Mjolnir Audio Pure Bipolar - Opinion on internal pictures

[Firefly00]

This is a hard topic for me to weigh in on with a scientific or engineering perspective. I can’t tell you why something sounds different regardless of the SINAD numbers. But, I can say that I can tell the difference between how my system sounds with different pieces in the chain. From my headphones to the amp or DAC I put in the chain. I used to own a THX 789, the amp de jour for quite some time. I hated the way it sounded in my system. I recognized how clean it sounded, I recognized that distortion was extremely low , I had no issues with its aesthetics. But, I found it to be lifeless. It didn’t have a soul in my opinion. I also recognize it isn’t supposed to. I have also owned a Gilmore Lite which is also considered to be a “wire with gain” type of amp. I have also owned a Wells Audio Milo which definitely imparts its own sonic signature and didn’t like it. I found it to be overly warm. I have owned 2 Mjolnir amps. Both beautifully built with specific build philosophies. One I loved, the other I didn’t. I never measure my gear or look at the spec sheet. If I am interested in the product, I try it. If I like the its synergy with my chain and headphones, awesome. If not, I move on. I will also change around my headphones to match my amps from time to time. My DAC is currently the Pontus II R2R and I absolutely love it. I owned a TEAC UD-505 right before it and a Vinshine R2R Ref right before that. They each made a difference in my chain, all three great but very different. I listen to a lot of music that has odd time signatures and so how my system is able to handle the rhythm and pacing of my music is the #1 thing I look for. Almost all amps and DACs these days measure past what I can hear in terms of noise. But, they all sound different. Even the ones that are meant to impart nothing by way of sound coloration. I don’t mind a bit of distortion, I am not looking for the greatest measured device. I buy to a certain budget and then do my best to ascertain whether or not it makes my music sound as close to what it should sound like at the venue. I mostly listen to live music. Being that I don’t utilize a 2-Channel system, I also recognize that the headphone has the greatest impact on what I am hearing. So the synergy between my headphone and chain is something I pay really close attention to. I continue to tweak, and try. I continue to learn as I listen. As long as I am listening to music, I am basically happy. Ears are similar to our palates. The more you use them the more fine tuned they become. And some times the sum of the parts don’t add up. With food, I always try to use the best ingredients I can find. I can taste the difference between 2 different choice cuts of meat. I can taste the difference between a piece of salmon wild caught from the Bering Sea and a piece farm raised in New Zealand. I feel my listening skills have improved to the point where I can hear how the implementation of the parts harmonize within a circuit. There is an art to designing and implementing and choosing the right parts to use for that design and implementation. The designer is looking to create something and it is up to me how I experience it to determine whether or not I agree with their piece of art. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. But the journey is the prize, so YMMV. I will keep listening and keep trying and continue to hone my listening skills. As long as it is fun, I am happy with the process.

I’m not saying that you aren’t hearing that. Not at all. What I’m saying is that it’s not just about the *audio*, it’s also about how you perceive your system, and biases that come with it.


Maybe I’m crazy, but it seems to me like Subjective Audio is about the journey, and objective audio is about the end result.

If I was to treat audio as an ongoing hobby I’d much rather spend time screwing around with tweaks and different amps/DACs, because that’s fun

 

[Willem]

I bought my gear to listen to music. Years ago (i.e. almost fifty years ago), as a student, I managed to buy some of what was at the time the best audio gear money could buy, and I enjoyed it for many years. Did it equal the sound quality of the live classical music that I was listening to most days? No it did not. More recently, I have finally replaced it by modern versions of the same Quad electrostats and appropriate amplification. They sound better, and the whole system sounds better because we now have digital recordings rather than lp records. What unites my two systems over all those decades is that both at their times represented the closest approach to the original sound, based on the smartest engineering. So for almost all my life I have had excellent gear to enjoy my music, never paying more than what was necessary, mostly by avoiding the upgrade itch. I never indulged in audiophila nervosa, never bought snake oil, and never wasted precious money. I learned my lessons in the days when audio magazines were still written by engineers who knew what they were doing, and posted graphs of their measurements.

 

[Deleted member 26571]

I learned my lessons in the days when audio magazines were still written by engineers who knew what they were doing, and posted graphs of their measurements.

I really miss "Audio" magazine.

