[TWerk]

Yes "a little more laid back" with a more relaxed bass response.
 
That would agree with people are calling it "a more refined" version of the original.
 
Typically, the more you "refine" a headphone, the more you flatten out the exaggerated areas (especially bass).

 

[DecentLevi]

Comparison Review of Fostex TH-X00 Mahogany, Purpleheart and Ebony 
using multiple sources and various gear for contrast​

 
PREFACE:
 
This review is the result of spending 5 days with loaner units from the amazing folks at Massdrop.
 
This is intended to be more of a "comparison style" review, and was done relying on estimated percentile differences based on hearing perception, for more of an objective based approach rather than using colorful adjectives that can paint something as being 'great', or 'inferior'. All comparisons of said gear were done while playing loops of the same songs on both for consistency. All mentions of differences of various frequencies in decibal (DB) amounts were also based on perception, but using actual parametric EQ to compensate for differences. 
 
The results of this comparison were influenced by by the gear I used like DAC, amps, and the tubes that were used for the Elise amp.
 
Source chains used:
* Source:      PC streaming lossless well mastered audio tracks of various genres to the DAC in bit-perfect direct tunnel mode
- Primary:     Wyrd --> Gustard X12 DAC --> Elise tube amp from Feliks Audio with custom tube setup
- Secondary:  Wyrd --> Gustard X12 DAC --> Liquid Carbon amp from Cavalli Audio
- Third:         Massdrop Grace M9xx DAC / amp combo unit
 
Regarding the comparisons between the TH-X00 models and the Sennheiser HD-650: Granted this is comparing open to closed headphones, however the price points are vaguely similar and both are dynamic, so this comparison was added simply as an additional point of reference.
 

​

 
 
Fostex TH-X00 Mahogany (original) compared to Ebony
 
The original Mahogany has about 2.5db more bass and 3db less upper-treble. Ebony sounds around 20% more clean, 20% punchier dynamics, about 25% more fluidic 'liquid' sound, with maybe 5% less mids. On the Mahogany, bass overshadows everything unless it's EQ'd down several decibels. Sibilance barely existent.
 
Mahogany compared to HD-650
Mahogany has a far darker tonality with more sub-bass extension and emphasis, slower perceived dynamics, moderately brighter upper highs and less soundstage. 
HD-650 has more impactful dynamics and sounds more flat, even mid-centric in comparison
 
 
Fostex TH-X00 Mahogony (original) compared to Purpleheart (PH)
 
The purpleheart has about 1db less bass and 2db more upper-treble. Purpleheart sounds around 10% more clean and maybe 15% more fluidic / 'liquid'. Minimal sibilance.
 
Purpleheart compared to HD-650 
PH has much darker tonality with more sub-bass extension, slower perceived dynamics, much brighter upper highs, less soundstage, and has sibilance. 
HD-650 has more impactful dynamics and sounds more flat / linear
 
Fostex TH-X00 Purpleheart (PH) compared to Ebony
 
The Ebony has about 2db less bass and 1db more treble. Ebony sounds around 8% more clean and has punchier dynamics, about 10% more fluidic 'liquid' sound. Moderate sibilance.
 
Ebony compared to HD-650
Both have similar bass quantity / definition, yet the Ebony extends deeper. Sounstage / instrument separation are greater on the HD-650 and the Ebony has much more upper treble details than the HD-650. Ebony sounds 'slower' and more U-shaped on the extremities, and HD-650 sounds more organic and impactful. Ebony has noticeable sibilance, yet is solvable with EQ or foam disk under the earpad
 

Summary of headphones
 
The Mahogany is a moderately detailed headphone with acceptable tonality, yet lacking in dynamics and borderlining basshead territory.
 
The Purpleheart is a semi-neutral headphone with better dynamics, sparkle and vividness, yet still very bass heavy and moderately U-shaped. It's perhaps 4 oz. heavier than the former.
 
The Ebony is the most neutral of these with the most vivid / fluidic sound, with bass that extends equally deep as the other two and just the right quantity, yet still slightly U-shaped. It's perhaps 3 oz. heavier than the former.
 
