Articles Archive - Page 250 of 269

REL S/3 slight return

I finished my review of the £1,299 REL S/3 subwoofer (https://hifiplus.com/articles/rel-s3-subwoofer/), when two things happened. These happened soon after the review was printed, but are worth a revisit.

First, while changing nothing on the system at all, the sound of the system of the S/3 suddenly just ‘filled in’. This was nothing you could point out, nothing you could point a finger at, and the change was possibly very subtle. But there was nothing subtle about what it did for the sound; this wasn’t bass reinforcement, it was full-on bass management. The S/3 already provided a solid underpinning of the loudspeakers, allowing them to open out and clean up in the midrange and treble, but now that was improving the apparent stage width, the clarity and detail across the midrange and, naturally, a deeper bass of both depth and tonality.

The process of reviewing seems to be a process of gradually overturning all those things you dismissed as nonsense in ‘civilian’ life, and this time it’s the idea of ‘running in’. I understand that the moving parts of a loudspeaker need time to settle down, but science says everything should be resolved in a matter of minutes, not weeks. But something very definitely changed, and changed for the better several weeks after opening the box; it sounded good fresh out the box, but a lot better with 100 or more hours of music played.

The next was a spot of repositioning by REL expert Kev Starkie. I’d placed the S/3 in line with the loudspeakers and this appeared to work well, but a well-trained ear and a spirit of experimentation ended with the speaker closer to the corner of my room. I thought this would be one of the worst places for a subwoofer; that this should be a place of trapping, rather than generating, bass. But this repositioning, coupled with a few careful minutes of resetting the level and cut off controls to improve interaction between sub and speakers, paid huge dividends. Once again, this improves the underpinning of the loudspeaker, freeing up the midrange and treble, while adding a sense of tonality and ‘shape’ to the bass. This is all best represented by that most challenging of instruments for the stereo, the piano. My two-disc copy of Rachmaninov’s Études-Tableaux, played by Rustem Hayroudinoff [Chandos CD] show the pianist in fine form, but occasionally I find a sense of it being two players working at two subtly different instruments. After run-in and with repositioned controls, the S3 brought these two sounds into one coherent piano tone – dynamic, expressive, and beautiful.

My original review of the S/3 stands, but I’m even more impressed by the REL subwoofer now. It just adds more depth to the bass and control to the upper registers. I’ve become something of a convert!

URL: rel.net

Tel: +44(0)1656 768777

Back to reviews

Classic Album Sundays: The Cure – Disintegration

Although The Cure were lumped in with Goth Rock and had a sea of powdered skin, thick black eyeliner and raven-haired heads undulating at their live shows, they never became a parody of themselves. The Cure had more substance and sonically reinvented the band through psychedelic rock, dance music, and even wonderfully written pop singles alongside the ethereal dirges. Despite the mutating line-up changes, The Cure are still going strong, and that just goes to show they have never been a ‘jump-on-the-bandwagon’ type of act.

Legend has it that on several occasions Smith tried to ‘kill the band’ by jarring Cure diehards like myself with more commercially accessible tunes such as ‘Let’s Go to Bed’, ‘In Between Days’ and ‘Why Can’t I Be You?’ Head on the Door and the ensuing Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me were their most commercially successful albums up until that point and featured some jaunty numbers that opened the band to a wider audience. They then embarked upon a lengthy sell-out worldwide tour, but it was a rough time for the band, due at least in part to original drummer turned keyboardist Lol Tolhurst’s heavy drinking. When they returned there was a double teenage suicide in a nearby town. The Cure’s music had been played during the act.

The mood was not too chirpy when they entered the studio to record their eighth album. Smith was pressuring himself, as he was about to turn thirty and was aware that many of the greats such as Hendrix, Bowie and The Beatles had already achieved an opus before they hit their fourth decade. Once again he considered breaking up the band and played his fellow members the more introspective and personal songs he had penned for the new record. Even though he would have been happy recording on his own, the other band members were enthusiastic about the new tunes, and they re-enlisted producer David M. Allen, with whom they had worked since The Top days.

Once again Tolhurst’s drinking became a liability and after very little contribution he left and was replaced by keyboard player Roger O’Donnell whose textured layers of synths became a trademark sound of the new album. Most unwelcomingly, Smith instigated a communication breakdown and was creating an unpleasant atmosphere with his monk-like silence. It is little wonder the resulting album was coined Disintegration.

The double album is certainly less upbeat than their previous two and almost feels like it runs in slow motion in contrast. However, even if most of the themes rotate around despair, there is a devastating honesty and hypnotic beauty that appeals to listeners who want to really feel music. Sonically, it has a grand, lush, orchestral flair that underpins Smith’s incurable sense of melody.

The Cure’s American label Elektra was not too impressed with the new album, dubbing it “commercial suicide” and “willfully obscure”. But three million fans cannot be wrong and Disintegration became the band’s biggest success, charting high in both the UK and USA.

Sitting alongside some of the gloomier tracks is the heartfelt and beautiful ‘Lovesong’, which Smith wrote as a “cheap and cheerful” wedding present to his fiancée Mary Poole. Reggae rockers 311 and soul siren Adele each have wonderful interpretations, proving this song stands on its own accord.

Smith and The Cure obviously wanted the listener to be immersed in the recording and to hear the details and subtleties as the liner notes state “This music has been mixed to be played loud so turn it up.” Now that does not sound too dour, does it?

Recorded: Nov 1988-Feb 1989 at Hookend Recording Studios, Oxon

Produced by: David M. Allen, Robert Smith

Released: 2 May 1989

Label: Fiction

Web Exclusive: Arcam irDAC digital converter

We’ve been running very late with some of our more value-led reviews, in part because things that are easy to lift tend to get moved out of the way when hernia-inducing high-end products get hefted into place, and in part because we’ve been sitting round enjoying them too much. In fact, we have such an embarrassment of audio riches now, we either put reviews exclusively to our website, or have them wait for years to see the printed page.

Such is the case with the Arcam irDAC. Launched early last year as the replacement to the popular rDAC, this £399 wired converter is one of Arcam’s core products today. Although Arcam still makes two disc-players in its music oriented FMJ range (and a Blu-ray player for home theatre), the change in fortunes for spinning disc has meant this little DAC is Arcam’s prime digital audio mover. And what a great little mover it is, too.

Taken at face value, there isn’t a great deal to get extremely excited about with the irDAC. It features the good, solid performance of the Texas Instruments PCM1796 converter, which is capable of supporting 24-bit, 768kHz off the chip, but is held at 24bit, 192kHz precision here. It features two coaxial and two optical S/PDIF inputs, a USB type B input (with a DIP switch that flits from Class I to Class II USB Audio, depending on your system), and a USB type A for a wired iDevice. It has a single coaxial S/PDIF digital output, and a pair of gold phonos to connect to an amplifier. It typically draws power from a plug-top (‘wall-wart’) supply, with different snap-in plug configurations for US, UK, and EU power sockets. The DAC can rack through its inputs from a button on the top, or through the same remote supplied with the D33. This also indicates the presence of filter adjustment and an AES/EBU input, but don’t get your hopes up; these are not present on the irDAC, and you cannot power down the irDAC from the remote.

What is missing from the irDAC is any wireless connectivity, where its predecessor had an optional Kleer Wireless connection. In fact, wireless has been handed over to Arcam’s airDAC, which swaps the USB connections and the second optical and coaxial S/PDIF inputs for an Ethernet connection and a wireless aerial for Airplay and UPnP connections. That’s arguably a better way to approach the task than trying to make a product that does all things for all people, and I suspect the irDAC is going to be the better seller of the two because of its ‘Mac & DAC’ connectivity (it works just as well with PCs, but that doesn’t rhyme so well).

The important thing is not the specs. It’s the sound. When I looked at the Arcam D33 DAC, I felt it was like a set of training wheels for dCS. The irDAC is the gateway drug to the D33. It’s one of the smoothest-sounding (without sounding ‘botoxed’) DACs you can find for the money. It’s detailed, refined, precise, calm, and collected. There’s a short period where it’s none of these things, and is instead just shouty at the top end and shut-in everywhere else. But give it a day, and that melts away, and the result is excellent.

This refinement and precision really brings out the vocal intonation of Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy singing ‘I See A Darkness’ from the relatively lo-fi album of the same name. On more sublimely recorded material, such as ‘Both Sides Now’ from the Herbie Hancock album River: The Joni Letters, the Arcam DAC provides a rich and subtle environment for the interplay between musicians to pass unimpeded, and creates a wide and deep image in the process.

Arcam has something like a house sound going on here. The DAC has a lot in common with the D33, and it’s like a better version of the rDAC, but it also sounds a lot like the A19 integrated. That house sound isn’t for everyone; some will find it pale and wan, with a foreshortened soundstage, and a lack of energy and drama. Others will find it delightfully honest, refined, and neutral. In a way, it’s biggest problem is it’s a mature product at an immature price point. People buying a £399 DAC are on often on their first or second rung on the digital ladder, and want impressiveness and fireworks. This is a more considered, cerebral sound; exactly the kind of thing the high-end listeners crave.

Arcam’s irDAC doesn’t necessarily have giant killing properties, but it scrubs up well. This is a very good £399 DAC that is just as happy being partnered with an Audio Research VSi75 as it does with its obvious Arcam A19 integrated amp buddy (with the right cable, you can take a feed straight from the A19s onboard power supply, obviating the need for the irDAC’s supplied wall-wart).

This last combination is fascinating, especially when you factor in a pair of KEF LS50s on good stands in a moderate room. What’s surprising here is just how much you get from the system; not just in terms of frequency response, headroom, signal/noise ratio, or any other objective term. No, it’s just how much bloody fun it is. I did a series of columns for Hi-Fi+ (before I took over the reins) about how low you can go and still get good high-end performance. Well, the answer is here; it’s the Arcam irDAC, the A19, and a pair of KEF LS50. As a turnkey package, it’s good enough to use as is, or if you want to treat you and your system to an elaborate series of presents, you could spend a small fortune on resonance control, cable systems, and the full nine yards. It can take it if you want it, but it sounds good enough on its own. In a world of dictator grade audio costing as much as a small island, a system of this simplicity and relatively low price should be an amuse-bouche, but (deep bass aside) it’s the whole damn banquet. In fact, I’ve been so taken by this little system that I’ve commissioned a review of the complete package in its own right for the magazine.