Maybe I’m crazy, but it seems to me like Subjective Audio is about the journey, and objective audio is about the end result.

So, kind of like, "For years, I wasted time listening to my stereo. And then I finally broke down and bought an AP, and now it listens for me..."

 

[Noendgamehere]

Subjective vs objective is an interesting concept. I absolutely agree that bias exists and leads to what we hear and or want.

I don’t equate subjective with the journey and objective with the end result. I do find tweaking and searching to be a blast as I am still just getting started in my audio journey. Thus, I leave open the chance my opinion and stance on the matter can change as I continue to evolve.

All I know is that when I listen to my system and my headphones I really love what I hear.

 

[Noendgamehere]

Nice. You've drawn a line in the sand and staked out a position that cuts right across the grain here. You won't get much traction, but it's good that you care enough to try.

I was approached yesterday by someone on another forum who read about my recent HPA projects and sensed that I had the potential to become a "good" audio designer. He is personally acquainted with the designer of an award-winning amplifier from a very prominent high-end company. And he encouraged me to reach out to this person, but cautioned that I would need to supplicate myself and demonstrate my worth if I were to expect a reply.

I don't know what to think about that. I tread my own path and don't supplicate myself to anyone. But the possibility of achieving something beyond the ordinary is tantalizing, if only we could be sure it exists at all. The danger of following this path is that is might descend into madness.

I believe the pursuit of "sound quality" is an inquiry into the meaning of beauty. Again, without claiming to be a philosopher, I know this is a deep and thorny problem, and not one you can tackle with simplistic thinking. It's easier just to declare, "The job of the amplifier is to be transparent, and the audio analyzer tells everything we need to know, period." My intuition says there's more to it, but I don't have the means to prove it.

My HPA2 amplifier sounds great to me. I designed it from technical principles and haven't tweaked or "voiced" it al all. If we believe that results follow from intention, then you would probably find it to be neutral and transparent, but lacking in that special je ne sais quoi. That would be a success to my way of thinking, because it means I got what I set out to achieve. I don't know if I have what it takes, or if I even want to try, to get to the mythical next level.

I don't expect to win any converts here. You're maybe a little more out on the fringe than I am, relative to this community, but I sense like-mindedness in your postings. Folks here may not like what you have to say, but it's good to remind people now and then that alternative viewpoints are okay. Pushing the boundaries helps blow away the mental cob webs.

That is amazing. Based on what you have shown me, I bet they sound incredible. Congrats!

 

[Noendgamehere]

I bought my gear to listen to music. Years ago (i.e. almost fifty years ago), as a student, I managed to buy some of what was at the time the best audio gear money could buy, and I enjoyed it for many years. Did it equal the sound quality of the live classical music that I was listening to most days? No it did not. More recently, I have finally replaced it by modern versions of the same Quad electrostats and appropriate amplification. They sound better, and the whole system sounds better because we now have digital recordings rather than lp records. What unites my systems over all those decades is that both at their times represented the closest approach to the original sound, based on the smartest engineering. So for almost all my life I have had excellent gear to enjoy my music, never paying more than what was necessary. I never indulged in audiophila nervosa, never bought snake oil, and never wasted precious money. I learned my lessons in the days when audio magazines were still written by engineers who knew what they were doing, and posted graphs of their measurements.

Do you believe that digital sounds better than analog (LPs)? I am curious with the right analog system if this true.. I am 100% digital currently but am constantly trying to determine whether investing in a Vinyl system would be a good thing.

 

[Firefly00]

Do you believe that digital sounds better than analog (LPs)? I am curious with the right analog system if this true.. I am 100% digital currently but am constantly trying to determine whether investing in a Vinyl system would be a good thing.

From what I gather (am not a vinyl person), LPs typically have better DR than your typical digital recording, however digital in theory is better for fidelity if you find the a good mix/mastering of the song.

 

[Noendgamehere]

From what I gather (am not a vinyl person), LPs typically have better DR than your typical digital recording, however digital in theory is better for fidelity if you find the a good mix/mastering of the song.

Reviewers always make the statement that good digital sound analog like.

 

[Willem]

Do you believe that digital sounds better than analog (LPs)? I am curious with the right analog system if this true.. I am 100% digital currently but am constantly trying to determine whether investing in a Vinyl system would be a good thing.

