Review: CharterOak Acoustics SP-1 (GMP 450 Pro) - Page 6

More on the separation/soundstage/imaging comment---

I feel like the instruments are separated and defined quite well, but the tall soundstage (more so the lack of a wide soundstage) limits the imaging - meaning that while I can enjoy the separated instruments, it would be more ideal if the area at which their position is perceived could be better.  This is getting pretty picky, and asking a lot out of a headphone anyways.  I suspect something like the HD 650 (or any high end open headphone) will do a better job at this.

SORRY FOR THE LATE REPLIE!

The goddamn Internet connection wen't down last night...

The GMP 450 Pro is not perfect to me... no headphone is! More on this if you care... ; )

But within my budget, it's the best aproximation of perfection I could find... hopefully...

What do you think about the depht of the soundstage (front and back projection)? How did you find the SP-1 to compare agains't the HD595 in spatial resolution?
 

Thanks!

It is too bad you couldn't score the CharterOak version of this headphone given your intended long use of these headphones - CharterOak backs them up with a lifetime warranty.  I am skeptical though, given that many changes within the original manufacturer MB Quart have happened since this headphone was made, and they do not appear to exist anymore.

This is a phone call I have been meaning to make - essentially to ask about the warranty and to know exactly how many of these were made (I feel like it has to be a low number).

I like your additions regarding the niche of headphones.  It is easy for me to leave such things out given my limited time appreciating what the headphone sector of audio has to offer relative to the time I have spent in other categories (my wallet hates me sometimes, but my ears really appreciate it).  I agree when you say certain songs may be better presented in a headphone, although (again, most likely related to previous exposure!) I feel like this list is relatively short assuming the ideal listening conditions.  It is so much easier to achieve those conditions in a headphone and most often times very unreasonable to achieve such conditions with an external loudspeaker setup, and will cost thousands.  I love the space loudspeakers have to offer - and regarding the resonance/bass comment, just like any sector of audio tuning is mandatory.  It could very possibly be the room...  Anyways, even open headphones have a more direct sound than loudspeakers because of the nature of the device.  I feel like possibly opening a new thread to discuss this information and get us a large sample size to discuss this - this community will certainly have valuable things to say, and I will likely reference this conversation.  I am certain this is taste oriented.  Keep any eye out for it in the next couple days.

The CharterOak was in a whole different league than the Sennheiser HD 595.  The only aspect of the Senn which was better than the SP-1 was absolutely spatial imaging.  The SP1s soundstage is mildly one-dimensional (I hate to say this, but the truth hurts sometimes).  While the soundstage is tall, the width and depth are lacking.  My roommate is contemplating getting his hands on some Quart QP400s, and I would LOVE to do an A/B with those and write something.  I am predicting an improvement to the soundstage (should be deeper for sure) at the cost of some of the aggressive, swift nature this headphone has... (I sense more on this? haha)  That will be awhile though... if at all.

Another thing that makes me really sad of not owning a Charteroak Acoustics instead of a German Maestro, is the beautiful black piano box that adds a touch of charme to the package.

I'll definitely keep my eyes open for that thread R-Audiohead.

I find the subject of conversation really interesting and would very much like to know what the community has to say about it.

Assuming the ideal listening conditions, this is indeed a very short list of devices to take into account, even assuming all the technologies already applied on them.

I believe that the ideal listening conditions will only be achieved through our mind and sensorial system control.

Possibly hypnosis nowadays.

But, regarding instrumental music, it's just as you said in the begining of our conversation:

Nothing will beat a live experience!

And I'm not worried about you perceiving the SP-1 soundstage as mildly one dimensional... : P

I have heard the MB Quart QP 450 Pro and I didn't perceive it as such, more depth and width than height actually.

I have heard the QP 400 to and let me tell you that some of the changes on sound that you preconize, while correct, are far from being the biggest sonic diference between these two cans! Are you interested in more?

How deep do you find the lows to rich on the Charteroaks? 40, 30, 20hz?

Do you find this headphone bright?

What do you mean by agressive and swift nature of the headphone? : ) Do you believe those drivers to be fast?

I'm a pain in the ass... I know...

Thanks!

My perception of the one dimensional soundstage is probably a result of my ears being used to external setups.  Compared to some other closed back models I have heard, these absolutely have a larger soundstage in every direction....  Even the Senn HD 595s had a wider soundstage though.  I guess isolation just has a cost.

