Quicksilver Audio Headphone Amplifier

Discussion in 'Headphone Amplifiers and Combo (DAC/Amp) Units' started by snatex, Feb 25, 2021.

  1. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    What's the cost? I have the jupiter .15 right now? Sounding great but since your ordering....
     
  2. Ksorota

    Ksorota Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Likes Received:
    1,780
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    01810
    They will do .12uf 400v also.

    The price was going to be the same when it was 600v. I’ll ask if the price changes at all with the lower voltage.

    this would be the dimensions
    .438" D x 1.32" L
     
  3. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    The v600 .15 fit just a little adjusting
     
  4. Ksorota

    Ksorota Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Likes Received:
    1,780
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    01810
    The 400v .12 uf will be 47$. So a little discount.
     
  5. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    Nice really very reasonable in the world of Hi end caps. Put me down for a pair. Honestly that amp before the recap is pretty great. I replaced all the caps and it's sounding amazing.
     
  6. Ksorota

    Ksorota Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Likes Received:
    1,780
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    01810
    @Darkstar1 I fully agree with you that this amp is fantastic in its stock form. It has changed my mind on keeping a tube amp. The stock tube setup sounds great, and I can only imagine how it can improve with some more boutique capacitors. I just wish that it did not have the LBL on the front, or that it wasnt glued it. I might try to find a way to swap it over to orange or white, but that is low priority.

    I noticed that you have changed over a bunch of parts in the amp, I will have to see what else is available to swap since you say it makes a large difference towards the better. What do you think was the biggest change in components?


    I notice in your sig. that you are "playing with Vali 2". I also have one that i brought to the office for a small amp setup and am not sure I can live with it. The quicksilver is clean and dynamic sounding, but with warmth and just enough of the wetness to keep engagement high. The vali 2 comes off as vague and mushy. I dont know if I can live with it.
     
  7. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    Well the vali is way cheaper. Much more warm, way less dynamic and less resolution but it's cheap. Also for the price I like it. But it is at next door neighbors apt. Not in the same league and should not be price wise.

    I do agree with your QS assessment. Just enough warmth and wettness while retaining large sound stage, great resolution, great dynamics and musical. Also quiet.

    I liked the change in volume pot. It's also in the signal path. The power supply cap seemed to add to the slam and dynamics. Who knows if it's a huge diffrence. That is subjective and as gear gets better changes get smaller. But sometimes the small changes take enjoyment to the next level.
     
  8. ckhirnigs

    ckhirnigs Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Alabama
    I really don’t want to void my warranty, but you guys are tempting me! Would you say changing the caps is a bigger improvement than rolling tubes. I have some nice tubes in my Quicksilver at the moment and things sound great, so I’m hesitant to make any more changes.
     
  9. Erroneous

    Erroneous Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Likes Received:
    2,897
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Texas
    Having changed an amp with caps I can tell you that you upgrade the overall capability of the amp and tube changes just bring it to an even higher sound from there.
    Start with better stuff, end with better stuff.
    Take your amp to a higher capability threshold. Then roll tubes from there.
    But I'm going for CuTF caps because they are the best (for what I want) without paying for cast silver etc which is like gazillions of dollars.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2021
  10. dematted

    dematted Friend

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Likes Received:
    2,161
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    I received this amp directly from Mike at Quicksilver around a week ago, and so far, it has exceeded expectations with the stock tubes. I think this puts up a fight with the much more expensive ZMF Pendant and is a small but noticeable step up from something like the SW51+. Some standout qualities are extension, speed, and staging. These are as good as almost anything I've heard. Dynamics aren't at TotL levels, but are very good - the amp has a very nice sense of rhythm and attack. Micro-dynamics are probably either equal to or a small notch above SW51+. Macro-dynamics are comfortably better. Resolution is probably its biggest weakness - I think the SW51+ was probably a tad more resolving, particularly in the mid-range, and at around a third of the price! It's also a bit splashy in some parts of the mid to upper treble, but nothing too problematic. It's overall presentation is neutral-ish with what I hear as a slight emphasis on mid-treble and maybe the middle to upper mid-range. Bass is present and hits hard when called for, but is a bit withdrawn. There's a tasteful level of tube bloom - somewhere between DNA and SW51+, for reference. Staging is very, very good for an amp at this price-point, but images aren't always as distinct and sharp as one would like. The SW51+ might be better at producing "accurate" images.