I had (and have) a very good turntable, but the moment I played my first CD in my new Philips CD player, there was just no competition. Vinyl is deeply compromised, with high distortion, particularly towards the end of a side, bad noise, and muffled and limited bass. It was not for nothing that subwoofers only became useful with the arrival of digital sources. The vinyl part is a problem, but so is analogue tape recording.
Yes modern (mostly pop, not so much classical) recordings often have a limited dynamic range compared to old vinyl, but that has nothing to do with the digital medium, but with the mastering. CD's from the 1980's are gloriously dynamic and realistic, but the later remasters have successsively less dynamic range. The theoretical dynamic range of redbook CD is much much larger than any analogue source.
So why do reviewers praise vinyl, and why is there still analogue gear? I think the answer is painfully simple: even dirt cheap digital equipment is sonically perfect. What I have in mind to illustrate this is the digital output of a $100 dvd/bluray player into a $200 DAC. That sort of gear can only be manufactured competitvely by big manufacturers with economies of scale (the same applies to amplifiers, by the way). So small manufacturers had to invent stories about vinyl (and tube amplifiers) because they can only make money in such niche markets. But this required a post modern rhetoric that you have to listen for yourself rather than look at the measurements from engineering. Reviewers faced the same problem: there is little to say and write about cheap digital gear, so they created a market for 'alternative facts'.

 

[abdo123]

@Noendgamehere

you obviously perceive equipment as 'pieces of art', it's more important who made it, how it was made and how it makes you feel. while the majority of people here perceive equipment as complete designs (they shouldn't be complemented by anything to function properly) and means to an end.

design and art are completely two different things.

Design solves a problem. Art raises a question.
Design is CONCLUSIVE. Art is an OPEN DEBATE.
Design needs collective acceptation. Art only needs inner (or personal) approval.
Too much design ruins art. Too much art ruins design (this is pretty much the conclusion of almost every review of a boutique product here).
Design motivates. Art inspires.
Design is understood. Art is interpreted.
Design is skill. Art is a talent.
Good design sends the same message to everyone. Good art sends a different message to everyone.

I drive my car to a concert hall, I don't expect my car to invoke emotions in me or inspire me to do anything. the experience of live music does.
I use my phone to call my loved ones, I don't expect my phone to provide me with bliss and contentment, its me communicating with my loved ones that does that.

The majority of people here perceive gear as designs and means to an end to appreciate what we really consider as 'art' here which is music. We do not expect our gear to inspire us or invoke something in us, it's no different than a car, a telephone a computer .etc

Many people here will argue that you're confused and that you need to realize that equipment are nothing but a box with a circuit inside that is supposed to do a very specific function in a very specific way. And it will take some really thick skin (specially for someone like you with a lot of money and emotions invested in these boxes) to look past that and understand what we're really trying to say and what is really our perspective on the matter.

In other words, equipment here are perceived as they are, equipment, and not musical instruments. Once you peek a bit into this mentality you will find this place incredibly satisfying.

 

[Noendgamehere]

@Noendgamehere

you obviously perceive equipment as 'pieces of art', it's more important who made it, how it was made and how it makes you feel. while the majority of people here perceive equipment as complete designs (they shouldn't be complemented by anything to function properly) and means to an end.

design and art are completely two different things.

Design solves a problem. Art raises a question.
Design is CONCLUSIVE. Art is an OPEN DEBATE.
Design needs collective acceptation. Art only needs inner (or personal) approval.
Too much design ruins art. Too much art ruins design (this is pretty much the conclusion of almost every review of a boutique product here).
Design motivates. Art inspires.
Design is understood. Art is interpreted.
Design is skill. Art is a talent.
Good design sends the same message to everyone. Good art sends a different message to everyone.

I drive my car to a concert hall, I don't expect my car to invoke emotions in me or inspire me to do anything. the experience of live music does.
I use my phone to call my loved ones, I don't expect my phone to provide me with bliss and contentment, its me communicating with my loved ones that does that.

The majority of people here perceive gear as designs and means to an end to appreciate what we really consider as 'art' here which is music. We do not expect our gear to inspire us or invoke something in us, it's no different than a car, a telephone a computer .etc

Many people here will argue that you're confused and that you need to realize that equipment are nothing but a box with a circuit inside that is supposed to do a very specific function in a very specific way. And it will take some really thick skin (specially for someone like you with a lot of money and emotions invested in these boxes) to look past that and understand what we're really trying to say and what is really our perspective on the matter.