Back to the irDAC. I knew it was something special when I put it back in the box and immediately regretted the decision to send it back. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Arcam is no stranger to making good DACs, it was one of the first standalone affordable DAC makers on the scene, with its original Black Box from 1989. It has retained a reputation for good digital conversion ever since; even when DACs were off the map, Arcam’s CD players were always highly praised for good sound at a reasonable price. That sounds like faint praise in today’s more febrile market, but it’s not. The irDAC offers good sound at a reasonable price. There are better DACs out there, but not at the price. In its weight class, it goes blow for blow with the best of them. You could buy this and comfortably sign yourself off buying another DAC until you had an absolutely hyper-pure audio system that cost as much as a powerboat, and then you’d need to be looking at some serious digital firepower as a replacement.

Technical Specifications

DAC: TI PCM1796
Inputs: USB, S/PDIF, optical, iPod
Frequency response: 10Hz — 20kHz, ±0.1dB
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise: 0.002%
Signal-to-noise ratio (A –Weighted): 112dB (24-bit)
Line output level: 2.2Vrms
Supported sample rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz
Supported bit depths: 16-bit, 24-bit
Power requirements: 7W max
Dimensions (WxDxH): 190 x 120 x 44mm
Price: £399

Manufacturer: Arcam

www.arcam.co.uk

Back to reviews

Why do bad things happen to good systems?

As audiophiles, we have all experienced this. Despite all our care, attention, and diligence, that textbook high-end supersystem just sounds flat, drab and uninspired. You might have spent years building it, months tweaking it, and weeks trying to extract what should be possible from it, but it just doesn’t gel. It just doesn’t sing like it should.

Worse, someone comes along with a hoary old system that shouldn’t work together under any circumstances, and it trounces your high-end masterpiece. I’m not talking about a well-cared for classic system from audio’s golden age; the kind of system that, were it made today to the same standards might still best many of today’s finest (that in itself is a topic worth exploration). No, instead, that yard-sale special made of the cheap and nasty products that should sound like a car-wreck and sound magical. Or the transistor radio that sounds more like the real thing than a high-end extravaganza.

We could just as easily flip this on its head; “why do good things happen to bad systems?” but the end result is the same.

So what goes wrong, and how is it possible to make it go right? Fortunately, in most cases, spending your way out of a crisis is not the best solution, and should be considered a last resort.

Is it me? Many of us create an absurdly high standard for audio reproduction. The best audio system on the planet is never going to improve upon the original recording, although some single-ended triode systems are able to imbue a sense of sonic beauty on any music they touch. Great music on a good system can transport you (metaphorically, at least) to higher planes of musical enjoyment, but we periodically need a reality check. This is why listening to live music is so important; not only does it give us an idea of how the original instruments sound, it prevents us from thinking too lofty thoughts about music, that our replay systems cannot achieve. The acid test here is listening critically to a few different systems in different places. If one of them meets your demands (and it’s not your system), find out what they are doing right and what you are doing wrong. If none of them meet your criteria, are you sure you aren’t setting too high a bar?
Go back to basics. Over the years, we slowly introduce our own idiosyncrasies into the audio chain. Each one is there for a reason, but they gradually accumulate, and can work against one another, undermining the sound of a system. Every few years, it’s a good idea to pull them all out and start again. This doesn’t mean throwing out the system from front to back, more like that great cure-all for the computer age – have you tried turning it off, and turning it on again? Remove all the resonators, resonance controllers, blocks of exotic or not so exotic wood, magic bricks, magic clocks, conditioners, and cables. Go back to everything in its untweaked state, and install the system as if it were new, using the instructions provided in the manual instead of “I know better”. My predecessor in this role remains a strong advocate of the systematic approach to audio, in particular using cables from the same ‘family’ (or, as he is wont to say ‘a coherent cable loom’). This approach makes its case fairly succinctly in listening tests, but it also suggests a haphazard approach to system tuning results in a haphazard sounding system. By removing all the system tuning and starting again, you can see just how haphazard the system really is, and possibly start down a more systematic route at a later date.
Clean machines. A system that has 20 years of accumulated wear and tear is always going to sound a little tired, but there are ways of waking it up. Contacts in particular benefit from a regular twice yearly clean. Whether that clean involves a quick brush with Deoxit or similar contact cleaner, or simply plugging and unplugging interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords a few times, the results can be profound. Also, and this requires a little more care, the screws holding your drive units in your loudspeakers in place can loosen over time. Tightening them with an allen key or a screwdriver can make a big difference. Just be careful; use the right tool for the job, don’t overtighten and either thread the screws or split the cabinet, and remember your metal tool is very close to a big magnet; grip your screwdriver tightly lest it plunge through a loudspeaker cone. Consider too sending your equipment away for a ‘CLA’ every few years. A term borrowed from the photographic industry, a CLA (sort for ‘Clean, Lube, Adjust’) is a periodic spring clean. At its most extreme, this could involve replacing components (such as capacitors) that have gone out of true over time, to liberal use of canned air and isopropyl alcohol, to remove built-up crud from daily use.
Is the room right? We can spend too long working on the electronics, and not enough time working on the room. Arguably, a good system is simply the sound of a loudspeaker interacting in a room, and if this room-to-speaker interface is not correctly sorted, all manner of sonic disasters can ensue. Perhaps most important (and often most overlooked) is whether the loudspeaker is right for the room. Shoe-horning too large a loudspeaker into too small a room, or vice versa, is typically a mistake. But so is using a loudspeaker designed to work three feet from the rear and side walls up against the back wall. A combination of reading the manual and working out the right loudspeaker for the task is important. This often becomes an issue when moving house, because what worked in the last place has no guarantee of working as well in the new one, if the room is significantly smaller or larger. Regardless of room dynamics, most rooms benefit from some form of acoustic treatment, typically bass traps in the corners of the room, and absorption of some description on the first reflection points on the side walls (and in theory, the wall and floor).
System mismatches. Despite trying to make this a no-cost for the user feature, there will be times when the problems are too severe, and more drastic measures are required. There are two obvious solutions when faced with dysfunctional system; repair, or replace. Can you recognise the offending component and replace it on its own and bring the system back to life, or is it time to start over? There’s no easy answer here. I’d suggest in both cases, there’s a common answer. Ask around. Find those who have a similar system to yours and discuss the issues you face; if they have found a way around the problem, the same could apply to you. If you share the same problems, then at least you all know where the problem lies.

This is still one of those times when the personal touch is important, and a trustworthy dealer (and no, that isn’t an oxymoron) who knows both your system and its limitations is useful, too.

There’s one last option. Give yourself a music break. Sometimes, your system sounds bad simply because you pick at it like six year old with a scabbed over graze. You never listen to more than a few bars of a piece of music without jumping up and changing something. If you recognise yourself in this, stop. Don’t play any music for a month. When you return, pick a long piece of music you know well, but not so well it’s become a test recording. Play it from beginning to end, with no gaps, no adjustments, and no leaping off your seat until the end. If, after that, the system still sounds wrong, start with the five steps above.

In most cases, the problems in a good system lie with a poor installation, bad interaction between room and speaker, and dirty contacts. Fortunately, most of these are inexpensive ‘fixes’ that do not typically require component changes. All they cost is time; your time.

It’s time well spent.

First Listen: AURALiC GEMINI 2000 headphone amp/DAC/stand

AURALIC’s GEMINI 2000 and 1000 products were first drawn to my attention, if I remember correctly, last October at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest 2013. At the time, the products were in their final pre-production prototype phase, but even then they showed a great deal of promise.

What are these GEMINI models? In simple terms, they are elegant and beautifully made headphone stands that just happen to incorporate both built-in class A headphone amplifiers and ultra-capable high-res PCM, DXD, and DSD capable DACs. The GEMINI 2000 sells for $1995 in the US (or £1,890 in the UK), while the 1000 is priced at $1,199 in the US (or £1,090 in the UK).

What’s the difference between the GEMINI 2000 and 1000? In terms of general appearance, build quality, and DAC section capabilities, the 2000 and 1000 are identical, but the 2000 offers a class A amplifier with singled-end and fully balanced outputs serving up 2,000 mW of output power, while the 1000 offers single-ended outputs only and provides 1,000 mW of power. The only other difference is that the 2000’s polished, plated brass plinth is offered in the buyer’s choice of gold or silver finishes, while the 1000’s plinth is done in titanium grey. Both models are offered in hand-rubbed finishes in gloss black, white, blue, yellow, and red. Our review unit is a GEMINI 2000 done up in gloss red with gold trim (a combination that conveys a certain Scuderia Ferrari vibe, as I see it).

Quite honestly, dyed-in-the-wool high-end audio purists might initially be tempted to dismiss the GEMINI models because they seem almost too pretty to take seriously. In truth, the GEMINIs don’t look like traditional high-end audio components at all; rather, they look like beautiful, sculptural art objects (or perhaps like the avant garde trophies that might be awarded at some desperately fashionable, futuristic music festival).

But, my fellow high-enders, please take note: if you can set aside biases and preconception concerning “style-led” products for a moment and give the GEMINIs an open-minded listen, it will immediately become apparent that their beauty is more than skin-deep. On the contrary, these svelte stand/amp/DACs offer serious sonic excellence of the sort that could make any number of competing amp/DAC makers green with envy. Add to this the fact that the GEMINIs are more than fairly priced for the sound quality on offer and you quickly realise you’ve got something very special in hand: namely, components that combine aesthetic beauty, sonic excellence, and excellent value for money, all in one go.

Here’s the basic scenario: the GEMINIs draw upon several reservoirs of established design expertise, each of which comes with impeccable credentials.

Seeking inspiration for the DAC and amplifier sections of the GEMINI units, AURALiC turned to its own critically acclaimed and much more costly VEGA Digital Audio Processor (£2, 890; reviewed in Hi-Fi+ Issue 106) and TAURUS MK II Balanced Output Headphone Amplifier/Preamplifier (£ 1,499; reviewed in Hi-Fi+ Issue 105). I imagine that about now many of you might be thinking, “Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a stylish, sub-£2000 combo product can closely mimic the sound of an extremely well-regarded, £4,389 pair of separates.” Well, in all candour, that is exactly what I’m about to suggest.