    Overall, the amp has a sound that is simultaneously pleasant and engaging at a price-point that is lower than most of the really expensive TotL stuff. Its expansive stage and tube romance, when combined with its sense of speed and rhythm, makes it a fun amp to just listen to and enjoy. Occasionally, though, its lack of resolution as well as its indistinct images lead it to sound somewhat hazy and un-focused, and I wouldn't think it's the best amp for "critical" listening. So far, I've found its best match is the HD 650, though I will be experimenting with more headphones in the future.

    Some comparisons to higher-end amps solely from memory. Against the Pendant, it has better staging, transient speed, and treble extension, but loses out a bit on things like texture, mid-range and bass detail, and ultimate sense of dynamic slam and resolution. The Pendant also has a better sense of "grip" over the driver, but surprisingly enough, I think the Quicksilver is a bit more refined and nuanced sounding with things like micro-dynamics. The 3F beats it handily in most technical aspects, but it doesn't have the sense of tube bloom, texture, and the stage size of the Quicksilver.

    I'll write more when detailed impressions when I'm sure that the honeymoon period has faded off, but I think this is a good option for those that want an affordable amp and for some reason don't mesh well with the SW51+ or just want more bass extension, staging, and bloom than it offers.
     
    • Like Like x 18
    • Epic Epic x 2
    • List
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2021
  11. ckhirnigs

    ckhirnigs Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Alabama
    @dematted I think a lot of the little improvements you’re looking for will come when you roll some nice tubes in the amp. I was also quite satisfied with the sound using the stock tubes, but I couldn’t resist the urge to try some nicer options.

    I started with some new-production Gold Lion 12AX7’s and NOS EI EL84’s, both from Upscale Audio. This took things up a notch and clearly made the amp a noticeable step-up to my SW51+ with my Verite Closed. I couldn’t stop there and tried many other vintage tubes in the Quicksilver. After a lot of trial and error I have settled on Hammond-labeled Amperex 12AX7’s from the early 60’s and a pristine pair of 1955 Mullard Disc Getter EL84’s. For my preferences, this hits the sweet spot. It gives the amp a very nice balance of excellent extension on both ends with a very lush and detailed midrange.
     
  12. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    Nice write up Dematted as usual. I agree with a lot of the points you made about the quicksilver. I agree with Ckhirngs that tubes will solve some of the issues you brought up. Specifically, I found that you can get a blacker background and smooth out the splashiness of the upper mid-treble.

    I have moded mine pretty significantly at this point. I was able to turn up the dial on resolution, soundstage and add a little more slam. I also improved imaging and texture. I do totally agree that the QS has enough speed and musicality to be a fun amp. While giving a very tastefully level of tube bloom. It has enough power for all my headphones but does not come off as a grippy amp such as the v281 or something like the Jot. That said if feels natural and unforced but does not have that grip on the driver like some amps impose.

    After the mods the one criticism I would have is the imaging could be more precise. Put up against the v281 you see that the imaging is not as precise. Even though the QS does not sound bad with the Utopia its lack of imaging does not show off that ability of the headphone. I do enjoy the QS with the 6XX and LCD X quite a bit.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2021
  13. dematted

    dematted Friend

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Likes Received:
    2,161
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    Some notes from tube-rolling. Chain is Roon via Pi2aes - Bifrost 2 - Quicksilver HPA - HD 650

    Some have remarked that this amp sounds good with the stock tubes. I agree. A few of these have remarked that there's not much difference between stock tubes and NOS. To this, I disagree - this amp changed pretty noticeably with tube rolling; though it did maintain a somewhat similar character tonally, its technical abilities were changed significantly by tube rolling. In short, putting in NOS tubes elevated the sound. Previously, I thought this amp was pretty much worth its price-point. With NOS tubes, though it doesn't quite get to the <2000 ToTL level, it is disturbingly close.