In other words, equipment here are perceived as they are, equipment, and not musical instruments. Once you peek a bit into this mentality you will find this place incredibly satisfying.

I appreciate your comments, but you are not representing my position accurately. I do understand the purpose of this website and the differences you speak about. I just don’t agree. I honestly don’t care about who made it as if that will determine whether or not it will be as you say a ‘piece of art’. If I have said anything consistently it is that it is all about the music. That is the thing that binds us all. How we get closer to our music. I don’t own expensive audio stuff per se. I am pretty middle of the road on how much I can afford to spend. Having the latest and greatest has no bearing on my life or my choices. Having the right things for my particular tastes so I can enjoy my music the way I want to enjoy it is without question important to me.

I do believe there is an art to building and designing audio equipment. I do believe there are intangibles that lead to better sound.

I have read hundreds of reviews and other threads on this website so that I can try my best to understand the philosophy and perspective. We are sitting on opposite sides of the line, something I admit and something that I am ok with. My purpose to me speaking out had nothing to do with any of that. I have shared the way I view it, and I understand the majority will believe that I don’t get it. That is ok. Perhaps wasted breath, and perhaps you all feel I am closed minded. I am ok with that too.

I don’t believe good design or a box sends the same message to everyone. Not even close. We all hear differently. We all use different things, listen for different things in our music, experience a live performance differently, sit in different places at a venue so that we can experience the sound from a vantage point that meets our sensory needs. When driving to that venue, you may decide to park at a certain place every time because it gives you better access to your experience. You call your family on your phone, but your phone may have particular things you prefer over another which changes your experience. Maybe you use an LG because you like the audio performance, or an android because it is more customizable, or an apply for the simplicity. These are choices that a designer makes and you as a consumer choose which apply to you. How is that any different than which pieces of audio gear you choose? If they are all meant to just be a circuit in a box then everyone would have the same thing. How incredibly boring.

At no point have I put down anyone on this website for their beliefs. I spoke out because I felt the off color jokes and lack of respect about a product and it’s designer no one knew anything about was impolite. But, I welcome difference of opinions, difference of ideas and will do my best to seek to understand. I may find comfort in understanding, but that won’t mean I agree.

But, to sum up my beliefs as the difference between design and art is to stuff me into a little box so that you can understand how I think or what I believe. If only it were that simple to sum up a person and how they think.

 

[abdo123]

I honestly don’t care about who made it as if that will determine whether or not it will be as you say a ‘piece of art’.

Are you sure? Because your very first post here defending this product was just bringing to our attention who made this amplifier with very little information about the amplifier itself. it seems as if you appreciate that product simply because it was made by a person that you appreciate. Correct me if i'm wrong though.

For those who are unfamiliar with this amp and Mjolnir Audio as a whole, it is the brain child of Birgir and Kevin Gilmore. Two of the most respected minds in the hobby and community. Both responsible for some of the best sounding amps you can either build (if you are a DIY'er, or buy). They give their time and their mindshare to the community, they provide their designs, and Mjolnir exists as a business solely designed around the idea of giving back. Frankly, they deserve better than what I read above.

The Pure BiPolar is a variant of the Dynalo design ethos which has produced the Susi Dynalo, Dynahi, Pure BiPolar and the CFA3. It is an extremely efficient amp that sounds amazing. All of these variants sound amazing. They are extremely clean, and musical; with incredible pacing and timing. If you want to see how this amp measures, and read a review, you just have to look. Bob Katz reviewed and measured it a few yrs back. Here is the link for those interested. https://www.stereophile.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-18-icelandic-wonder

How is that any different than which pieces of audio gear you choose?

it's not. like i mentioned, here design is appreciated, features that facilitate ease of use are obviously welcome, appearances and feel are also important. We just don't fixate on experiences that are not consistent between person to person because it's futile and doesn't really help anyone. it's malicious of me to recommend something just solely on my personal experience when i know for sure that my personal experience will not translate necessarily to the other person.

That's why we recommend gear here based on design and experiences that are consistent between person to person. At least that's what I try to do.

When you design a product as if it's a work of art, then your approach is open to debate and your claims will be (or should be) religiously questioned.