The bass extension of the Charteroaks is easily heard down to 20 hz, but there might be a bit of a roll off around the 35 mark (these just being guesses).  Subjectively said, I do hear a bit of a roll off when the Charteroaks reach really deep, but I think that is more due to my hearing than anything else.  To my knowledge humans cannot hear something in the 20-30 Hz range nearly as well as say the 60Hz range.  This roll off is probably my ears sensory response to the linear reproduction of the music... in other words, I feel like in order for a running scale that low to sound linear (which would be unnatural) an emphasis would need to be placed on the bass extension below 40Hz.  The CharterOaks do not emphasize bass.

Yes, I would absolutely describe the drivers in this headphone to be quicker than others I have heard.... most of my other headphone experience comes with Sennheiser however, which are known for being laid back.

I don't know if headphones have a reputation of being faster than external setups or not, but I feel like the CharterOaks can wake up in an instant, as if they were waiting for something more fast-paced to begin with.  Good luck slowing these down!  I personally think it is for the better.

I absolutely want your remembered impressions of the QP400 compared to the QP450 PRO if you're able to give accurate insight despite pulling it all from memory.

Thanks!

And yes - the box is WAY overdone and absolutely beautiful.  I have never seen a box for a set of headphones - or any individual device for that matter - this nice.  This makes even the box for the LCD-2s look at itself in the mirror and question its workout routine.  It was a nice bonus.

Just to clarify my statement about "it" being for the better.  I meant the fact that the headphone is swift in nature is for the better, not that slowing down it would be.

The setup wasn't the best there is: old Sony professional CD player + Tubetech PA-6 Headphone amplifier. The gain of the PA-6 was so high that one could barely turn the volume pot to get loud sound!

Probably the headphones were experiencing some slight distortion which degraded the sound quality slighly (at least in the case of QP 400 as I heard some strange sonic artifacts with it).

I heard some classical and electronic music. The QP 400 requires a bit more power to get to same subjective volume.

The audition (one month ago) was short of three hours, but enough to perceive their differences:

Classical Music

The QP 450 Pro sounded pretty balanced and neutral, presenting acoustic instruments and voices with stronger and more natural tone and timbre.

All sonic objects had better body and feel through the QP 450 Pro.

Soundstage was almost as wide and deep as the QP 400, but it lacked the air and breath of the open model.

On more complex passages separation and clarity was worse on QP 450 Pro.

The QP 400 sounded way to bright, thin and unbalanced to my ears... the bass was to recessed and rolled-off, the mids were thin, the treble to prominent although not offensive. Better clarity and separation.

The bright and thin sonic character expressed the instruments and voices with a somewhat less natural timbre, lacking in body and proper weight.

With a proper setup it would fare better surely.

Spacial resolution/imaging was what I most liked about the QP 400, better than QP 450 Pro in just about anything related to it. As it was to be expected...

Tonal accuracy on both seemed similar to me.

Detail retrieval was similar on both, QP 400 probably a bit better on upper mids and treble, but severely lacking information on the lower frequencies compared to the QP 450 Pro.

I could ear some strange sonic artifacts quite clearly with this headphones, more so with QP 400... not sure if from the recordings themselves or just distortion...

Electronic music

QP 450 Pro is, clearly, the better all arounder. It just presented the music in a much more complete way. But still bright.

The QP 400 is seriously lacking in the bass department and is just to bright and thin. One particular song had a prominent strong bass beat which was setting the rhythm for the entire sound progression.

The QP 450 Pro presented played the song very nicely, but with QP 400 that song was almost unintelligible because that beat was so recessed... I mainly perceived a very bright and almost uncomprehensible sound on that song and other electronic music songs played by the QP 400. The QP 400 showed the compression artifacts much more prominently than the QP 450 Pro.

From what I've read, the QP 400 seem to be pickier than QP 450 Pro regarding source and amplification, they are probably more transparent headphones in that regard and the old setup through which I auditioned both headphones probably irked more the QP 400 than QP 450 Pro.

Anyway the sound signature that I acknowledged from both headphones matches what I've read on other reviews from the Internet.

