Schiit Valhalla 2

My Ember II has a CNC Chassis 1940 Vintage Sylvania 6sn7 JAN CHS VT231 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $455 as tested if bought New

• Ember II Assembled - $390
• 6sn7 Adapter - $26
• 1940 Vintage Sylvania 6sn7 JAN CHS VT231 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $39

[Though it's the longest established and can be gotten second hand for closer to $350 often with upgraded Tubes or you can opt to assemble it your self and save a little there too]

My Modded Set has a set of Russian 6n6c Power Tubes with a 1940s Sylvania 12SN7GT Driver - Cost as tested is $394

• Appj pa1502a Base Unit - $199
• Pair of 6n6c Power Tubes - $20
• Pangea AC 14 Power $30
• 1940 Vintage Sylvania 12sn7GT JAN CHS VT289 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $10
• Audio Note Kasai + Auricap XO Re-cap an installation - $125

The Valhalla 2 is 100% Stock! - $350

As some one whose spent a lot of time tube rolling and modding/tinkering I was really curious to see how a stock amp like the Valhalla 2 compared to my rolled in wonders.



Overall I felt my Modded APPJ pa1502a was the most resolving, audibly it had the highest degree of fidelity or exactness in reproducing sound when specifically paired with dynamic headphones. The mods we did were;

• Replaced existing Output Caps with AuriCap XOs & Audio Note Kaisei's
• Introduced bypass caps into the Circuit Path

All in all it's the result of about 7 months of research and I'm very impressed with the results! At the end of it all I feel if your able to DIY your likely going to get the highest degree of fidelity for your system with the least monetary cost. But there's extensive knowledge and experience required as any mistakes invoke additional cost. I also had to do some digging to figure out who to have install the mods, as I'm not cleanest solderer. So again time and money can quickly add up when putting together a custom piece. I suppose I lucked out!

But in a sense I feel it's a bit unfair to compare an amp Modded specifically for my exact system, still I wanted to include it to get some perspective on how a more DIY Focused option compares to available retail products. An I'm happy to say there was in fact a retail amp that followed closely behind my own Modded SET! So much so I kinda wish I'd purchased said amp before venturing into my own little experiment.



I did my listening with a ZMF Auteur in Cocobolo with their Silver Michanikos cable as well as with my HD 800 using a Audio Envy Tone Kraft Copper.

Each of these I felt was a headphone that had a more natural mid range presentation with even bass response, the HD 800 is brighter up top and very technical with strong staging and the Auteur was a bit more intimate with a more correct timbre and more even tonal response.

An I personally enjoy each with a drier sounding tube amp, so the three amps featured all share that slightly drier presentation in comparison to something like a Schiit Vali 1 or a Cavili Liquid Glass with a thicker sounding Tube.

An again overall I felt my Modded APPJ pa1502a had the most resolve and audible fidelity how ever on high gain an at over 80% rotation I also noticed it was nosier than the other two amps. Thankfully only about 10% of my music requires me to push the amp to this upper limit, and even then I've got around 3-4 dBs of headroom.

But I'll go over 4 aspects of sound quality in comparing the remaining two units;

• Detail
• Dynamics
• Staging
• Tonality/Timbre/Envelope

An as you guys know each of these aspects are often linked together, as tonal imbalances can often lead to perceived changes or in-inaccuracies in regard to staging as well as mask over some detail.
Overall I felt these aspects of the Valhalla 2's presentation were better than that of the Ember II;

• Black background
  • With less audible noise, hum or hiss present during silent or quite passages
• Clear Micro and Macro Dynamics
  • Gradual changes of individual instruments and musicians were easily identified
  • As were more sudden and intense changes to the intensity of the composition as a whole
• Vivid Presentation of Transients
• Tauter Bass
  • With a cleaner more balanced envelope - so no emphasis on attack, decay sustain nor release

Overall I felt the Ember II presentation was stronger in these aspects;

• Staging
  • More precise location of movement of sounds within the audible space
• Resolved more of the "sound of the room"
  • Such as ambient noise like wall reflections, echo's and things like foot steps
• More Even Tonal presentation
  • Overall neither forward nor withdrawn throughout the frequency response

In comparison I felt the Valhalla 2 did the following different from the Ember II

• Slightly Forward Mid-Range
  • While tonally not as balanced I did feel the Timbre was more natural
    • With a more even presentation of each part of the envelope
  • Slight forwardness helps define space for more intimate headphones but ultimately skews precision in staging for more open or spacious sounding headphones

In comparison I felt the Ember II differed from the Valhalla 2 in these aspects;

• Some What Polarizing Presentation
  • Slight emphasis on attack and decay over sustain and release on in the mid range an upward
  • With contrasting emphasis in the lows
  • In a sense this some what polarizing presentation is more "tonally" correct but...
• Slight emphasis on Ambient Noise
  • Part of why I feel it's staging is slightly more accurate

An finally I felt the Ember II did noticeably worse in these aspects in comparison;

• Noisier
  • More audible hum and hiss during quite passages
• Looser low end presentation
• Some what skewed timbre
  • Again odd presentation creates a nice tonal balance but skews the overall balance in how the envelope is presented which makes the timbre kinda off

An lastly I felt the Valhalla 2 had this single fault;

• Slight Glare or Hardness
  • A rougher top end texture alongside an unpleasant upper mid glare

So it was quite fatiguing with really bright or energetic cans like those from Audio Technica or even the Filter-less Campfire Audio Cascade.



An yes I also felt the Valhalla 2 did give my little Modded Amp a real run for it's money!!! Thankfully, I have purchased an upgrade to my system so my experiment isn't holding me back at this time, though I wonder how much sooner I might have gotten said upgrade if I'd just gotten the Valhalla 2 in the first place...

An I again choose to limit this review to just dynamics as I felt the Hybrid Ember II had a clear advantage driving my Hifiman HE 560 and PreFazor LCD 2. An I've found that typically at this price points Hybrid Units seem to do better with harder to drive Planar Magnetics. Though exceptions may exist and I may explore them in the future.

Though with that Said the Ember II biggest strength is it's versatility.

As a single tube swap can make small changes to;

• Audible Noise/Gain
• Tonal Balance
  • Timbre or presentation of the envelope

You can also change how the circuit operates and these changes bring a slight adjustment to;

• Audible Noise/ Gain
• Timbre

It's also far more powerful then either amp so it's got much more headroom on tap.


To this day I still feel the Ember II is an excellent choice for very power hungry Legacy Planars like the two I own, and I feel the circuit mods help to balance out the sound of these as well. Helping each to be a little more natural, while still be exceptionally "fast" sounding overall. In fact many of the weakness of the Ember II with my dynamics are in fact strengths with my planars as they have a some what contrasted presentation over my HD 800.

So for those of you that own large collections of headphones that have very differing sound presentations and amping requirements the Ember II will likely remain an excellent choice given how easily you can adjust it's operation to compliment a variety of gear and sound signatures.

This is more of a 3 way comparison with the Valhalla 2 proving it self to be the strongest overall performer!

So up for review/comparison is a Modded APPJ pa1502a an stock G1217 Project Ember II and a stock Schiit Valhalla 2

My Ember II has a CNC Chassis 1940 Vintage Sylvania 6sn7 JAN CHS VT231 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $455 as tested if bought New

• Ember II Assembled - $390
• 6sn7 Adapter - $26
• 1940 Vintage Sylvania 6sn7 JAN CHS VT231 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $39

[Though it's the longest established and can be gotten second hand for closer to $350 often with upgraded Tubes or you can opt to assemble it your self and save a little there too]

My Modded Set has a set of Russian 6n6c Power Tubes with a 1940s Sylvania 12SN7GT Driver - Cost as tested is $394

• Appj pa1502a Base Unit - $199
• Pair of 6n6c Power Tubes - $20
• Pangea AC 14 Power $30
• 1940 Vintage Sylvania 12sn7GT JAN CHS VT289 Bottom Getter Flash Clear Top - $10
• Audio Note Kasai + Auricap XO Re-cap an installation - $125

The Valhalla 2 is 100% Stock! - $350

As some one whose spent a lot of time tube rolling and modding/tinkering I was really curious to see how a stock amp like the Valhalla 2 compared to my rolled in wonders.



Overall I felt my Modded APPJ pa1502a was the most resolving, audibly it had the highest degree of fidelity or exactness in reproducing sound when specifically paired with dynamic headphones. The mods we did were;

• Replaced existing Output Caps with AuriCap XOs & Audio Note Kaisei's
• Introduced bypass caps into the Circuit Path

All in all it's the result of about 7 months of research and I'm very impressed with the results! At the end of it all I feel if your able to DIY your likely going to get the highest degree of fidelity for your system with the least monetary cost. But there's extensive knowledge and experience required as any mistakes invoke additional cost. I also had to do some digging to figure out who to have install the mods, as I'm not cleanest solderer. So again time and money can quickly add up when putting together a custom piece. I suppose I lucked out!

But in a sense I feel it's a bit unfair to compare an amp Modded specifically for my exact system, still I wanted to include it to get some perspective on how a more DIY Focused option compares to available retail products. An I'm happy to say there was in fact a retail amp that followed closely behind my own Modded SET! So much so I kinda wish I'd purchased said amp before venturing into my own little experiment.



I did my listening with a ZMF Auteur in Cocobolo with their Silver Michanikos cable as well as with my HD 800 using a Audio Envy Tone Kraft Copper.

Each of these I felt was a headphone that had a more natural mid range presentation with even bass response, the HD 800 is brighter up top and very technical with strong staging and the Auteur was a bit more intimate with a more correct timbre and more even tonal response.

An I personally enjoy each with a drier sounding tube amp, so the three amps featured all share that slightly drier presentation in comparison to something like a Schiit Vali 1 or a Cavili Liquid Glass with a thicker sounding Tube.

An again overall I felt my Modded APPJ pa1502a had the most resolve and audible fidelity how ever on high gain an at over 80% rotation I also noticed it was nosier than the other two amps. Thankfully only about 10% of my music requires me to push the amp to this upper limit, and even then I've got around 3-4 dBs of headroom.

But I'll go over 4 aspects of sound quality in comparing the remaining two units;

• Detail
• Dynamics
• Staging
• Tonality/Timbre/Envelope

An as you guys know each of these aspects are often linked together, as tonal imbalances can often lead to perceived changes or in-inaccuracies in regard to staging as well as mask over some detail.
Overall I felt these aspects of the Valhalla 2's presentation were better than that of the Ember II;

• Black background
  • With less audible noise, hum or hiss present during silent or quite passages
• Clear Micro and Macro Dynamics
  • Gradual changes of individual instruments and musicians were easily identified
  • As were more sudden and intense changes to the intensity of the composition as a whole
• Vivid Presentation of Transients
• Tauter Bass
  • With a cleaner more balanced envelope - so no emphasis on attack, decay sustain nor release

Overall I felt the Ember II presentation was stronger in these aspects;

• Staging
  • More precise location of movement of sounds within the audible space
• Resolved more of the "sound of the room"
  • Such as ambient noise like wall reflections, echo's and things like foot steps
• More Even Tonal presentation
  • Overall neither forward nor withdrawn throughout the frequency response

In comparison I felt the Valhalla 2 did the following different from the Ember II

• Slightly Forward Mid-Range
  • While tonally not as balanced I did feel the Timbre was more natural
    • With a more even presentation of each part of the envelope
  • Slight forwardness helps define space for more intimate headphones but ultimately skews precision in staging for more open or spacious sounding headphones

In comparison I felt the Ember II differed from the Valhalla 2 in these aspects;

• Some What Polarizing Presentation
  • Slight emphasis on attack and decay over sustain and release on in the mid range an upward
  • With contrasting emphasis in the lows
  • In a sense this some what polarizing presentation is more "tonally" correct but...
• Slight emphasis on Ambient Noise
  • Part of why I feel it's staging is slightly more accurate

An finally I felt the Ember II did noticeably worse in these aspects in comparison;

• Noisier
  • More audible hum and hiss during quite passages
• Looser low end presentation
• Some what skewed timbre
  • Again odd presentation creates a nice tonal balance but skews the overall balance in how the envelope is presented which makes the timbre kinda off

An lastly I felt the Valhalla 2 had this single fault;

• Slight Glare or Hardness
  • A rougher top end texture alongside an unpleasant upper mid glare

So it was quite fatiguing with really bright or energetic cans like those from Audio Technica or even the Filter-less Campfire Audio Cascade.

Otherwise and overall I felt the Valhalla 2 in stock form was the better amplifier for these more grounded and natural sounding dynamic headphones. Plus it's $100 less offers an audible cleaner output and proves it self more resolving. An while it's slight tonal faults I feel can be remedied with some tube swaps I feel your likely better off just saving that money for a better amp in the future.

As again I feel upgrading the tubes on the Valhalla 2 to correct it's tone could get costly and ultimately money spent on new tubes could just be money spent towards a better amp. So if your like me and you kinda enjoy rolling tubes and seeing what differences exist, this likely isn't the best amp to explore that hobby with!