    So far, I've tried two sets of inputs and two sets of drivers. Let's talk inputs first.

    RCA (or possibly CBS) 12ax7 made for Lowrey Organs: The best mid-range tone I've heard on the amp so far, with a spooky, holographic stage. Also quite dark, with rolled treble and little air in the top octave. Great bass quality, too, with a very robust sounding bottom end. This tube really elevated the amp's dynamics and timbre, at the cost of making it a notch or two darker. Quite fun, but occassionally one wants the sound to be more open. Though extremely textured and revealing of small note nuances, can be somewhat muddy and unclear due to lack of air. Despite the warmth, has a somewhat harder, grittier, more exciting sound than stock. Upper midrange and lower treble can be a tad fatiguing despite roll-off; treble isn't always presented naturally. Recommend.

    Raytheon 12ax7 Blackplate made for Baldwin: Huge contrast to the RCA. Exceedingly good micro-dynamics; poor macrodynamics. Bass feels somewhat woolly and not particularly robust, but treble is far better extended and also has a more natural timbre in the upper octaves. Despite the relative "brightness" of this tube, the sound is actually more relaxed due to both the depth of staging and a lack of "bite" and "tactility". In fact, this tube overall has a "softer", "smoother" sound than the RCA, with quicker decay but also rounder leading edges to notes. In short, compared to the RCA, it is a much clearer and more mild, pleasant sounding tube, with a better sense of openness and less fatigue, but also tends to not have the same texture and sense of atmospherics of the RCA. Lacks some "magic". Recommend tentatively.

    Finally, the power tubes. I could hear less of a difference swapping between these, but it was still there.

    RCA 7189: Elevates the technicalities of the amp without significantly changing tone. Things are brought more into focus, and dynamics, particularly on the macro scale, sound noticeably more intelligible. Generally has a neutral tone with some small roll-off in the very top octaves. A bit "soft" sounding, with a sound that could be more robust and tactile. Highly Recommend.

    Mullard EL84 New Production: Makes the sound somewhat less soft and more tactile, but at the cost of technical abilities. Just does not have the sense of staging, dynamics, or detail as the RCA 7189 NOS tubes. Do not recommend.
     
  14. dematted

    dematted Friend

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Likes Received:
    2,161
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    47B64401-5214-4ADD-B790-84E4719D04CF.jpeg

    Intro

    Having now lived with this amp for a bit of time and played around with different tubes, I think I'm now equipped to write up some more organized impressions of it. I don't have any other amp to compare it to at the moment, but I have fairly clear recollections of my SW51+, ZMF Pendant, Elekit Tu-8800, and 3F and how each of those sounded with Sennheisers. The former two will serve as the main points of comparison. To give a TLDR: I think this amp is a pretty good deal if you can deal with some of its idiosyncrasies. It definitely punches above its price-point: the other stuff I've heard at around the 1k point, like the used Bryston BHA-1, doesn't really compete, and it blows lower priced Schiit stuff like Lyr 3 and Valhalla 2 out of the water, as it should.

    But it's certainly not perfect. I'm going to work through each band of the frequency response, dedicate a paragraph to technicalities like dynamics and staging/imaging, and then talk a bit about the overall way that the amp presents sound. Instead of having discrete paragraphs comparing the amp to other ones, I'm going to try to integrate comparisons throughout the entire review.

