Schiit Mjolnir 3 Impressions

After nearly two months since ordering, it's finally arrived.

 

How you like it with the R26? And the R26 generally?

 

I literally just got it plugged in, the thing is still cold, so impressions will have to come later. But the R26 is really great, I upgraded from a Bifrost 2/64 and it's better in every way. Very deep and spacious in particular, with lots of finesse. Extremely impressive with HQPlayer in NOS mode, highly recommended.

 

Nice. I run an R26 into my Enleum and really like it, but don’t have my references (Yggdrasil, X-Sabre Pro) out of storage yet to compare.

Good to know about HQ Player. I’ll need to try that out when I get a Roon Core with more horsepower.

 

Initial Mjolnir 3 impressions coming from Jotunheim 2:

• Markedly smoother, but also presents fine details and textures better
  
• More cohesive/coherent, holds together perfectly no matter how complex the passage, which also contributes to resolving power
  
• Presents a deeper soundstage
• Bass hits like... well, like a hammer

edit: impressions made with ZMF Atticus

 

All my religiouso-esque raving about the MJ3 was using the HD6XX, so yeah...

 

MJ3 is exceptional with the various species of 650/6XX. I prefer it over the big kid tube with the 650K. It gives them such a kick in liveliness (and they weren't precisely sleepy before) that it reminded me why I fell in love with those cans in the first place.

 

So, I have had a bit of time to compare the BHA-1 to the MJ3, and wanted to share some of them below. Now I wrote earlier that I had "no interest in going back." Listening back on the Bryston BHA-1, however, I am struck by just how nice the thing is to listen to even when put alongside the MJ3.

I have the two amps plugged in now running out of a Soekris 2541 DAC, plugged into the same power strip / adapter. All comparisons are being done single ended. I kept the MJ3 in low gain, push pull, feedback on mode, which will affect the sound a bit as the Bryston does not have these modes. I kept the Bryston in high gain mode.

First I tried comparing through some HD 600s.

The things we know is that the Bryston is a bit less detailed, but still tonally both neutral and very pleasant to listen to. At first I thought the MJ3 microdynamics gave it a kind of "in the studio" quality. However, what the Bryston lacks in details (very slight compared with the MJ3) it makes up for in a very pleasant presentation. In fact what I was describing before as "walls of sound' I hear now as being in a much cozier room where the imaging is less precise, almost like the placement of instruments is a little less fuzzy, but in a way that is very pleasing to the ears. It's like going from the HD 600 to the 650. Which isn't to say the Bryston lacks detail! What I and others have called "flat" is in fact I think a lack of detail that give you the same sense of space as you move across the soundstage. Like I said it sounds fuzzy and so a little less dynamic, but I am impressed by how pleasing this can sound.

On the other hand, the MJ3, despite being more technically proficient and having these better macrodynamics, never sounds harsh. It gets all the detail and presents it in a way that is also very tonally agreeable if it has a bit less of the coziness of the BHA-1. The way I'd describe it is like going from a nice cozy Canadian cabin recording student (the Bryston) to something in Southern California (the Schiit) which is a bit more cutting edge, in a technical top of the line way, but also really knows its stuff, tonally. It just doesn't offend or do anything wrong, and yet is also very exciting in how it gives you more of that sense of being "there" in a live performance than anything I have listened to before.

Then I tried listening through the HD 800s. (Agree, lovely with the MJ3 especially, though the Bryston is no slouch with these cans. It's the push/pull mode of the MJ3 that makes the difference it seems.)

Here the fuzziness of the Bryston is a lot more apparent. The instruments are still very well placed on the soundstage (as others have noted the sense of soundstage, especially its width, is one of the strengths of this amp). But I can hear the extent to which there is less detail. Also, and this is why I got rid of the Bryston and do not think it belongs on the "Best amps for HD 800", there is a treble bite that comes in that I have never much liked. And is in fact why I got rid of them until getting the MJ3 and needing to try it out to see what the fuzz is about. Bass is plenty, which is one reason why the HD 800s pair well (enough) with the Bryston. And YET there is something tonally appealing about the Bryston that makes it still worth listening to, even with the HD 800s. It's not that the MJ3 is "clinical" (it sounds without faults of offenses, and not at all in a boring way), it's just that the lesser detail retrieval of the Bryston, and the lesser micro dynamics, make it nice to listen to -- you don't have to try as hard and can just listen to the music.