 

[Noendgamehere]

Are you sure? Because your very first post here defending this product was just bringing to our attention who made this amplifier with very little information about the amplifier itself. it seems as if you appreciate that product simply because it was made by a person that you appreciate. Correct me if i'm wrong though.





it's not. like i mentioned, here design is appreciated, features that facilitate ease of use are obviously welcome, appearances and feel are also important. We just don't fixate on experiences that are not consistent between person to person because it's futile and doesn't really help anyone. it's malicious of me to recommend something just solely on my personal experience when i know for sure that my personal experience will not translate necessarily to the other person.

That's why we recommend gear here based on design and experiences that are consistent between person to person. At least that's what I try to do.

When you design a product as if it's a work of art, then your approach is open to debate and your claims will be (or should be) religiously questioned.

I brought up the information about the amp designer because I felt that the thread was extremely negative. It was based on a picture, not on how the amp sounds or how the amp measures. There were a lot of condescending and sarcastic comments that made me feel like defending him. There is more to a product than just a circuit in a box, in my opinion. I don't own a Pure BiPolar. I told you in the post that I had put my money into a CFA3. But, I have heard the amp it is sounds sensational. I also provided an actual review with measurements by Bob Katz, one of the more respected audio reviewers, and a voice I trust. I appreciate the product because I spent a lot of time speaking with him about how it was made and why. I wanted to buy one, but couldn't afford it at that time, so I didn't end up purchasing. I also have spent time learning about the Dynalo circuit that has become many other amps. Commercially, the Headamp GSX-MK2, which is also based on similar concepts. I do appreciate certain designers and builders more than others. That is my right to spend my money with people who I believe have sound customer service, a design philosophy that meets my own interests and beliefs, and I prefer to invest in pursuits I believe in. I believe there is continuity in this process and ultimately it is still up to me to determine whether or not I like what I hear and whether or not I will ultimately keep it, or move on to the next thing I want to try.

Recommending gear based on design and experiences between person to person is noble, and I recommend in a similar fashion. I commend you for doing this. Hopefully you have helped a lot of people along the way.

Yes, when you design or create anything that is considered art, it is open to debate. Part of what makes putting something out into the world so courageous is that it will ultimately lead to debate and will be predisposed to people's subjective experience with the product. That is the nature of art, music, food, etc. Any pursuit that leads to creating something new will always be open to review, criticism and debate. I welcome that and expect it. The trick is to keep your soul by staying firm to your own beliefs and ethos and to never apologize for the thing you have created.

I hear what you are saying about recommendation, and I guess I have a different take on that. The job of the recommender is to portray how it works, what they hear, how it compares if that is your thing, and how it works within an integrated system. Each person's bliss is different. A product that measures perfectly doesn't guarantee that it will be musically enjoyable. Only that it measures well. If the goal is to get closer to your music, then how you get there will lead to different paths. I view a DAC or an AMP as more than just a circuit in a box. I will also take into account other measurables that I personally use to make my buying decisions. At the end of the day, all of these decisions are in service of one thing. To enjoy music as much as I can.

We can parse each other words all day long. The reality is that my thoughts aren't as simple as you are making them out to be. I would suspect neither are yours, and I respect you for that. However, this is a conversation that has probably gone on long enough. I have taken more than enough time from the members of ASR. Like I said, my point was only to challenge the tone and efficacy of the original thread with no intention of downplaying how ASR operates. There is definitely a core ethos of this website and its members. I like that very much. I am probably not the best person to be a member.

 

[Deleted member 26571]

I got in a similar debate on the Amp Camp Amp thread. I responded to that discussion for the exact same reasons you're posting here. I've never heard the ACA and wouldn't build it, probably wouldn't like it either. But I respect the designer and understand what he's trying to do. I also know a lot of people enjoy that amp, and the experience of building and owning it has brought them a lot of pleasure. I wanted to defend the amp and the designer against criticism that I felt was based only on narrow preconceptions and a knee-jerk hostility, without even listening, to circuits that are less than perfect. More so, I wanted to defend the idea of the amplifier and the premise of its design.

At the end of a day of arguing, I was exhausted and hadn't won any converts. To their credit, the members here, though they disagreed with me, responded respectfully.

