published on April 30, 2016
 
- download a printable 8-page PDF version of this review (link goes to a location on my Dropbox)
 

(click any photo in this review for a larger version)
 
Intro
 
Ever since I discovered the original AD2000 in 2006 (which I still own & love), I’ve owned or otherwise heard a variety of Audio-Technica’s headphones over the years—some great (like the AD2000, and more recently the MSR7), and some not-so-great (the FC7 comes to mind). When the R70x was released last year, I was curious enough for an impulse purchase back in June 2015. However, that first purchase left me underwhelmed & disappointed, and I promptly sold that set after a few weeks. But when Black Friday 2015 came around (that’d be the retail madness that was November 27-30, for the non-Americans), and Amazon offered a surprising discount, I thought: why not, maybe I’ll give it a second chance with some better equipment this time! So I proceeded to not only try out the R70x for a second time, but I also bought some better equipment to use it with, along with two of its biggest headphone competitors to compare it to, the Sennheiser HD600 and AKG K712.
 
This review is based on approximately 6 months of ownership (3 weeks from the first purchase + 23 weeks from the second purchase).
 
Handling & Fit
 
The first thing that most people will probably notice about the R70x—before even putting it on, I mean—is its weight, or actually the lack thereof. It was downright amazing how light-weight it was, and certainly by far the lightest full-size headphones that I’ve ever gotten my hands on!
 
One of the next things that most people are likely to notice will be either Audio-Technica’s distinctive “3D wing” suspension system or the non-labeled detachable cable. As far as the wings, I’ve personally had zero issues with them on every Audio-Technica headphone that I’ve ever used, so I’m not sure why it’s an issue for so many others. I guess that just comes down to everyone’s individual head size & shape. As for the non-labeled cable, it will almost certainly be confusing for anyone looking at it for the first time because Audio-Technica didn’t label the Right headphone connector from the Left one. How are you supposed to know which connector goes to which side? As I discovered, it doesn’t matter how they’re plugged in—either way, somehow the cable is wired to always send the left channel to the left ear and the right channel to the right ear.
 
And now for an admission: the first time I bought the headphones, I didn’t realize that the ear pads were actually circumaural (around-the-ear) and not supra-aural (on-ear). I mistakenly wore the headphones supra-aurally the first time around and found the ear pads to be quite uncomfortable for long periods of time, despite the material being plushy velour, and the sound wasn’t very clear either, especially in the bass. But the second time I bought the headphones, I realized that I could actually fit my ears completely inside the pads, which greatly improved long-term comfort and also improved the sonic clarity.
 
Headphone Comparisons
 
To start with the sonics, the below diagram is my attempt to help show the “big picture” of how I viewed the R70x and K712 versus the HD600, using the HD600 as a baseline. The plus (+) and minus (-) symbols are solely meant to indicate “more” and “less” respectively, not any kind of quantifiable amount. This diagram is extremely simplified and is not meant to include any sub-ranges in the bass, mid-range, or treble—bass is meant to span 30 to 200 Hz, mid-range is meant to span 200 Hz to 2 kHz, and treble is meant to span 2 kHz to my audible threshold (which was ~16-17 kHz on a recent check). Finally, the bass levels on the R70x and K712 are only level with each other in the diagram for simplicity and are not meant to be the same as each other. As the title on the diagram indicates, it’s intended to show the deviations for the R70x and K712 solely from the HD600, and not against each other.
 

 
- HD600 (both amped by Valhalla 2 and Solstice)
 
The R70x had a general similarity to the HD600 but was also crucially different in several areas. First, the similarity: the R70x was just about as natural-sounding as the HD600, which was particularly noticeable with classical & jazz. Both headphones sounded very realistic in tone and conveyed very natural-sounding timbres on all of the key instruments in the symphony orchestra. Strings, brass, woodwinds, and piano all simply sounded “authentic” to my ears, based on my experience from performing in orchestras.
 
That’s about all the R70x and HD600 had in common though, as they were very different in other aspects. The R70x sounded like a more “full-range” HD600 and actually had quite the amount of audible bass/mid-bass from 30 Hz up to 200 Hz, while the HD600 didn’t have anywhere close to the same quantity and almost sounded like it had a hole in its bass/mid-bass in comparison. Basically, this translated to the R70x being more capable of reproducing low cello notes with more tonal depth and giving other instruments like bass guitars a thick, almost fat sound that was incredibly direct and engaging. Additionally, this made the R70x much better able to play electronica that relied on bass-driven beats or rhythms otherwise, a genre which the HD600 just didn’t manage well at all. So while both headphones sounded great with classical & jazz, the R70x also sounded great with rock/metal and electronica, which made it much more versatile.
 
The two headphones also presented very different soundstages with the HD600 projecting more of a traditional concert hall-like stage, but the R70x projected virtually no stage at all. It sounded more like a headphone without a soundstage, and was a prime example of the classic “throwing you in with the band” kind of presentation. I’d imagine that most listeners of classical music likely won’t sit well with the R70x’s presentation, but it still worked great for me personally and would likely work for anyone who wouldn’t mind an intimate chamber music-sized feel on all of their classical music. And with other kinds of music, the R70x’s direct straight-up style was just awesomely engaging—that “throwing you in with the band” presentation worked equally great with jazz, rock, metal, & electronica, and almost perfectly replicated the feel of a tiny club or recording studio.
 
Although the R70x and HD600 weren’t exactly complementary, I ended up concluding that they sort of went well together as a pair, as each of them played certain genres for me better than the other (classical & jazz coming across better on the HD600, and metal & electronica sounding better on the R70x). However, with that said, I don’t think it makes all that much sense for anyone to own both of them, as they effectively canceled each other out on the natural tonality and relative neutrality. The HD600 would make more sense for those who listen solely to classical & jazz and very little else; the R70x would better serve those who also listen to contemporary rock, metal, and electronica.
 