    Chain: Roon via Pi2aes --> Bifrost 2 --> Quicksilver Amp with RCA 12ax7's and Mullard New Production EL84's --> HD650

    Bass

    Probably its weakest point in the FR. Although it extends deeper than something like the SW51+, it doesn't come close to UL designs like the Pendant and Elekit TU-8800. It tends to be fairly punchy, but it also lacks a good deal in texture, nuance, and detail. This was particularly apparent on tracks like Lou Reed's "Charley's Girl", where you can normally hear a very distinct clicking sound with the hit of the drum, but this is obscured on the Quicksilver. I'd say this isn't really a step up in bass texture and quality from something like the SW51+ - where it does do a bit better is in just the bass quantity it provides as well as the bass dynamics that it offers, which are solid but not astounding. Overall, the lack of -clarity- in the bass can lead to a somewhat muddy presentation, but thankfully there isn't too much of it, so it can mostly be ignored by those who are more interested in other elements of music.

    Mid-range
    The amp's strongest suit. There is a noticeable but not overwhelming amount of bloom in the lower-mids which contributes to a certain amount of tube romance, but upper-mids also feel very much present, giving nice edge and presence to vocals. In fact, the level of "wetness" in the mid-range is complemented by what seems like a slightly up-tilting FR into the upper-midrange, which contributes to a good sense of balance. Compared to the SW51+, the mid-range presentation sounds noticeably more lush and less lean, and images tend to have more flesh and dimensionality to them.

    In conjunction with improvements in transient presentation and dynamics in the mid-range, this leads instruments and vocals to "pop" more and simply have more color and vivacity compared to something like the SW51+. The Pendant has a similar effect, but the overall presentation of the mid-range is quite different due to the Pendant's warmth and more hefty bottom end, which leads to a mid-range that has more fundamentals and less harmonics, making it a somewhat more relaxing but also less exciting listen.

    The amp's mid-range is let down a bit by its lack of resolution. Although both the SW51+ and the Pendant lack the sense of excitement and engagement that comes from the Quicksilver's combination of bloom and quickness, they both tend to present the mid-range either more clearly (SW51+) or with more resolution (The Pendant). Perhaps an analogy will suffice here: although the Quicksilver paints with a broader color palette, the individual images of the colors are somewhat more hazy, leading each of them individually to have less fine gradations within them.

    Something like the Elekit TU-8800 or 3F will blow the Quicksilver out of the water in their clarity and resolving capacities, but I've found both of these amps to lack the timbral realism of the Quicksilver. For lack of a better term, with both of these amps it has always sounded to me like there is an excessive smoothness and lack of "grit" in mid-range elements. The sound of the quicksilver is more "raw" and "unprocessed" - with the higher-end amps, I felt as if an additional filter had been placed on the sound which, while enhancing many aspects of it (technical and otherwise), rendered timbres a tad artificial. This can be heard particularly, I think, in transient presentation. Though something like the 3F offers faster and more controlled decay as well as more speedy attacks, transients nonetheless lack a certain level of "bite" and sharpness that comes through on the Quicksilver, which to me contributes to a more natural sound.

    Treble

    Good, but not great. Definitely colored. Seems to have a slight emphasis in the mid-treble particularly, followed by a depression in the upper octave. The SW51+ had more air and a more linear, less splashy treble. The equivalent costing DNA model, the Sonett 2, had much more treble detail and also much smoother, less fatiguing treble. By contrast, the treble of the Quicksilver is very quick, but it also tends to be somewhat rough sounding. The lack of air combined with the mid-treble splashiness can lead to a somewhat claustrophobic presentation here too.

    Despite this, the actual timbre of treble instruments is pretty solid with something like the 650. Treble microdynamics in particular are really excellent, and though it certainly could offer more detail, the overall sense of rhythm and Prat in the treble leads to a sense of engagement and lends music a very boisterous energy. I prefer the treble of this amp to something like the SW51+, and think it trades blows with the ZMF Pendant. Both the 3F and TU-8800 easily best it.