An yes I also felt the Valhalla 2 did give my little Modded Amp a real run for it's money!!! Thankfully, I have purchased an upgrade to my system so my experiment isn't holding me back at this time, though I wonder how much sooner I might have gotten said upgrade if I'd just gotten the Valhalla 2 in the first place...

An I again choose to limit this review to just dynamics as I felt the Hybrid Ember II had a clear advantage driving my Hifiman HE 560 and PreFazor LCD 2. An I've found that typically at this price points Hybrid Units seem to do better with harder to drive Planar Magnetics. Though exceptions may exist and I may explore them in the future.

So for those of you that own large collections of headphones that have very differing sound presentations and amping requirements the Ember II will likely remain an excellent choice given how easily you can adjust it's operation to compliment a variety of gear and sound signatures.



Other wise for those of you with single headphones such as the;

• HD 600
• AKG K702
• HD 800
• ZMF Dynamic Headphones

Non the less, at the end of the day the Valhalla 2 get's my full recommendation! It's a stunning product and proves itself an incredible value.

Every once and a while I stumble upon a product that seems to transcend whatever you plug it into, a product that just pulls out detail and presents it with a lifelike naturalness whether your listening with a cell phone, cheapo laptop or top of the line Hi-Fi system.

An frankly the only thing I've heard recently that does exactly this is the Audeze MX4. Tuned with the LCD X drive but utilizing the double fluxor magnetic array found in the LCD-4 series I found that most times you can simply plug it into the most basic audio playback devices and 999/1000 times it'll be the best sounding headphone you've heard from that device! Even something like a old Dell Laptop from, which can output around 100 mW into a 20 Ohm is enough to get this headphone on the ground running!

That said, I do want to thank the team over at The Source AV for allowing me the chance to participate in a Tour for this headphone! That said, I haven't been compensated for this work and my thoughts are my own and based on my experience with this headphone during the temporary loaner period!

Getting back to the MX4 while it does respond to and present differences with better quality gear, I also found that compared to everything else I've heard in the past the MX 4 has the most consistent performance among a variety of outputs.

This is, of course, by design, Audeze manufactured this product as a more efficient, easier to drive upgrade to the Studio Tuned LCD X. With the idea being that it can sound even better with even less dedicated gear behind it.

Build quality and function are as expected from a headphone not only at this price point but in line with all of Audeze's more robust modern offerings. The MX4, in particular, is lighter and more comfortable than it's brothers while having an equally substantial build quality. An I'd like to congratulate Audeze on implementing improvements to build quality and function across their product range as I feel the newest Audeze Cans are a big step above the legacy models in terms of build quality and comfort overall.

Non the less for this review I'll be focusing more on the sound quality rather than the build quality and overall function.
Specifications

• Style;
  • Over the Ear Open Back
• Transducer Size
  • 106 mm
• Max Power Handling
  • 15W
• Max SPL
  • >130 dB
• THD
  • >0.1% @100dB
• Impedance
  • 20 ohms
• Sensitivity
  • 105 dB/1mW
• Minimum Power Requirement
  • >100mW

Sound Signature & Amping
I found the MX4 to have a neutral tonal presentation in the lows, with a slight forwardness present in the mid-range and a slightly dark top end. An the following description of sound is more or less as is without any direct comparisons and the result of running it through my own reference desktop and portable systems in addition to a third and new top of the Line Digital Audio Player.

It was a little more difficult to describe how the MX4 sounded because I felt it was for the most part quite balanced. With only very slight changes to the overall presentation when switching between a variety of systems and topologies. Non the less I found the;

• Lows
  • Were forceful and solid with excellent low end impact
    • Kick drums have a nice heavy, solid, FAST POWERFUL SLAM
  • Well extended and well resolved
    • Both noise and harmonic content are present in fretting on both the Acoustic and Electric Bass
  • With good texture
    • Able to identify the resonant sound of larger instruments as they are played
      • So not only hearing but feeling the weight and size of a cello as it's bow'd
• Mids
  • Neutral Presentation
    • Envelope is a little sweeter than dry
    • More full-bodied than it is lean
  • Textured with a slight minimal midrange forwardness
• Highs
  • Top end has good clarity
    • Though it's a bit dark
  • Snappy with a nice tactility
    • A bit dry without being "rough" or having any glare
• Imaging
  • Fairly Intimate
    • But with exceptional depth
    • Spacial Clarity
    • Precision
• Resolve
  • Resolved both Micro Detail and Macro Detail equally well
    • So ambient noise and transients were equally present

An really overall I just felt it performed well, I don't usually like to be vague but aside from being a little darker & ever so slightly more forward than perfectly neutral, I felt Audeze really hit the nail on the head! Their aim was for a full-bodied Studio like sound and I felt that was my experience exactly! The slightly darker and intimate sound lent itself to reign in many genres of music and always presented me with an deep, spacious and accurate image. I never struggled to visualize not only the musicians but also the space they were in.

While the precision was never as grand and vast as the HD 800 it felt a little more focused at the expensive of be all end all precision and transparency.



So carrying forward with the HD 800 and MX4 comparison I gave my favorite symphonic Metal track a listen from my reference systems, featuring a Project Ember II with a Classic Grade Psvane CV 181 T MK2 powering the MX4 via a full OCC Copper Cable along with a modded APPJ pa1502a SET Tube Amp featuring Soviet Power Tubes and a 1940 Sylvania White Label 12SL7GT Pre-Tube powering my HD 800 with a full silver recable.

An in my experience from these systems, each featuring an Audio GD NFB10ES2 as the Dac fed via Coaxial from my Schiit Etir, I found the following to be the differences;

• Lows
  • I found HD 800 to portray textures better so;
    • Big drums featured in the background had a bit less weight and force but a hollower sound the better portrayed their composition & construction
    • Electric Bass riffs had a bit less slam and force overall but I was better able to perceive some of the transients relating to the bassist fretting about the neck of his instrument
  • Ultimately the MX4 had a slight focus on the fundamentals or rather a faster decay/release whereas the HD 800 did not, henceforth harmonic content was more apparent
• Mids
  • Now in the mid-range, the MX4 presented itself as having a little more harmonic content and a slight forwardness that was most evident with Horns & WoodWinds
    • So not so much an emphasis on the decay/release/sustain but just a slightly fuller sound with the same quickness
    • Simone's voice had a bit more body and wasn't as "airy"
      • The fullness of notes from her chest was more apparent than the slightly airy quality that she adds with her mouth/lips
    • Both the Guitars and Stringed instruments were a bit sweeter
      • Again just a touch more harmonic content and fullness
    • Guitars sit ever so slightly behind horns when they're both mastered, mixed or mic'd in a relatively close position
  • Whereas the HD 800 was ever so slightly drier
    • Both the texture of the stringed instruments and guitars were more vivid, in exchange for vocals that had a slightly more pronounced airiness, or some slight emphasis on those from the lips/mouth notes
      • Though it should be noted I always felt the HD 800 was too wet so I choose a Silver Cable as I felt it added in a little more texture and tilted the HD 800's presentation towards the drier side
• Highs
  • Even with the SDR Mod I still felt the HD 800 was "brighter" with both better definition and clarity up top, it's not to say the MX4 was "forgiving" rather;
    • Flaws are apparent in the top end with the MX4 but the HD 800 seems to exacerbate them that much more so
    • By the same token in some cases depending on how a track is produced, the HD 800 had a slightly more precise placement of percussion and ambient noise.
• Resolve & Imaging
  • Ultimately;
    • Out of the right system, the HD 800 is more resolving and tonally balanced
    • Out of the Wrong System for an HD 800 the MX4 will ALWAYS present a more accurate and precise imaging
      • With better resolve and a more balanced tonal presentation

An therein lies the strength of the MX4 in my opinion, it's ability to MAXIMIZE. Drop it into any un-optimized or bare bones audio play back systems and it'll likely perform better than most other headphones in that given system. The exception to this are systems that are tuned, built or optimized for and around a specific headphone or sound signature.

To bring this point home I listened to the MX4 and HD 800 with just my little Shanling M2S



An not only was the HD 800 just too quiet from the M2S for me to listen to tracks with a larger dynamic range. When I had music that was mastered a little louder the overall presentation was too warm and just kinda underwhelming. With the HD 800 from the M2S, I felt;

• the lows lacked power,
• the mid-range was a bit TOO forward and had too much decay,
• plus the top end was some how kinda forward but also a little diffuse

Switching into the MX4 with the M2S I found the;

• Bass
  • While not as taut and textured as with "proper systems" still maintained excellent power, texture and impact
    • It was just a tad slower or more "full" from the M2S. Some very low level transients and micro detail were a bit subdued
• Mids
  • Had quite a lot of body but
    • Maintained excellent texture
      • Simone's vocals still had that touch of her lips/mouth
      • No excessive from the chest heaviness or fullness
      • Guitars still maintained their grit, crunch and aggression
        • Though there was a slight smearing of some of the percussive sounds resulting from fretwork
    • Had a nice Sweetness without being syrupy
    • Maintained just a slight mid-range forwardness
      • So the brass horns in Monty Alexander's - Sweet Georgia Brown were VIVID
        • With exceptional dynamics and a slight twinge of metallic bite without being too in your face
• Highs
  • Still vivid, snappy and precise
    • Percussion in particular had a nice snap and vibrancy to it

Whereas the HD 800 took on a lot of the character of the M2S which is itself a bit mid-centric and slightly warm, the MX4 retained it's characteristic sound and focus with only a slight smidgen of mid-range forwardness. I was again supremely impressed with how well the MX4 does with so little!

I found my self really enjoy the MX4 mostly with portables more so than my own desktop systems, simply because the improvements on my desktop system were not substantial enough to compensate for the loss of convenience flexibility.

It's focused imaging and fairly neutral tonal balance really help bring maximize the technical performance of whatever gear your listening with, and with a Top of the Line Portable, I was able to more or less replicate the desktop experience on the go!

An really without repeating my self, I found all of the same detail I had with my reference system present with the Questyle QP2R, and in some cases, the QP2R was able to more cleanly resolve some transients over even my own desktop rig!

The biggest difference though was in precision and overall power, Audeze themselves recommend 1-4W of power into the MX4 and with upwards of 2W I did find the low end to have the cleanest and most visceral impact and the imaging to be ever so slightly more expansive than with less powerful but equally resolving systems. Though these improvements were again quite minimal, often times listening with only the QP2R in more comfortable or often times louder settings than my office was in fact quite equivalent to being in said office! So with just a single box I was able to bring the full might of my reference desktop system, with all of it's many power conditioners, Digital Signal re-clockers, and isolators, with me!

Which I have to say was really quite eye-opening, to have listened to a headphone that's able to do so much without having such a heavily optimized system behind it!

But how about running the MX4 with a portable system that CAN deliver upwards of yet again 2W of power?

Well, in this case, I tested both the HD 800 and the MX4 from my HM901/iBassoPB2 portable system. You'll likely notice that third black box at the bottom, that happens to be the dedicated battery power supply for the PB2, which has an inline filter to deliver a clean and constant 16V input.

So with my portable reference system the MX4 and HD 800, I ultimately found more differences than anything. Going back to Epica's The Divine Conspiracy, a track that blends together both elements of Heavy Metal and Classical music I found with this particular System the MX4 excelled;

• With the heavier sections featuring anything from;
  • kick drums,
  • dropped guitars
  • or an electric bass.
• A sense of aggression, power, and purposeful distortion translated better with the MX4 without overshadowing or swallowing the softer more natural beauty of the wooded stringed instruments.

Whereas the HD 800 was;

• Maybe a bit too dry,
  • having a touch too much texture or detail and detracting from just the heaviness of the riffs at times.

However, with the more classically influenced sections, the HD 800;

• More vividly distinguished the unique timbre of those instruments even with the heavier metal riffs atop.

So it's hard to say if the mastering goal was to present beautiful brutality or brutal beauty... as each headphones presentation felt equally balanced and "correct" albeit slightly different.



Moving onto some more comparisons, next we have the MX4 up again'st it's older brother the LCD X. This comparison was done with my Geek Out v2+ fusing a fully balanced OCC Copper Cable on both headphones and Rebecca Pidgeon's Spanish Harlem.

Ultimately the biggest difference I found between the two was;

• Clarity in resolving;
  • Rebecca's Vocals
  • Texture in the double bass
  • Definition for each of the physical movements of the shaker in the background
  • The trailing edge of the guitars
    • In each of these cases and a few others the MX4 was just more vivid, details popped out a little more easily and the overall presentation was just improved
• Efficiency
  • The MX4 was able to reach the same SPL Levels with even less output from my Dac/Amp

While rach had a similar tonal balance given that they share the same driver but the MX4 was both easier to drive and simply offered more detail and clarity all around. So certainly the MX4 is a clear upgrade from the LCD X with NO drawbacks that I could find.