- K712 (amped by Solstice w/ 6SN7 | R70x amped by Valhalla 2)
 
That above 3-way diagram may not exactly show it, but the R70x as a whole felt several shades “darker” than the K712. The difference was substantial enough that I almost felt like the two headphones were on nearly opposite ends of the spectrum at times, with the R70x as the bassy headphone and the K712 as the trebly headphone. Not that the two were really polar opposites though, because they weren’t, but they could easily be considered sonic complements to each other, as the R70x had a deep mid-bass & lower mid-range that the K712 didn’t. The K712, on the other hand, had more upper mid-range (specifically in the area of female vocals), audible harmonics, and stronger treble highlights, which almost made it feel like a breath of fresh air coming right after the R70x.
 
Despite the somewhat large tonal shift between the two, both headphones seemed to have roughly the same amount of sub-bass (30-60 Hz), but the R70x had a mid-bass that made it sound heavy & thick, almost “fat,” while the K712’s mid-bass was recessed in comparison and sounded lean & taut. As a result, the R70x sounded way more appropriate for music containing low-pitched male vocals and/or bass guitar, like rock and metal. Not that the K712 was bad with that kind of music, but it was clearly out of its element with those genres.
 
However, despite their differences in the lower frequencies, both the K712 and R70x were surprisingly “natural-sounding” with classical and jazz. They were shockingly natural-sounding actually, which convinced me of the sonically complementary nature of the two headphones—it was almost like the R70x simply conveyed the lower frequencies, and the K712 conveyed the upper frequencies. Strings (particularly violins) sounded more brilliant and flashy on the K712, while the R70x provided richer, deeper tones that reflected the natural resonance of the instruments. Yet, although both headphones were missing something critical when it came to classical music (string instrument bow-movement inflections on the R70x, and tonal depth on the K712), somehow each of them ended up sounding really quite amazing in their own way.
 
The two headphones contrasted quite a bit from each other spatially as well, with the K712 sounding significantly more airy and spread-out than the R70x, which felt very up-close & intimate in comparison. Additionally, the K712 separated the left and right channels by quite a bit to generate quite a wide stereo image, which the R70x didn’t do nearly as well and sounded very narrow in comparison.
 
In short, for anyone who can afford both headphones (along with a proper amp for each, because no single amp can drive both of them equally well due to their electrical characteristics), I recommend buying both. They were very sonically complementary and filled in for each other’s weaknesses nicely.
 
- DT990 (both amped by Valhalla 2 and Solstice)
 
I felt the DT990 was more similar to the K712 than any other headphones that I had, and thus the K712 comparison to the R70x applies for it as well. It was another case of near polar opposites, and it too could be considered sonically complementary to the R70x in the same kind of way. Not that the DT990 and K712 were identical, because they weren’t, but their sonic signatures were loosely similar and can probably be considered somewhat equivalent for the purposes of this review.
 
In fact, for those who already have an OTL tube amp and don’t want to get another amp, the DT990 may be a better choice as a second headphone as opposed to the K712, which would require a non-OTL tube amp for optimal results.
 
- AD2000 (amped by Gilmore Lite | R70x amped by Valhalla 2)
 
Although the R70x and AD2K looked similar visually, they had almost nothing in common sonically. The AD2K was substantially more agile- & faster-sounding and was much lighter on bass quantity—in fact, it almost felt like it was tuned “higher” towards the treble than the R70x, while the R70x felt tuned “lower” towards the bass. There was also a dramatic difference in the soundstage presentation between the two—the R70x did have a small-scale soundstage that felt relatively intimate, but it wasn’t nearly as intimate as the “I’m all up in your face!” style of the AD2K. In a sense, the R70x was more “polite” with its more distant and outwards placement of the musical elements, while the AD2K was “rude” and made everything sound way too close for comfort.
 
But the AD2K ended up being way more fun-sounding, especially with fast aggressive metal and other music that involved a lot of percussion, where it just dialed up the percussive impacts to 11. Granted, I enjoyed both the R70x and AD2K with metal and electronica, but the R70x simply wasn’t as much fun for me to listen with for those genres. On the flip side, the R70x was more versatile as it played classical & jazz quite well, which I’ve never bothered to listen to with the AD2K due to its unnatural-sounding mid-range.
 
- MSR7 (amped by Gilmore Lite | R70x amped by Valhalla 2)
 
As with the AD2K, the R70x had very little in common with the MSR7, Audio-Technica’s new portable closed headphones from last year. If anything, I found the MSR7 to have more in common with the AD2K—they were both upfront-sounding with very similar soundstaging, and their shared low-impedance high-sensitivity electrical characteristics allowed me to optimally use them out of the same amp, the Gilmore Lite.
 
Unlike the R70x, I found the MSR7 quite suitable as a “monitor”-type headphone due to its high amount of clarity throughout the spectrum allowing everything in the mix to be easily & distinctly heard. Clarity was simply something that the R70x consistently failed at delivering, as it just didn’t sound clear on any amp, amp settings, or tubes that I tried. And despite the MSR7 not sounding neutral (due to emphasized treble relative to a lightly-recessed lower mid-range & mid-bass), I actually found it to be even more versatile-sounding for my musical preferences. Not only was it incredibly enjoyable for me with metal and electronica in general, I was able to reliably use it for ambient electronica (which has unique sonic requirements and just didn’t play well on the R70x at all) and folk/bluegrass (which didn’t go all that well with the R70x for my tastes, due to not enough treble to highlight guitar-string actions).
 
- MT220 (amped by Gilmore Lite | R70x amped by Valhalla 2)
 
The R70x was shockingly similar-sounding to the MT220, so much so that I couldn’t believe it at first. I had to compare them again and again and was blown away every time! The two headphones were so close to each other sonically that I could say that the R70x is like an open version of the MT220, or vice versa (that the MT220 is a closed version of the R70x). Not that they were completely identical of course, but their overall signatures were extremely close to each other that it almost didn’t matter.
 
What were the differences? The MT220 had just a bit more welcome clarity throughout the spectrum, which made everything simply sound clearer and more distinct. It also sounded just a bit closer to neutral to my ears, as it had more treble quantity and less-boosted mid-bass. Finally, the MT220 also exuded a more powerful sub-bass (30 to 50 Hz), which ultimately made it sound more authoritative.
 