    Technicalities
    Micro-dynamics are excellent, at the level of the ZMF Pendant but below amps like 3F or Elekit Tu-8800. That being said, it could fool one into thinking it was up there with these amps, because it tends to have a very "High-contrast", lively sound which tends to exaggerate differences between different instruments. As a result of this, along with the issues in both the bass and treble, the overall sound can be somewhat disjointed and lack cohesiveness, but oddly enough, I think this can contribute to a feeling of "bounciness" and micro-dynamic excitement. Yet when listening closely, it doesn't really resolve those very small microdynamic differences at the level of a TotL amp. Macrodynamics, meanwhile, are good, but not as good as micro-dynamics. They're much more evident in the mid-range and treble than in the bass, which tends to be a weak point. A step up from the SW51+ here, but doesn't quite reach the level of the Pendant. It doesn't really slam.

    Let's talk about soundstage and imaging. This is where the amp impressed me most. I generally don't care about stage, but this amp's stage was definitely a strong point. I don't recall hearing any amp that made the HD650 have this deep of a stage and that threw as much space as it did between instruments while still retaining a solid center image. This was pretty damn impressive. That being said, imaging isn't fantastic - as I wrote earlier, instrument images can be a bit hazy and ill-defined, and though they have a very nifty dimensional effect which makes them sound more realistic, this still applies even with rolling in NOS tubes.

    Resolution is, as I've already written, mediocre. Micro-detail in particular just seems to be smeared over by the amp, and when combined with the ill-defined images and the bloom in the lower-mids, this leads the amp to often sound just a bit hazy. This isn't a "Muddy" sound, though - the overall FR, is if anything, upsloping, so it is more akin to the haze of the Valhalla 2 than anything else (though not nearly that bad). The SW51+ honestly struck me as having more clarity, and perhaps a tad more resolve.

    Overall Presentation
    The Quicksilver is, despite all its problems, a really fun amp to listen to. It has a great sense of Prat, and its transient presentation in particular, which emphasizes biting but not overly sharp attacks with long but not uncontrolled decay, leads to a sound that keeps one on the edge of one's seat. It pairs absolutely fantastically with the HD650, giving its mid-range a sense of visceral immediacy that is often utterly captivating (Some might even call this -boxy-, and I have a preference for an elevated mid-range, so keep that in account).

    Yes, it is not a perfect sounding amp, and in many respects, it might even be considered a flavor amp because of its deficiencies in the treble and bass. But for those for whom music lives in the mid-range, the Quicksilver offers more than a mere glimpse of the way TotL amp's present those crucial mid-range textures. Here, it offers a consistently exciting listen with a wonderful balance of crunch and body, and a quickness and rhythm that makes it all too easy to get lost in one's music.

    Spidey Chart

    Screen Shot 2021-12-26 at 5.42.42 PM.png
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 14
    • Epic Epic x 8
    • List
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2021
  15. ckhirnigs

    ckhirnigs Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Alabama
    Excellent write-up @dematted! I could never hope to offer such a thorough review myself, but I still think you could get even more out of the amp with some better tubes.

    I tried a number of US-made tubes from RCA, Sylvania and GE in the Quicksilver, but the only ones I really liked were a pair of GE gray oval plate EL84’s. I tried various European 12AX7’s from Mullard, Telefunken and Amperex as well. The Amperex stood out as the best of the bunch to me. I say all this just to encourage you to try out a few more tubes before you conclude you’re getting the best out of the Quicksilver.

    Huge disclaimer, I have never actually heard the HD650, which I know is reference point for many people in our hobby. My understanding is that it is known to scale really well with better upstream equipment. Despite this, bass is never going to be its strong suit, correct? I just wonder if your assessment of the Quicksilver’s bass performance might change if used with a more capable headphone. I have been very impressed with the amp’s bass quality in conjunction with the Verite Closed and Auteur. It’s possible that it can’t extract the absolute best out of the HD650, but it remains very competent with headphones that are known for excellent bass quality.

    I always enjoy reading impressions from other Quicksilver owners. I agree that you get a lot for your dollar with this amp. It seems to win out for me against the SW51+ most nights when deciding which amp to plug into, and I really like my SW51+!
     