What about those of you who own something like the LCD 2C, 2F or Pre Fazor LCD2?


Well as covered in my previous LCD 2 Shoot Out I felt the MX 4 really bested each of the 2 Series models. Simply put even with the stock cable the MX4 clearly shows it's self as being a step above even the best LCD 2 I've heard! Quite literally everything is improved over the previous model so the MX4 offers;

• Better resolve of both transients and spacial information
  • so the position of the strike of that big drum moves around a little more
• Texture in the spectrum as a whole
  • So an even more defined tactile edge on each of the guitars individual strings
    • giving you an even deeper appreciation for the beauty of a 12 string guitar
• Even more precise imaging
• Marginally less bass power,
  • But... while the bass is a little drier and not quite as powerful it does have a similar sense of heft and impact
  • Overall I feel that maybe the MX4s bass is still a step above all the LCD 2s I've heard
• Even more efficient and easier to drive
• Even lighter and more comfortable

Though I will mention that the MX4 is a slight departure from the more traditional Audeze Sound, it kinda sounds like some one took my LCD 2 and my HD 800 and merged them together! Which if I had down size and only own a single headphone... I'd certainly get an MX4 for that very reason!


So moving upward and back towards a more classic Audeze sound, how does the MX4 compare to the LCD 4Z another Super efficient design, but one that's built entirely around the Driver of the LCD 4? This time around it's the same DAC/Amp my Geek Out v2+ with yet another balanced Cable but I listened to the Eagles performing Hotel California Live;

What I found was that the LCD 4Z had more of a classic Audeze House Sound, so;

• Even thicker more full-bodied mids,
  • Slightly better resolve as well but also a bit more forward
• Bass is even heavier
  • Slightly more resolving of harmonic content
    • So there's the same level of power and control but slightly more resolve, resulting in not only a more natural sounding low end but more body as well
• Even Darker Up top
  • Slightly sweeter and a bit smoother with slightly less top end energy
  • But no loss of sparkle, snap or tactility

Certainly, the LCD 4Z is more of everything that makes Audeze unique and while it's just as easy to drive and more resolving than the MX4 I think overall it's dark beautiful super-resolved but marginally romantic sound wouldn't be the best tool for studio musicians and engineers. The more linear tonal balance of the MX4 still seems better suited for Studio Environments.

My only gripe with the MX4 is it's some what lack luster scaling. Again if I drop into my existing desktop system which drivers everything from my HD 800 to my LCD 2 Pre Fazor & my ZMF Eikon it's... more different than it is better. Given the price it's not as competitive in an existing collection or system like mine.

However I imagine for the many musicians and existing studio engineers out there that have interfaces, laptops and a variety of other Audio Devices that range in their amplification outputs but all need a headphone for monitoring the sheer resolve, efficiency and simplicity of owning an MX4 will likely win them over! Why recommend, buy or even spend the time putting together multiple stationary or portables systems for variety of sources when instead they could just buy a single headphone?



In conclusion I felt that at the end of the day, regardless of the system that you own whether it's a tower of portable gear, a single Digital Audio Player or Laptop, or even a full fledged desktop system Audeze MX4 offers not only some of the best comfort and any full sized Audeze can I've tried but also a fairly neutral and well resolved presentation. It in my experience consistently outperformed HD 800 on a variety of what I'd consider less than ideal play back devices and set ups! Proving it self to be one of the very best headphones to own for those whose time demands only the best in performance, comfort and efficiency!

Fiio's Q5 is a portable DAC/Amp featuring a dual AK 4490EN Chipset and a focus on wireless connectivity via BluTooth. Priced at $349 via Amazon, the Q5 also has a module Amp design with a dedicated 3.5mm sigle ended line out, dedicated digital Coax/Optical input and both 3.5mm single ended and 2.5mm fully balanced output for the headphone amp section.

In terms of sound quality, I found the USB Performance to be some what stuffy or hazy sounding. Overall it's performance was most impressive with Optical In and many of my subscribers and readers were also impressed with it's BluTooth Quality. Non the less with a hard wired optical in I found the Q5 to be;

• Fairly Neutral
  • Tonality did change slightly depending on the file format
  • At times it was very natural
  • Other times it was a bit hard and rougher sounding
• Having a thicker full low end
• Fairly Smooth on the Top
• Quite cohesive with good precision

So if you happen to own an older Digital Audio Player like the ole school iRiver Models the Q5 is a great way to use their Optical output and breath life back into them! I in-fact really enjoyed the pairing of the Q5 with my own iRiver H140. I had a Source with lot's of storage and a quick Graphic Interface and a DAC/Amp that I could pair it with so I got the best out of both devices!



I also enjoyed the Q5 with my wife's iPhone. It's included iPhone friendly Case was super convenient, so in terms of pure convenience for iPhone users the Q5 is un-matched!



So if your more concerned with ease of ownership than you are sound quality, I have to say the unique iPhone Case for the Q5 was the easiest portable solution to carry. As the phone retained full functionality with the DAC/Amp tucked neatly away behind it.

Though outside of iPhone Users who are looking for something super easy to own/use, I would likely recommend Android or Digital Audio Player owners to consider other options. As overall I wasn't impressed with this unit at the current price. Maybe a different amp Module would help but right now I don't see a common situation that this would serve well in.

Portable audio has always been on my radar. Back when I first assembled my desktop system my immediate next step was to replicate that level of quality in a portable system. An what I found is that I typically had to spend twice as much to get equivalent quality and often far less power. But that was almost 4 years ago. These days more and more companies are implementing high powered output via balanced amp typologies into their devices! Meaning that getting desktop reference quality audio on the go is becoming easier and easier, without needing the expensive and cumbersome stack-able towers of yesteryear!

Seeing as how I focused on entry level products in the winter months, for this review I'll be featuring a wider variety of mid-range products both individually and in comparison to my existing gear!As this was my focus for the spring season, I will also be starting my summer adventures by diving into modern Top Of the Line Digital Audio players.

For listening tests on mid range equipment & comparisons I used my AKG K701 single ended and my Modded Audio Technica ES10 balanced. I find that each of these headphones is more neutral than anything, with the K701 being a little brighter up top and the ES 10 being a little darker up top.

For our first look at more modern Digital Audio Players utilizing truly top of the line topology designs, my track list remains unchanged but I'll be switching between my HD 800, LCD 2 and modded Audio Technica ES10 with a few special guest appearances too!

I volume match each device/out with pink noise and my SPL Meter and I listened to about 3 tracks with each headphone and device. An you can refresh yourself on my current playlist by clicking here.

Let's start with a quick refresh on my 2017 product standards consisting of the;

• LH Labs Geek Out V2+ for my Mid-Range Reference
• Shanling M2S for my entry level Reference
• Hifiman HM901 Line Out to my;
  • HeadAmp PicoPowerSingle Ended Amp
  • iBasso PB2 Balanced Amp
    • As my Top of the Line Portable System

An with some relevant experience in Mid Range portables I'm happy to say it's time I dip my feet into the waters of Flagships!


The last time I purchased a player I went for a flagship, so I felt that before I start reviewing them again I should be familiar with at least some of what's out there for those of you who want a little more bang for you buck.



But moving forward I'll be focusing less on value, convenience and ease of ownership and more on end game fidelity.



Without further ado let's dive into the Questyle QP2R!



Packing is modest and it does the job, also a thank you to Todd The Vinyl Junkie for setting up this QP2R Tour!



So some background on the Questyle Dap, unlike traditional circuits, Questyle opt for Current Mode amplification. In short if my understanding is correct, the Voltage levels are fixed and the current is what amplifies. Unlike a traditional amp design in which the Current is Fixed and the Voltage is what's amplified, either way it operates in a pure Class A "current mode." The Questyle website has more information for those inclined!



Another unique feature of the amp is the Bias Control, again when the amp's under a heavy load setting the Class A Current Mode Bias to High helps to eliminate high frequency harmonic distortion. An most of you know that excessive distortion translates to noise, so any time we can reduce added distortion there are audible benefits assuming the load is "heavy" enough. Either way for my listening purposes I kept it set to High always. As a result battery life has been a little less than what's quoted but nothing too unmanageable.



Seeing as this is my first foray into Top of the Line Digital Audio Players I tested this one again'st quite a few of my own home systems and headphones!



How ever I only listened to the QP2R with it's 3.5mm Single End and 2.5mm Balanced Out. I didn't test it as a USB Driver Dac Amp nor did I use the Line Out Settings... but I think you need the HiFi Hub to get that feature... which I'm not a fan of. With the HiFi Hub the total cost of the unit creeps upwards of $1700, and while price isn't my concerns it's the very stationary and cumbersome nature of the Hub and the price increase I don't like. I got portable for well portability! Having a built in LineOut without any additional bulk means a lot to ME and those who will be using this as both an analog and digital source. Non the less though, at it's $1300 price point functioning purely as a standalone Digital Audio Player I do have to admit it's performance is stellar! Well worth the asking price.





I found that with my HD 800 and the 2.5mm balanced output the QP2R had;

• Exceptional naturalness in the mid range
  • Listening to Epica's The Divine Conspiracy I heard details in Simone and her husbands voice I'd not heard before!
• Exceptionally low noise
  • Or it presented a very black sound
    • Silence was inky and this lack of noise again lead to exceptional resolve
• Textured but smooth response
  • The overall lack of distortion really yields a smoother well resolved sound in both the mid range and upper end
    • No lack of detail or extension in the mids and up top, rather slightly more detail than I was expecting with no added harshness or grain
  • Fatigue free listening
• Fairly Soft Low End
  • Sufficient definition and texture, but slightly lacking in solidity and power
    • Kick drums lacked that "KICK" and an aggressive bass guitar riff was a little smeared
    • Cellos and Painos had beautiful timbre, tone and texture but again electrical instruments and percussion were slightly soft
• Lack of Headroom
  • With my most dynamic tracks I was only able to get an average of 83 dBs about 4 less than what I prefer to listen to [87 dBs averaged]

I also ran the Audeze MX 4 balanced out with an OCC Copper Cable from the 2.5mm on the QP2R, I found it to be;

• Clean, Clear but could extend a little deeper
  • Good power and slam with exceptional texture!
    • Here is where I found the High Bias to make a noticeable differance
  • Electric Bass Guitar riffs were dynamic, punchy with good bitw
  • Kick drums had IMPACT
  • An larger drums like the Timpani had a powerful heavy but slightly hollow sound as I expect them to
  • Though some of the deepest notes were slightly withdrawn
• Energetic Up Top
  • Had just enough clarity and presance
  • Percussion was snappy and never harsh
• Natural Mid Range
  • Again beautiful smooth but textured mid range
    • Harmonic content resolves nicely, beautiful release on guitars, vocals and stringed wood body instruments
    • Vocals have a nice little bit of added sweetness to them
• Intimate still but spacious
  • Precision is acceptable but cohesiveness and clarity in resolving complexly layered content is evident

With some a little more efficient I felt the QP2R really shined, it's natural and smooth but still dynamic and detailed presentation came through better with the Gain set to medium or lower and with more efficient current hungry planars than more voltage hungry dynamics like the HD 800 which often couldn't quite get to reference listening levels nor maintain a solid low end.





Ultimately though, with two different loads I deemed the QP2R to always present;

• An exceptionally low noise floor
  • Inky black background
    • So much so that there were some details presented to me by the QP2R that I'd not heard before out of my own home system!
      • An upon level matching I did in-fact identify such details in my home system but the slight addition of added noise made said details fall just shy of my notice in previous listening sessions
• Exceptionally low distortion
  • Allowing for incredible resolve with no added fatigue or harshness
  • Both Micro Detail and transients were exceptionally vivid
  • With no lack of dynamics
• Natural Timbre and tonality
  • Again both the fundamental and harmonic content of instruments and vocalists alike were always crystal clear
• Optimized for more Efficient Loads
  • Often running out of steam with more voltage hungry loads
  • Often losing some extension on the very deepest reaches with quieter tracks

So simply put, Questyle's newest reference digital audio player does everything we'd want it to! In my case it replicated and sometimes exceeded the quality of my own home system! It's only faults lie in a slight lack of power overall and definition down low.



Switching to my home system some of what's gained or clearer in the mid range and up becomes some what less vivid but there's added vividness and clarity down low. So again, I'm impressed given how small the unit is that it keeps paces with my current reference system.



Non the less, let's get into more specifics on how the QP2R compared to my other systems! Both portable and desktop.