- TH-X00 (amped by Solstice and Gilmore Lite | R70x amped by Valhalla 2)
 
In response to a question asked by another Head-Fier, I wrote a TH-X00 versus R70x comparison in one of the large R70x threads on Head-Fi: http://www.head-fi.org/t/765004/audio-technica-ath-r70x-in-depth-review-impressions/840#post_12412738
 
Sonic Assessment
 
For those who haven’t heard any of the above headphones, I’d describe the R70x as a headphone that sounds like a headphone—that is, it doesn’t try to pull off anything like a speaker-like soundstage, and the music is simply placed directly around you, close enough that you could virtually reach out and almost grab it if it were live, but not so close that it’d be uncomfortable (like the AD2K). I consider it firmly a headphone for either of two camps: (1) the camp seeking a supremely natural-sounding tonality and relative neutrality for use with predominantly acoustic instrumental music such as classical & jazz, or (2) the camp seeking a supremely headbang-worthy headphone for rocking out to rock, metal, and/or electronica. To that point, Tool’s “Parabola,” Porcupine Tree’s “.3,” and Megadeth’s new “Fatal Illusion” all sounded absolutely awesome on the R70x, mostly because of how it drove the bass guitar.
 
To list what I view as the primary pros & cons, in as best order as I can place them (with the major ones at the top and the minor ones at the bottom):
 
+ Extremely light-weight
+ Comfortable to wear for long listening sessions and during the summer months due to the velour pads
+ Powerful and thick bass/mid-bass extremely capable of giving a hefty & heavy-handed presence to instruments like bass guitar and synthesized bass
+ High amount of instrumental texture & tactility
+ Very cohesive, integrated imaging that doesn’t lose the proverbial forest for the trees (in contrast to something like the Sennheiser HD800, for example, which IMO does lose the forest for the trees)
+ Sonic spectrum that nicely covers the full range from treble to low bass
+ Sort of a modern spiritual successor to the Grado HP1000 for fans of that headphone
 
- Severe lack of clarity throughout the spectrum
- High lack of distinction between multiple instruments/elements operating in the same frequency band
- Tendency to merge musical elements on increasingly-complex music
- Moderate lack of upper treble quantity
- Excessive blunting of percussive impacts to the point that impacts sound rounded-off and not sharp
- Moderate lack of musical dynamics—constrained from mezzo-piano (mp) to forte (f)
- Masking of low-level background noise like analog tape hiss (like on Massive Attack’s “Teardrop”)
- Unable to accurately capture variance in room acoustics
- Unable to capture a sense of reverberation
 
Amplification
 
Based on the amps that I was able to try with the R70x, I’d highly recommend using it with a high-voltage amp with a high output impedance setting, like an OTL tube amp. The Schiit Valhalla 2 was the best amp pairing by far, as it maximized the R70x’s pros and minimized its cons. The biggest positive differences the Valhalla 2 made for the R70x included solidifying the bass and making it feel truly “earthmoving” and hard-hitting, enhancing texture & tactility, and adding some clarity throughout the spectrum.  However, not even the Valhalla 2 really made any of the R70x’s cons go away, and although it did improve the clarity, it didn’t improve it enough for the R70x to sound acceptably clear and distinct.
 
The Garage1217 amps weren’t bad, but I wouldn’t really call any of them ideal, even with their adjustable output resistance. They were good at propping up the R70x’s pros but none of them minimized the cons as much as the Valhalla 2 did, and unlike the Valhalla 2, did nothing to help with improving the clarity. While the Garage1217 amps would be acceptable solutions for those who need a versatile amp to handle a variety of headphones that includes the R70x, I recommend another amp specifically for the R70x if budget allows, or specifically an OTL tube amp for those whose collections consist of solely high-impedance headphones.
 
Gaming & Movies
 
Equipment setup for gaming & movies varied according to the headphones being used. The Schiit Bifrost 4490 was connected via USB to bypass the internal sound card and then to the listed amp as needed:
- Garage1217 Project Solstice w/ 6SN7 for the K712
- HeadAmp Gilmore Lite for the TH-X00 and MT220
- Schiit Valhalla 2 (high gain to enable high output impedance) for the R70x
 
Game audio on the R70x sounded acceptably ok, but it was also fairly obviously not at the level of the other headphones that I also had. In the FPS games I played, gunfire sounded considerably muffled compared to the MT220, TH-X00, and K712, and lacked a sharp & quick report as well, which made machine guns and sniper-type rifles sound especially dull. On top of that, explosions didn’t sound very boomy on the R70x, and it also lacked the capability to make thuds and other impact booms sound convincingly heavy. In contrast, this “boom factor” wasn’t a problem on any of the other three headphones (note that the K712 needs to be properly amped for full bass response, though).
 
The R70x further negatively affected game audio by effectively making every virtual environment sound like a small soundproofed room spatially & acoustically. Of course this wasn’t a problem with indoor environments, but in outdoor environments, the background ambient effects (like wind noise, bird tweets, chirping insects, etc.) weren’t spaced far away enough to sound like background ambience. Only the TH-X00 and K712 were able to make outdoor environments convincingly sound like being outside.
 
Finally, the R70x wasn’t very good at positioning either and was really only able to separate left enemy positions versus right, as it lacked the ability to position sound sources like they were directly in front of you. All three of the other headphones provided a better sense of direction on the left and right sides, as well as the front.
 
As far as movies went, the R70x’s best sonic trait was providing a very cohesive mix of the dialog, sound effects, and musical soundtrack so that none of them stuck out. But the spatial imaging on the K712 and TH-X00 allowed both of them to provide a more cinematic presentation and their clarity worked great to better hear everything going on in the mix, and the MT220 (my usual headphones) simply allowed me to hear more detail in background noises that went missing on the R70x.
 
Closing
 
The R70x certainly brought something new to the table when considered alongside the HD600 and K712, but I have to clarify that as being “new as in different,” and not really “new as in better.” Because unfortunately for the R70x, I ended up quite disappointed and unimpressed by it overall, as not only did the cons simply outweigh the pros for me, my cheaper Yamaha MT220 ended up being a near sonic equivalent.
 