  16. dematted

    dematted Friend

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Likes Received:
    2,161
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    It's possible I could get a bit more out of it with European tubes, though I have long really liked RCA's in my tube amps. I'll nab some Amperex 7062's from Brent Jessee and get back to you if there are any drastic changes. The 12ax7 european brands are just too expensive for me to justify buying for this amp, I think. Their price has really inflated and now it's over $100 for a decent testing pair.

    The Quicksilver's bass performance might be held back by the HD650 to some degree. But I've heard the HD 650 have a much better, deeper, more alive bass response with other amps (the two UL amps I mentioned really brought out the bass - the 3F less so). I would be curious to try the Quicksilver on more headphones to see how much of my review might be a product just of the fact that I'm listening to the 650. I'll be getting some of ETA's newest stuff soon, and I'll be excited to try those headphones with the Quicksilver. There's also anecdotal information out there to the effect that the Quicksilver works better with lower impedance phones, which I've of course yet to verify!
     
  17. ckhirnigs

    ckhirnigs Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Alabama
    I know what you mean about the price of tubes. I could have bought another amp if I were to add up all the money I’ve spent on tubes. Luckily I have been able to sell a lot of the ones I’ve bought and moved on from. I now have quite a few backups of the ones I really like.

    Just a quick note, Mike from Quicksilver told me to stick to 12AX7’s for the input tubes. I asked about using some 5751’s and he didn’t recommend it. He said they wouldn’t operate at the correct voltage. That being said, I doubt there’s any danger in trying some 7062’s, but I just thought I’d pass along Mike’s advice.
     
  18. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    The price of tubes is crazy. For the cost of a set of expensive tubes you can buy a solder station, solder and coupling caps...... and make much more of an upgrade IMO. I understand the reasons people choose not to do this, but it is way cheaper than multiple sets of tubes. I bought this amp with the full intention of modifying the amp. I knew from my 2 channel days QS produces good sound quality for the price. When modified it becomes a great value proposition. The QS headphone amp is no different.

    I have heard the pendant as well but not in a while and I find it very difficult to compare amps that I don't have side to side. My memory is that it looked very good but sounded just ok for the price. The quicksilver looks very just ok but sounds very good. I screwed up mailing of my shortest way amp but hopefully I will have the amps side by side soon.

    The upper-mid to treble splashiness that has been discussed earlier was a real issue I had with the amp. Moving to different tubes set helped a great deal. Upgrading caps completely solved the issue. I never had an issue with the resolution/detail. With the addition of mods I feel the amp has a very good level of detail. The bass has also not been an issue for me. I do get slam with the 6XX. Not Jot. level slam but then again, the pairing has no glare and has depth and nice 3D stage unlike the jot version (1).

    I still don't think it has the imaging of a really good solid state but this is a critique many make of tube amps. Again, the QS does have a large stage much bigger than many SS amps. IMO I feel with 300-400 bucks I spent buying new tubes, caps and volume pot I would have to spend 2000-2200 bucks used to get something that I could consider an equal of possibly better. It is hard for me to even want to attempt it because the QS manages to be so musically engaging. I would hate to spend more and get a few technicalities better but lose that musical factor. The amp is totally worth the price of admission. Much more so if you tweak a bit.

    I was able to get the QS sounding extremely neutral and also got it to sound a touch warmer w/tube bloom. In the end I choose the warmer setup. This was all done by swapping out the power supply cap. This amp can radically change based on the parts you put into it. More so than I thought was possible. Not subtle change. I could immediately determine once parts are swapped out.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  19. Darkstar1

    Darkstar1 Facebook Friend

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NYC
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  20. viablex1

    viablex1 New

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon
    Just curious with regard to the quicksilver HA. I do like it. I just noticed today that the amp is buzzing loudly in any outlet etc and of course translating to the headphones. I have had it about a month and it had a zero noise floor maybe a minute amout of buzzing. Any ideas etc?
     

Share This Page