Starting with my my Singled Ended and Mid Range Portables







With my Modded ES10 the QP2R;

• Simply out classed the Singled Ended Shanling M3S & Aune B1S system completely with it's own 3.5mm Single Ended output
• Simply out classed my Geek Out V2+ with it's own 2.5mm Balanced Output

Which I was a little shocked by, as my Geek Out v2+ gave the Hugo 2 [USB\] a run for it's money, in this comparison the QP2R showed no mercy and clearly beat the Geek Out V2+



How ever with my Single Ended HM901/HeadAmp Pico Power system I found that;

• The HM901/HeadAmp Pico Power System was overall better
  • Had a more linear response
    • Powerful and taut low bass
    • Very Clean slightly drier mid range
    • Better Top end extension
• Where as the QP2R fell a bit behind
  • It wasn't any quiter or blacker
  • Had a slight forwardness in the mid range that's apparent with this super sensitive OnEar
  • Had a slight over-emphasize on ambient noise
    • Not so much mechanical noises but stuff like floor board creaking
    • In a sense these details were more vivid but overly so
  • Just fell short of drawing me into the music
    • Technically it wasn't up to par with the HM901/PicoPower System
    • An the Timbre was as inviting as the with HM901/PicoPower System

So that kinda threw me for a loop! As it would seem the QP2R handles what I would consider moderately difficult loads best. As with the sensitive ES10 and the Difficult to Drice LCD 2 PreFazor it didn't wow me like it did with the MX4 and HD 800.







Speaking of the Pre Fazor LCD 2, output from the QP2R

• Again out classes the Geek Out v2+ in terms of technicalities
  • However the tonality and timbre were noticeable drier and kinda shouty?!
• So Your preference tonally may dictate how much you appreciate the improved technicalities

However compared to my HM901/PB2 System the QP2R falls a little short every where but the bass ironicaly;

• Tonality is noticeable drier
  • An some how less natural than the Hm901/PB2 System
• Background noise is reduced
  • So micro detail is sometimes better but odd tonality often skews some transients
• Ambient noise is exaggerated
  • Again the normally the LCD 2 is quite dark, but for some odd reasons with the QP2R it's noticeably brighter
  • Macro Dynamics are also some what exaggerated at the expense of micro dynamics
• Bass is quite textured however
  • I'm assuming it's because of the slightly more difficult load requirements of the current hungry Pre Fazor,

All in all I'm finding that I prefer my PreFazor LCD 2 on both of my ESS Sabre portables that have the high Frequency roll off digital filters.




So all in all I feel that with more modern offerings the QP2R would do well, with loads that are more standard. As the ES 10 is hyper efficient and the LCD 2 PreFazor on the opposite end of the spectrum. So cans like the LCD 2F would pair very well with the QP2R as would things like the DT 880/1990 and Hifiman HE 560. Though let's move upwards to other TOTL systems in my home!





Staring with the HD 800 vs the HM901 & iBasso PB2 System



Before we go further you should know my iBasso PB2 is modified with;

• LME 49990 High Performance OpAmps
• High Current Buffers
• Dedicated Portable Power Supply Unit
  • The internal battery has been removed and all power is kept at a stable & Constant 16V

Non the less, compared to this portable system with the HD 800 I found the;

• Bass
  • Tauter and more defined with HM901/PB2 System
    • Namely big timpani drums maintained a great sense of impact and weight, while balancing the hollow resonant trails that follow each strike
  • Kick Drums hit harder, faster and had a cleaner envelope overall
• Mid Range
  • Quite dry on the HM901/PB2 System
    • At times this was an advantage especially with Epica
      • Where beautifully warm wood bodied classical instruments are over laid with heavily distorted guitars
    • Though at times it was a disadvantage
      • Such as with Rebecca Pigeon's Spanish Harlem where the timbre of each instrument was slightly drier than reality
  • Wetter but no less defined with the Q2PR
    • With Heavy Metal the added wetness some times detracted from the aggressiveness of the track as a whole
    • But with softer acoustic pieces the presentation was more natural with no "dryness"
• Top End
  • Each unit had it's own advantages and disadvantageous
    • The HM901/PB2 system had clearly better top end extension which resulted in a better sense of pace & rhythm and time especially in percussion but it could also be fatiguing depending on the mastering
    • The QP2R was smoother up top, so while it didn't always have that vibrant sense of presence, rhythm and time it was never fatiguing
  • Resolve/Imaging
    • Volume matched each had no clear advantage over the other, how ever the increased headroom of the PB2 System allowed for "reference" listening levels at which slightly more resolve/imaging precision is possible due to a more even tonal perception

Now compared to my Reference SET Tube Amp the QP2R;

• Only had the advantage of a blacker background
  • Some detail in the mid range and up was more apparent but there was a lack of control and extension on the lowest registers of the audible spectrum
• More or less replicated and matched the cohesiveness and overall precision in imaging
• More or less replicated or matched my Desktop Amps sense of presence and tactility
  • Except in the lows
  • My Desktop Amp consistently presented a more detailed more controlled low end
• Struggled to provide sufficient headroom
  • Again with tracks that had exceptional dynamic range the QP2R was not able to bring these tracks up to at least 87 dBs on average

But overall with my HD 800 I can say for the vast majority of my collection the QP2R made for an excellent single box solution for some of you it's added simplicity and blacker background may be preferential over having a bulkier portable system with slightly more noise but sufficient head room and more controlled lows.



In either case Questyle certainly designed this product to very exceptionally match a desktop system on the go!





Moving to the MX4, with the HM901/PB2 System I noticed;

• Bass
  • Tighter more and more controlled over all
    • So big drums had more power
    • Kick drums had more impact
    • An large stringed instruments had a slightly more resolved or more audible fret action
• Mids
  • Mid-range quality on each was fairly similar
    • The QP2R was a smidge wetter and more natural so with a drier master or set of instruments it sounded more Natural
    • Where as the HM901/PB2 System was drier so with a wetter master, or a set of instruments with a lot of harmonic content THIS system sounded more natural
• Highs
  • With the QP2R system the MX4 did lose some vibrancy up top
  • Where as the HM901/PB2 System was no less smooth but more vibrant
    • I feel this has to do with the rougher presentation of the HM901 System combined with it's own HF Roll Off Filter allowing the texture of slight over emphasis to be present without the fatigue
• Resolve/Imaging
  • The QP2R did take a slight edge forward in overall resolve because of it's blacker output
  • However the more defined low end with the HM901/PB2 System did help to retain better precision in imaging

Now comparing the QP2R to my own Reference Hybrid Tube Amp

• Bass
  • Again better power and extension
• Mids
  • Now this is where things get interesting as;
    • The QP2R is equally natural but presents a slightly clearer more defined envelope
      • Allowing for the texture of stringed instruments
      • The unique vibrato of a vocalists
      • The unique harmonic decay/release of guitars
      • An other micro detail present in the mid range was a bit more resolved
    • My Project Ember II with a Classic Grade Psvanne CBT 181-T Mk2 was;
      • Fuller but not as detailed... period
• Highs
  • Again the QP2R was;
    • Clearer with a sharper attack
  • Where as the Ember II was;
    • A little smoother without as much emphasis on the leading edge
• Resolve/Imaging
  • Now dynamics are were the QP2R falls slightly behind the Ember II as;
    • The Ember II more clearly resolved micro and macro dynamics
    • An in many cases the Ember II was able to very realistically build to a crescendo
  • Where as the QP2R was;
    • Sharper but a tad over enthusiastic at times
    • Struggles with an accurate presentation of Pace, Rhythm and Time
    • Failed to draw me into any passage of music that gradually builds tension through changes in volume
  • However overall detail and precision in imaging was fairly similar between each
    • Again the QP2R has a blacker background
      • But doesn't seem to respond as quickly to the demands of busier passages of music
    • Where as the Ember II is a bit nosier
      • but handles changes in amplification needs more linearly, how ever add noise kinda nullifies some of the advantageous it has here

All in all I'm quite impressed with the QP2R, while I found it's lacking in some digital convinces as a purely analog digital audio player it's excellent! Seeing as I personally prefer my DAPs run purely offline and exclusively in the analog domain I feel that the QP2R is totally deserving of it's flagship status! I've always been a dedicated DAP & Line Out To Portable Amp guy but with the MX4 and Questyle's excellent on board current mode topology I could happily accept this as my end game reference portable!

Portable audio has always been on my radar. Back when I first assembled my desktop system my immediate next step was to replicate that level of quality in a portable system. An what I found is that I typically had to spend twice as much to get equivalent quality and often far less power. But that was almost 4 years ago. These days more and more companies are implementing high powered output via balanced amp typologies into their devices! Meaning that getting desktop reference quality audio on the go is becoming easier and easier, without needing the expensive and cumbersome stack-able towers of yesteryear!

Seeing as how I focused on entry level products in the winter months, for this review I'll be featuring a wider variety of mid-range products both individually and in comparison to my existing gear!As this was my focus for the spring season, I will also be starting my summer adventures by diving into modern Top Of the Line Digital Audio players.

For listening tests on mid range equipment & comparisons I used my AKG K701 single ended and my Modded Audio Technica ES10 balanced. I find that each of these headphones is more neutral than anything, with the K701 being a little brighter up top and the ES 10 being a little darker up top.

For our first look at more modern Digital Audio Players utilizing truly top of the line topology designs, my track list remains unchanged but I'll be switching between my HD 800, LCD 2 and modded Audio Technica ES10 with a few special guest appearances too!

I volume match each device/out with pink noise and my SPL Meter and I listened to about 3 tracks with each headphone and device. An you can refresh yourself on my current playlist by clicking here.

Let's start with a quick refresh on my 2017 product standards consisting of the;

• LH Labs Geek Out V2+ for my Mid-Range Reference
• Shanling M2S for my entry level Reference
• Hifiman HM901 Line Out to my;
  • HeadAmp PicoPowerSingle Ended Amp
  • iBasso PB2 Balanced Amp
    • As my Top of the Line Portable System

You may also recall that I adopted the Shanling M3s & Aune B1s as a mid range reference as well, while I still feel that system holds it's spot on my list I did not have it in home for this review. Moving forward however I will.

For this review I'll be starting on Mid-Range devices as this is where I spent the majority of my listening time this Spring, next we will be transitioning to a quick recap of some entry level favorites from my listening back in the Winter months. Finally before talking about my plans for the Summer I'll be disclosing my Favorite Mid-Range Portable for the Spring!

After which we'll switch gears and start with my first look, listen & review of a modern Flagship DAP, as during the Summer of 2018 I'll be focusing more on Top of the Line Portable Products!



We will start with the Cayin N5 Mk2ii which launched in late 2017 and is the third generation of the N Series players and the next step up from their N3 which I reviewed and lauded for it's plethora of digital features earlier last year. Priced at $369.99 from MusicTek via Amazon and built around a dual ESS 9018mk2 DAC Chipset and equipped with both a slow and sharp roll off filter in addition to both analog and digital line out options plus an Android 5.1 GUI. The N5ii offers a highly competitive set of features at this price point, it'll even function wireless as a Dac/Amp with your smart phone via BluTooth!



Overall the sound signature of this device is on the leaner side of neutral with exceptional low end texture and tautness, the digital filters do make slight changes to the presentation.

• Sharp-Roll off is;
  • More aggressive
  • Slightly brighter up top
  • Leaner Mid Range
  • Emphasized macro dynamics and macro detail
  • Exceptionally precise imaging but slightly disjointed
• Slow-Roll off is;
  • Ever so slightly laid back
  • Smoother Up top
    • With no loss in texture
  • Slightly wetter and more resolved in the mid range
    • With a slight emphasis on micro detail
  • De-emphasizes ambient noise
  • More balanced with macro and micro dynamic changes/shifts
  • More cohesive imaging with a slight lack of precision compared to Sharp-Roll off

Overall I felt the N5ii performed best with the Slow-Roll Off filter and a more neutral or lean sounding headphone, as it retained a very taut low end but become much more natural in the mid range and top end! How ever with darker and/or more laid back headphones the Sharp-Roll Off filter works better.



In terms of sound quality compared to the Fiio Q5 I found the N5ii advantages are that it is;

• Supremely consistent
  • Marginal difference in the quality of the balanced and Single Ended Output
    • Balanced was simply a high powered output there for the loads that needed it
  • No change in quality depending on file format
• Neutral Presentation
  • Offering two digital filters to tailor the mid to high frequency tonal balance to your tastes
  • Consistently taut low end regardless of filter choice
  • Never presented any kind of hazy or stuffiness
• Exceptional Resolve
  • Presenting more micro detail overall
  • consisting presenting more vivid micro and macro dynamics overall

In terms of tonality the N5ii presented;

• Drums
  • With slightly less body but more impact and definition.
    • So the size and mass of a timpani was more apparent
• Bass Guitars
  • With noticeably more punch
  • Better texture/resolve of the strings themselves
    • So harmonic content added from fretting was more vivid
    • Slight tapping or percussive sounds from fretting where also more evidant
    • Finally the slight metallic twang of the metal strings were more vivid
  • Less BODY but more power
    • Lower notes were not quite as brooding or dark but,
    • They were felt more forcefully with the N5ii
    • So EDM was funner and more enjoyable with the Q5 but most natural/electric instrument based music was just more resolving/better with the N5ii
• Guitars [Acoustic & Electric]
  • Slightly Drier
    • But with improved clarity and more vivid harmonic content
    • Again fretting was more vivid
    • The texture of how the musician plays or strums each string is clearer
  • Harder
    • With a more defined envelope overall

So forth an so on, just in general I found the Q5 to be rather lack luster... it's acceptably neutral but more or less kinda soft with the USB input. An the USB input is how I primary use a DAC/Amp.



