Project Polaris

First, I hadn't heard of this forum before and only discovered it because someone linked to this thread on Head-Fi.

Normally I wouldn't bother to "sign up and post" in a forum that's completely unknown to me, but I'm compelled to point out an inaccuracy about your post:

The Project Polaris is $250 (built). The comparison amp that I used (the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, based on Kevin Gilmore's "open-source" Dynalo circuit) cost $300 when it was first released in 2005. The Schiit Asgard, which I also mentioned in the review, cost $250 when it came out (same for the Asgard 2, mentioned at the end). The Micromega MyZic, also mentioned, costs $270. I did not, as you seem to imply, compare the Polaris to an amp that was much more expensive than it. The reference to a $3K amp was just a passing reference, not a comparison, which anyone can tell by reading the review. I've been in the headphone hobby since 2006 and have owned gear all over the map from budget-level to high-end - that's what I meant to convey with the passing reference to having owned a $3K amp.

Your post also makes it seem like that I tried to write a negative review of the Polaris, when I didn't. It was a positive review in favor of the Polaris and I made sure to try to mention everything positive that I could say about the amp (and Garage1217 too). So I mentioned a few subjective flaws, so what? I also listed a bunch of strengths that the Polaris had over my comparison amp.

For you to call my review unfair makes me question if you actually read the whole thing.

---

As for the reaction to my comment of the Polaris lacking speed & agility: it was a subjective perception relative to the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, and not an objective measurement. I'm aware that the Polaris' impulse response may very well measure fast, but that's just not how I heard it personally. It didn't audibly match the Gilmore Lite's percussive hit-impact, nor its fast bass slam (and recovery), in the specific set of music CDs that I used (consisting of electronica & metal). No need to get all worked up about it in any case, I'm just one person and that's how I heard it. Others may very well hear it differently, as more people continue to buy it.

Hello ASR and welcome to DIYAH.

The Polaris imitates a tube like sound so it's kind of not supposed to sound SS if you see what I mean. So comparisons with other SS would point out tonal things going on in the Polaris that won't be happening in others. I was puzzled by the lack of speed and thought that perhaps the tonal sound of the amp was giving you the impression of a lack of speed. You know, how some say the HD650 doesn't sound like a fast headphone or lacks extension, when in fact it is very fast and does extend a long way up. (Although at lower volume than many others up there)

I found your review very interesting and was going to reply earlier but felt I shouldn't until I heard one, so Jeremy is sending one over to me. In fact, the one you listened to and it should be here in a week or so. I Have an Ember and will listen to the two of them. (Although I'm kind of tuned in to the Ember now)

I'm not keen on seeing one thing compared with others since (with headphones especially), switching between them for comparisons can really skew what you think. One may sound flashier than the other on a quick comparison but is not necessarily better.

I guess I am very protective of Jeremy and Frans but did say to Jeremy that I think the review reads a bit stronger than meant. I enjoyed the review in fact but don't like this putting one thing up against another, since it inevitably leads people to go on and on about what is the best then? Especially on HF!!

Your review kind of sparked off a board discussion here big time since we were wondering which board you had in order to see why you didn't find it a fast amp. I find the Ember to be like lightening, but tonally, it's a tube amp, giving that weighty laid back feel. That has now led to poor Jeremy being bombarded with PM's regarding the changing of the board and updating Polaris boards when they don't really need to. It has given him a hard time.

I respect your review and opinions but experience has taught me not to put other things up against items since comparative comments can be quite negative sounding while not always being true.

I use a very unremarkable sounding T40 with a filter. Flat as a pancake and more extended than T40s that have just been modded physically, due to its filter. It sounds totally unremarkable and compared to other headphones, perhaps dull. That sounds negative. In fact, that is its strength because nothing really stands out and I continually find that flashy headphones sound great in the short term, until you want something different.

That's how I felt reading it and my protective instincts kicked in. I'm sure you're very experienced and I see you are a Suzuki method violinist. I am a pro musician and have worked with headphones in studios and on electronic music since the 70s, but That really doesn't make me an expert on hi fi. In fact, I often find musicians to be the worst reviewers since we are all so good at replacing missing information via our brains. Something that non musicians find hard to do. Therefore, I find myself much more tolerant of gear than many I guess. As a musician though, I am extremely sensitive to timbre and that is what I feel you took for the amp being 'slow'. It doesn't measure slow but if you hear a tube like sound on an SS amp, you may well 'think' it is slow; especially if you start to go between amps.