True, in an absolute sense, the VEGA/TAURUS MK II combo does sound a smidgeon better and a touch more focussed and refined, and it is also more versatile and more powerful than the GEMINI. On the other hand, once you give the GEMINI a half hour of warm-up time or so, the sonic resemblance between its sound and that of the VEGA/TAURUS MK II combo is unmistakable. What I am thinking, then, is that for many headphone listeners the gap will be sufficiently narrow as to make the selection of the GEMINI a no-brainer. It truly is that good.

Let’s look briefly at how the GEMINI 2000 compares to the VEGA/TAURUS MK II combination:

Digital Formats: Both the VEGA and GEMINI 2000 products can handle digital audio file formats ranging from 44.1kHz/16-bit PCM files on up to DXD (that is 384 kHz/32-bit), and also can process DSD64/128 files.
Upsampling: The VEGA upsamples all incoming digital signals to 1.5MHz/32-bit levels and then performs all decoding/filtering tasks on those very high-resolution data streams. The GEMINI uses some form of upsampling (presumably a pared-down version of the VEGA’s systems), but few details on the specifics are given.
Digital Inputs: The VEGA provides USB, coaxial and optical S/PDIF, and AES/EBU inputs. The GEMINI provides USB, Android phone, and optical S/PDIF inputs.
Digital Filters: The VEGA provides an extensive array of user-selectable digital filters with separate sets of filters for PCM and DSD playback. The GEMINI does not provide user-selectable filters, but does borrow filter technology derived from the VEGA.
Driver Support: The VEGA automatically connects to Mac family computers, but requires installing a separate driver for use in Windows-based systems. The same is also true of the GEMINI, though one very big difference involves the manner in which the driver is implemented. The VEGA ships with a CD/ROM containing its Windows driver, which must be loaded and installed on the Windows PC in question before the VEGA can be used. The GEMINI, however, features an onboard 4GB SDXC memory card on which is found both the requisite Windows driver, an install guide, and also some music playback software (which I have not, as yet, tested). The cool part about this is that the driver travels with the GEMINI wherever it goes and is always “install ready”, so that if you were to take the GEMINI to a friend’s home or to your office, you would be also set to connect it to whatever PC might fall readily to hand.
Clock: The VEGA provides an exceedingly precise “femtoclock” with multiple user-selectable clock control settings. The GEMINI uses a clock system regulated by “three low jitter crystals”, but does not provide user-selectable controls.
Analogue Inputs/Outputs: The VEGA provides balanced and single-ended analogue outputs suitable for driving preamps or integrated amps, or the VEGA can actually be used as a digital preamplifier in its own right. The GEMINI’s only analogue outputs are its headphone outputs (the GEMINI 2000 supplies one single-ended and one balanced headphone output). The TAURUS MKII provides two sets of single-ended and balanced analogue outputs—one for driving ancillary components such as preamps or integrated amps, the other for driving headphones.
Power Output: The TAURUS MK II puts out a maximum of 4500 mW at 120 Ohms in balanced mode, whereas the GEMINI 2000 out a maximum of 2000 mW into an unspecified load in balanced mode.

All of the electronics of the GEMINI are, through the miracle of miniaturised surface mount devices, fitted into the thick, disk-shaped brass plinth of the unit. To appreciate what I mean by “miracle of miniaturisation”, understand, please, that the GEMINI amp/DAC section contains over 500 discrete parts packed into a cylindrical space only about six inches in diameter and a bit less than an inch thick! AURALiC uses brass for the plinth because it says the material offers more desirable heat dissipation characteristics than does the more commonly used aluminium.

The plinth design is the epitome of elegant minimalism, offering just two plated brass pushbuttons (one as a master on/off switch, the other as a digital input selector), plus a plated brass volume control thumbwheel. Three tastefully subdued (and physically recessed) groups of LEDs are use to show the file format in play at any given moment, the current volume settings chosen by the user, and the input selected. One whimsical detail is that, for reasons known only to AURALiC, the volume control is for some reason labelled “NICENESS”. On the rear side of the plinth is a recessed bay providing a USB port for PCs and MACs, a mini-USB port for Android phones, an optical S/PDIF port, a socket for connecting the GEMINI’s outboard power supply, and a slot where the included 4GB SDXC memory card is installed.

The aesthetic and functional design of the stand section of the GEMINI has been licensed from the Swedish firm Klutz Design, whose beautiful yet highly functional headphone stands have found their way onto many a headphonista’s wish list. Apart from the stand’s sleek good looks, the design is functional, too, offering gently curved top surfaces that support the weight of stored headphones without putting undue stresses on (or creases in) even the most delicate of headband pads. Recognising that, lo, headphones do in fact have signal cables that need to be stored safely when the headphones are not in use, the Klutz/GEMINI stand provides a pair of forward facing posts that serve as a ‘spool’ around which users can gently coil their headphone’s signal cables when not in use. (Why haven’t other stand makers figured this out long ago?)

One interesting design wrinkle, however, is that AURALiC builds its version of the Klutz stand with—in the GEMINI 2000—a forward-facing ¼-inch headphone jack (for the single-ended output) and a rear-facing 4-pin XLR connector (for the balanced output). By design, when users connect headphones to the ¼-inch headphone jack, the unit automatically powers up (and vice versa).

On paper and in real-world practice, the VEGA/TAURUS MK II pair is more capable that the GEMINI, to be sure, but the important point to remember is that—through most headphones most of the time—the perceived performance gap is surprisingly narrow. In other words, if you’ve yearned to own the VEGA/TAURUS MK II pair for purposes of extracting the highest possible levels of performance from your favourite headphones, the GEMINI stands as a lovely, sonically rewarding, and less-that-half-the-price solution. But then, consider the fact that the GEMINI is very compact, very easy to set up and use, and extremely beautiful to look at, and you can really start to catch the vision for what the GEMINI is meant to be and do.

How does the GEMINI sound? It sounds surprisingly much like the VEGA/TAURUS MK II’s overachieving younger brother. That is to say that the DAC section offers plenty of focus and resolution, taut timing, and expressive dynamics, while the amp section offers a pleasing blend of detail, definition, dynamic agility, and natural warmth. While the GEMINI can, when first powered up, sound just a bit “wooden” or “flat”, it warms up quite rapidly, sound lively, more lifelike, and appropriately energetic as it does. It is also surprising powerful, so that it can drive the notoriously difficult HiFiMAN HE-6 headphones with headroom to spare.

Even though I have AURALiC’s VEGA and TAURUS MK II on loan to use as a reference product, I never felt I was “stepping down” in any way when I listened through the GEMINI. In fact, I found the GEMINI a joy to use and I also felt that, quite frankly, it sounded far more accomplished and refined than I had thought it would. I flat out love listening through the thing.

Are there caveats? There is one that, while not damning, is somewhat troubling. Specifically, when the GEMINI is fully warmed up, its plated brass plinth of gets quite hot to the touch. Honestly, temperature levels are high enough that, if you rest your hand on the fully warmed-up plinth for more than about three seconds, you will experience serious discomfort. (Manly men who like to prove their toughness by holding their hands inches above open flames will feel right at home, here.) In practice, one soon learns to adjust volume levels swiftly and smoothly to avoid prolonged hand contact with the plinth, but my concern is for small children who might grasp the bright, shiny plinth only to receive and unexpected (albeit minor) burn. My point: in future evolutions of the GEMINI product, I would love to see AURALiC explore additional internal or external heat-sinking so as to reduce surface temperatures to more user friendly levels.

Still, the foregoing comments in no way diminish my enthusiasm for the GEMINI 2000. If you want a big—and I mean really big—taste of what top-tier headphone electronics can be like, yet at a price that must be considered a bargain, then look no further.

Watch for the upcoming Hi-Fi+ review of the AURALiC GEMINI. Until then, we wish you happy listening.

First Listen: HiFiMAN HE-560 Planar Magnetic Headphones

Several months ago I received, as did a handful of headphone-minded audio journalists, a review pair of HiFiMAN’s latest HE-560 headphones. But, less than 24 hours after the headphones arrived, I got a message from the manufacturer that it wanted the review samples back, pending some pre-release design modifications that HiFiMAN had decided to implement. “Most unfortunate,” I thought to myself. “I guess we’ll just have to wait to see how the new model will finally turn out.”

Well, the good news is that the wait is now over, a fresh pair of revised HiFiMAN HE-560s having appeared out of the blue in my office earlier this week. The even better news, judging by the first couple of hours’ worth of listening I’ve been able to do, is that the sheer sound quality of these new headphones makes all the extra development time seem worthwhile.

To review some basics, let’s note that—up to this point—HiFiMAN’s top two models were the HE-500 (favourably reviewed by Editor Alan Sircom in Hi-Fi+ Issue 83 and by Tom Martin in Playback Issue 47 ) and the HE-6 (also favourably reviewed by me in Playback Issue 37). Of those two models, I would say the HE-500 is far and away the more accessible of the two headphones, partly because of its lower price, partly because of its warmer and somewhat darker tonal balance, and especially because it is substantially easier to drive.

The HE-6, on the other hand, is a truly great headphone, but one that can be difficult to “cozy up” with for three reasons: first, its generally neutral but almost hyper-revealing presentation won’t suit every taste; second, its price is enough higher than that of the HE-500 to make it painful stretch for some budgets; and third, it is stupendously power-hungry and thus is one of the most difficult-to-drive full-size headphones on the planet. (In truth, precious few headphone amps have enough output to do real justice to the HE-6’s, meaning that many who have been disappointed by HE-6’s sound were in fact listening through amps that had nowhere near sufficient power to drive the headphones in the first place.)

I provide these bits of background by way of setting a framework for better understanding what HiFiMAN is attempting to do with the HE-560. Specifically, I think HiFiMAN’s aim, whether explicitly stated or not, is to have the HE-560 stand as a model that embodies some of the very best qualities of both the HE-500 and the HE-6, but at a price point that falls at a manageable mid-point between the prices of the earlier models. Thus, the new HE-560 will sell for $899 in the US, or £549 in the UK. While this $899 price certainly makes the HE-560 a premium-priced headphone (as most people would use that term), it neatly falls under the $1000 mark, since that sum represent a cost-of-entry barrier many prospective buyers would prefer not to cross.

What is new and different about the HE-560 relative to earlier HiFiMAN headphones? Just about everything including the headphone’s frame, headband system, ear cup and ear pad design, driver design, and even packaging.