I agree that art is art, and you can make a very good case the amplifier should NOT be editorializing, but instead leave the art to the recording ARTIST. But there's a counter-argument. The recording chain and playback system are an imperfect way of recreating live sound. Until we have some radical new technology, maybe direct brain-to-brain implants, LOL, reproduced sound will never sound anything close to live music. It's only due to perceptual tricks that hi-fi fools the ear/brain. So it's not implausible that tasteful editorializing on the part of the amplifier might improve the experience. It's also possible that distortions exist that are perceptible to some listeners (yeah, yeah, I know science "proves" that's impossible -- except science by definition can never prove a negative hypothesis, only show it's very unlikely). So, there may be a legit argument in favor of your position.

I also note that many (most?) works of art are not lifelike depictions of reality, and realism isn't always the best way to convey emotion. Do you prefer impressionist paintings or ultra-high resolution photographs? Is a 100 megapixel image more realistic than a 50 megapixel image if both images exceed the resolution of the eye? Is either image indistinguishable from a real-life scene?

We seem to have no issue with headphone equalization even though PEQ drastically alters the digital bitstream. We justify that by saying the equalizer restores the headphone response to a "preferred" curve. Purely subjective, in other words. How is PEQ different from an amplifier "editorializing?" Nelson Pass has run "scientific" tests where he found some people prefer the sound of a system with deliberately added distortion. Seems equivalent to me.

The people on this forum, though, are strict adherents to the point of view that the only job of a hi-fi system is to be neutral (seems in direct contradiction to PEQ), and the audio analyzer tells us all we need to know about the signal. They also believe, not without justification, that non-blind subjective evaluation is so fraught with bias as to be effectively worthless. By all means continue to argue your position as long as it helps you to understand your own values and beliefs. But don't expect to convince anyone, is my advice.

 

[Noendgamehere]

I got in a similar debate on the Amp Camp Amp thread. I responded to that discussion for the exact same reasons you're posting here. I've never heard the ACA and wouldn't build it, probably wouldn't like it either. But I respect the designer and understand what he's trying to do. I also know a lot of people enjoy that amp, and the experience of building and owning it has brought them a lot of pleasure. I wanted to defend the amp and the designer against criticism that I felt was based only on narrow preconceptions and a knee-jerk hostility, without even listening, to circuits that are less than perfect. More so, I wanted to defend the idea of the amplifier and the premise of its design.

At the end of a day of arguing, I was exhausted and hadn't won any converts. To their credit, the members here, though they disagreed with me, responded respectfully.

I agree that art is art, and you can make a very good case the amplifier should NOT be editorializing, but instead leave the art to the recording ARTIST. But there's a counter-argument. The recording chain and playback system are and imperfect way of recreating live sound. Until we have some radical new technology, maybe direct brain-to-brain implants, LOL, reproduced sound will never sound anything close to live music. It's only due to perceptual tricks that hi-fi fools the ear/brain. So it's not implausible that tasteful editorializing on the part of the amplifier might improve the experience. It's also possible that distortions exist that are perceptible to some listeners (yeah, yeah, I know science "proves" that's impossible -- except science by definition can never prove a negative hypothesis, only show it's very unlikely). So, there may be a legit argument in favor of your position.

I also note that many (most?) works of art are not lifelike depictions of reality, and realism isn't always the best way to convey emotion. Do you prefer impressionist paintings or ultra-high resolution photographs? Is a 100 megapixel image more realistic than a 50 megapixel image if both images exceed the resolution of the eye? Is either image indistinguishable from a real-life scene?

We seem to have no issue with headphone equalization even though PEQ drastically alters the digital bitstream. We justify that by saying the equalizer restores the headphone response to a "preferred" curve. Purely subjective, in other words. How is PEQ different from an amplifier "editorializing?" Nelson Pass has run "scientific" tests where he found some people prefer the sound of a system with deliberately added distortion. Seems equivalent to me.

The people on this forum, though, are strict adherents to the point of view that the only job of a hi-fi system is to be neutral (seems in direct contradiction to PEQ), and the audio analyzer tells us all we need to know about the signal. They also believe, not without justification, that non-blind subjective evaluation is so fraught with bias as to be effectively worthless. By all means continue to argue your position as long as it helps you to understand your own values and beliefs. But don't expect to convince anyone, is my advice.