I’m left somewhat hesitant to recommend the R70x even for those seeking either natural tonality or a headbang-worthy experience due to the various caveats, which is why I give it 2.5 stars. I feel like Audio-Technica could have made it sound so much better, and as it is, I don’t consider it an especially good value at its $350 MSRP. I think it would be a much better value at $250 or less.
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source component: NAD T533 (DVD player) and Windows 7 desktop & laptop PCs as transports to Schiit Modi 2 Uber and Bifrost 4490 (via coaxial & USB, respectively)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS; Garage1217 Project Ember v2, Project Polaris, and Project Solstice; Schiit Audio Valhalla 2
- Comparison headphones: AKG K712; Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000 and ATH-MSR7; Beyerdynamic DT990 600 Ohm; Massdrop/Fostex TH-X00; Sennheiser HD600; Yamaha MT220
 
Evaluation Music CDs
 
Daft Punk - Random Access Memories
Dave Brubeck - Time Out [50^th Anniversary Legacy Edition]
Devour the Day - S.O.A.R
In Flames - The Jester Race
Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
Lucius - Good Grief
Machine Head - Through The Ashes Of Empires
Massive Attack - Mezzanine
Medeski Martin & Wood - Uninvisible
Megadeth - Dystopia
Nickel Creek - A Dotted Line
Olafur Arnalds & Alice Sara Ott - The Chopin Project
Porcupine Tree - In Absentia
Periphery - Juggernaut: Alpha
Sierra Hull - Weighted Mind
The Crystal Method -Tweekend
Tool - Lateralus
Trifonic - Emergence
 
Evaluation PC Games
 
Crysis
Half-Life 2
 
Evaluation Movies
 
Black Hawk Down (DVD)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Blu-Ray)
Mad Max: Fury Road (Blu-Ray)

published on October 29, 2015
Manufacturer's Response added on November 3, 2015 (see bottom of review)
updated on April 25, 2016
 

(click any photo in this review for a larger version)
 
Intro
 
Garage1217's Project Solstice was released earlier this year as an alternative to their other amps, and when I asked them for a loaner unit back in June (for a Head-Fi meet in Denver CO on 6/27 that I was then organizing), they were happy to oblige. Once again I have to thank Garage1217 for being so willing & generous in providing me with loaner amp units! (Not that I'm really doing anything out of the ordinary btw—just trying to provide honestly-written reviews here on Head-Fi, as I've always done.)
 
Disclaimer: the time duration for all listening for this review was just about 3 weeks, which isn't as long as what I'm typically used to (most of my past reviews have been of equipment that I owned and were done over months), so I wasn't able to get quite as familiar as I would've liked with the amp and the set of tubes that I received with it. My listening impressions should not be seen as finalized and are likely subject to change.
 
April 2016 update: Garage1217 offered me an opportunity at a “second pass” at the amp shortly after I published the first version of this review, which I finally took them up on in December 2015. This second review period lasted approximately 5 weeks, which allowed me to get more familiar with the amp and some of the tubes that I’d gotten the first time. Most of the updates can be read as a new section at the bottom of this review, although some other sections throughout the review have been updated as well.
 
Operation, Functionality, & Handling
 
The Solstice was packed with most of the same features as Garage1217's other amps, with its selectable gain, output resistance, and input attenuation. Note however that the Solstice's output resistance settings aren't the same as on Garage1217's other amps and are fixed at 0.1, 31, and 68 Ohms instead. The lack of a 120 Ohm setting will likely translate to worse performance with some headphones that are designed to work optimally from an output impedance of 120 Ohms, like some of Beyerdynamic’s models. On the plus side, one of the features new to the Solstice, OHV (Optional Heater Voltage), allows either 7V or 12V heater output so that other types of tubes can be used as well. However, I didn't use this feature as I didn't have any appropriate tubes to use it with.
 
The only operational quirk I found with the Solstice was that I needed to remove the amp's top plate in order to access any of the jumpers. Since I found myself changing the gain and resistance jumpers often, I decided to just leave the top plate unscrewed so that I could access them quickly.
 
Amp & Tube Assessment + Headphone Compatibility
 
As it turned out, unfortunately the Solstice arrived with an attenuation module that provided only enough volume range for my sensitive low-impedance headphones. The Audio-Technica R70x (470 Ohms and 99 dB/mW), on the other hand, was unable to get acceptably loud enough out of the amp. Even maxing out the volume knob completely (on high gain, no less) still didn't deliver enough volume into the R70x for it to sound loud. So I would recommend that owners of high impedance and/or inefficient headphones should make sure to get a properly-configured attenuation module from Garage1217 for less attenuation, in order to better work with those kinds of headphones. (Btw, as a comparison note, neither the Ember v2 nor Polaris had any problem pushing the R70x to earsplitting volumes on high gain—only the Solstice exhibited this issue.)
 
The Solstice worked well with my other headphones though, but rather than go into headphone pairings next, I'll break down the tubes I used first. I used these tubes primarily with the Solstice, but since I had an Ember v2 at the same time as well, I tried them in that amp too, so my comments are inclusive of my experience with the tubes in both amps.
 
- GE Smoked Glass 6DJ8
 
I previously used this tube with the Project Ember which I wrote a review of last year, and my experience with it again was mostly positive. My comments from the Ember review still apply: I view this tube as a great all-rounder, and at its best primarily with music containing male vocals and instruments like bass or overdriven guitars (i.e., rock & metal). It wasn't really the most spatial-sounding tube, especially compared to the other tubes I had, as both of the two other tubes were quite a bit more spatial-sounding. Compared to them, the 6DJ8 felt like it had flatter imaging and less soundstage width, so it may not be the best choice for those looking for a large soundstage—or for those looking for refined treble, as its treble was just a bit messy compared to the other two tubes.
 
- 6H6N/6N6P
 
Note: for details on the 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7 (below), please contact Garage1217 for more info.
 
I liked this tube the most, not only because of its sound but also because it had the coolest-looking glow when I turned my lights off at night (shown in the nearby night-time photo). The reason I liked its sound the most was because it sounded the clearest & cleanest to my ears and had the most sense of "distinctness" to its sound that really helped to separate musical elements out from the mix better. Its soundstage was notably wide as well, but it was definitely wider than it was deep, which made it sound relatively up-close. This ended up being a very good tube overall as well, and I ended up preferring it for music like ambient electronica due to its clarity.
 