Moving back to the MJ3 it's again similar to the differences with the HD 600s. You just hear more of that microdetail. I also wait for some of the unpleasant treble that the HD 800s are known for (this pair is an HD 800 SDR) but it doesn't come, almost like it's a different headphone. Again this is in PP mode so I think that is helping with the tonal character of the headphones. There is also more impact in the bass, which I don't feel is lacking even with the HD800s. You still hear the flaws of recordings, as beyond a point the lack of detail is coming from the recording equipment itself and not the headphones.

In summary, I have tested both of these amps (not at all scientifically) and come up with some first order impressions: 1) the Bryston holds its own and is still recommendable, maybe without the PP mode to fix fully the treble on HD 800s, but still a good combination with those headphones; 2) the MJ3 has more of a sense of realism without ever making you feel like it's "exposing" bad sources in the ways that HD800s are supposed to, you get the detail while still hearing a sound that keeps you engaged and wanting to listen. The Bryston has more outputs (though L/R balanced cables are passé), where the MJ3 has more options in terms of settings on the amp (BHA-1 just has low/high gain).

Again, my apologies for being new to trying to write up and describe sounds, but the closest analogy I can think of is being in a Canadian cabin and a Southern California recording studio. I like the Bryston BHA-1 even more hearing how it stacks up, and it will be hard to sell now knowing this!

EDIT: Another thing to say about soundstage (and both of these amps have excellent soundstages) is that the BHA-1 just sounds WIDE, like it just goes on forever. The MJ3 also sounds impossibly wide sometimes, but because it hits with more impact it is more specific where you hear the sounds from. The Bryston is not as "tall" so you don't get as much of a 3D sound stage, I feel, as on the MJ3. (Maybe this is what people call "depth.") But the MJ3 just has better imaging while also creating a better sense of 3D space, which along with the detail retrieval gives it that "in the studio" quality that is very impressive.

 

@THeProfessor Have you had the chance to try the MJ3 balanced in/balanced out? I’m pretty sure this is the optimal way to use this particular amp. You mentioned you were doing the comparison single-ended. Were you referring to the inputs of the amps only, or did you also stick to the SE outputs as well?

I’d also recommend trying the MJ3 with feedback turned off if you haven’t. There are a few people who like feedback turned on, but I think the vast majority of MJ3 owners have feedback turned off.

 

I would love to try the balanced out but, alas, am still waiting on some balanced cables for the 600/800. Will be sure to post better impressions when I do. (Even two years in I may just not be experienced enough or have enough by way of transducer equipment to appreciate this beast of a headphone amp -- prior experience is the Torpedo III and the Bryston.) To be clear I was referring to the outputs of the amps -- inputs are balanced out from the Soekris.

I have tried the feedback on and off. Not sure I hear a huge, huge difference. But it sounds more natural with it off.

 

I personally don’t find any of the switches to make a big difference. They all provide a subtle change in sound that sometimes takes a while to notice, if you even notice any change at all.

That being said, I do find myself preferring push pull with all my headphones for whatever reason. It’s very hard to describe, but it seems to be a more engaging listen to me vs SE Class A.

I look forward to seeing if you notice an improvement when you get some balanced headphone cables. I can attest to the fact that the MJ3 still sounds excellent out of the 6.35mm jack after being pleasantly surprised with how good my old single-ended Mod House Argons sounded the other night. They are known to be relatively power-hungry, but they didn’t seem to be lacking for anything while being plugged into the MJ3’s SE out.

 

@ckhirnigs I think you mentioned the IHA-6 (A-B, neutralish) some time ago. It may be a stretch to compare that to the MJ3 (Class A, warm), but anything similar between the two that you like?

 

I still have my iHA-6, though I can’t say it has gotten much use since the MJ3 arrived. My MJ3 did have to go back to Schiit for a small repair, and I used the iHA-6 for about a month and didn’t feel like I was slumming it in the least.

I like the iHA-6 more with my Meze Elite than my ZMFs. I use the balanced out with the Elite and the “Low” 10-ohm single-ended jack with my Auteur and Atrium Closed. I leave it in “High Current” mode and low gain. The amp has a very balanced sound that leans a little bit warm. There are definitely no glaring issues with the iHA-6, but when I got the MJ3 I found everything just got better overall. On a ten-point scale, I’d give iHA-6 a 7 and MJ3 a 9.5.

All that being said, I am on an SW51+ kick this week with my Atrium Closed. My Elite benefits from all the strengths of the MJ3, but the AC seems to pair incredibly well with the high-Z out of the SW51+. The higher output impedance seems to really bring the mids/vocals up in the mix in a very pleasing way to me. When I switch back to the MJ3 with my AC, the mids seem a little recessed in comparison. Of course, some people may prefer the MJ3 presentation, but for now I’m digging the SW51+ with the ZMF.