Earlier HiFiMAN full-size headphones used a thick, arched, padded top frame at the ends of which were found somewhat “fiddly” sliding metal ear cup yoke assemblies. The trouble with this structure was that it didn’t offer quite enough range of adjustment to accommodate listeners with smaller heads, and that it was also relatively heavy. In the HE-560, however, HiFiMAN introduces an all new design featuring a thin, overarching, leaf-spring-like frame (shaped like an inverted “U”) at the ends of which are attached sturdy, lightweight, swiveling, moulded black thermoplastic ear cup yokes. But the coolest detail of all involves the HE-560’s clever, suspended, sling-like headband pad whose position can be adjusted upward or downward via a pair of ratcheting clips—so that the weight of the headphone is always supported by the headband sling. The result is a system that is lighter and much more comfortable than HiFiMAN’s old headband and that offers a considerably wider range of adjustment, too.

The HE-560’s ear cup and ear pad designs are also changed for the better. The HE-560’s cylinder-shaped ear cups are made of made of a moulded thermoplastic material wrapped in a very thick (roughly 1mm) oiled teakwood veneer *. They also sport moulded black thermoplastic outer trim rings fitted with black metal mesh grilles (like virtually all of HiFiMAN’s full-size headphones, the HE-560 is an open-back design).

* Actually, this construction detail is one of the changes between the early-release HE-560 and this final production version. In the early-release units, the entire ear cup was made of precision milled oiled teakwood. From the outside, however, the new version looks virtually identical.

The result is a more polished and luxurious-looking ear cup design than those found in earlier HiFiMAN headphones, and one that feels lighter in the hand. Unlike earlier HiFiMAN designs, the HE-560 ear cups are configured so that the signal cable attachment points are angled forward, rather the pointing straight downward toward the wearer’s shoulders. As it turns out, this seemingly small change makes the headphones a lot more comfortable to wear.

Then, on the inward-facing side of the ear cups, the HE-560 provides detachable, user replaceable ear pads that, when viewed on edge, appear almost wedge shaped (much like the pads used on certain Audeze or Abyss headphones). As delivered, the pads are set up so that the thinner edge of the pad points forward, while the thicker edge aims toward the rear. Because the pads are detachable and can to some degree be repositioned, users are free to experiment with pad alignment to find an optimal fit. The pads provide outer covers made of an easy-to-clean leather (or leatherette?) material, while the surfaces that actually contact the wearer’s head and ears are covered in a velour-like fabric that helps wick away perspiration—a very clever touch.

The actual planar magnetic driver assembly is also new and is described by HiFiMAN as a “single-sided planar magnetic driver (that) provides superior soundstage and spatial imaging”, and that is also said to provide increased efficiency (90dB/mW) to make the headphone easier to drive. By comparison, the efficiency ratings of some other similar headphone models are as follows:

· HiFiMAN HE-500, 89 dB/mW

· HiFiMAN HE-6, 83.5dB/mW

· Oppo PM-1,102 dB/mW

· Audeze LCD-3, 93 dB/mW

So, the HE-560 claims to be the most efficient of HiFiMAN’s upper-tier headphone models, but is nowhere near the efficiency of the über easy-to-drive Oppo PM-1.

The term “single-sided”, above, refers to the fact that the HE-560 driver provides a magnet array on only one side (the outboard side) of the driver diaphragm—a design path that has also been explored by some other reputable manufacturers of planar magnetic headphones (e.g., Abyss), ostensibly in the name of achieving superior sonic transparency and openness. The train of thought is that it is best to have as few physical obstructions as possible between the “ear side” of the diaphragm and the user’s ears. Other planar magnetic headphone makers offer double-sided or so-called “push-pull” drivers, arguing that this topology inherently does a better job of balancing the electromagnetic forces acting on the driver diaphragm. Arguments can be made for both approaches. We have heard designs of both types work very well, so that the ultimate proof must—as always—be found in the listening.

The HE-560 arrives in an attractive wood-finished case that has a sliding brushed metal top plate, which pulls aside to reveal the contents within. In the heavily padded case one finds the headphones proper, their detachable signal cables, and an instruction pamphlet. All in all, this is far more attractive and sophisticated packaging than that originally used for the HE-6, HE-500, etc.

Naturally, the big question on all our minds is: how do the HE-560’s sound? I’m willing to give first impressions, but with the proviso that you understand clearly that THIS IS NOT A REVIEW. I dramatize this point with capital letters because HiFiMAN reports these headphones require a good 150 hours (!) of run-in before optimal sound will be achieved, while I have only logged about 5-6 hours of listening time with them thus far.

I have done most of my listening through a Lenovo-based music system using jRiver Media Center 19 media management software, an outboard 2TB music storage drive, and through excellent headphone amp/DAC units from Chord (the Hugo) and from AURALiC (the Gemini 2000). Headphones I had on hand for direct comparison included the HiFiMAN HE-500 and HE-6, and the Oppo PM-1.

First off, I can state with confidence that the HE-560’s voicing is noticeably different from that of the HE-500. Where the HE-500 has a subtly warm and ever-so-slightly dark or even romantic character, the HE-560 is arguably more neutrally balanced, meaning that it has the same taut, powerful bass as the HE-500, but with slightly more prominent mids and highs, with better treble extension. The beauty of things thus far is that, even though the HE-560 is more revealing than the HE-500, it is by no means sterile or analytical sounding.

I would also say that, good though the HE-500 is, the HE-560 offers even greater resolution and superior coherency, too. In practice, this means it does a better job than the HE-500 of retrieving low-level textural and transient details, and of capturing small bits and pieces of spatial and reverberant information in recordings. But even though the HE-560 reveals more of the music—and especially of its delicate low-level details—it stops well short of the sort of cold, hard-edged, and generally off-putting presentation that can sometimes give accurate hi-fi components a bad name. On the contrary, the HE-560 retains just the right touch of HiFiMAN’s signature musicality, which is a good thing.

Is the HE-560 on a par with the very revealing HE-6? Honestly, only time will tell. Straight out of the box and compared with my thoroughly run-in reference pair of HE-6s, the HE-560 was not yet the HE-6s equal (I could not help but notice that—good though the HE-560 is shaping up to be—there was, as the expression goes, more there there when I listened through the HE-6s in comparison to the HE-560s). With that said, however, I should point out that my HE-6s also did not sound as good as they presently do when they were brand new and had accumulated only few hours of running time. If you attempted to place the HE-500, HE-560, and HE-6 on a sonic continuum (picture a graph, if you will), then the HE-560 has already moved a good distance from the point representing the sound of the HE-500 in the direction of the HE-6. My thought is that, with more run-in time, the HE-560 may move further still—possibly to the point of catching up or even surpassing its bigger brother.

Heard alongside the Oppo PM-1 there are a number of observations that might be made, many of which I plan to save for a full review of the PM-1 slated to appear in one of the next issues of Hi-Fi+. However, perhaps the most obvious difference of all is the huge efficiency/sensitivity advantage the Oppo PM-1enjoys over the HE-560. On paper, the advantage lies 9dB in the Oppo’s favour, but subjectively speaking the gulf seems even bigger than that. In simple terms, you can drive the Oppo to optimal listening levels with far, far less power than it takes to achieve comparable results with the HE-560.

On paper, the HE-560 is theoretically a hair more efficient than the HE-500, but in actual practice I did not find this to be the case. No matter which amp I used, I consistently needed to use gain setting as high if not higher with the HE-560 in order to achieve desired listening levels. It’s possible that this characteristic could change with additional run-in time, but judging by past experience I am guessing it will not. For now, I would simply say that HE-500 owners considering an upgrade to the HE-560 should know that there will be no practical improvement in efficiency, although there will most definitely be a solid step forward in sound quality.

The HE-560 strikes me, even at this early stage, to offer excellent value for money. It really does combine some of the best sonic aspects of the critically acclaimed HE-500 and HE-6, but in a much lighter, more comfortable, and better-finished package. Given these advancements, the price of the HE-560s strikes me as being more than fair.

Stay tuned for our upcoming Hi-Fi+ review of the HE-560 once run-in is complete.

Nordost Valhalla 2 cable system

Nordost has put a lot of faith in mechanical tuning recently. The company discovered that a cable’s mechanical properties (including its physical length) are vital to in its sonic performance. The results of this investigation transformed the Leif and Norse 2 lines, but wait until you hear what it does to Valhalla!

If you set aside that mechanical tuning ethos, the difference between Valhalla and Valhalla 2 are still noteworthy. The interconnects have one extra extruded FEP-wrapped conductor per side, while the thickness of the silver plating over the 7N pure oxygen-free copper conductors increases from 70 to 85 microns. Although the interconnects look physically different to the original Valhalla, the most noticeable change is in the loudspeaker cables; with the Valhalla 2 now featuring four groups of seven 22 AWG solid core conductors in a dual mono-filament layout instead of 40 single mono-filament conductors, making the new Valhalla 2 look (and perform) more like Odin than original Valhalla. All the new cables feature the sculpted wooden resonance control blocks only hitherto seen on Odin cables in the Nordost line.

However, scratch the surface (not literally) and the biggest intellectual change between Valhalla and Valhalla 2 is the way the cables are terminated, calling on that aforementioned mechanical tuning ethos. Nordost has long been a proponent of precision termination and choosing the optimum length for any given cable, but Valhalla 2 takes this to its logical extreme. The company’s new Holo:Plug connectors are custom designed for the cable, using an extremely precise triple-plated termination ring for accurate grounding, and a full 360° contact termination to limit eddy currents. Nothing is left to chance.

I used a liberal scattering of Valhalla 2 (interconnects, loudspeaker, and power cords) through an equally liberal scattering of electronics devices and loudspeakers, and several things immediately come to mind. First, if there is a more elegant argument for the whole idea of using cables from the same family, I’ve not encountered it. Valhalla 2’s presentation is at its best in the context of at least a full Nordost setting and ideally a full Valhalla 2 cable network. There’s a sense of inevitability about this; you’ll find yourself migrating toward the full Valhalla 2 system and pushing the other cables out to the edges of the system. It also doesn’t matter where you come at this from, whether you are a ‘from the power cords’ proponent, a ‘change one thing’ advocate, or a follower of the ‘changing the biggest cables makes the biggest difference’ ethos; eventually you’ll begin to discover why people talk about ‘looms’ or ‘families’, and you’ll begin to explore. A world of Valhalla 2 waits.