The first time I heard the Ebony at home, I was so overwhelmed by the amazing sound I wanted to take a nap, but couldn't think about anything besides how great they sounded. Like the other two it has subterranean bass, overall enormously coherent sound signature, extremely well extended, vivid, lush, lifelike. A knockout performer for a closed can. It's the first closed can I've found that does all genre's right - for example rock sounds superb & detailed with great instrument separation, electronic sounds velvety and delicious enough to literally make my mouth water for that bass impact, neutrality, lushness, transparency... literally puts a smile on my face. Has flawless ability at handling complex recordings. Generally I have no desire for another closed can. If I had to compare its' sound signature to other closed backs, I'd put it somewhere right in the middle between the old Denon AH-D 1001 and the Sony MDR R-10.
 
My only gripe is the upper-highs are somewhat fatiguing, and can be merciless on bright recordings; and that the mid-highs can be somewhat sibilant. For most people this should not be an issue however, since I have a personal sensitivity to some high frequencies. A quick fix can be had however simply by placing a foam disk under the earpad or with proper EQ; for reduced treble, yet at the cost of some of the dynamics. 
 
There's a chance I may be able to convince Massdrop to revise the above issue before production begins.
 
It's weighty, well textured, liquid / fluidic, puristic and a slight U shape on the extremeties. Bass quality and quantity are absolutely perfect.
 
One of the designers of the Ebony told me it's worth the (currently $500) cost not just because it's a more neutral / realistic sound, but because the materials are more expensive and it takes time to cure the special wood used for the cups.
 
 
Supplementary comparison of amps used
(results from meticulous testing using numerous headphones)
 
   
                                                                                       

 (actual tubes used were different)​

 

​

 
Liquid Carbon (Cavalli Audio) compared to Elise (Feliks Audio)
The Liquid Carbon has slightly bloomier bass, a tad more dynamic yet treble is more harsh / not smooth and sounds less organic overall.

The Elise sounds the opposite with much larger soundstage extrusion (almost like 3D vs. 1 dimensional on the LC), smoother treble, bass more fluidic. On the Elise I notice layers hadn't noticed on LC and an overall more organic / lifelike sound. Makes the LC sound like one-note-bass in comparison.
 
Grace M9XX (Massdrop) compared to Elise
Elise has about 30% better stereo imaging, instrument separation and treble quality. Maybe about 10% less dynamics. About 350% better soundstage and 40% better bass definition / weight / texture. Elise sounds about 50% more lifelike / organic overall including better timbre / tonality with smoother treble. The difference is a small miracle.
 
M9XX compared to Liquid Carbon
The LC has about 30% better of all the following: bass definition, soundstage, lifelike / organic tonality, treble quality, smoother treble, yet seems a bit 'slower'
 
 
The above opinions are all IMO, and YMMV depending on environmental factors
 
EDIT: I also meant to say that you can't get the sound of the Ebony from EQ'ing alone. I have also tried EQ'ing on the former two models to compensate for frequency differences of the Ebony, and the end result was that although the FR would sound virtually identical, the Ebony would still come out on top for clarity, vividness and even impact somewhat.

 

[DecentLevi]

PS - during this testing I also realised my initial posts about the Mahogany and PH being thin / bright were 'my bad' from a minor memory lapse from busy meet conditions

 

[Spork67]

Thanks for this excellent comparison.
Sounds like the ebony might be worth the extra $ over the originals based on this sentence: "Ebony sounds around 20% more clean, 20% punchier dynamics, about 25% more fluidic 'liquid' sound,...".
I don't consider myself a basshead - but coming from HP that lacks bass (ATH-AD900x) I do enjoy the rich deep rumblings from the mahoganys.
While I can't justify another  set of TH-X00, I could justify upgrading my existing pair. The ebony does look great... (they ALL look great, IMO).
 
Will see how I like the STAX when they arrive, and make the decision to sell and upgrade or keep what I have then.
 
re: amps - I have the Grace and very happy with it, but you are saying the other 2 you tried are considerably better? 
Do you put that down to the amp, the DAC, or both.
Would be interesting to see a comparison of those 3 amps all using the same DAC (ie, the one in the Grace).
 
Anyhoo, thanks for taking the time to do the listening and write the comparison.