QP 400 - Bright, very recessed bass, thin, fast, airy, great spacial resolution - realistic soundstage and imaging (not of much use for electronic music though), highly analitycal, transparent, unforgiving of bad recordings,... more suitable for well recorded classical or jazz music. Demands proper source and amplification.

QP 450 Pro - very balanced but still somewhat bright, neutral, fast, highly analitycal yet musical, good spacial resolution, transparent, great midrange, high tonal resolution, simple, realistic and natural sound, no real flaws in it's sound,... good all arounder.

If you care, there are some good comparisons between these two and other headphones on the Net, I'll link as soon as I find them. They are in chinese so you'll need to use Google Translate...

Here are some interesting links for those interested in GMP/QP 450 Pro or 400:

Chinese

QP 450 Pro vs QP 400

K601 vs QP250 vs QP 450 vs QP 400 vs DT880 (2005 version) thread

HD600 vs QP 400

QP 435s vs SR225 vs A900

German

Mega shootout of closed back headphones. GMP 450 Pro included. No rankings

Russian

All types of headphones reviewed and compared in this thread. Several GMPs and QPs included

Enjoy!

I made some minor corrections to my write up of QP 450 Pro vs QP 400 on post above.

EDIT: Fixed one of the links

Thank you for the resources -

I will enjoy these reads.

Received my GMP 450 Pro today. Have been listening to it for a couple of hours and the sound does not remind me the QP 450 Pro... instead it resembles more the QP 400, very bright, recessed bass, highly revealing of recording production artifacts. Fairly accurate and uncolored sound... These are out of the box impressions...

I'm used to listen through IEMs and this is my first full sized headphone so probably my ears are biased... I definitely need more listening time with the GMP as I sense enormous potential here... It's an incredibly fast headphone. I feel like it never gets overwhelmed nor congestioned with demanding music.

The isolation is ridiculously poor!

I wasn't expecting this... the QP 450 Pro seemed to isolate at least a little... from what I remember...

R-Audiohead and stokitw, did you guys note any change of sonic characteristics with your Charteroak/GMP over time? Did your headphones "burn-in"?

What were your impressions out of the box?

Thanks!

Actually, I didn't notice substantial burn-in differences with my SP-1 like I had with my Senn HD448.

I do not perceive the sound as unusually bright.... I find them pretty flat sounding actually, even right out of the box.  Maybe this could be a result of the bias you were describing with frequent IEM use.

I do agree with you when you say these headphones are fast.  I can't seem to slow them down no matter what I throw at them... never get clumsy or congested.  Isolation is awful for a closed can haha, but you have to admit the comfort is exceptional, and the soundstage is at least decent for a closed can.

Looks like you find them "bass light" as the OP did... which is no surprise even though I don't fully agree (respectfully, of course).  From what I remember from my little experience with IEMs, even cheap ones do have some pretty robust bass.  Could be that tight seal of IEMs you're used to.

Happy listening! Keep me posted!

I love this can, FYI

Quote:

Originally Posted by kkl10 

Received my GMP 450 Pro today. Have been listening to it for a couple of hours and the sound does not remind me the QP 450 Pro... instead it resembles more the QP 400, very bright, recessed bass, highly revealing of recording production artifacts. Fairly accurate and uncolored sound... These are out of the box impressions...

 

I'm used to listen through IEMs and this is my first full sized headphone so probably my ears are biased... I definitely need more listening time with the GMP as I sense enormous potential here... It's an incredibly fast headphone. I feel like it never gets overwhelmed nor congestioned with demanding music.

 

The isolation is ridiculously poor!

I wasn't expecting this... the QP 450 Pro seemed to isolate at least a little... from what I remember...

 

R-Audiohead and stokitw, did you guys note any change of sonic characteristics with your Charteroak/GMP over time? Did your headphones "burn-in"?

What were your impressions out of the box?

 

Thanks!

Additionally, it appears my roommate obtained a QP400 for a VERY good deal recently.  I will be A/Bing these two cans come next week for sure, and I would be more than happy to share my thoughts/impressions there.  Maybe get him on here as well.

Soon I will probably just open a new "German Maestro/MB Quart" Discussion thread.

OK now, I believe to have started to understant the sound of the GMP better.

As I've said before, this is my first full sized headphone so they are "educating" my ears in a different way of IEMs... and in a better way I believe.

Recessed bass, brightness and other aspects that confused me at first are now a non issue because my ears were definitely biased.

