My primary reference headphones are the UP-OCC K501. From listening to them, I gauge the midrange integrity, timbre and overall coherency of other headphones. Over the years, these characteristics have become the most critical to my ears, around which I judge a worthwhile listening experience.
Therefore, with the K501, I am willing to make concessions in other areas, e.g. "absolute" frequency extension, levels of micro detail, etc. The type(s) of concession(s) and degree(s) to which I am willing to concede will vary from product to product as well.
For the T1, which to me share historical/technical development closely akin to the DT880, I have come to associate the primary defining traits with detail, frequency extension and size of sound stage (not dimensionality--the ordering/coordinating of elements within credible 3-space, because that, to me, was never Beyerdynamic's strong suit).
The K501 and the DT880/2003 (and now the DT880/600) compliment each other very well. That's why I own both and consider each indispensable. So, for example, I do not establish a reference for midrange with the DT880, nor a reference for "absolute" levels of detail with the K501. I consider each set a "complete" and "balanced" design in their own respect.
Of course, I cannot help but cross-reference the T1 to my "Beyer references", which are the DT880/2003. The DT880/2003 had surpluses of reserve at either frequency extreme, but a hollow midrange. As a listener, I compensated by reveling in their seemingly boundless, airy highs and deep, plowing bass while "synthesizing"/extrapolating the midrange, call it a "virtual" midrange, from the constituent HF and LF extremes.
And perhaps that is my sticking point, for better or worse. Had I not already the K501, and now the DT880/600, on hand, then the T1 might have been satisfactory, may have met or possibly exceeded my prior "Beyer-biased" expectations.
But the T1 do not meet my expectations, because to me they forfeit the strong suits, or previously established reference qualities of the DT880/2003, in order to mend the admitted "weaknesses" of same. What I end up with is reminiscent of my experience with the DT880/250/2005: a design that comes close everywhere, but has just not quite arrived anywhere at the same time. The T1 are close, in fact dangerously closer than ever, to the "perfect cans", but to me they have at the same time come adrift just a smidgen too far from what I would call the "perfect Beyers".
Please note: I am NOT saying that the T1 sound like the DT880/250/2005, NOR am I saying that the T1 possess no technical or musical merit (lest I be unjustly indicted as a T1 "basher"). I am saying, however, that to me the finality of the design outcome for the T1 is analogously closer to the DT880/250/2005 than it is to the DT880/2003. I am also saying that the T1 represent significant strides in the areas of detail retrieval, midrange integrity, coherency and sound field development compared to the DT880/2003--no question about that!
But to me, and this is THE critical conjunction, what they [the T1] correspondingly lost in terms of "absolute" or perceived HF and LF extension outweigh what they significantly gained in comparison to the DT880/2003. In terms of what establishes a musically satisfying listening experience for me, historically, WITH BEYERS, I simply am unable to make the kinds of concessions the T1 are apparently asking of me at this time.
On the other hand, with respect to their design terminus, the DT880/600 are more to my personal liking, because they adequately address the weaknesses of the DT880/2003, yet do not--IMHO--simultaneously overly-compromise/delete their strengths. And that is why, after reinserting the T1 into my gear train last night for not quite an hour, the DT880/600 were promptly unboxed and remained snugly astride my skull for the following two hours.
To me--and I say this again, the T1 sound "sheared off" at the frequency extremes, say with a "90-degree cut'; whereas the DT880/600 sound more "tapered off" at the frequency extremes, say with a "bevel cut". In addition, the T1 also sound overly damped, tonally, compared to the DT880/600. In short, less open and inviting. Because of these/this, the DT880/600 strike me as smoother, more musical and "airy"**; and the concessions they make elsewhere become tolerable for me--perhaps not for you, but for me. : )
[**The DT880/600 have a "transitional, funneling-out" sense of air, whereas the T1 have a more "stark, funneling-in" sense of air to them, if that makes any sense. I think this is correlated with my perception of a too tightly/rigidly sprung tonal quality with the T1 as well.]
[The stellar improvements in the T1's midrange just won't console me, I'm sorry (I'll apologize here as a courtesy, not a necessity), particularly with the UP-OCC K501 on hand.]
And folks, for better or for worse, that's me; these are my listening preferences when it comes to Beyers. End of story.
Well, almost.
Believe me, I wish I were hearing what Skylab, MacedonianHero and other respected contributors to these forums are hearing; I am not. Believe me, I had no problem--at all--spending $1000 (saved up from unemployment checks, no less) to purchase the T1 from the headphone manufacturing company with whom I have always felt perhaps the closest kinship and for whom I have maintained customer loyalty for many years.
And I remain an adamant supporter of the DT880/600 (in case you haven't already noticed!), so my kinship and loyalty to Beyerdynamic remain intact, solid as ever. I will, however, absorb a $100 loss after reselling the T1, but I consider even that money well spent, due to the instructive and illuminating nature of the audition.
In closing (for this post, not necessarily for this thread), I would like to genuinely thank each and every one of you who subscribed, readers and writers. It is both your relative conjunction with and opposition to my viewpoints that make me a more complete and even a "happier" head-fier. : )