Compared to the Shanling M3S the Cayin N5ii was in an entirely different league! Quite literally everything is improved, the User Interface has more power and options plus I think it's even easier to use. The sound quality from both the 3.5mm and 2.5mm outputs were better. The N5ii also supports more digital output options so the only reason I see to recommend the M3S is if you plan to use the Line Out. As the line out of each was... not as drastically different.

Specifically the with my K702 and Pico Power in hand I found theN5ii Line out differs in that;

• The Slow and Sharp Roll Off Filters attenuate the Top End
• Where as the M3S filters are Low Pass and attenuate how the Bottom End is Presented

Overall though in every instance the N5ii has a tauter more natural and detailed low end. The only potential benefit to the M3S is it's lack of Android, as I understand that some of you simply have NO desire to own an Android based Digital Audio Player.

So again, if your budget is constrained to something under $300 or your HATE Android based Graphic Interfaces, than yes the M3S is quite good. But if you don't mind Android and can stretch your budget an extra $90 you'll find the N5ii is really a better product overall.



What surprised me the most during my time with the N5ii was how well it compared again'st my Geek Out V2+, though the two do share a similar DAC Chipset and digital filter suite. I did find that hardware aside, the inclusion of digital filters on both helped each to adapt to the music. In some cases the Sharp Roll Off Filter on the N5ii helped better define the audible image of music that is already mastered very "naturally." An in other cases the Blue Filter of the Geek Out V2+ would do much the same, present a slightly less natural tonal balance in exchange for a more defined audible image. Also each had a high frequency roll off filter that created a more natural sounding, slightly less aggressive and more defined sound with brighter/leaner headphones.

But not considering the digital filters impact I found;

• The N5ii's singled ended output was simply;
  • cleaner
    • the trailing end of each and every note played by a guitarist is more vivid
  • more natural
    • brass horns retain a nice bite without ever being too metallic
  • more resolved
    • a blacker background allows micro and macro detail to become more apparent
  • more nuanced
    • precision in the placement of sounds within a space are more tangible
      • Like the sound of the crowd in a live recording
  • Just plain better
• The balanced performance of the N5ii was consistently behind that of the Geek Out V2+ in that it lacked;
  • Nuance and resolve overall
    • Again, while tonal balance imaging cohesion and precision are comparable the Geek Out v2+ was almost always more resolving of micro detail overall
  • Each how ever presented Micro and Macro details with a fairly similar level of resolve
• How ever when more power was needed for harder to drive loads the N5ii Balanced output was a step up from the Single Ended Output

Now I also compared the Line Out of the N5ii to the balanced out of the Geek Out V2+ and while I found using my HeadAmp Pico Power helped close the gap in detail, the Geek Out V2+ was still better. How ever I did notice with the Line Out the N5ii was in every instance more defined, more powerful and just simply better at presenting low frequency information!

So while listening to my live rip of Hotel California & the N5ii I noticed;

• More power on the trailing notes of the big drum as it came to rest after each hit
• Cleaner translation of fret noise/action on the bass lines

So in my final days with it I really found my self personally torn between having the N5ii Singled Ended Line Out with my Pico Power and ES10 operating single ended or just running the ES10 Fully balanced out of my Geek Out V2+. For some genres of music I would rather have that better low end detail and for others I valued a slightly more resolved mid to top end presentation.

While the balanced output is better WHEN the power it adds is needed, in terms of sheer value the singled ended output of the N5ii by it self was what stuck with me the most! I'm used to the madness of my Portable Audio Towers, but for many of you they elegance and simplicity of a truly high performance single box solution is what'll you'll reach for most!



Fiio's Q5 is a portable DAC/Amp featuring a dual AK 4490EN Chipset and a focus on wireless connectivity via BluTooth. Priced at $349 via Amazon, the Q5 also has a module Amp design with a dedicated 3.5mm sigle ended line out, dedicated digital Coax/Optical input and both 3.5mm single ended and 2.5mm fully balanced output for the headphone amp section.

In terms of sound quality, I found it's USB Performance to be some what stuffy or hazy sounding. I listened to a variety of different DAC/Amps with my Cell/PC, using the same cables, tracks and software suites. An each time the Q5 just sounded stuffy.

Overall it's performance was most impressive with Optical Input from my iRiver H140. Thus I continued to listen and my my assessment of it with this input, despite Optical being a usually sub-par digital input VS USB.

While I didn't listen to it with Bluetooth I found many of my subscribers were impressed with it's BluTooth Quality. Non the less with a hard wired optical in I found the Q5 to be;

• Fairly Neutral
  • Tonality did change slightly depending on the file format
  • At times it was very natural
  • Other times it was a bit hard and rougher sounding
• Having a thicker full low end
• Fairly Smooth on the Top
• Quite cohesive with good precision

So if you happen to own an older Digital Audio Player like the ole school iRiver Models the Q5 is a great way to use their Optical output and breath life back into them! I in-fact really enjoyed the pairing of the Q5 with my own iRiver H140. I had a Source with lot's of storage and a quick Graphic Interface and a DAC/Amp that I could pair it with so I got the best out of both devices!



I also enjoyed the Q5 with my wife's iPhone. It's included iPhone friendly Case was super convenient, so in terms of pure convenience for iPhone users the Q5 is un-matched!



Additionally I have to say the unique iPhone Case for the Q5 was the easiest portable solution to carry. As the phone retained full functionality with the DAC/Amp tucked neatly away behind it.

Still overall based on my experience with both inputs, I felt that with USB the Q5 was not competitive there are other products that sounds better or equivalent for much less. Optical though was really very impressive for some reasons, sadly though optical isn't a convenient nor common input/output method much these days. So overall I can't really recommend this product, unless your an Optical User.

Finally, you may notice I didn't feature my HD 800 in any of these portable systems. In each it either sounded less than ideal or just couldn't get up to volume. I still feel that the Aune B1S with any good Digital Audio Player is hands down one of the best portable amps in the mid range price point for driving leaner headphones like the HD 800!


Next though let's do a quick recap on some of my favorite entry level devices.



An pictured above are still my two favorite products in the under $200 price point.

The Shanling M2s for it's;

• Easy to master single handed operation
• Phenomenal Analog output

And the iFi iDSD Nano Black Label for its;

• Assortment of Hard Line Connections
  • Line Out
  • Pseudo Balanced Via 3.5mm TRRS
  • IE Match Port for super sensitive earphones/iems
• Spacious & Airy Presentation
• Adjustable tonal balance via the Measure & Listen Filters

But overall out of everything I've heard since the Winter of 2017 and up to the Spring of 2018 I have to say it's the Cayin N5ii that's impressed me most! So if your exploring portable Audio Solutions this spring I cannot recommend the N5ii enough! Price aside it's performance was phenomenal, but when you consider that it's just $370 as of this writing! It easily blows the competition out of the water, truly a high fidelity jack of all trades player combing the excellent suite of digital options I appreciated about the N3 with an exceptional analog output stage.




An with some relevant experience in Mid Range portables I'm happy to say it's time I dip my feet into the waters of Flagships!

Audeze's LCD 2 is a headphone that's long held a top spot in recommendations for an enjoyable but resolving listen for under $1,000 an it's certainly earned it! Though over the years it's sound signature has slowly changed just a little, leading to a lot of discussion of which revision is best and which people are referring to when they recommend it! With all this in mind I reached out to Audeze directly through a contact I met and was able to secure a listen of their two newest production models to compare alongside my older PreFazor Edition.



So what we have here is the LCD 2F with their latest revision [2017] Fazor alongside the LCD 2C which is the "classic" tuning without the Fazor. Alongside my own PreFazor'd LCD 2 from 2012!

Now prior to this comparison, I heard the LCD 2 twice, once in 2014 and again in 2016. The 2014 featured their vegan pads and headband. While super comfy that version struck me as very fast & detailed but noticeably sucked out up top and a little uneven tonally. The next revision I heard in 2016 was a bit more balanced with rosewood cups and leather pads and I felt it was still... lacking in comparison to my HE 4.

So while I always respect the LCD 2, I never really enjoyed it in my own system which made it a difficult recommendation. But upon purchasing my 2012 PreFazor'd LCD 2 I noticed it was far faster and more tonally balanced than both of the previous revisions I'd heard before! So much so I actually sold my HE 4 as the LCD 2 I had finally outclassed it without any reservations!

In my search to understand why I liked this older LCD 2 in comparison to newer models I discovered many threads and conversations about the differences in each of the different models over the years alongside tons of discord about which was best. Clearly Audeze had been listening to this as the more I read, the more positive feedback I heard about their latest fazor revision. Then to top it off Audeze launched their 2C Classic which was as return to a fazorless LCD 2 sound!

So as of today I'm happy to say their current models are a clear step above both of the revision I've heard in the past, but the question remains... how do these 2 newest models compare to the old school LCD 2 sound?



Let's start by looking at the differences in build, as excessive weight and a lack of comfort have also existed alongside the LCD 2's reputation since the beginning.



Starting with the original notice the aggressive angle on the leather pads and simple padded headband design. In terms of comfort this model is noticeably heavier and less comfortable to wear, though it's pads feel like genuine animal skin leather. Additionally the grain on the bamboo wood cups is much more noticeable, though in truth the Audeze 2 has been featured in a variety of woods over the years so Bamboo nor this grain pattern are unique to the older models.



Moving onto the LCD 2F we see it has thicker more plush pads and a new headband design! In reality the new headband massively improves the weight distribution of the headphones overall and the plush pads are noticeably more comfortable than the older pads. How ever the newer pads feel more like synthetic leather than a traditional anime hide material. Also I believe that as of today Bamboo is the only wood offered through Audeze for the cups.



Finally their newest model the 2C or Classic features composite cups with molded cable connectors in the same style of the original Audeze LCD 2. One of the biggest issues with those original molded wood cable jacks was durability. They would break down over time resulting in Audeze adopting the black plastic jack housings we saw on the two wood cupped LCD 2s. That said, again with the introduction of the composite cup and new headband the 2 Classic is just a little bit lighter than both the older LCD 2 and 2F models. Making it a little more comfortable, especially over longer listening sessions!

So how about the sound? For this review I'll only be comparing the LCD 2 models to each other, I won't be delving into how they compare to other headphones as I feel that's been covered extensively by many other reviews. That an I also feature comparisons to my LCD 2 in many of my headphone reviews so hopefully those of you who are following my audio experience have already gotten some insight into this matter.

An as a whole the LCD 2 family is characterized by;

• Heavy solid linear low end
• Full bodied low and central mid range
• Slightly withdrawn upper mid range
• A fairly dark top end presentation
  • Though of all three models this is where they vary the most
• Slightly intimate presentation with good depth and clarity
• Excellent micro detail & resolve with a slight lack of macro detail
  • So transients related to the musician, instruments themselves and the vocalists are more vivid than ambient noises such as foot steps, machinery, or other accidental noises
    • For some of you this is a positive as you may find the inclusion of such "noises" intrusive to the music as a whole
• Impressively quick dynamics
  • changes in both micro and macro dynamics are equally evident

Now for this review I did volume match each headphone with pink noise and my SPL Meter, and I listened to a variety of my own reference tracks including;

1. Hotel California - Hell Freezes Over - Eagles [ Simply Vinyl 180g Remaster RIP in 24bit]
   • I like this specific mastering for it's vastly improved imaging precision and clarity! I and many friends have noted how much clearer, nuanced and precise the overall presentation is for this track vs the usual CD Mastering that many of you may be used to.
   • That aside, while I personally enjoy the Eagles music, I keep this track in rotation because of how well known it is! Many of you have heard it extensively so references to how sounds from the track are presented by each headphone should be easy to understand and extremely relevant.
2. Sweet Georgia Brown-Monty Alexander-The Ultimate Demonstration Disc [Chesky Records 16bit]
   • This tracks a little quicker than all the rest, the aggressive play style of each of the musicians helps to showcase the characteristics of each headphones envelope
3. Spanish Harlem -Rebecca Pidgeon-The Ultimate Demonstration Disc [Chesky Records 16bit]
   • Another Audiophile classic, but I feel this track helps to showcase overall tonal balance and micro detail.
   • Unlike the previous tracks, the band's composition is a little simpler and the recording is of astonishingly quality and has this insane sense of spaciousness. I feel this track best showcases the naturalness of a headphone, as the timbre and envelope of each instrument is exceptionally vivid!
4. The Divine Conspiracy - The Divine Conspiracy - Epica - [Special Edition Vinyl RIP in 24Bit]
   • Again the mastering on this edition is noticeably more dynamic than the CD version.
   • That aside, the track as a whole features both traditional classical elements/instruments and those found in Heavy Metal. So there's a mix of both the natural beauty of traditional wooded string instruments blended with the more aggressive nature of distorted electric guitars.
   • What I like most about this track though is it's overall depth and how the band blends these two contrasting musical styles together! This is also an extremely busy track and can sound congested or cacophonous from headphones that feature a very unbalanced tonal presentation and/or lack in clarity.