- RCA 6GU7
 
The 6GU7 filled in for the aforementioned soundstage weakness of the 6H6N, and provided greater soundstage depth with a better illusion of distance. It clearly sounded the most "3D" between the three tubes, as it effectively pushed everything "out" (or "away", to use a similar word) so nothing sounded too close-up. Not that it sounded all that expansive though, it was more that the 6GU7 simply projected the largest soundstage among the three tubes, without disorganizing the musical layers into a spatial mess either (as I’ve heard other tubes and tube amps before that have done exactly that). On the flip side, the main drawback to the 6GU7 was a lack of some mid-range body and it wasn't very physical-sounding, but that’s what tube-rolling is for, right?
 
And those were just 3 tubes that I was able to try with the Solstice. More info on other tubes (and on the Solstice, along with Garage1217’s other amps) can be found in these forum threads:
- http://www.head-fi.org/t/702826/project-ember-tube-rolling
- http://www.head-fi.org/t/641936/project-sunrise-ps2-tube-rolling-thread-and-maybe-even-project-horizon-and-project-ember
- http://www.head-fi.org/t/753479/garage1217-project-solstice
 
As far as headphone pairings, the only thing I can say is that most pairings will ultimately be very subjective, and will be further complicated through tube-rolling, so ultimately, almost any headphone pairing with the Solstice with a given tube will be up to individual preference. And when Garage1217 themselves call the Solstice a "tube roller's dream," it's pretty clear that this amp is meant for experimenters looking for variability and isn’t necessarily for those pursuing something specific.
 
I can also definitively say without reservation that most of my headphones sounded very good out of the Solstice, most noticeably the Sennheiser HD600 and Beyerdynamic DT990 (600 Ohm), but the AKG K712 and Audio-Technica R70x weren’t bad either. The only caveats that I’d add for the K712 and R70x is that both headphones can sound significantly better out of other, more technically-appropriate amps—for example, the K712 sounded more musically-dynamic out of Garage1217’s Project Ember with a 12AX7-type tube, and the R70x sounded more authoritative in the bass & mid-range out of Schiit Audio’s Valhalla 2.
 
Project Ember v2 Comparison
 
Unfortunately for the Solstice it didn't really have a fair fight against the Ember v2, since my Solstice unit was under-equipped with the wrong input attenuation module for the R70x, and the Ember had a significant advantage with a 6SN7 tube as well (which was sadly unusable on the Solstice). So it almost goes without saying that the Ember crushed the Solstice, well at least as far the R70x was concerned. And because the Ember's higher power output lends it to driving planar magnetic and other similarly-demanding headphones, I'd be inclined to recommend the Ember over the Solstice for those types of headphones.
 
However, the R70x aside, I actually did find that the Ember generally sounded marginally better than the Solstice on the same tube. It tended to sound a bit more dynamic musically (as in, a greater difference between soft & loud parts), and it exuded more texture and presence in the mid-range & mid-bass. That said, the Solstice wasn't much lesser-sounding than the Ember, and the differences I observed were only slight, and not large enough that anyone should feel compelled to spend $100 more to get the Ember for any sonic reasons. I'd say the primary reason to get an Ember over the Solstice should mostly be for the additional power output to drive planar magnetic headphones, and/or other features like the pre-amp output. But if your intent is simply to drive a set of regular dynamic headphones, then the Solstice may very well be all you need. Plus, with its OHV feature it can use tubes that the Ember can't, including the 12SN7, 6BL7, and 6BX7!
 
April 2016 Update
 
After the initial version of this review (i.e., the “first pass”), I was able to give the amp a “second pass” audition for about 5 weeks from December 2015 through January 2016, with a greater variety of headphones that included the Sennheiser HD600, Beyerdynamic DT990 (600 Ohm), Massdrop/Fostex TH-X00, and AKG K712. My source component during the “first pass” had been the Schiit Modi 2 Uber, but during the “second pass” I had the Bifrost 4490 instead, which allowed me to get a better idea of what the Solstice could really do. I also owned the Schiit Valhalla 2 during this period, which served as a reference point and allowed me to identify the stronger aspects of the Solstice in comparison.
 
- 30K vs 100K attenuation modules
 
At my request, Garage1217 supplied both attenuation modules this time so that I could make sure that I used the right one for the Audio-Technica R70x. I was able to repeat my “unacceptably loud-enough volume” results with the 100K attenuation module, but not with the 30K module, which led me to conclude that I had the 100K module the first time around (I wasn’t sure which module I had the first time, as I didn’t bother to check). So I might suggest that owners of high-impedance inefficient headphones may want to get a 30K module for such headphones.
 
- 6SN7 & 12SN7
 
Garage1217 informed me that both of these tube types sound identical to each other, but that the 12SN7 tubes can often be found for cheaper. So I tested the supplied 12SN7, but only once to make sure that it worked and ended up doing more listening with the supplied 6SN7 since it was more convenient to just leave the amp on its DFLT setting (since using the 12SN7 would have required constant re-configuration to the OHV setting). The 6SN7 was a very good tube particularly with the K712, as it provided the most musical dynamic range (fully spanning the dynamic range from piano to forte), the most intimate soundstage, and the deepest bass tones. The added presence & realism really made quite an appreciable difference. This was a very good tube with the DT990 and HD600 as well, but the difference was less dramatic with those headphones.
 
- Additional headphone notes (HD600, DT990, TH-X00, & K712)
 
The Solstice capably drove all of these headphones, although I did find that it wasn’t quite as good as the Valhalla 2 with certain headphones (more on that below). In general, though, all of my headphones sounded good to great on the Solstice with either the right output impedance setting and/or tube. The HD600 and DT990 were the least picky with settings and tubes, although rolling tubes did provide certain benefits, like the supplied 12AU7 helping to take the edge off sibilance with the DT990. The 6SN7 provided the best results with the K712, although both 6DJ8 tubes that were supplied (GE Smoked Glass along with an Amperex Bugle Boy) also sounded very good. Both of these 6DJ8 tubes were better with the TH-X00 though, as they filled in its relatively recessed mid-range & mid-bass so that male vocals and bass-oriented instruments (like bass guitars) sounded more full-bodied and “meatier.”
 
Although I’d recommend the Ember more for K712 owners, the Solstice pairing was surprisingly good, especially with the 6SN7. The only aspects that were noticeably lacking with the K712 on the Solstice compared to the Ember were an extra degree of musical dynamics (for a wider range from pp to ff) and overall bass/mid-bass quantity (30 to 200 Hz).
 
