Hi Ian and Andrew,
Here are my listening impressions. I'll just summarize by saying it's not my cup of tea the way it stands.
I have used this glossary to describe what I hear:
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary. (sorry, but as of the time of this post, this link leads to nowhere).
Here goes:
- not aggressive
- little ambience
- not analytical/detailed
- not too articulate
- not great attack
- Perfect channel balance. Not sure about tonal balance
- bassy
- somewhat bloated
- blurry
- lots of body
- sometimes boxy
- no breath
- not bright
- not brilliant
- sometimes chesty
- not clear
- very closed sounding
- congested
- colored
- not cool
- not crisp
- dark
- not sure about decay
- not very defined
- not very delicate
- no depth
- not detailed
- not dry
- somewhat dull (it really fails to involve me. I noticed this right -from the start!)
- not very dynamic
- not edgy
- not sure it's euphonic
- not fast
- fat
- focused
- not forward
- full
- not fun
- gentle
- not grainy
- grippy but not on sub-bass
- not grungy
- not hard
- not harsh
- not hollow
- not honky
- absolutely no imaging whatsoever
- not juicy
- not laid-back
- not liquidy
- no low level detail
- lush
- mellow
- can be muddy
- muffled
- not musical
- not nasal
- not natural
- opaque
- not open
- not too sure about pace
- not piercing
- no presence
- not puffy
- not punchy
- rich
- round
- has rhythm
- not seismic but does have some sub-bass resonance that I can't say is good
- not shrill
- not sibilant
- not sizzly
- smeared
- smooth
- no snap
- no soundstage
- not spacious
- not speedy
- not steady
- not strident
- VERY STURDY!
- can't say it's sweet
- not tinny
- textured
- thick
- not thin
- not tight
- not terrible timing but not great either
- not great transient response
- can be tubby
- veiled
- warm
- weighty but I wouldn't say the sub-bass is controlled
- woolly in sub-bass