I also tested each headphone out with my fully balanced portable solid state and full sized single ended hybrid tube systems to see how well each paired with different circuits as well as how they each performed in different circumstances.

An a final word before we delve into sound quality, I personally feel that both solid state and tube designs have their own advantages! An the same applies for Vinyl and Digital formats, I also have a fondness for a good Vinyl Rip not because I feel the medium is better but in many cases the mastering for Vinyl is sometimes better than Digital. But as with the Tube VS Solidstate, Balanced VS Single End & Vinyl VS CD deabtes, I feel each has it's own unique advantageous and disadvantageous. That each of you really need to explore within your own systems and homes!

Overall in terms of amplification needs, I found that my PreFazor 2012 LCD 2 was much more difficult to power! In most cases I could run the LCD 2F and 2C out of each amp/system without needing to adjust the volume. However each time I dropped my 2012 PreFazor LCD 2 into my system right after having the 2F\2C I found the volume to be about 3 dBs lower with the same volume & gain settings. An this was consistent among all of my systems and amplifiers. Simply put, the 2012 PreFazor LCD 2 is more difficult to drive than it's newer siblings!

That said let's break down the simple differences between each without considering how or what impact the amplifier or DAC had.



Overall I found the LCD 2F to be slightly dark with a drier sound and a focus on clarity and precision over naturalness.

With Rebecca Pidgeon's Spanish Harlem I noticed;

• The bass guitar had exceptional clarity but lacked a little power an impact
• There was a slight exaggeration to the echo of Rebecca's voice
• Her voice was very airy and slightly rougher comparatively
• The strums of the guitar's had exceptional clarity
  • the leading edge of each individual string was vivid
  • how ever the tone of the guitar's and other stringed instruments was a little dry lacking some sweetness
• Each shake of the shaker was exceptionally vibrant
  • The unique texture of each individual shake was clear and the instrument it self sounded very natural
• Violins were slightly too dry and had some roughness
• The 2F resolved a lot of micro detail in the guitars
  • Especially with regards to the unique fretting of each musician
  • Had a slight focus more on the fundamentals over the harmonics
• An overall the presentation was expansive with good precision and cohesiveness

While listening to Monty Alexander's Sweet Georgia Brown the LCD 2F;

• Had slight forwardness in the low & central midrange
  • This resulted in a very intimate presentation of the Piano and Horns
    • Additionally the tonal balance of the 2F aided in it's impressive dynamic clarity
  • An as a whole the 2F was had consistently excellent dynamics especially in the lows and mid range
• Despite being quite dark up top
  • The timbre and envelope for drums was excellent as was it's overall dynamics presentation
    • But overall the 2F still struggled with resolving some ambient noise

• The bass presentation for both the electric and acoustic bass featured excellent clarity
  • But a slight lack of power
• Horns had a nice forwardness and good leading edge
  • But a often too much of a metallic bite

Listening to Epica's The Divine Conspiracy with the LCD 2F I found that;

• Good definition in the lows
  • Bass guitar had good impact with clearly defined fretting
  • Big drums were full, heavy with a slight tinge of their inherent hollowness
• Simone's voice was exceptionally airy and slightly forward
• The stringed instruments placed towards the back of the track were clearly defined
  • Though slightly more forward vs the other LCD2s
• The drums were quite powerful and full
  • Excellent macro dynamics and impact
• Guitars had a very crunchy presentation
• Her husbands growling vocals were very rough and aggressive
  • I actually really enjoyed this slightly drier rough and forward presentation

Again compared to the other LCD 2's the latest Fazor'd LCD 2F was;

1. Expansive and airy with good precision & cohesion despite a slightly forward mid range
2. Has the least amount of power and slam in the lows
   • but exception clarity, definition and texture
3. Was slightly drier in the mid range
   • slightly aggressive presentation with a slight focus on the attack and decay with a slight de-emphasis sustain & release
4. Well extended up top with great definition despite a slightly darker than neutral presentation
5. Slightly clearer macro dynamics

Overall I found the LCD 2C to be the darkest with a wet sound and a focus on naturalness, a beautiful timbre and hefty low end

With Rebecca Pidgeon's Spanish Harlem I noticed;

• A thick powerful bass presentation
  • The heft and weight of the lows was apparent but texture was slightly smoothed
• Each of the guitars were beautifully voiced, vivid and exceptionally resolved
  • Each of the strings had a nice individual weight and force to them
    • There was no lack of tactility despite the added wetness
• Vocals were hearty
  • But at times lower notes in her register were a little too emphasized
  • The echo of her voice is the room was a bit less obvious
• The piano was slightly creamy with an apparent percussiveness
  • The weight of each stroke of the keys was clear
  • An despite the creamy presentation there was no lack of texture in the piano
• Shaker variation was slightly muffled
  • Of all three LCD 2s this one was the darkest and least resolved up top
• Violins were slightly beautiful
  • Again the body of the instrument was apparent and there was a nice slightly sweet tinge to the sound
• The 2C resolved a lot of micro detail in the guitars
  • Especially with regards to the unique harmonics of each individual instrument
• Clearly resolved micro dynamics or the slight and gradual changes in volume and intensity
  • Especially for instruments ranging within the lows and central mid range
• Presentation is fairly intimate, but impressively natural, powerful an engaging
  • Despite not being as expansive as the 2F it wasn't ever too congested and had good cohesion in the precision of instruments within the space
    • Though it isn't quite as cohesive or precise as the 2F

While listening to Monty Alexander's Sweet Georgia Brown the LCD 2F;

• Has slight forwardness in the low mid-range
  • With an excellent timbre and dynamic presentation for the piano
• As a whole the 2C did well with the sudden and constant dynamic shifts within this track
• Is the darkest
  • As such the timbre and envelope for drums was slightly subdued
  • Ambient noise and macro detail was again slightly out of focus vs transients and micro detail

• Both the electric and double bass had a powerful presentation
  • With a lot of impact and slam though also a slight lack of definition
• Horns were quite full with a nice chesty gusto present
  • The slight metallic tinge I often hear with horns is gently subdued with the 2C
    • Rather horns had a beautiful full bodied timbre with a gentle bite
  • The upper mid dip often associated with the LCD 2 family is most evident though it's much less invasive than what I found in previous models in 2014/2016

Listening to Epica's The Divine Conspiracy with the LCD 2F I found that;

• Tons of power in the bass
  • Slight lack of definition but with an lot of slam
• Simone's voice was a bit stuffy with too much emphasis in the lower notes
• The stringed instruments placed towards the back of the track had beautiful timbre
  • But were slightly muffled
• The drums were quite full
  • The kick drum in particular had some serious SLAM
• Guitars had a good crunch and edge with a nice touch of sweetness
• Her husbands growling vocals were foreboding and POWERFUL
  • A slightly withdrawn mid-range let's the texture of the notes in his lower register shine a little more
    • While slightly different in presentation I also really enjoyed it

Again compared to the other LCD 2's the LCD 2C

1. Very natural full bodied presentation
2. Has excellent power, slam and IMPACT
   • But with a slight lack in clarity, definition and texture
3. A smidge wetter in the mid range
   • Just a bit smoother in presentation with a slight focus on the sustain and release with a slight de-emphasis attack
     • I found the overall decay of instruments to be mostly neutral
4. Having the least definition up top
   • Percussion was still powerful and dynamic, but not quite as vivid nor impressive as on the other 2 models
5. Excellent micro detail and micro dynamics!
   • With a slightly subdued macro dynamic presentation

Overall I found the 2012 PreFazor LCD 2 to be a step above each of the previous models. Really combing the best of both

With Rebecca Pidgeon's Spanish Harlem I noticed;

• A truly powerful low end
  • With no lack of texture or definition
• Each of the guitars were beautifully voiced, vivid and exceptionally resolved
  • Each of the strings had a nice individual weight and force to them and vivid tactility despite being sweet and wet
• Vocals were sweet, slightly smooth and well resolved
  • The airiness and echo in her voice was presented with exceptional balance
    • There was a clear sense of the rooms size without any exaggeration
• The piano was slightly creamy with an apparent percussiveness
  • The weight of each stroke of the keys was clear
  • An despite the creamy presentation there was no lack of texture in the piano
• Shaker variation was the most vivid
  • Of all three LCD 2s this one was the brightest and had the best definition and precision
  • I actually noticed that the shaker moves around quite a bit both vertically and horizontally
    • The 2012 PreFazor had the most precise and cohesive imaging
• Violins were slightly beautiful
  • Again the body of the instrument was apparent and there was a nice sweet tinge to the sound
  • The sustain of notes on the violin had the most natural timbre with the 2012 PreFazor
• Excellent resolve of a lot of micro detail across the full spectrum
  • With equal focus the unique harmonics of each individual instrument both while notes were sustained and as the gently decay'd and faded into silence upon release
  • Clearly defined the unique edge of the fundamental notes present in the attack and interwoven into the sustain
• Clearly resolved micro dynamics or the slight and gradual changes in volume and intensity
  • Again with full spectrum coverage
• An overall the presentation was fairly intimate
  • But more cohesive, precise and airy than the 2F despite being slightly less expansive

While listening to Monty Alexander's Sweet Georgia Brown the LCD 2F;

• Excellent timbre and dynamic presentation for the piano
  • Great dynamics and the most cohesive and precise imaging
  • Had the MOST percussive presentation of the bunch
• Excellent dynamics both micro & Macro
  • Top end was also the most forward and well extended
  • As a whole there was no lack of dynamics any where
    • Drums in particular were the most dynamic, resolved and impactful!
• Tactile, Powerful and near perfect low end presentation
  • Fret noise, slight sliding present in the fret board for the electric and double bass, really no detail is spared!

• Horns were quite full with a nice chesty gusto present
  • slight metallic twinge present but very subtle
    • bite was a little more apparent with less of a metallic edge to it
  • Nice airiness and warmth overall

Listening to Epica's The Divine Conspiracy with the LCD 2F I found that;

• Again low end was optimal
• Simone's voice was both beautiful and full with a nice airyness
  • Really the 2012 PreFazor shined the most with her beautiful vocals, with excellent layering of not only her voice atop the guitars but also the multitude of background vocalists as well
• The stringed instruments placed towards the back of the track had beautiful timbre
  • And good precision
• The drums were powerful
  • Though the only problem in this track is the overall quality of the high hats, this some what poor texture is most evident on the 2012 PreFazor
  • How ever the tom and kick drums were incredibly dynamic and explosive
• Guitars had a good crunch and edge with a nice touch of creamy sweetness
• Husbands growling vocals were foreboding and POWERFUL but also with an aggressive edge
• Dynamics were most vivid on this track with the 2012 PreFazor

Again compared to the other LCD 2's the 2012 PreFazor is;

1. Exceptionally Wet & Creamy
2. Crazy resolving
3. Slightly intimate but with exceptional precision and cohesive imaging
4. Hands down the standard for how Bass should be presented at this price point
   • Has the most power with no loss of quality, texture or control
5. Slightly dark but with good texture and resolve up top
6. Slightly slower or rather more romantic than the newer models
   • though this added body/decay or sweetness doesn't take away from it's resolve

In this case, I do feel a good quality LCD 2 PreFazor model is a step above the newer models. An as much as I love my model there are issues with ownership of any of these old school LCD2, many of these models have hundreds of hours on them and once they fail there's no option for repair. Only replacement with newer drivers. Additionally assuming you get a good one they are far more difficult to drive and under-amping them will put the overall performance below that of the newer models.

Now the question is how do you get an ideally tuned PreFazor LCD 2? Well honestly, there's no guarantee. I only recommend that you purchase from some one whose had it for many years and some one whose impressions your familiar with and trust! These are not headphones you want to buy blind unless your in a position to tolerate a financial loss.

Generally I feel the newer models are a better purchase, or at least a better recommendation for the majority! An for those curious I did these general impressions with my reference system. Which features an amp that can run about 2,000mW+ into the LCD 2 as well as another that can do upwards of 5,000mW+, an while the newer models didn't see a vast improvement on these amps the 2012 PreFazor did. So again given the slightly more difficult amping requirements, the unknown life span and overall difficulty in acquiring one. I highly recommend any one out there skip all of the older models and go with either the 2F or 2C depending on which your preference! With the only exception being those of you with no real budget in mind for buying a headphone or lots of time to wait!