- Schiit Valhalla 2 comparison
 
It should first be noted that the Valhalla 2 is an OTL amp, while the Solstice is a tube hybrid, which means that the Valhalla 2 is technically more ideal for high-impedance headphones and the Solstice is more ideal for low-impedance headphones. With that said, the results of my listening were fully in line with expectations—the high-impedance headphones (HD600, DT990, and R70x) indeed sounded better on the Valhalla 2 than the Solstice (with configured high output impedance on both amps), and the low-impedance headphones (K712, TH-X00, AD2000, MSR7, and MT220) conversely sounded better on the Solstice than the Valhalla 2 (with configured low output impedance on both amps). What does “better” mean? In the case of the high-impedance headphones, they simply sounded more full-bodied with more mid-range texture and palpability, and exuded “heftier” bass too. Overall they simply had more “presence” x-factor and sounded more physical, tactile, and powerful. Oddly enough, the high-impedance headphones also exhibited more clarity on the Valhalla 2, which was a bit unexpected.
 
In the case of the low-impedance headphones, all of them simply sounded cleaner on the Solstice with less overall haze and audible distortion, particularly in the bass region. However, rolling tubes on the Solstice sort of allowed it to mimic certain “OTL-like” sonic traits when used with either high- or low-impedance headphones, notably adding the ability to inflect a huskier, more textured mid-range & mid-bass through tubes like the 6SN7 and 6DJ8s. Or in other words, these tubes added “warmer”, deeper tones to male vocals and instruments like bass guitar and cello.
 
Although I felt that the high-impedance headphones clearly sounded better on the Valhalla 2, to the Solstice’s credit it really wasn’t that far behind, and the high-impedance headphones sounded nearly as good on it, for the most part lacking only some of the “presence” x-factor. So it was a small difference between the amps, but it was also very clear that the Valhalla 2 was distinctly superior, at least as far as the high-impedance headphones were concerned. But to reiterate, the Solstice was very close to the Valhalla 2 and was virtually right behind it when configured with the right settings and/or tube. I really only recommend the Valhalla 2 for those who want maximum performance out of a collection of only high-impedance headphones, because the Solstice was much more versatile and my high-impedance headphones still sounded nothing short of awesome on it. The Valhalla 2’s primary downfall was its incapability at driving my low-impedance headphones—none of them really sounded that great on it, even with the low-gain setting.
 
Closing
 
Like my previous experience with Garage1217’s other amps, the Solstice wasn’t the most clear-sounding amp (even with the 6H6N it was still beaten by my solid-state Gilmore Lite in that aspect, and the Ember v2 provided marginally more textural detail regardless of tube), and I ultimately came away a bit underwhelmed too, in this case mostly because of its inability to drive my R70x with the supplied attenuation module. However, with that said, I have no qualms recommending it for Head-Fiers looking for a capable tube amp that can drive any set of regular dynamic headphones, and the variety of tubes it can use is really quite amazing. And when it's just $250 for a built version, I think the better question is: why not?
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source components: NAD T533 (DVD player) and Windows 7 desktop & laptop PCs as transports to Schiit Modi 2 Uber and Bifrost 4490 (via coaxial & USB, respectively)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Comparison headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS (as a point of contrast); Garage1217 Project Ember v2 and Project Polaris; Schiit Audio Valhalla 2
- Headphones: AKG K712; Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, ATH-MSR7, and ATH-R70x; Beyerdynamic DT990 600 Ohm; Massdrop/Fostex TH-X00; Sennheiser HD600; Yamaha MT220
 
Evaluation Music CDs
 
Dave Brubeck - Time Out [50^th Anniversary Legacy Edition]
In Flames - The Jester Race
Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
Lucius - Wildewoman
Massive Attack - Blue Lines, Protection, Mezzanine
Medeski Martin & Wood - Uninvisible
Nickel Creek - A Dotted Line
Olafur Arnalds & Alice Sara Ott - The Chopin Project
Periphery - Juggernaut: Alpha
The Crystal Method - Tweekend
Trifonic - Emergence
Trivium - Shogun
 
Manufacturer's Response
 
Quoted below is Garage1217's response to my review, received via e-mail on November 3, 2015. Copied with permission.
 

- Solstice, while it will power the R70X very well at 1mW / 99dB sensitivity / 470ohm, is designed to much better power low impedance headphones. You would not want a different module over our stock with the majority of dynamic / planar headphones made in the 16-300R range. If I shipped the amplifier with a higher input level module, it would have given limited range on the volpot with the majority of headphones it would normally be paired with. However with your description, I am wondering which module it shipped with or if I made a mistake in your review unit (my own personal amp) and shipped it with a module I was testing with.  At 99dB / mW and if it had a 70-100K module installed (stock is a 30K) it would likely be as you stated. Solstice is easily able power the R70X to very LOUD levels.
 
Reference the power output:
http://www.garage1217.com/POWERSPECS/Solstice.jpg
 
- The output resistance settings are virtually the same as with our other headphone amplifiers that are more dedicated to lower impedance headphones like Starlight and Sunrise. We do not include a 120R output resistance setting on any of these designs as there would not be a lot of oomph up top but as you stated, a different module would help out here (if I shipped it with a high R module by mistake)... but I would not expect the most stellar results compared to our designs with high impedance headphones in mind (Horizon, Polaris, Ember). In short, Solstice will rock lower impedance headphones quite well!
 
Reference Sunrise Vs. Horizon to see difference in design goals. Both designed for two specific impedance ranges / reference their specific output power specs into different impedance ranges:
http://www.garage1217.com/POWERSPECS/SunriseIII.png
http://www.garage1217.com/POWERSPECS/HorizonIII.png
 
- Both Ember, Polaris (as well as horizon) are 48V designs, thus they have significantly more power into high impedance headphones Vs. Solstice, Sunrise and Starlight which are all 24V designs that have power focused into the common, lower impedance headphone range.
 