That's where I thought the point of the Polaris had been missed in your review. I took it as a positive review on the whole, especially with regards to value for money but it does have a specific target audience and is not really like most other SS amps. it is quite unique and that doesn't really come across.

In case you're unaware, I'm iancraig10 on HF.

asr, thanks for your followup. I found your review on HF to be fair and, overall, very positive. Certainly nothing that you should feel the need to defend. (At the very least, I'd guess it will improve sales.)

Frans, thanks for the graphs. They distinguish between the boards simply and precisely.

having said the above.
i still say after reading the review the "audio quality" score on the chart at the top of the page did not (imo) reflect what was said in the review.

All of my comments on speed & agility should also be taken into context with the headphones that I used to gauge it, the Audio-Technica AD2000 (which has been independently measured by Tyll on InnerFidelity.com and purrin on Changstar.com if you're interested in its graphs). And for the AD2000, I used only the low R setting for it. I previously experimented with the output R settings back when I reviewed the Project Ember, when I found that I did sonically prefer low R for the AD2000 (and I did try the other settings just to hear their effect). I changed the output R to suit the headphones that I was using—low for the AD2000, HD598, and CAL; med for the AKG K712 (I didn't like how high R sounded with the K712).

The Polaris is also not the first amp that I've compared to the Gilmore Lite and thought it to be slow in comparison. In fact, to that point, I've found almost all amps have been slow in comparison to the GL (or related GS-1 or GS-X, which use the same circuit). By slow, I mean specifically that fast-attack sequences in music (especially percussion) typically sound "blunted" instead of sharp & clean. While some would call that treble, I've also found that many amps also produce plodgy bass compared to the GL and do not sound clean there either. The GL has an ultra-tight response in both the bass and treble that perfectly matches the AD2000, and when I play fast music on the combo, there's never anything even a little bit plodgy- or blunt-sounding. Really just an ultra-quick response that's particularly able to power through heavy bass passages with ease and not sound muddled. The Polaris sounded just a bit muddled to me in comparison. Again, it wasn't unique. I've had the muddled experience before with many other amps as well, including some very expensive ones like the Luxman P-1u as just one example.

Someone once told me that it's because the GL is a push-pull amp while the others have been single-ended (and that I'd be disappointed with all single-ended amps for that reason—because I wouldn't find them "fast"), but I'm not sure if that totally explains everything.


I don't worry about what people on Head-Fi think about my reviews, and I purposely try to avoid using the word "best" in anything I write because it's inherently subjective. The reason I compare gear is to provide a baseline for people that have heard my point of comparison. I always try to avoid writing about something on its own because that's useless IMO. I could describe a certain piece of gear a certain way and everyone could disagree with me. But if I use something else that others have heard, and then say the review unit has more bass, or more treble, or more soundstage, then IMO that becomes more useful. If I didn't compare the Polaris to another amp, I wouldn't have bothered trying to review it, it would've been just a useless waste of time to me.

The only reason I mention in reviews that I'm a musician is because I'd expect most readers to NOT be musicians and to not have any frame of reference as to how instruments really sound live and up-close. Since I have that frame of reference from performing with other musicians, I sometimes use it to determine how "natural" a certain piece of gear sounds (usually headphones, not amps).

I feel like I have to reiterate that the Polaris was reviewed relative to the GL and that I felt it was slowER in comparison. Not that it was slow period. It was perfectly acceptable-sounding to me on its own. As you said, I thought it sounded slow as I went between the two amps. Perhaps if you get a chance to audition a Gilmore Lite yourself one day, you might understand my perspective here.


Those bar graph scores are never displayed correctly on Head-Fi, I meant to put the Audio Quality one at around 75%, and just a bit under the other 3. The forum software doesn't correctly convert the scale when doing the final post—what looks like a little bit in the preview usually ends up being a wide margin.

I have a v1.0 pcb so I want to clarify option 1 above. If I remove C11, my high BW will have no roll-off and be identical to v1.1? Would med and low BW now be the same as low BW is now? If I ordered another Polaris from eBay today, would I be getting the more aggressive current filters or the newest version with the less aggressive filters?

I think there's a misunderstanding of what bandwidth is Frans and some think you can bypass them!! The idea of bandwidth off is quite funny really!!