Non the less I do feel overall the 2C does capture that classic PreFazor sweetness and power, while being a bit quicker overall and easier to drive. How ever the 2F is also an excellent option for those that want a little more detail an linearity in exchange for some naturalness and heft.

Next up is how each of the different models changed with amplification! An were going to start with a fully balanced solid state for portable use!


For these impressions I stuck with Spanish Harlem from Rebecca Pidgeon and used my Geek Out v2+ with balanced output. I also used a custom flat braid Copper Cable that's been wired/terminated for balanced use with my Norne Audio 4pin XLR to 3.5mm TRRS Adapter.

Overall it's from this system that I felt the two newer Audeze LCD 2 models caught up with my PreFazor'd edition as while the individual imaging characteristics of each remained the same I do feel that the resolve of all three was more or less on par with this amp.

An in terms of power I'd say even this balanced amp falls a little short at only 1,000w into 16ohms. Give that the LCD 2 is around 70 means were getting maybe around a 4th of that output... maybe! Sadly I don't have the exact numbers for how the GO V2+ handles higher impedance loads, though it will run upwards of 4v into a load!

Speaking of my Geek Out v2+ has a dual ESS Sabre 9018 Dac with a high frequency roll off and Texas Instruments TPA 6120A Output OpAmp, so overall it's fairly natural but leans a little on the drier side.

The filters made a big impact on the sound as well, and I use the Green Filter which features high frequency roll off that helps to add in a slightly more natural sound.

Non the less, resolution and overall imaging aside each headphone did have a slight change in tonal balance with this pairing!

Overall with this portable balanced amp the LCD 2F had;

• Better macro detail
• Slightly more exaggeration in "airy vocals" and room echo

So in the end I wasn't a big fan of this pairing.

However with the LCD 2C I noticed;

• Slightly more top end energy and airiness
• A smidgen drier

In this case, I did like the touch of added clarity and top end energy that running a solid state amp brought to LCD 2C!

As for my 2012 PreFazor LCD 2 it had;

• A little more top end energy
• less bass power/heft/texture

So under driven the 2012 PreFazor losses some of it's texture/heft and power but gains a little top end energy... which it honestly doesn't always need. But it does well enough I suppose!

In conclusion, again, I feel that the newer models do better in this and other portable situations! An the LCD 2C in particular pairs better with brighter solid states than it's siblings.


Next up is my Garage 1217 Project Ember II, this is a single ended hybrid tube that can push upwards of 2w into the LCD 2! This is my reference amp for planars for it's overall clarity and power, and this is the amp where the 2012 PreFazor LCD 2 shined best!

It's creamy, wet and almost honey like mid range are what I like most about it! So with an upgraded 6SN7 I feel the Ember II allows it to be it's best self! The Hybrid Tube amp in this configuration is in my opinion more natural than anything, though I pair it with a rather bright DAC so the slight warmth of the Tube does help balance out the aggressive sound of my DAC.

That aside, with a Hybrid Tube I felt the 2012 PreFazor LCD 2;

• Maintains a good balance of both naturalness in the mid range and power/clarity on the top end bottom end
• Has an even deeper presentation and more spacious imaging

So as you all know, the Ember II is my go to amp for Planar's especially for under $400!

With a Hybrid Tube I felt the LCD 2F;

• Gained some much needed naturalness
  • a slight added wetness and body helps to balance out the 2Fs drier sound
• Gains some added heft in the low end

Again for the drier and more expansive sounding Audeze I feel Hybrid Tube amps will be an especially good match!

Finally with the Audeze LCD 2C and my Hybrid Tube Amp;

• Had an even sweeter, lusher and smoother sound
  • without much loss of texture in the midrange and top end but vocals still remained a bit too thick
• Gained a little more airiness
  • Percussion in particular had a nicer presentation

Finally, with the Audeze LCD 2C I still preffer the sound of my own solid state equipment, but can also see how others may appreciate the added sweetness

Overall in terms of amplification as long as you have enough power, whether you go solid state or tube, fully balanced or single end really depends on your system and preference!

I personally think more aggressive solid state or tube amps pair well with the LCD 2C and slightly more relaxed solid state or tube amps pair nicely with the LCD 2F!



Now as a final point I'd like to talk briefly about cables, my own 2012 PreFazord LCD 2 came with an aftermarket cable copper cable built by it's previous owner. It's fully balanced and terminated to 4pin XLR. Something I did notice is with the stock cable each of the models was noticeably stuffy! So given how resolving the LCD 2 is I do recommend you guys do take a look at upgrading from the stock cable before you look at getting another headphone. Doing so does a couple of things for you;

• Gives you an opportunity to grab a balanced cable + balanced to Single End Adapter
  • This way your not limited to just single ended amplification and having more options is always a benefit, especially if your planning use these are your primary headphones
  • With the rise of the dual mini 4pin XLRs as a headphone side connector, your able to use your upgraded cable with not only your LCD 2 but what ever else you choose to upgrade to in the future!
• An in my opinion yields a slight but noticeable improvement in sound quality.

An regardless of what you think of cables, I do at least encourage you guys to at least grab a nice copper cable with a balanced termination and adapter. That way you'll always have that option at your hands! An please do stop by my Cable Matters thread, for mine and others impressions of a variety of different cables over the years!



Finally let's talk about upgrades! Primarily how does the 2012 PreFazor LCD 2 with an upgraded cable compare to something like the Audeze MX4 with just the stock cable?

Well I gave my copy of Hotel California a listen and untimely found;

• That it doesn't compare

Simply put even with the stock cable the MX4 clearly shows it's self as being a step above even the best LCD 2 I've heard! Quite literally everything is improved so the MX4 offers;

• Better resolve of both transients and spacial information
  • so the position of the strike of that big drum moves around a little more
• Texture in the spectrum as a whole
  • So an even more defined tactile edge on each of the guitars individual strings
    • giving you an even deeper appreciation for the beauty of a 12 string guitar
• even more precise imaging
• Marginally less bass power,
  • But... while the bass is a little drier and not quite as powerful it does have a similar sense of heft and impact
  • Overall I feel that maybe the MX4s bass is still a step above all the LCD 2s I've heard
• Even more efficient and easier to drive
• Even lighter and more comfortable

Even better if you add that nice upgraded cable from your LCD 2 as I found with my upgraded Copper Cable;

• There was a bit more power in the bass! Leaving the LCD 2 completely defeated
• Slightly more natural mid range
  • Again with the stock cable I felt the MX4 was... kinda both stuffy and dry upgrading helped add in a little more mid-range decay and more clearly resolved some extension on the release making the overall envelope that much more natural
• Improved clarity on the top end
  • The bongo drum in the intro suddenly... gains a little more space in and around it. An with that better defined sense of space it's a little more captivating than before! The clarity of each strike and the fullness of the instrument itself really grabbed my attention on the MX4

But even with just the stock cable again the MX4 is in a whole other league from the LCD 2.


That said, I appreciate you guys for reading over this review! I hope that it helped to clarify some questions you had concerning the variation among the different models! An again, overall I felt that in-conclusion the two newer LCD 2 Models to be the more desirable recommendations! As they are;

• Lighter and more comfortable to wear over long periods
• Easier to drive and ultimately need less power overall to reach their max potential
• Have a more established life span and continuous support from Audeze
• An established sound signature and excellent resolve
  • And they scale nicely too

Again while I felt overall the older model was better sounding, it's still too much of a gamble to have my full recommendation! As with the newer models you've got 2 slightly different established sound signatures to choose from without any worry about "losing" anything moving forward! That and their just so easy to own and enjoy! Without any of the fuss or stress of having an older model to bother with.

Three years ago today, Joseph Grado the founder and mastermind behind Grado Headphones left us, today in honor of his legacy and memory I'd like to talk a little about my time Grado's two most recent and sublimely impressive flagships the PS 2000E and GS 2000E.



There's something special about home isn't there, not just your house but the land you grew up in. The air you breathed for many years, the sky you looked into and the stars you saw. Maybe not every one remembers home as fondly as I do, but I grew up in the country of South Carolina. An for me despite a less than perfect family, I remember home well. I loved playing in the woods, eating Muscadine grapes and Bradford pears in the fall. An I remember the music, and what I love about Grado as a company is that Mr.Grado in his final years spent quite a bit of his time in my home state. Breathing the same air, looking up at the same sky, awakening each morning to the same sun-rise. Part of me would like to think our shared appreciation for the South Carolinian country side and culture is also why I enjoy the Grado Sound so much.

An the PS2KE and GS2KE really embody what I love about Grado's, while they lie on different end's of the spectrum they are connected by not only their aesthetics but uniquely distinct presentation! An in reality the two compliment each other extremely well.

Build



Black Leather on the PS2KE and Tan for the GS2KE, the craftsmanship of each is top notch! The leather has an excellent feel with good a color, finish and flawless seams.



An as most of you have noticed the biggest difference between the two aside from the headband are their big beautiful cups! The PS2KE features Maple cups encased in a metal alloy while the GS2KE features Mahogany and Maple merged enclosures.



As beautiful as the metal capped PS2KE cups are I personally found the GS2KE's cups a little more attractive.



The lettering was easy to read and smooth to the touch, and the unique grain of the wood was preserved. I personally liked the more natural finish on this pair as well, as opposed to a more heavily lacquered finish. It should be mentioned though, that ownership of a headphone with a finish such as this does require the gentle and modest application of a little wood care oil and cleaning.

Sound
What makes a Grado in my opinion is the slight emphasis they have in the upper mid range, it lends for a very exciting presentation. An that forwardness is where the similarities stop for the GS and PS2KE.

Starting with the GS2000E, I found it to have a beautifully massive sound stage with a slight emphasis on the harmonics present within the individual notes of each instrument, it had a real magic in the mid range to it that made it simply enjoyable! An at the very top, while slightly attenuated, it presented percussive instruments with phenomenal clarity. Overall it had excellent dynamics and micro detail, though it suffered a little with macro detail or ambient noise and I found the bass to be a little softer than hard.

Musical is the word that I felt describes the GS2000E best, regular readers of my content know how much I hate that word. As it's often thrown at any headphone that has a "warm and smooth" mid range, while those qualities make for an enjoyable listen out of less resolving systems, in a top of the line rig excessive warmth and smoothness can kill music. The GS2000E how ever, had to my ears the perfect balance of warmth, decay and "magic." It had by all means excessive decay and a soft low end, but it was beautiful to listen to non the less. It never lacked any texture in lows, never lacked any resolve in the mid range, had a nice present edge for guitars and drums! It was by all means a for the music headphone, it quite often glossed over a lot of ambient noise with no shortage of phenomenal micro detail. In every system I pair'd it with it was just a pleasure to experience. Though. electronic dance music wasn't the best with it but... I don't typically like EDM without big closed wood cups and copious amounts of EQ.

The PS2000E on the other hand was a far more technical listen, taut punchy well extended bass met with a fast tactile mid range and just enough sparkle up top. While it had the same precision and airiness as the GS2KE it was not as wide and spacious sounding. Almost a little intimate in comparison. What surprised me most though was just how FAST the PS2KE was, fast in the sense that it had a slight focus on the attack of an instrument with a clear but lighting fast decay. While it was well extended it was noticeable drier than the GS2KE. But that lack of body made for a very tactile presentation so much so that it made my HD 800 sound soft and slow! An like the HD 800 it's quite picky about what your plugging it into. That said, in the right system it's simply stunning, how ever sadly my system was not just "right."

Honestly in my system I preferred the GS2000E an I'll delve into why here shortly, however first I'd like to talk about my experience with the PS2000E out of my system and in something truly special!



In my own system, I really felt the PS2000E wasn't resolving enough. It had so much aggression and energy that it often overshadowed some mid-range micro detail. A lot of this could be attributed to how cold and clear my system is, and while I've worked over the years to remove as much of this coldness as I can... there's just enough of it left to skew the balance of this very picky headphone. It really felt like a headphone designed to be pair'd with good analog turn table system, that or something "analog-esque" with that warm naturalness that people associate with analog.

Thankfully how ever, I had a chance to drive the PS2000E out of Woo Audio's new WA 33 Amp pair'd with a Chord Mojo. Out of this system I really felt the PS2000E opened up! It had no lack of energy and excitement, but gained a slightly more holographic imaging with just a touch of emphasis on the decay. I went through my usual playlist of songs and each time I felt the tonal balance was just right, the imaging was just right and the resolve was on point! My previous experience with the Chord Hugo revealed the identify of Chord as supremely natural sounding manufacturer. Very much digital manufacturers chasing after the legacy of what is associated with "analog," as such their DAC products have a unique presentation of time and the faster than reality PS2000E pair's beautifully with what I understand to be the "Chord" signature sound.