Nordost has always been about leading-edge precision, and Valhalla 2 is no exception. But where Valhalla 2 moves beyond the Nordost norm is it adds significant depth and texture to that leading edge. The un-Nordost fraternity criticises the Nordost sound as being ‘all’ leading edge and bright or ‘etched’ as a result. But, Valhalla 2 doesn’t do ‘etched’. It does striking, jaw-on-the-floor detail and speed, but it also brings out the grace and the architecture of the music. Put another way, the music is presented unimpeded by the technology used to reproduce the music itself.

This creates an interesting philosophical diversion. Good cables are the type that colour the sound in one of many manners, and ideally you pick the one that is most pleasing to you. Better cables strive to reduce that colouration, to leave more space to show those things the system does well. But the very best cables (in which company Valhalla 2 stands proud and tall) introduce an additional factor; they make the products they are connected to perform better, which in turn makes them perform better together. This makes describing the sound of Nordost Valhalla 2 very difficult, because it’s the sound of your system, just more so.

Electronics and loudspeakers are generally compatible with one another today, so that most of the basic aspects of system matching fall to getting the right speaker for the room and the right amplifier for the loudspeaker, and most systems tend to work tolerably well together. The more care and attention spent on installation, the better of course. But this is where Valhalla 2 comes in; ‘tolerably well’ is not an option when spending tens or hundreds of thousands on audio equipment, and Valhalla 2 is the glue that holds your components together, lifting their sound above the constraints of merely performing ‘tolerably well’.

This can be an unnerving exercise; you find what you wanted from that original system is either not what you want today, or that your system is actually doing different things than you thought. Valhalla 2 can take the blame for unbalancing the system. Ultimately, if you hear that system before, during, and after putting V2 in place, you’ll begin to realise where the system was going, and where it was going wrong. V2 simply lays bare both strengths and weaknesses.

With a well-sorted system, the crucial indicator for this is night listening. Late in the evening, when the suburban lights are dimmed and the TVs, phones, and Internet connections of the land fall silent, the quality of a good hi-fi can be fantastic. During the evening, however, that wireless hash we are all constantly exposed to permeates the system and undermines performance. Music sounds flat and a little lifeless on even the best system. Valhalla 2 redresses the balance. It’s like moving to the country, building a faraday cage inside your room, and wearing your little hat made of silver foil, but without the risk of enforced medication.

Of course, all of this does make it somewhat difficult to pin the sound of Valhalla 2 down in pithy terms, because the terms are filtered through the system it is liberating. Yes, it is detail-packed, more focused, more clean, more dynamic, more precise, possessed of better inner detail, better microdynamics, and all the things that audiophiles find themselves drawn to, but more importantly it shows you what you liked about your music played through your system, in a more polished and professional presentation.

The cost of V2 is steep, but put this into perspective. I know people who have spent the cost of a fairly expensive house flailing around the high-end world, trying endless variations of amplifiers or loudspeakers or sources. All of these products go in, out, and through listeners’ systems with alarming rapidity, yet without bringing lasting contentment. They also often decry the idea of ‘exotic’ cables because they went through that phase long ago. If they were able to break the ‘hungry ghost’ cycle and give Nordost’s Valhalla 2 a try with whatever pretty good system they had at the time, they’d actually find the need to churn through a dozen DACs was significantly diminished, because the system just hangs together ‘right’.

I’ve shied away from the term ‘coherent cable loom’ here, but Nordost Valhalla 2 is the very model of coherence. It ties systems together in an holistic manner often sought, but rarely achieved. Short of Nordost’s Odin, I can’t think of anything that does this so dramatically.

Technical Specifications

Conductors throughout: multi-Mono-crystal silver-plated copper core, FEP dielectric. Valhalla 2 interconnects use custom Holo:Plug connectors

Prices as tested: Valhalla 2 loudspeaker cable £10,799/3m pair (additional £1,200 per 0.5m). Valhalla 2 interconnect cable £7,599/2m phono/XLR pair. Valhalla 2 power cord £4,599/2m

Manufactured by: Nordost Corporation

www.nordost.com

Distributed by: Atacama Audio

www.nordost-cables.co.uk

Tel: +44(0)1455 283251

Back to reviews

iFi Nano iDSD portable DSD DAC/headphone amplifier

Have you ever wondered what would happen if a high-end audio manufacturer with a reputation for sonic excellence applied itself wholeheartedly to designing affordable electronics for personal audio applications? As it happens, that very question has been answered by the British firm Abbingdon Music Research, through its subsidiary brand iFi Audio.

iFi’s first components were its compact, affordable, desktop-orientated Micro-series models that demonstrated an uncanny ability to channel many of the sonic virtues of AMR’s full-size, high-end components. I reviewed the iFi Micro iCAN headphone amplifier in Hi-Fi+ issue 97 and stated that it represented “a new benchmark in its price class and … a perfect entry point for high-enders who would like to experiment with top-tier headphones, yet without investing an arm and a leg in dedicated headphone electronics.” Lately, however, iFi has focused on developing an even more compact range of portable Nano-series models.

Given favourable past experiences with the brand, we decided to review iFi’s new Nano iDSD portable DAC/headphone amplifier (£165) and Nano iCAN portable headphone amplifier (£149, reviewed elsewhere in this issue). Candidly, £165 is such a modest sum that many might question whether it represents a viable budget for something as sophisticated as a multi-format, DSD-compatible DAC. But if you set aside such ‘it’s-too-cheap-to-be-good’ biases, you may discover, as I have, that the Nano iDSD can sound ridiculously good in many (though not all) listening contexts. In short, the Nano iDSD begs to be taken seriously.

The Nano iDSD’s list of features and functions is extensive and impressive. For starters, the iFi is an asynchronous USB DAC that uses a BurrBrown DAC chipset to provide true native decoding for PCM files (44.1 – 384kHz, 16 – 32-bit), DXD files (352.8 – 384 kHz/24-bit), and DSD files at rates of 2.8, 3.1, 5.6, and 6.2MHz. The unit’s high-speed asynchronous USB interface uses iFi’s signature “Bit-Perfect” data transfer technology, backed by proprietary “ZeroJitter Lite” clocking technology. Finally, the Nano iDSD provides a useful 130mW headphone amplifier.

Inputs, outputs, and controls are simple and straightforward. On the rear panel, one finds a USB 3.0 (2.0 compatible) jack that is used for file transfers and battery charging, a coaxial S/PDIF digital output, and a standard/minimum phase digital filter selector switch (iFi recommends minimum phase settings for listening, but standard settings for test measurements). Out front, the Nano iDSD provides a stereo RCA analogue output, a 3.5mm headphone jack, and a control knob that doubles as a volume control and power switch.

The top panel of the Nano iDSD sports a tiny, multi-function, multi-colour LED that indicates formats and sample rates for files being played, connectivity status, and battery charging status. Unlike inscrutable DACs that refuse to tell you what they are doing, the Nano iDSD’s status LED tells you exactly what’s going on (once you learn its colour code, of course).

Unlike competing compact DAC/amps such as the Audioengine D1, Audioquest Dragonfly II, Resonessence Labs Herus, or the upcoming Light Harmonic Geek Out, the Nano iDSD incorporates a 1400mAh Lithium-polymer battery and thus can be USB or battery powered. Users select their preferred power mode by following specific start-up sequences. By switching on the DAC before connecting a USB cable, the Nano iDSD will run on battery power, but by plugging in the USB cable first and then powering up the DAC, the Nano iDSD will run on USB power. This feature means listeners can use the iFi with devices (tablets, etc.) that might not be capable of supplying USB power. iFi also offers this important tip: “For Apple iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch, (or) Android devices, please use Battery Power; otherwise you may receive error messages from your device.”

According to the manufacturer, “MAC OSX (10.6 or later) has built-in native support for the iDSD.” However, Windows users (XP or later) will need to download and install driver software from the iFi website: www.ifi-audio.com. Note that iFi makes periodic improvements to its driver software and iDSD firmware to expand the unit’s capabilities and improve sound quality over time. For example, planned firmware upgrades for the Nano iDSD will soon add support for ASIO 2.2 Extensions for DSD, plus support for DSD256 (11.2Mhz/12.4MHz). Plainly it pays to keep your iDSD driver and firmware up to date.

How does the Nano iDSD sound? The answer depends, in no small part, upon the transducers you choose to use—a point I make because the Nano iDSD’s potentially excellent-sounding but relatively low-output amplifier handles certain loads far more gracefully than others. As a general rule, the iDSD responds well to earphones and headphones that offer a combination of high sensitivity, high resolution, and neutral tonal balance. On the other hand, if you choose ‘phones that are low in sensitivity or known to be ‘current-hungry,’ you may overtax the iFi and get less than ideal results (in such cases, you might need an auxiliary amp such as iFi’s Nano iCAN or the more powerful Micro iCAN). While I tried the Nano iDSD with 17 different earphones and headphones, I did the bulk of my listening through two models that yielded spectacularly good results with the iFi: namely, NuForce’s phase-coherent, quad-driver, Primo 8 earphones and Oppo’s very high sensitivity PM-1 planar magnetic headphones.

At its best, the Nano iDSD delivers a refined and decidedly musical sound that exhibits natural (not artificial) warmth, a beautifully rounded and full-bodied presentation, excellent bass, suave yet articulate mids, and smooth, well-detailed highs. I also found the Nano iDSD did a good job of conveying the three-dimensional qualities found in better recordings—even though, unlike some other iFi models, the Nano iDSD does not incorporate specialised ‘3D’ circuitry.

I was particularly impressed by the Nano iDSD’s ability to leverage the top-to-bottom phase coherency and all-around timing accuracy of ‘phones such as the NuForce Primo 8s and Oppo PM-1s. Personally, I judge qualities of coherency and timing accuracy by asking two straightforward questions. First, do the upper harmonics and overtones of instrumental and human voices sound like a natural and well-integrated extension of the fundamentals of those voices, or do they sound disembodied or ‘disconnected’? Second, do transient events have a naturally quick, clear, and incisive attack with realistic decays, or do they sound overwrought, as if artificial ‘edge-enhancements’ have been applied? The iFi answers both questions in a clear, sharply-focused, yet appropriately musical way that fosters long-term listener satisfaction.