Reference Ember vs. Solstice (example solstice can produce around 100mW clean into 470ohm / Ember around 440mW (a little over 6dB louder / 200% technically).
http://www.garage1217.com/POWERSPECS/Ember.png
http://www.garage1217.com/POWERSPECS/Solstice.jpg
 
- One thing overlooked, Solstice is full auto bias which makes tube rolling incredibly easy. This is a feature not found in our other $250 and lower amplifiers. Voltage is manual of course because of the custom settings, but auto bias is a very nice thing which is why we stated (a tube rollers dream) as there is not a tube amplifier available that can utilize the qty of tubes we can in our designs. Most limit you to 1 range of tubes such as a 6dj8 / 6922 or very similar as bias is either not adjustable at all or is very limited.
 
- 6sn7's can in fact be easily used with Solstice. It takes a differently configured adapter that we have available. Bummed you did not get to listen to that pairing.

Click to expand...

Anyone looking for a set of closed portable headphones needs to try the Yamaha MT220. Why the MT220 and not one of the many other models available on the market? It’s simply one of the overall best-sounding closed portable headphones I’ve heard, regardless of price—and the fact that until recently it was available from B&H Photo for $150 practically made it a steal!
 
The MT220 is one of those headphones that probably won’t impress anyone upon first listen; it certainly didn’t impress me initially. There was no “wow” factor—its treble was just a bit subdued to me (but I personally like treble, so that may be a good thing for those who don’t), its bass lacked an extra oomph that some other headphones have (like the V-MODA M-100 and KEF M500), and it didn’t convey much of a soundstage despite having angled drivers. It didn’t help that I also found it to lack just a bit of clarity—elements in the mix didn’t sound totally clear & distinct, like they did on the Audio-Technica MSR7.
 
But the more I listened, the more I realized how balanced-sounding it was throughout the spectrum, without any of the common flaws I’ve heard from other headphones in this segment, like excessive bass bloat (V-MODA M-100, Shure SRH1540), recessed mid-range and/or bass (Beyerdynamic DT1350, Sony V6/7506), or just a lack of refinement (too many headphones to list there). The MT220 simply had a strong sense of fullness & body throughout the spectrum without sounding bloated, murky, blurry, or blunted anywhere. Both male & female vocals had convincing presence, drums sounded appropriately heavy & impactful, and bass guitars sounded low & powerful. And it consistently rendered synthesized bass lines with a depth that was satisfying but also a control that kept it tight as well. Essentially, it easily covered the range of music I listen to, which includes classical, jazz, bluegrass, folk, pop, rock, electronica, and metal. Everything sounded good on it, from symphony orchestras playing Beethoven, to Dave Brubeck, to my favorite female vocalist Alison Krauss and favorite band Massive Attack, to the tough & aggressive metal of bands like Machine Head, Trivium, and Periphery.
 
And it didn’t stop sounding good with just music either, as it worked great as a computer headphone too, for watching movies and playing games. In specifically action movies & games (first-person shooters, like Crysis), it delivered big-sounding explosions and heavy-yet-fast-sounding machine-gun reports. That’s no small thing—not many headphones I’ve heard can really do a convincingly visceral-sounding machine-gun report in particular, and that the MT220 could do it was just icing on the cake!
 
I’ve gone through too many other closed portable headphones over the past 10 years in the pursuit of finding something that works well for all of my uses, and the MT220 is the first one that I can say meets all of them! I highly recommend it for absolutely everyone!

published on September 22, 2014
 

(click any photo in this review for a larger version)
 
Intro
 
I first heard about Garage1217's Project Polaris (just "Polaris" from here on out, for the sake of brevity) directly from them back when I did a review of their Project Ember earlier this year. The Polaris was finally released back in late July, and once again Garage1217 was generous enough to provide a loaner review sample, which I was able to spend approximately 2 weeks with. Normally I would've preferred spending more time with the amp to get to know its intricacies better, but personal circumstances got in the way a bit and prevented me from doing further critical listening. So the proverbial "grains of salt" disclaimer certainly applies to this review, and my opinions could certainly change later given more listening time (if I decide to re-acquire the amp).
 
Operation, Functionality, & Handling
 
The Polaris was probably one of the most (if not THE most) physically compact AC-powered amps that I've ever seen (the dimensions are on Garage1217's Web site), and with Garage1217's trademark styling complete with the plexiglass top, it looked positively cool as well. And like the Project Ember before it, the Polaris sacrificed nothing in terms of functionality—in fact, it had even more functionality! With jumper-based settings to modify input attenuation, bandwidth, output resistance, and gain (and even to "turn off" the LED), the Polaris was by far also the most feature-packed amp that I've ever seen!
 
The plethora of customization options possible was certainly amazing but in actuality, I found myself not using most of them and only modified the output resistance to suit whichever headphones I was using—low R for my sensitive headphones; med R for the AKG K712. Much like in my experience with the Ember, I never needed (or wanted) to use high gain or high R for the AKG K712. I'd imagine high gain and high R to be useful primarily for those who have extremely inefficient or extra high-impedance headphones, like the HiFiMan HE-6 (83.5 dB/mW) or Beyerdynamic T1 (600 Ohms) as just two examples, respectively.
 
At first I had the input attenuation disabled, but I found that enabling it became helpful for my sensitive low-impedance headphones. The bandwidth settings were also cool for novelty, but because I wanted the most treble possible for all of my headphones, I just left it at high, since the lower settings reduced treble quantity. I'm sure that users with a greater variety of headphones would get much more use out of the customization options though, especially those who have a collection consisting of low-impedance efficient dynamic headphones, high-impedance inefficient dynamic headphones, and planar magnetic headphones.
 
Sonic Assessment
 
I'll start with an admission: I went into this review hoping that the Polaris would sonically hands-down beat the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, because I really, really wanted to buy the Polaris for a few reasons, not the least of which was that I could buy it and sell the GL, and then come out ahead with some money left over. And I kinda just wanted a newer amp than the GL, which first came out in 2005. Unfortunately, the Polaris did not hands-down beat the GL—but when all is said and done, I'd say the two amps were nearly close to even and each had their clear pros & cons. The GL ended up as the obvious winner when it came to pure sonic speed (as in impulse response) & agility and overall clarity throughout the frequency spectrum, while the Polaris was much better at soundstaging & spatials and achieved a more natural-sounding mid-range as well. But since most people in 2014 probably don't own a Gilmore Lite anymore, any further comparisons to it would probably seem irrelevant, so I'll stop there with the GL comparison.
 