 

[DecentLevi]

Thanks for the kind words. About the amp comparisons, I was saying that the Elise is astronomically better than the M9XX. Most of this is due to the much better design of the Elise amp circuitry (and being about 20x bigger) and the special tubes I used with it, but also because these two used different DAC's. Unfortunately the M9XX does not operate as an amp only, so there would be no way to compare these two amps with the same DAC. As for the LC amp, these were a limited-run production, so the only way of obtaining one might be thru a used sale.

 

[Spork67]

Thanks for the fast reply. Was thinking the  m9XX DAC could be tried with the other 2 amps, to compare amp to amp, using same DAC. Agree, no way to use a different DAC with the Grace unit.
What sort of $$$ is the Elise amp? I may have to look further into it if it's really so much better than mu current equipment.

 

[DecentLevi]

Well, not to derail this thread too much, I'll leave your Elise question to @UntilThen. And the link for the Elise thread is in my review above, towards the end.
Also @Liu Junyuan are you reading this? 

 

[jeffri]

Thanks for comparison!

It seems everyone that hear Ebony mention it being a smoother or liquid. I guess I'll be very happy with the Ebony, looks like everything I want Mahogany to fix is there.

 

[DavidA]

First off, great review of the Ebony and the other 2.
 
@DecentLevi, was the Liquid Carbon run in balanced mode for the comparisons? (ie: were the headphones re-terminated to balance for the comparisons?)
 
When you say 20% differences this is really a lot in my opinion, so even a novice would easily notice the differences in the 3 different wood types?

 

[Zbell]

Thanks for the review DecentLevi. So in your opinion, the Purpleheart had less overall bass and impact than the Mahogany? Seems to be the opposite of what a few other reviewers and even Massdrop thought (on the PH description page they said it had more bass than the M). I was also wondering if you considered your fuidic/liquid descriptor the same as Jude's lushness descriptor?

 

[Vigrith]

  What sort of $$$ is the Elise amp? I may have to look further into it if it's really so much better than mu current equipment.

 
The Elise retails for around 700 for the standard version, around 800 if you want upgraded drivers iirc, and then to infinity and beyond if you wanna go all out with tube rolling and whatnot as a lot of people have in the Elise thread.
 
Apologies for the OT and thank you for the comparison between the 3 versions. 

 

[GambL]

The only part I'm confused on is the bass of the purplehearts < mahogany? I don't believe any graphs suggest this. I understand that the sub bass in ebony is better...but the mahogany...really?

 

[fjrabon]

The only part I'm confused on is the bass of the purplehearts < mahogany? I don't believe any graphs suggest this. I understand that the sub bass in ebony is better...but the mahogany...really?

I think this comes from how you set volume.  Most people set their volume level based on the mids, some people set their volume level based on treble.  If you set your volume level based on the level of the mids, then I am almost certain that the PH will have more bass. However, since the PH has fairly peaky treble, if you set the volume based on the highs, you may hear the PH as having slightly less bass.  
 
It's always about relative levels and volume matching.  I tend to set volume based on the loudness of 2-4kHz, so if I look at the levels relative to 3kHz, I can see how I would view the relative levels.  Just saying one headphone has more bass than another is pretty meaningless without knowing how they're volume matching.  

 

[Eudis]

Someone lend me a pair of purple heart and ebony (none emu) and I can measure them on my rig in comparison to my THX00 and emu teaks. .

But I can volume match at 1khz to 90dB and 100dB on my measurement rig.

 

[TWerk]

  First off, great review of the Ebony and the other 2.
 
@DecentLevi, was the Liquid Carbon run in balanced mode for the comparisons? (ie: were the headphones re-terminated to balance for the comparisons?)
 
When you say 20% differences this is really a lot in my opinion, so even a novice would easily notice the differences in the 3 different wood types?

 
There is no math in that calculation. There could not be any other way to determine other than yourself doing the A/B comparison.
 
His 20% might be your 5% or your 40%. His 20% might be my 2%. The number (or a percentage estimate) itself is pretty useless in its own right.
 
Even the question you ask of whether he thinks a novice might notice is subjective and a response does not actually indicate whether a novice will actually notice.