Consider, for example, the Nano iDSD’s performance as it drives the NuForce Primo 8s on Keith Greeninger, Chris Kee & Brain’s song “Close to the Soul T2” (Blue Coast Special Event 21, DSD128). On this track Greeninger’s vocals range from a whisper on up to full song and back down again, depending upon the requirements of the lyrics, and the iFi helps the NuForce ‘phones capture every subtle shift in emphasis and inflection along the way. What is more, the iFi helps the ‘phones tap deep reservoirs of low-level sonic information, giving the harmonics of Greeninger’s voice and of his gently strummed acoustic guitar their due, while also retrieving reverberant and spatial cues as the voice and guitar interact with the acoustics of the recording space. Finally, the accompaniment from an acoustic bass is heard with appropriate weight, warmth, and a soaring, richly-textured growl. Throughout, the iFi enables the NuForce to deliver a finely focused and simply masterful rendition of the recording, in the process giving a great example of a high-end audio system that could fit easily in a listener’s pocket or handbag.

No less impressive is the Nano iDSD’s performance through Oppo’s full-size PM-1planar magnetic headphones on the Gordon Getty “Overture to the opera ‘Plump Jack’, for Orchestra” from Orchestral Works by Gordon Getty [Marriner/Academy of Saint Martin in The Fields, Pentatone]. This enjoyable yet demanding test track presents a roughly 12 minute-long orchestral obstacle course for any DAC, amp, or headphone to negotiate—a test made all the more challenging by the abrupt musical ‘mood swings’ the music presents. As an example, listen to the transitions you will hear between the 6:00-minute and 9:20-minute marks in the track. During that brief span the music swings through melancholic and pensive moods, into lighter and more wryly humourous passages, on through to a section where we hear loud, low frequency percussion statements offset against ferocious brass section outbursts. Throughout, the Nano iDSD faithfully captures not only the distinctive textures, timbres, and dynamics of each section, but also their overall feel. In my notes I wrote, “The PM-1 shows just how articulate and nuanced the Nano iDSD’s mids and highs really are, and also how soulful, punchy, and well-defined its low-end can be.”

In sum, when paired with appropriately revealing, accurate, and high-sensitivity transducers, the affordable Nano iDSD DAC/amp provides an amazingly versatile and sonically sophisticated high-end solution. The only caveat is that, for best results, you must avoid asking the iFi to drive ‘phones whose power demands exceed the Nano iDSD output capabilities. Just keep that one rule in mind and you will be in for a serious sonic treat, and one that comes at a ‘cheap thrills’ price. But, should you require additional clout, flip back a few pages, to iFi’s Nano iCAN…

Technical Specifications

Type: Battery/USB-powered, portable high-resolution DAC and headphone amplifier
Digital Inputs: High-speed Asynchronous USB 2.0
(32-bit, 384 kHz)
Formats supported: PCM from 44.1 to 384 kHz, 16 to 3- bit; DXD (352.8 or 384kHz, 24-bit); DSD (2.8, 3.1, 5.6, 6.2 MHz)
Digital Outputs: S/PDIF (coaxial RCA)
Analogue Outputs: 3.5mm mini-jack headphone output, stereo analogue (variable level, via dual RCA jacks)
Power: Depending on start-up conventions followed, the Nano iDSD can be either USB-powered or
battery powered
Battery capacity: 1400 mAh
Headphone amplifier output: 130mW
Dimensions (H x W x D): 28 x 67 x 106mm
Weight: 167g
Price: £165

Manufacturer Information: iFi

www.ifi-audio.com

Distributed by: Select Audio

www.selectaudio.co.uk

Tel: +44(0)1900 601954

Back to reviews

QUAD ESL 2812 electrostatic loudspeaker

After much dropping of hints I was offered the chance to spend a couple of months living with the latest Quad Electrostatic speaker, the 2812. Many years ago I owned three different pairs of the original ESL 57s over a relatively short period of time. I kept buying them, selling them and missing them before repeating the cycle. In those days I was driving them either by Quad or Naim amplification and I have nothing but the warmest memories of my time spent in their company. When it came time to finally move on I did, but often with a fond look over my shoulder at what I had lost. The stream of conventional speakers that followed never offered across the board improvements, although I hardly missed the invisible bass or the irritating beaming of the high frequencies that meant only one person could ever really enjoy their full musical picture. Back then it was the sheer insight through clarity that hooked me.

The China-based firm International Audio Group acquired Quad in 1997 and (thankfully) continued the development of the ESL. Each new version seems aimed at better mitigating the traditional shortcomings of the brilliant original design. It is clear that there have been few loudspeakers that polarise opinions in quite the same way as the Quads. After solid eight weeks with the 2812, my reactions have run the gamut from finding the speakers at times less impressive than I expected, but at other moments sitting for a listening session and thinking the 2812s are one of the greatest speakers I have ever heard.

The power supply has undergone big advances with improved quality components as have the panels themselves. There are four panels in the 2812 and six in the 2912, and the two inner panels that handle the high frequencies comprise of concentric circles of electrodes, arranged in rings that give these modern Quads far better HF dispersion. The electronics incorporate a delay circuit that enables the speaker to produce an almost perfectly phase-coherent, quasi-spherical wavefront.

The whole physical integrity of the speaker has been upgraded considerably. Structurally the panels are located within a set of aluminium frames and these are coupled to steel supporting units and braced by an adjustable tension rod to the base. Although I never had the opportunity to listen to the 2812’s immediate predecessors I am told that these structural and electronic upgrades have made a significant improvement and added more consistency to their performance.

The 2812 is, by common consent and along with its larger brother 2912, certainly the best Quad electrostatic to date. It still offers the same magnifying glass to the rest of the system, particularly the driving amplifier, and it remains somewhat tricky to accommodate unless space is not an issue. That said, I do think it is easy to overstate its installation demands in comparison to other high-end designs, all of which require specific attention to individual installation. Every review always cites them as being great, but somehow difficult to live with and compromised. They have always been a kind of niche product really, a speaker for the very few whose requirements perfectly dovetail with the Quads strengths. I totally get that though. They do have amazing qualities that are eminently desirable, but do their shortcomings limit their suitability to the relatively few? The few would be those that have the room for them, the equipment to drive them, don’t listen at high levels, enjoy small scale acoustic music almost exclusively, and don’t want much in the way of bass. Well, yes, I can see certainly see that there is some truth in these points, but it also seems to me that they have been exaggerated somewhat with the Quads becoming marginalised as a result. After having lived with them for a while I have grown to think of them quite differently and would again point out that just about every speaker has its own limitations.

These days there are many amplifiers that can quite happily deal with the driving aspect though if ever there was a case for a home demonstration, these Quads make it with some force. I used the 25 Wpc Vitus SIA-025 class A integrated amplifier (an amp some might find marginal for the low-to-medium sensitivity Quads, but that was fine for me), plus the David Berning Pre One and Quadrature Z power amplifiers. These OTL devices proved absolutely stunning with the Quads and are probably close to the ideal amplifier as the transformer that one finds conventionally at the output of most tube amplifiers is located in the Quads themselves. To be able to experience the Bernings in full voice with this configuration was truly memorable. You want musical tension and real eloquence of expression? Check this combination out!

The thing about the Quads is that they sound so very, very different to any moving-coil speaker you will have heard and it takes a period of readjustment to get used to that. This is not so much in their pure musical abilities but rather in the way they actually make the sound. The shape of the instrumentation is quite, quite different. Down through the bass there is no tight, pistonic driving of the air over a relatively small surface like that of a conventional bass driver. The Quads can make even the best speakers sound compressed at the leading edges of low-frequency notes. Presumably because the Mylar membrane is so incredibly light, the bass just seems to happen with no aural message of its impending arrival and no trace after it has gone. The way that acoustic instruments (especially) start and stop through the Quads is also very different and can be quite beautiful once you have got used to it. The texture, rise time, note shape, and pure impact clarity of a piano, for instance, is only enhanced by the ease with which they can swing and control a transient without drama or any detectable squeezing or compressive side-effects. They hardly sacrifice tonality either although the lack of colouration can leave them sounding somewhat cool and even dry to anyone not used to them. They never sound harsh. But you soon get used to that, as you grow more and more comfortable with the way the music is presented. Even very expensive and highly regarded speaker designs can seem artificial at the leading edges of notes as they compress the natural envelopes of the instruments being reproduced. Similarly, the squeezed and slightly sour harmonics of conventional speakers are thrown into sharp relief by the Quads seeming unflappability when the playing energies grow.

The Quads don’t have the broad range of dynamic expression that some conventional speakers do, and they simply cannot compete when it comes to sheer air-moving power and strength. Where they are also less engaging is in the way they portray the front-to-back depth of the recording where they sound a little too self-contained nd they rarely produce soundstages whose breadth extends beyond the outer edges of the speakers. This can be down to placement, though, and there are a number of dos and don’ts that I discovered when I installed them in my ‘smaller than ideal’ listening room.

The 2812s come with solid spiked feet that still leave the speakers quite close to the floor and I was constantly bothered by a bass reflection that gave the speakers a rather irritating bloom at certain frequencies. I experimented with different footings that I had, and found that a set of Stillpoints Ultra SS screwed directly into the base of the Quads with an adaptive thread fixing certainly cleaned things up. But, as an experiment, I sat each speaker on an individual shelf level from an Atacama bamboo rack. This raised them a further few inches from the floor. Now, I don’t claim this is a particularly attractive way to mount the speakers but it really does help clean that bass up and gives it a much better shape, particularly on any instrumentation with a fast, sharp leading edge. If I owned a pair of Quads I would design a method to lift them away from that first reflection. You may not cure the problem, but reducing it helps with the shape of the bass quite a lot and this is felt throughout the bandwidth.

Then there is the actual positioning and there is much to be both gained and lost here. Put simply, listeners will want to give the Quads as much free air as they can. Remember that the Quads generate as much energy from their rear as they do their front and that this is out of phase too. Rear walls, unless you have a huge room, are going to be a serious consideration and will make or break the ultimate success of the installation. I could only really manage a metre between the back wall and the speaker and even after experimenting with actual placement (easy on a wooden floor with the Ultras fitted) I could hear music generated from the rear bouncing about in the corner, blurring tempos and rhythms way too much. Listening to the energy levels happening back there was pretty scary. The close reflection of the wall was pushing the inverse phase signal back into the room and biting hard into the clarity of the music and taking a serious toll on articulation as well.