The seal and the proximity of the driver to the ear canal of IEMs has to do with this, since that gives one a different perception of sound.

Stronger and more direct sound pressure level at the ear canal of IEMs provide smaller soundstage, stronger bass... a "closer" sound than the GMP.

I perceive the GMPs sound as naturally bigger and actually more well balanced and spacially realistic. Not only bass, but all the frequency spectrum is perceived as less upfront, more "laid back", distant. There's more air, breath and space on which the sound can develop. It's, in a way, a more "open" sound.

I say "in a way" because, despite the spacial perception improvement, I can still sense that the GMP is a closed headphone when comparing the "purity" of sound with IEMs.

Listening to a voice on IEMs for example gives me the feeling that the voice Is on a open space, with no phisical limits and with the GMP it's like the voice Is within a ressonant room. I think it irks slightly the excelent tonal accuracy of the GMP.

At first I confused the bigger, spacier and less "pure" sound/tone of the GMP with brightness but now I understand and like quite a lot what I'm hearing through this GMP 450 Pro.

It's, also, not a basslight headphone by any means, it has a much more realistic bass output than IEMs, just that. When the music demands the bass shows very appreciable weight and punch.

Don't get me wrong, it is a bright sounding headphone but not overly so as I thought.

I'm loving it with classical music, jazz, folk... actually any kind of acoustical music. This headphone is really marvelous with voices and instruments.

Now I'm fiinding that I, almost, can't go back to IEMs with this kind of music, but with some synthesized or electronic music I still prefer the presentation given by IEMs.(Let me note here that I'm refering mostly to my slighly modded Head Direct RE0 IEM, since it's the only one able to somehow keep up with the level of sound resolution of the GMP 450 Pro)

What has come up from my better understanding of this headphone sound, is that it is a very balanced and neutral sounding headphone. It's a fairly relaxing sounding headphone yet very engaging and athletic. Not as smooth as my Head Direct RE0, but more textured and slightly more detailed I believe. Great spacial resolution.

Very confortable headphone on the head indeed. A bit loose could use some more clamping force.

More listening still required though.

Will keep my eyes open for that thread R-Audiohead.

And looking forward on impressions of the QP 400 vs SP-1.

Several days have passed and I'm coming to the conclusion that the German Maestro GMP 450 Pro is the first and last Closed headphone I'll ever own.

There is nothing wrong on it's sound besides the coloration I can detect due to it's closed design and I just can't get passed that. Such great technical capabilities spoiled by the enclosure design...

I'm finding that the GMP colors the sound in a pretty perceivable way. Compared to my Sennheiser PX100 the GMP clearly suffers form it's design and that disappoints me...

I didn't expect this coloration/ressonance to be so obvious and in the first days I expected the sound to change... but it didn't...

Maybe I set my hopes to high... all the praising for the open sound of the GMP 450 Pro made me think that I could safelly trust on this headphone for a transparent representation of sound...

Well... now I know that the GMP 450 Pro is not as tonally transparent as I thought.

After some more research about the subject of transparent sound through headphones I'm convinced that the open design headphone is, definitely, the way to go.

The closed design headphone is inherently flawed (as I already knew), and if there is a closed headphone which has reasonably overcomed it's design flaws it is not the GMP 450 Pro.

If the GMP 450 Pro still sound relatively more open than other closed back headphones, I'm definitely not going back to them, ever.

I'm disappointed, the GMP 450 Pro has very balanced and capable sound, it corroborates almost every good description I have read about it and would be almost perfect if it wasn't for the ressonance that colors it and the clear impression of listening inside tiny bathrooms (exaggerating here a bit, but I think you get the idea).

I don't think I'm to demanding, I know all headphones are flawed in a way or another...

But if the Sennheiser PX100 still cativates my ears for it's open/natural sound (despite being technically incomparable to the GMP) over the GMP, that has to mean something.

I'm not talking about sound signatures here, I'm talking about the fundamental sonic shortcomings of the closed back design, so obviously I'm not saying that the PX100 gives an overall more realistic sound representation than the GMP. I'm basically saying that I'm very adverse to those shortcomings of the closed back design.

As good as the transducer is, and it really is, the closed back design just spoils everything for me...

So much money wasted... guess I'm allready cursed by Head-fi.

Feel sorry for myself and my wallet. : (