Thank you! I own a pair of Spirit Torino Radiante 1706 headphones. They are as imperfect as the day is long. They are tuned a certain way and without Parametric EQ they have the biggest bass shelf I have ever heard. Just like all other Spirit Torino headphones, the Radiante have quite a unique take on tuning which highlights bass and sub-bass especially. This is because the tuning follows the equal loudness contours which describe how the human ear hears frequencies at the same volume when sound pressure is different among frequencies. In general, according to this theory bass appears to need more sound pressure to be perceived by the brain as being at the same volume as the other frequencies. As this boost in bass volume is not taken into account in recordings according to Spirit Torino, they say that it has then to be taken into account in the reproduction phase – so with headphones. Not the normal way most headphones are tuned. They do not follow the Harmon curve. But, they do sound as close to what it is like to be sitting in front of the Soundboard at a venue like the Fillmore in San Francisco. If you have ever seen a show there, you will know that is a pretty great place to experience music.

I bought them for this exact reason. I wanted a headphone that recreates the live concert experience, because I am a total live music nut and spend 90% of my time listening to 24/96 live music files. I have also added a convolution filter and then added a 4.5 db bass shelf at 130hz with a Q factor of 1.8. Now they are not only a unique live music experience, but the best headphone I have ever owned. They have virtually no distortion and I love the way they sound. Open, detailed, visceral, gutsy and extremely articulate. They are imperfect and perfect simultaneously. I guess my point is exactly what you are saying. PEQ, editorializing from an amp or just preferring a certain sound has led me to immense musical pleasure. I know they aren’t for everyone, but they are definitely for me. If you are live music lover, I recommend them for you. If you are not, I would say pass.

My other headphones I let be and do not use convolution or EQ. They are much closer to neutral or some variation thereof, and I love them each for how they sound and what they do. One pair I bought specifically for my Bottlehead Mainline tube amp. I sold that amp, so I will probably trade or sell them in favor of something that will pair better with my current system. The audio merry go round continues with tweaks and evolutions.

 

[Firefly00]

I got in a similar debate on the Amp Camp Amp thread. I responded to that discussion for the exact same reasons you're posting here. I've never heard the ACA and wouldn't build it, probably wouldn't like it either. But I respect the designer and understand what he's trying to do. I also know a lot of people enjoy that amp, and the experience of building and owning it has brought them a lot of pleasure. I wanted to defend the amp and the designer against criticism that I felt was based only on narrow preconceptions and a knee-jerk hostility, without even listening, to circuits that are less than perfect. More so, I wanted to defend the idea of the amplifier and the premise of its design.

At the end of a day of arguing, I was exhausted and hadn't won any converts. To their credit, the members here, though they disagreed with me, responded respectfully.

I agree that art is art, and you can make a very good case the amplifier should NOT be editorializing, but instead leave the art to the recording ARTIST. But there's a counter-argument. The recording chain and playback system are an imperfect way of recreating live sound. Until we have some radical new technology, maybe direct brain-to-brain implants, LOL, reproduced sound will never sound anything close to live music. It's only due to perceptual tricks that hi-fi fools the ear/brain. So it's not implausible that tasteful editorializing on the part of the amplifier might improve the experience. It's also possible that distortions exist that are perceptible to some listeners (yeah, yeah, I know science "proves" that's impossible -- except science by definition can never prove a negative hypothesis, only show it's very unlikely). So, there may be a legit argument in favor of your position.

I also note that many (most?) works of art are not lifelike depictions of reality, and realism isn't always the best way to convey emotion. Do you prefer impressionist paintings or ultra-high resolution photographs? Is a 100 megapixel image more realistic than a 50 megapixel image if both images exceed the resolution of the eye? Is either image indistinguishable from a real-life scene?

We seem to have no issue with headphone equalization even though PEQ drastically alters the digital bitstream. We justify that by saying the equalizer restores the headphone response to a "preferred" curve. Purely subjective, in other words. How is PEQ different from an amplifier "editorializing?" Nelson Pass has run "scientific" tests where he found some people prefer the sound of a system with deliberately added distortion. Seems equivalent to me.

The people on this forum, though, are strict adherents to the point of view that the only job of a hi-fi system is to be neutral (seems in direct contradiction to PEQ), and the audio analyzer tells us all we need to know about the signal. They also believe, not without justification, that non-blind subjective evaluation is so fraught with bias as to be effectively worthless. By all means continue to argue your position as long as it helps you to understand your own values and beliefs. But don't expect to convince anyone, is my advice.