I decided that I needed some rear absorption and tried everything I had to hand that could provide some, with varying degrees of success. I settled on some sound panels usually used to calm listening room airflow. But what a worthwhile difference they made. With these in place the Quads moved into cleaner focus and the articulation became quite stunning, by any standards. With the clarity came dynamic freedom and the noise levels just fell away. Now there was much more focussed musical tension and a real sense of anticipation in the music and the Quad’s really dramatic qualities just poured out of them in a beautifully integrated and seamless of flow of rich, vivid musical detail. Unless you have plenty of room behind the speakers, if you love what the Quads do, you are going to need to address their rear wave reflections. I would suggest you start with some cushions to get a feel for how rear wave absorption affects the sound and then take it from there.

So, if it takes time to feel at home with the Quads, the rewards are certainly there waiting. Give them an acoustic instrument to deal with and a good recording to get their teeth into and I can guarantee they will show you a new way of looking at recorded sound. The leading edge detail is, as I said, quite amazing, but what really captures the imagination is the way the whole harmonic structure of each instrument is laid so bare. A solo piano, although a mighty difficult instrument to reproduce in a listening room, has a scale and a structure that is only enhanced by the beautiful relationship between the notes. Chords struck with finesse or venom are shown with not only sweet clarity but also with superb shape and separation. On small-scale classical works, such as string quartets the Quads are in their element and let you follow every individual instrument and musical thread with great ease. Likewise with vocals. What they don’t have is the ability to throw the voice into the room and to hold it isolated in space before your face in the way that a speaker like the recently-reviewed Estelon XC (Issue 110) does. Both speakers tell the same story, but in very different ways.

Whoever said that the Quads are like having a giant set of headphones in the room with you is essentially right. It is impossible not to be mightily impressed with so many aspects of their performance and I have little doubt that most people will have several musical revelations during their time with them. There are so many things they can show you about an instrument that are wonderful. There are also times when they can seem rather flat and uninspiring and never quite “let go” like a quality conventional speaker can and in this sense they are quite conservative (though this conservative quality is also part of their appeal). I think every audiophile should try a pair of electrostatics on their musical journey. Some will stop at that station, as the Quads, once heard, may spoil listeners for conventional speakers ever afterward.

Quad electrostatics have always been so different and so musically intriguing that they must be experienced – a tradition that continues with the 2812. Given their upsides and build quality, I must say these speakers are also very reasonably priced.

Technical Specifications

Type: Floor standing Electrostatic panel loudspeaker
Panels: Four in each
Sensitivity: 86dB
Max. Power: 200 watts
Impedance: 8 ohms nominal
Dimensions: 107x69x38cm (HxWxD)
Price: £6,499 per pair

Manufacturer: IAG, China

www.quad-hifi.co.uk

UK Sales Tel: +44(0)1480 452561

Back to reviews

iFi Nano iCAN portable headphone amplifier

In high-end audio, context can be everything. Directly following this review, I have also prepared a review of iFi Audio’s Nano iDSD portable DAC/headphone amplifier, in which I observe that the iDSD can be a very fine-sounding headphone amplifier if—and this is a big ‘if’—it is used with the sorts of high-sensitivity headphones and earphones that it is capable of driving well. But this observation naturally invites a question? What happens if you want to listen through not-so-easy-to-drive headphones? The simple answer is that the iDSD runs out of sonic steam in such contexts, meaning you might want to consider using a more powerful auxiliary headphone amplifier such as iFi’s portable Nano iCAN amp (£149), so as to have more sonic ‘muscle’ at your disposal.

“But hold on a second,” I can hear the diehard specifications readers interjecting, “iFi says the Nano iDSD makes almost as much power as the Nano iCAN does, so what good will adding an iCAN do?” It’s a fair question because iFi’s published technical specifications claim the Nano iDSD’s amp puts out about 130mW of power (at 16 Ohms), while the Nano iCAN’s amp produces 150mW of power (at 32 Ohms). So, the iCAN is nominally the more powerful product, but not by so large a margin as to lead us to expect significant sonic differences, or so it might seem at first glance. However, in practice the Nano iCAN sounds demonstrably and substantially more powerful than the iDSD does, which is why I think it makes a terrific add-on—or a fine choice for those who need a good, versatile, low-cost portable headphone amp, whether they use portable DACs such as the iDSD or not.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the Nano iCAN is to picture it as a portable model roughly half the size and less than half the price of iFi’s bigger and more potent (but non-portable) Micro iCAN headphone amp. And, though the Nano iCAN offers less power output, it preserves many (perhaps even most?) of its bigger brother’s sonic virtues. If you’ve read our Hi-Fi+ review of the Micro iCAN (from issue 97), then you know we regard it very highly and consider it a benchmark in its price class.

The prospect of achieving very similar sound quality from a unit that’s smaller, less expensive, and portable to boot can only be considered a good thing.

What is more, the iFi folks somehow managed to endow the Nano iCAN with almost all of the features of the bigger amp (albeit in a more streamlined form). For example, the Micro iCAN sported a two-position ‘Xbass’ low-frequency boost switch, which in the Nano iCAN has been simplified single-position ‘Xbass’ switch. Similarly, the Micro iCAN offered a two-setting ‘3D’ enhancement circuit that has been distilled down to a single-setting ‘3D’ switch for the Nano iCAN. But, given that less is often more in high performance audio components, one might argue that the Nano iCAN’s simpler control circuits work even more intuitively and actually sound better than the more complicated versions found in the bigger Micro iCAN.

Before delving into sonic qualities, let’s do a quick tour of the Nano iCAN’s features and functions. The little amp provides two stereo analogue inputs (one via RCA jacks, the other via a 3.5mm mini-jack), and a single 6.35mm TRS headphone jack. There are two tiny toggle switches for the aforementioned Xbass and 3D controls, plus a combination on/off switch and rotary volume control. A tiny, recessed, green LED serves as a pilot light, while on the bottom of the unit we find a pair of recessed DIP switches that allow users to select either +6dB or +18dB of master gain (the former setting is for high sensitivity earphones, IEMs, and headphones, while the latter is for more difficult-to-drive and/or power-hungry headphones). Interestingly, iFi documentation indicates that, once the Nano iCAN’s 1400mAh battery is fully charged, playing time is a stonking 70 hours, which means that—depending upon your listening habits—you might conceivably charge up the Nano iCAN before going on a long-ish trip and not really need to charge it up again until you got home. Pretty cool idea, no?

But now, let’s shift our attention to the Nano iCAN’s sound. To appreciate the qualities the Nano iCAN brings to the party I found it instructive to connect my reference Audeze LCD-3 planar magnetic headphones first (and directly) to the Nano iDSD DAC/amp and then to add in the Nano iCAN as an auxiliary amp for use with the iDSD. As you would expect, the iDSD was indeed able to drive the fairly demanding LCD-3s to a point, though without—to be honest—coming even remotely close to eliciting all the performance the LCD-3s have to give. When the Audezes were driven straight from the iDSD they sounded reasonably clear and articulate, but lacking in body, three dimensionality, natural warmth, and especially bass weight. In short, I was hearing all of the expected warning signs that the LCD-3 was simply ‘too much headphone’ for the iDSD to handle on its own.

But, the minute I added the Nano iCAN to the signal path, everything got better in a big, big way. Suddenly, the presentation sounded appropriately full-bodied, full of natural and organic weight and warmth, while dynamics became markedly more expressive and, when the music warranted, downright powerful. Candidly, the before/after difference was so great that the LCD-3 almost sounded like a different headphone with the Nano iCAN in play. Does this mean the iDSD has an inadequate or ‘weak’ amplifier? No, not at all. But it does mean the iDSD is fairly particular about the loads it can and can’t drive well. The Nano iCAN’s role, however, is to open up the playing field to help the iDSD (or any other portable source component) drive a much broader spectrum of headphones and earphones. This it does wonderfully well and with such good-natured grace and exuberance, refinement, and sophistication, that you may find yourself wondering how iFi managed to pack so much goodness into such a small case for just £149. Trust us: It’s money well spent.

Technical Specifications

Type: Battery or AC powered, portable headphone amplifier
Analogue Inputs: One stereo RCA, one stereo
3.5mm mini-jack
Analogue Outputs: 6.35mm TRS headphone jack.
Battery capacity: 1400 mAh, provides approximately 70 hours of playback time.
Headphone amplifier output: 150mW
Dimensions (H x W x D): 28 x 68 x 87mm
Weight: 160g
Price: £149

Manufacturer Information: iFi

www.ifi-audio.com

Distributed by: Select Audio

www.selectaudio.co.uk

Tel: +44(0)1900 601954

Back to reviews

Unplanned obsolescence

A few years ago, at least one set of conspiracy theorists were proved right. After the reunification of Germany, historians were sifting through the archives of the Osram factory in the former East Germany, and there in the records was the proof that a cartel of manufacturers deliberately stopped making light bulbs with a 2,500 hours lifespan in order to provide one that burned brighter, but only lasted 1,000 hours. This was the first recorded exercise in planned obsolescence. It wasn’t the last.

Manufacturers of all kinds struggled to create product demand that came with a quick replacement cycle. Most notably, American car manufacturers of the 1950s used incremental annual styling changes to inspire buyers to change their car on a yearly basis. It worked… for a while. Eventually financial downturns and the oil crisis in the 1970s made an annual replacement car impractical.

However, it is the telecommunications and computer industry that truly perfected planned obsolescence. We have become the willing agents of this, too, by happily buying minor variations on the theme of ‘tablet’, ‘smartphone’, or ‘laptop’, fuelled in part by regular downloaded free upgrades. When the time comes for the launch of a new smartphone, customers will happily buy the new model just in case the next round of software upgrades skip the previous model, and you are left with a dinosaur from the distant past of last year in your pocket.

This constant spiral of upgrades and new models used to have nothing whatsoever to do with good audio. We have products immune to planned obsolescence; the SME Series V tonearm, for example, has remained essentially unchanged since the mid 1980s, and the Klipschorn is only a couple of summers away from 70 years in continuous production. Even those brands with a reputation for changing product lines fast operate at glacial speeds compared with the telecoms and computer industries; brands like Audio Research and Musical Fidelity might have a new product or two every year, but in most cases hose products will stay in the catalogue for five years or more. And loudspeaker brands – even high-tech, electronics-filled loudspeaker brands like MartinLogan – don’t refresh the range with every season.