As their Flagship headphone I found that the PS2KE demands to be implemented in nothing less than a perfectly natural system, as it would seem this headphone was tuned around only a truly flawlessly natural chain. Which makes sense, given the reputation that Grado Phono-cartridges carry they are no strangers to the exceptional level of naturalness analog can bring. Non the less, in these analogue-esque systems I feel it brings what is the perfection of a beautifully aggressive presentation, a presentation that is superbly technical, unforgiving, and breathtakingly real.

That said though, seeing as at this time my system focus more on clarity than it does naturalness or "musicality" I wasn't as much fan of the PS2000E at home in my rig.
But again, the Grado line features two flagships. The musical GS2000E which sounds great in my system that's optimized for technicalities and clarity in addition to the PS2000E which does better in a system that focus more on naturalness. That said, let's dig into the specifics;


Lows:
The PSKE had the advantage down low, it presented a cleaner mix of both fundamental and harmonic textures. Instruments such as the double bass had cleaner transients, sharper more distinct vibrato after the initial peak of each note as well as more apparent fret and bend noise. Electric bass guitars also found a sharper leading edge with a quicker resolve of action on the frets. An finally larger drums had an excellent sense of not only their weight, size and mass but also their hollowness, there was good slam and umph that was followed by a twinge of that hollowness.

The GS2KE on the other hand put a emphasis on the body and harmonic texture of these instruments. So while big drums sounded heavier and fuller... there was a little less of that hollowness. Though as much as I enjoy listening for these more technical notes focusing in on individual instruments does detract from the musical piece as a whole. That said, both the Double and Electric bass had plenty of fret action and punch while not quite as textured as on the PS2KE.

Mids:
Here's where the GS2KE started to take the lead in my system, overall there was a clearer presentation of transients in the mid range from the GS2KE. Yes there's a little emphasis on the decay, but it never masked any texture. Horns has a nice touch of bite followed by a full rich body that differed with each breath. An those breath's taken in-between notes where present, a little subdue'd but always there non the less. Vibrato was more apparent for both stringed and metal bodied instruments as well, the variation in pitch and tone as the notes decay'd were clear but still sweet and lush. Guitars again had a nice mixture of bite, tactility and sweetness.

The PS2KE on the other hand, had a sharp focus on the leading edge of these notes in my system. With an intense attack followed by a very well resolved and obvious echo. Though at times this emphasis on the echo of the release masked a little of the vibrato. In Mile's Davis so what the PS2KE presented a better sense of depth, as the horns lingered on and on, but the intensity of each note combined with this cleaner super resolved lingering release often overshadowed the vibrato ever so slightly. Guitars also had more crunch and bite, in some cases heavy or faster fretting was clearer and more vivid but with acoustic guitars some of the fullness of the instruments body was overshadow'd by the hollow space within the instrument. Again, in a system that's more natural and lends a little more decay there's significantly more balance and resolve, but in my system it was just a bit too aggressive.

Highs;
Things get a little hazier up top for both headphones, depending on how the track is mastered these two seem to trade blows. In Miles Davis So What the percussion was more lively and had better clarity on the GS2000E with an improved sense of depth, how ever while listening to the Live performance of Hotel California the PS2KE presented the percussion with better clarity. Additionally the sounds of the crowd were more apparent from the PS2KE.

Imaging;
Overall the PS2KE was a bit deeper and the GS2KE was a little wider, more intimate recording favored the GS2KE and anything recorded or mastered at a live venue often sounded a little realer on the PS2KE

Resolve;
While both had an excellent sense of dynamics, the over aggressive nature of the PS2KE on my system created some de-emphasize on micro detail. Ambient noise was time and time again clearer and more present with the PS2KE, but often times the GS 2KE had the better micro resolve. With cleaner more defined transients. Each had good tactility, with the PS2KE being noticeable more energetic, how ever the combination of resolve and polite tactility of the GS2KE really draws you in!

So overall I found the more romantic presentation of the GS2KE to do better on my system, though on a top of the line rig the PS2KE matches if not exceeds the GS2KE in all technicalities. Though at home in my rig how does it compare to my own hyper energetic super aggressive headphone? An how does the PS2KE sound on a system that is less technical?



To address the first question I pulled out my Hifiman HE 4. Which is it self hyper aggressive, to the point that any attempts to "balance" or "tame" it's aggression just leave me disappointed.

Lows;
While impressive in it's own rights, the PS2KE doesn't keep pace with the HE 4's linear low end in terms of tactility. Planar's have a sense of power to them that's un-matched, sheer physical force that makes them enjoyable! Kick drums, the initial pluck on a double bass, the peak from a bass guitar pluck or slap, these kinda of tactile almost percussive sounds are more defined on the HE 4. The PS2KE on the other hand does have a more natural presentation of the harmonics, vs the HE 4 which puts so much emphasis on the fundamental and force of these lower notes.

An what's nice with the HE 4 is while it brings focus on the power of these lower notes, it still presents a little of that sweetness in the harmonics, but it is easily overshadowed. So in the low end I found the PS2KE to have a little better timbre and overall tonality, but when percussive power is needed or wanted it's doesn't compare to the force of the HE 4.

Mids;
Things are more evened out in the mid range, where again the HE 4 brings an even more intense level of tactility without overshadowing to much of the decay, sustain or release of these notes. How ever, the PS2KE while not as tactile, has a proper, balanced an overall correct timbre. Bringing just a smidge more attention to the harmonics in the instruments, rendering the HE 4 almost shouty in comparison.



Both were more or less equally resolving of transient information in the Mid Range, so neither quite matched GS2KE but the HE 4 at only like $400 new does well to keep pace with the Grado Flagships in my system. Where it falls behind though is in tonal balance, while the PS2KE is extremely energetic and a bit dry... it does retain a nice little bit of sweetness in the mid-range. Where as the HE 4 on the other hand really only has it's tactility and full body power, other wise compared to many of the headphones in my collection it's quite dry and sometimes unpleasant. While I enjoy it's extremely tactile presentation, not every one will or does.

Highs;
The top end is where the PS2KE definitively leaves the HE 4 far far behind, proving to have more resolve, texture and even a bit more sweetness up top. The HE 4 is in comparison bright and some times annoying in contrast to the truly well balanced but energetic top end of the PS2KE. Though while the HE 4 does maintain better clarity it often lacks texture up top. So on one hand drums are punchier and more vivid, high hats are often simplified and dry.

An again, on the right system one with a little more naturalness than mine, the PS2KE's sweeter well textured top end gains a nice level of clarity.

Imaging;
Again, the PS2KE proves both more precise and spacious than the HE 4. Both have a nice airiness, but the PS2KE brings that next level of resolve and precision. In particular, while listening to Metallica's ...The Shortest Straw there's a 180° pan in one of the drum riffs, and I've always experienced with a set number distinct positions as the drummer moves across his kit. With the PS2KE though how ever I noticed yet another one, another distinctive strikes as he moves across his kit! So the PS2KE not only had better resolve, but that resolve helped to create a more vivid image of the band and the track as a whole! Which was very cool


Resolve;

Finally, even on my system, the PS2KE proved it self a step above the HE 4 in terms of resolve. While the translation or the presentation of power in the lows was not as real, tactility and texture throughout the rest of the audible spectrum was. As much as I love my HE 4 it can and often does sound quite fake in comparison to more refined open backs.

So as some one who really loves an aggressive signature I was excited to discover that there was in fact a direct upgrade for my HE 4 other than the infamously hard to drive HE 6! Less excited though of course to discover that it would only truly improve upon my existing planar when I had a system built for it. Either way given the price of the PS2KE I imagine potential owners have already perfected their systems, and if aggression is what your longing for the PS2KE delivers not only aggression and edge but amazing resolve with just a touch of sweetness.


Now for our second question, how does the PS2KE perform on a more natural sounding system? Well my JDS Labs EL Dac and Schiit Vali 1 are exactly that, while not as resolving as my reference system, my secondary system focus on naturalness and I'm happy to say that I genuinely enjoyed the PS2KE on it!

On this system the PS2KE's touch of sweetness was further enhanced without losing it's aggression edge. The problem though I have though with this system was it wasn't as good overall as pairing the GS2KE with my reference system. So while it was equally as enjoyable, the GS 2KE on a more resolving system was still better overall and costed a little less than buying the GS2KE and pairing it with a more natural sounding entry level set up.


While the HD 800 is no slouch, I have to say I never felt it sounded slow... until after I spent my week with the Grado PS2KE. That said, again for the system I had while the PS2KE was faster with better tactility and a more exciting sound it lacked in resolve.

There were not improvements the PS2KE offered over the HD 800 only differences and in some cases it under performed. While I feel the PS2KE would make a nice compliment to the HD 800 overall the HD 800 is both a better value and a stronger overall performer. While the HD 800 is itself pretty picky... again with the EL Dac and Vali Gen 1 combo the HD 800 still did better overall than the PS2KE.

The biggest noticeable difference I heard was in the lows, while the PS2KE extends down quite low it still didn't quite match the HD 800 in the sub bass, the HD 800 edge'd out just a bit more power in exchange for some of the punch the PS2KE brings.

While there are some specific cases and genres where the PS2KE did better, such as listening to heavier varieties of metal and progressive rock, overall I felt the HD 800 is still a better value.

Though again, if you've got your end game no cost no object system than you'll likely find your self impressed with how fast and aggressive the PS2KE can be while still keeping a nice sweetness and slight intimacy in comparison to something like the HD 800. The HD 800 and PS2KE are different enough that they do make a nice compliment to on another.

An for kicks and giggles I pulled out my Ypsilon G1! To my surprise both shared a some what similar tonal balance, well extended both on the top and bottom, but the PS2KE edge'd out this G1 in both resolve, imaging and overall technicalities. Suffice to say it's a nice step up from the G1, though be warned it's not six times as good despite costing about six times as much!



Now, this was a comparison that surprised me! The GS 2KE runs for about $1400 new same as the HD 800 and can be had second hand for just under $1000, much like the HD 800. So the two share not only a spot in the market, but also wide open spacious sound with a nice touch of naturalness in the mid range especially!

The HD 800 tonally sits in the middle, not as magical and euphoric as the GS2KE and not as energetic and exciting as the PS2KE!

The GS2KE impressed me with how it presented stringed instruments, each individual string has a slight variation in timbre and texture. An with the GS2KE this was subtlety evident but quite obvious. While it doesn't throw the detail in your face, it presents it with polite clarity almost tempting you to fall a little deeper into the music. An over an over an over again, it draws you a little deeper into the music, and soon minuet's turn into hours and you find your self coming out of a lull! Violins, guitars, cello's and even the harp anything with strings had such a beautiful allure to it, from the tone of the instruments themselves to the unique decay pattern of each string, the release of each note, the sustain of every bend and the beautiful release of silence. The GS2000E really drew you into the music, vocals how ever were about 50/50, some singers had more of an allure than others.

Technically though it was still a little behind the HD 800, it wasn't as textured nor taut in the lows. It had a little less texture and resolve up top and ambient noise was noticeably less apparent on the GS2KE over the HD 800.

Though technicalities aside, the GS2KE really draws you into and compliments the music. More so than a lot of other headphones I've listened to over the years. An me personally, I enjoy both the music it self as well as the technicalities so I found the HD 800 to better serve my needs.



Now in this comparison, the G1 did a better job keeping up with the GS2KE than it did the PS2KE. I found it the Ypsilon had better texture in the lows and up top, but it didn't quite match the mid-range presentation of the GS2KE. The Ypsilon is a little more fun than it is euphoric and inviting, while still having a nice touch of forwardness to it's mid-range. Though it wasn't quite as wet and resolving as the GS2KE. It's just little drier, not quite as dry as the PS2KE but often not as sweet as either headphone.

An overall the GS2KE presented both a more precise image and clearer micro detail in every instance.

Now these two, share a common thread of magic! In many ways my Nhoord Red Version 1 is a mini GS2KE. As it features that same inviting magical touch of emphasis on the decay, with a nice full bodied bass that really brings the harmonics in focus. It also have a slightly wider presentation the the Ypsilon G1, though like the G1 it's not quite on par with the GS2KE in terms of resolve an precision.

Conclusion
For those that love music and love the magic of connecting to what your listening to, I can't recommend the Grado GS 2000E enough. While it's not the most technical headphone out there, I found it to just simply be a guilty pleasures to listen to! Now the PS 2000E is very much the epitome of the Grado Sound, as on the right system it has both a little sweet magic and amazing speed, clarity and resolve! My qualm with the PS 2000E though is it's difficult pairing as it's very intolerant of any imbalance in your system, and isn't competitive with other options unless you have the perfect system. Certainly the best that Brooklyn has to offer, is reversed for those who are ready to spare no expense on such a system. Though if your ready for that endeavor you'll be rewarded with a truly unique listening experience! While I can in no way speak for Mr. Grado, I do hope he would be impressed with the legacy that the latest generation of Grado cans is carrying on! Truly capturing both the warm friendly culture of us South Carolina's as well as our wilder side! As I've enjoyed these headphones, so I hope that others do while never forgetting the man that started it all!