I’m convinced. A designer puts love and care into the electronics they make, and to me, that’s art. Measurements tell you about the art, what it depicts, what colours were used, but not how it makes you feel.

That being said, I like the kinda of art which is a pure white canvas with nothing altering my music!

 

[Deleted member 26571]

I just wish people would get along better. Tribalism is destroying us.

 

[Noendgamehere]

I’m convinced. A designer puts love and care into the electronics they make, and to me, that’s art. Measurements tell you about the art, what it depicts, what colours were used, but not how it makes you feel.

That being said, I like the kinda of art which is a pure white canvas with nothing altering my music!

Your comment is exactly why we stand on opposing sides of the hobby. I agree up to the point where you say that measurements tell you about the art and what it depicts. I believe that listening and using my senses is what tells me about the art, and what it depicts. Whether it is a painting, my favorite band, concert, piece of audio gear, food, etc. Call me a romantic, or an idealist, or an extreme optimist. I also believe that healthy discourse exists when two people can stand on opposite lines and speak their minds respectfully, believe what they believe and debate their point of view. I know my particular point of view is not the point of this website, and I have no preconceived notions that I am changing any hearts or minds. But, I do enjoy the banter every now and again.

Out of curiosity, what does your system consist of that gives you this pure white canvas? I would imagine my canvas would be considered to be littered with color. I do love a nice rainbow...

 

[Koeitje]

Hi there... This is my first post to this website and community. This is an old thread, but I couldn't resist responding. It will probably be my last post as I don't think it will be taken very well. But, this thread is insanely negative and without any real info or substance. Just negativity and a lot of conjecture. For those who are unfamiliar with this amp and Mjolnir Audio as a whole, it is the brain child of Birgir and Kevin Gilmore. Two of the most respected minds in the hobby and community. Both responsible for some of the best sounding amps you can either build (if you are a DIY'er, or buy). They give their time and their mindshare to the community, they provide their designs, and Mjolnir exists as a business solely designed around the idea of giving back. Frankly, they deserve better than what I read above.

The Pure BiPolar is a variant of the Dynalo design ethos which has produced the Susi Dynalo, Dynahi, Pure BiPolar and the CFA3. It is an extremely efficient amp that sounds amazing. All of these variants sound amazing. They are extremely clean, and musical; with incredible pacing and timing. If you want to see how this amp measures, and read a review, you just have to look. Bob Katz reviewed and measured it a few yrs back. Here is the link for those interested. https://www.stereophile.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-18-icelandic-wonder

His review is of both an electro-stat amp as well as the Pure BiPolar. It may not be agreed with, but at least it will provide those measurements folks above were seeking.

I respect everyone's opinions. But, the consensus on this amp is not clear. I'd take this amp over most amps out there. I have put my money into a CFA3. It is pure amplification bliss. I am personally looking for equipment that can take me to my musics center. Unravel the complexity, find the pocket and take me to the venue for a visceral experience.

I didn't write this because I want to disrespect the fundamentals of ASR or those who subscribe. I respect this website and those that use the information here to make sound purchasing decisions. I just don't feel this thread is productive. I am not an engineer, nor am I a scientist. I am a music lover who has spent the majority of my life seeing live shows. My experience with music and this hobby has led me to use my senses to guide my choices with my hard earned money and the equipment I choose. In no way do I feel my way is the right or only way...

2 cents from a dissenting opinion... I apologize for upsetting the apple cart with my first comment to this community. Thanks for listening.

So you want to buy something because it simply feels good. That's a valid way to approach things, but it now how you would approach high fidelity sound reproduction. But reading your post I think you aren't really looking for high fidelity sound.

Anyway for convenience I'm disregarding the safety and durability questions posed.

 

[Noendgamehere]

So you want to buy something because it simply feels good. That's a valid way to approach things, but it now how you would approach high fidelity sound reproduction. But reading your post I think you aren't really looking for high fidelity sound.

Anyway for convenience I'm disregarding the safety and durability questions posed.

LOL. What would you recommend I get to have a high fidelity sound? What DAC, AMP and Headphones do you think will create this high fidelity sound you speak of? Teach me, I am obviously misguided...