That’s changing. With the increased importance of the computer industry in all things consumer electronic, and the use of the smartphone and tablet computer in domestic music replay in the mainstream, audio now moves at a faster pace. This begins, naturally, with computer-side audio products (such as USB DACs), which change at a rate far faster than ever before. ‘Change’ here being a polite euphemism for “having a product life cycle about as long as it takes for milk to spoil”. But the infectious nature of such a rapidly churning sector of audio has meant shorter times between product changes have begun across the board. Where a product might have remained in the catalogue for eight years or more, now it’s five or six. This is still largely a function of the digital side of audio, but the ‘what have you done for me lately?’ effect of such radical changes in one side of audio has influence on the entire marketplace.

I’m not convinced these ever-shorter product life-cycles are a good thing. On the surface, it means that a buyer can always stay ahead of the curve, buying the latest model with the most current format support. But with this comes a significant hit on the resale values of older equipment; anyone trying to sell a ‘preloved’ DAC from a few years ago knows this all too well. Your state-of-the-art high-end converter from three years ago may well sound remarkable, and could even out-perform today’s best DSD-ready converters, but it’s hard to make it realise anything like a reasonable resale value, simply because it doesn’t support DSD. It doesn’t matter whether either you, or the prospective buyer own no DSD material, or have any intention of ever owning DSD material, it doesn’t do DSD and that makes it an almost worthless relic of a bygone age.

Conspiracy theorists believe DAC manufacturers trying to hoodwink the public into owning a new converter every few years, drive this demand for change. But I think the truth is more complex than it first seems. There are many manufacturers (including supposedly those scheming digital Black Hats) who are struggling to keep pace with the endless demand for the latest spec, which results in a lot of unsold products with the wrong set of tick boxes being left out in the cold. I suspect we have adopted the endless-upgrade mindset of the computer world.

Aside from streaming, audio is a small and mature market. We put on a good show, but what audio demonstrates is a team of a handful of people can make excellent products, but they are products for the long-haul. Although products generally improve from generation to generation, those generations involve often a number of man-years of an iterative process of designing, prototyping, listening, and modifying. If you are Apple developing a new audio chip in partnership with a manufacturer, you might have dozens, even hundreds of designers working together, so a product design process that might involve ten man-years of work might be complete in a few months. If, on the other hand, the same one man completed those ten man-years of work, you’d be lucky to see one product per decade. And if, 18 months into the life-span of that product, the world demands Version 2.0, the company might look forward to years without sales while the new model gets developed, even though the first version is still excellent.

If we seriously expect our tube power amps to be less than a few years old, we have to either expect there to be a whole bunch of new brands every few years, or learn that good things come to those who wait. Unfortunately, that statement seems not to have any meaning now.

Stax SR-009 / SRM-007tII ‘Kimik’

We have already touched upon the Stax SR-009. Our Publisher, Chris Martens, has a great deal of respect for the product, both when it is driven by Stax‘energisers’ (Stax-speak for electrostatic headphone amplifiers) and especially third-party electrostatic amps. But, the audiophile is an odd breed, and Chris’ passion for high-end headphones and earphones can sometimes be met with a simple dismissal by those still wedded to their loudspeakers. But in real terms where does the Stax SR-009 (accompanied this time by the SRM-007tIIenergiser) stand in relation to the wider audiophile world?

There’s not much I can say about the SR-009 that people don’t already know. It’s the flagship electrostatic ‘ear speaker’ from a company best known and associated with electrostatic headphones, which need a purpose-built electrostatic amplifier or ‘energiser’ (not simply a conventional headphone amplifier). Also, the whole system costs as much as a good second-hand car.

However, where a flagship design typically adds to the standard range, there is next to nothing on the SR-009 shared with the rest of the range. Even down to the diaphragm material. The SR-009 uses an ultra-thin film in place of the usual reinforced engineering plastics, because it has all the properties needed by an electrostatic diaphragm, but with more resilience. It doesn’t come cheap. Neither do the photo-etched multi-layer electrodes (or ‘MLER’: not the best acronym, unless you speak fluent zombie) that drive the whole diaphragm itself. The enclosure itself is a traditional circular shape, as opposed to wearing two rectangular boxes on your ears as in the 207-507 models, and this is more ear-shaped like the 007s and other headphones. The aluminium outer ring connects to the headband with a tried-and-trusted gimballed connection, which means it’s a universally comfortable design (you’d have to have a really weird head not to find these comfy). While the former 007 flagship comes in a spiffy flight case, the 009 oozes class in its wooden box.

It connects, via a flat cable and a moulded five-pin plug to one of a range of energisers; high voltage amplifiers designed specifically for the task of driving those stator ear panels. As mentioned previously, we used the top Stax flagship, the SRM-007tII. This uses two pairs of 6FQ7 tubes in the output stage, and a FET input stage, running pure balanced and in full Class A. Symmetry ‘hot rods’ the SRM-007tII slightly in its ‘Kimik’ guise, with a spot of cryo treatment for the tubes, gold plated pins and EAT tube dampers, adding an extra £200 to the base price. These 6FQ7s are not there for show, or to soften or warm up the sound. They are there because high-voltage electronics was more of a ‘thing’ in the age of tubes, and although solid-state can also be used in high-voltage capacities, this is one place where hollow-state technology has indisputable benefits, that do not just fall to ‘sounding nice’.

The SRM-007tII can take balanced or single-ended audio inputs, but it is distinctly balanced in design, and this perfectly fits the performance parameters of the inherently balanced SR-009. Dedicated headphone enthusiasts could use this in place of an amplifier entirely, while more traditional audiophiles would simply connect it to a line or tape output. It’s an unfussy performer, not requiring careful handling, is not inherently cable fussy or platform sensitive, and despite having four glowing bottles inside, isn’t particularly microphonic. That being said, the SR-009s can show up the difference between good, better, and best quality sources with ease and if you are wanting to show off how good your new cables sound, you’ll hear everything through the SR-009s.

Curiously though, the first reaction to the SR-009 sound is a vacillation between two states. The first is ‘meh!’, and the second is ‘I wonder how that album sounds on these?’ In fact, these are variations on the same theme, and it’s the Stax busily re-writing just what you think of as ‘good’. There is nothing intrinsically impressive about the SR-009, and that is paradoxically what is so impressive about the SR-009. You begin to realise (and realise pretty quickly) that what appears good about other transducers is a sham; a ‘smoke and mirrors’ trick to make music ‘showy’ sounding, where the Stax combo is the real deal.

It’s so damn unflappable. Put on some fabulously well-recorded piece of audiophile material (Anne Bisson’s new self-published Tales from the Treetops, for example), and you get a sound of remarkable space, clarity and inner detail. But this is what audiophile recordings are made for, they impress throughout. Whip on something more dirty, such as ‘Girl, You have no Faith in Medicine’ from The White Stripes Elephant [XL], and you get raucous, stripped to the bone lo-fi rocking blues at its most energetic.

But it’s the points in between these two poles where the Stax flagship really comes into its own. Once you begin to drill down into what this headphone system can do, it’s truly staggering. A good speaker system can let you hear the reverb tails of a studio recording as distinct from the instrument itself; the Stax gets even deeper and lets you hear the difference between different styles of reverb. You’ll hear if the engineer has had to pull out some of his or her tool kit to ‘tickle up’ a vocal, and you’ll be surprised at how subtle auto-tune can be and how often it is used today. Edits and cut-ins are impossible to miss, the subtle use of compression on the guitar part in a not-so-subtle signal compressed sound becomes clear (even ‘Things We Lost In The Fire’ by Bastille became fascinating rather than infuriating as a result). And, dispel any suggestion about electrostatics and volume; if you are hearing distortion that isn’t on the album, it’s your ears crying for mercy. There is no distortion, there is no colouration, there is just the music, and it’s a breathtaking ride through your collection.

However, there are some who react to the SR-009 instantaneously, complaining of a lack of bass. However, those who have spent any time with the SR-009, who have come to realise what the ‘ear speaker’ system really, really does are divided into pitying these poor deluded souls, and wanting to hunt them for sport. It’s not ‘bass light’, it’s ‘bass right’; a sound of remarkable depth and precision, free from bloat, overhang, imprecision, and flab.

Finally, we return to the original question: what does a loudspeaker-wielding hi-fi buff think about the top of the Stax tree? Put simply, ‘wow!’ In detail resolution and clarity, I wonder if there is a loudspeaker out there (irrespective of price, design, or technology) that comes close to what the SR-009 can offer.

There are few things in life that can be bought and which are incontrovertibly among ‘the best’, but the Stax SR-009 is a part of that select band. Perhaps the best praise I can lay at the door of Stax is the day after these headphones went back, I mourned their loss, and stopped listening to music for a week (which in my job is practically a resignation letter). These headphones aren’t just ‘good’; they are tantamount to a life-changing experience for the open-minded audiophile. They are the last loudspeakers you will ever own.

Technical Specifications

SR-009

Type: Push-pull circumaural, open-back, electrostatic headphone.
Frequency response: 5Hz – 42kHz
Electrostatic Capacitance: 110pF (including cable)
Impedance: 145kOhms nominal (including cable)
Sensitivity: 101dB/100V rms @ 1kHz
Maximum Sound Pressure: 118dB/400Hz
Bias Voltage: 580V DC.
Accessories: Wood presentation case
Weight: 590g (with signal cables).
Price: £3,495
SRM-007tII ‘Kimik’
Type: Vacuum tube output stage Low noise dual FET input Class A operation, Pure balance DC amplifier configuration Earspeaker driver unit
Vacuum Tubes: 4x 6QF7/6CG7
Inputs: two stereo single-ended (via RCA jacks), one stereo balanced (via dual 3-pin XLR jacks)
Outputs: one RCA parallel output, five pin balanced headphone socket (x2)
Frequency response: DC – 100kHz, +0dB, -1.5dB
THD+N: Max. 0.02%, (1kHz, 100V rms)
Dynamic Range: not specified
Rated Input Level: 200mV/100V outputs
Maximum Input Level: 30V rms at min. volume
Maximum Output Level: 340V rms (1kHz)
Dimensions (HxWxD): 104 x 195 x 420mm
Weight: 4.7kg
Price: £2,295

Manufacturer: Stax Ltd

URL: www.stax.co.jp

Back to reviews

Technical Specifications

Manufacturer: Arcam

Technical Specifications

Manufactured by: Nordost Corporation

Distributed by: Atacama Audio

Technical Specifications

Manufacturer Information: iFi

Distributed by: Select Audio

Technical Specifications

Manufacturer: IAG, China

Technical Specifications

Manufacturer Information: iFi

Distributed by: Select Audio

Technical Specifications

Manufacturer: Stax Ltd

The sound of excellence delivered your way