 

Possible (I could be wrong) small correction: without looking at the numbers, I believe it to be more likely the high OI of the SW51 is deemphasizing the bass/high bass such that the mids appear "emphasized" compared to the more usual ZMF sound. In other words, the low IO impedance (.25 if memory serves) of the MJ3 enables the "normal" bass emphasis of typical ZMF cans with their high impedance that spikes in the bass (atrium open over 600 in bass - again going from memory). That, and probably tube/output transformer roll off of the SW51...

 

This is entirely possible. It might be an illusion that the mids are being boosted. I will say the bass quality is still great with the SW51+ even though I expected it to take a hit vs the MJ3. All I know for sure is I'm favoring the synergy between the SW51+ and AC at the moment.

 

Based on most reviews here, I didn't expect to care much for either PP mode or feedback mode. And I still don't care for feedback, which adds a haziness, but PP mode is actually really great for classical, especially driving HD800. I do feel it loses a small amount of dynamics, but classical music is dynamic af anyway. PP mode adds focus, detail, and texture, especially with strings and horns that hit the higher registers. It is sharper and less smooth than SE mode, but the extra focus and detail work really well with classical recordings.

EDIT: to expand on this a little bit, PP mode seems to add a little extra energy, focus, and contrast to the top end at the expense of a little bit of slam on the low end. I think I hear a bit of bass roll off on PP mode, but this could just be the lessened slam/dynamics. For modern music, I really prefer having the full amount of slam and dynamics, not to mention the added smoothness of SE mode, but that extra contrast in the details and the way that leading edges and decay become more apparent is fantastic with classical and adds more realism.

I have yet to find a use for feedback mode. It reduces dynamics and adds a veil to the sound. The manual says it lowers OI and distortion, and may help with harder to drive headphones (which none of mine are--HD800, Atticus, Venus). Maybe it works well with headphones like the Susvara? I do have a pair of ZMF Blackwoods in the office that are very power hungry, maybe I'll bring them home over next weekend and give feedback mode another shot.

 

@ohshitgorillas

I have found the pp one way to get rid of the annoying treble of the hd 800. Even with the S or SDR versions, and even with EQ, I have found that I could not listen for hours at a time. The PP seems to have fixed that problem, for whatever reason. I listen to the MJ3 with everything set to off now, except for the HD 800 where (at the suggestion of someone on here) I put the pp on to get rid of whatever it is that my ear's don't like after long sessions. Seems to have fixed the hd 800 as a headphone for me.

Also want to save another post on here from cluttering up space, but the HD 650 is also interesting to think about on this versus the BHA-1. The HD 600 seems to synergize better with the MJ3, the 650 with the BHA-1. Not sure why but the BHA-1 almost completely takes that "veil" off the 650, while the MJ3 makes me feel like there's always some macro details / transients that I am not getting through compared with the 600. But the 650 and the BHA-1 give such a nice tonality (?), without ever making it seem like there is anything missing, that I think they're better suited to each other. The 650/BHA-1 is like having a slight streak of dirt taken off a window pane that you didn't realize was there. The 650/MJ3 sounds like it's getting the headphone to do things you didn't think it could do, but you can tell that others (like the 600) might handle it a little better.

 

I can certainly understand why one would really enjoy 6xx on an amp that brings out something different in it. MJ3 provides a great contrast to my other tube amps with 600, 6xx. As for HD800(s) - it definitely is nice to have a nicely balanced and resolving solid state option. I really love these Sennheisers and MJ3 doesn't disappoint with them and in my case as usual prefer 6xx over 600 (with both unmodded). In the interest of learning more about the hobby, I’d love to get some track examples with times where 6xx on MJ3 shows a lack of control.

 

Unfortunately, I think my Mjolnir is going to need to go back to Schiit for repair due to two switches: the gain switch and SE/PP switch.

The gain switch doesn't always toggle the left channel, so I have to push the switch over and away from the volume knob to get the left channel to fully kick into high gain. If I wiggle the gain switch when in the "up" position, the left channel's gain goes up and down and I can hear a relay clicking on the inside.

The PP switch also causes a relay to click on the inside if wiggled when in the up position, although because the effect is so subtle, it's difficult to hear whether the left channel is being similarly affected--but I assume so.

The feedback switch seems to work just fine.

This is a major bummer as my only other headphone amp, a modded Crack, can't really compete.