With the exception of the original Schiit Asgard, I haven't heard many of the under-$500 solid-state AC-powered amps in the market, especially recently, so I can't really say how the Polaris stacks up against any other currently available amps. But I've heard plenty of other solid-state AC-powered amps over the years, most of them more expensive than the Polaris (all the way up to the $3K USD HeadAmp GS-X MK2), and most recently the Micromega MyZic, which I had last year and retails for the same price, so I can sort of take a stab at how the Polaris might live up to most people's expectations.
 
I think most people who haven’t had a dedicated headphone amp before would be sufficiently impressed by the Polaris, and even those who’ve had more expensive amps might find it hard to dislike for its functional versatility. But before I get into its sound, I should also add that so many things depend on the source that you use, so I also recommend investing into a proper source, whether an external DAC for computer users, or a disc player for CD listeners—just don't connect this amp to a headphone jack, make sure it's plugged into something that has analog RCA outputs for best results.
 
Starting with its relative sonic flaws, I thought the Polaris lacked some clarity and speed/agility (which I have to reiterate, as that sorely stuck out compared to the Gilmore Lite), and it wasn't the best sonic match for the Audio-Technica AD2000 as a result. But the Polaris was also clearly the mostly superior amp in every other aspect—it was much more balanced-sounding, with a more filled-out mid-range that added significantly more presence to elements like bass guitars and male vocals, along with a more powerful bass in general. The GL had leaner, faster bass, with much more of a quick "spring" to it, but the Polaris had more bass depth & force, which made it more satisfying with electronic music in general. The Polaris also had a much more 3D-ish soundstage as it generally sounded "bigger" (in terms of spatials) from left to right and front to back. I found many instances on my recordings where the GL didn't catch any spatial cues at all, especially reverb, but were clearly heard on the Polaris.
 
Headphone Compatibility
 
There are primarily two factors when it comes to matching headphones with amps: (1) How will the headphones sound? (2) Will they be driven properly? With the Polaris' high power output capability, factor #2 is mostly irrelevant. It has enough power (current and voltage) for most dynamic-type headphones on the market, and I could tell that it was fully capable of manhandling my Audio-Technica AD2000 just as well as the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, which was no small feat. (Not every amp I've had has properly driven the AD2000.)
 
The sonic matching is naturally much more tricky, and more nebulous too. I can only really say that I thought it wasn't a great match with the AD2000, as the AD2000 was slightly robbed of its awesome speed & agility. And the AKG K712 didn't sound quite as dynamic & expansive as I remembered it on the Project Ember—in fact, I'd be more inclined to recommend the Ember for K712 owners. Other than that, I can't think of any other sub-optimal headphone matchings.
 
Closing
 
There's really no better way that I can think of putting it: Garage1217's Polaris is the budget solid-state amp of the year, possibly of all time! It sounded great to me for the price and I can't think of a single reason why anyone would be dissatisfied with it. I'm sure some people would like to know how it compares to the Schiit Asgard 2, the other well-known American-made solid-state amp that happens to sell for the same price. I don't know how it compares. But I can definitively say that I'd rather own the Polaris when it has way more features and doesn't have anything that the Asgard 2 doesn't, and packs even more, including significantly more power output on tap in order to drive planar magnetic headphones. I have nothing against Schiit or the Asgard 2, but the Garage1217 amp just has more*, and looks cooler! (IMO)
 
The Polaris was simply an extremely capable amp. Actually an amazing amp, especially taking into account its relatively low cost ($250 USD) and factoring in everything else about it—all of its various functions, and the fact it's American-made (which may seem irrelevant for non-Americans, but for us Americans that's no small thing), and made by a business that provides excellent customer interaction. There's absolutely nothing bad that I can say about Garage1217!
 
* Well technically the Asgard 2 has the advantage of being a discrete amp that runs in Class A, while the Polaris uses an op-amp and runs in Class AB, but I'm betting that the majority of headphone listeners won't care about those difference and the consequences.
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source component: NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS
- Headphones: AKG K712, Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, Sennheiser HD598, Creative Aurvana Live
 
Personal Info
 
As an FYI to put the comments on "natural" sound into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 33 as of this writing) and have had an opportunity many times to play in a symphony or chamber orchestra, plus much smaller ensembles that have included quartets and duets with a pianist. I've attended classical-music concerts as well.
 
Evaluation Music
 
Selected tracks from the following albums were used, not the entire albums—for most of the albums, anyway. Albums that were listened to in their entirety are marked with asterisks (*).
 
- Anathema - Distant Satellites
- Arch Enemy - War Eternal
- Boards of Canada - Tomorrow's Harvest
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven Symphonies No. 5 & 7
- Diablo Swing Orchestra - Sing Along Songs for the Damned & Delirious
- Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos *
- Katy Perry - Prism
- Lucius - Wildewoman *
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine *
- Nickel Creek - A Dotted Line *
- Orbital - Snivilisation
- Phantogram - Voices
- Yggdrasil - Prose Edda
- The Crystal Method - The Crystal Method, Tweekend
- Thievery Corporation - Saudade *
- Trifonic - Emergence
- Trivium - Shogun
 
Related Links
 
Garage1217 Project Ember review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/garage1217-project-ember-hybrid-headphone-amplifier-preamp/reviews/10302

(click for a larger version)
 
Intro
 
I recently got the opportunity to audition the LCD-X in-home for 6 days thanks to HeadAmp's Headphone Demo program (getting in on it at the tail end of the West list, right before they were to go back to HeadAmp) which calls for my usual disclaimer: 6 days was naturally not long enough to truly get to know the headphones, so my opinion should not be considered finalized and is subject to change (so, extra grains of salt and all that). I was able to listen to the LCD-X for about 4-6 hours each night while I had it though, and I felt that I got to know it relatively well despite the short amount of time I had with it.
 
Some personal background on me since I've blanked out my profile (and don't intend on re-filling it): I've heard or owned nearly all of Audeze's headphones to date—I demoed the LCD-1 at CanJam 2009 (in Los Angeles, CA), and previously owned the LCD-2 r1, LCD-2 r2 (twice, most recently late last year), and LCD-3, all of which I heard with various amps, both at home and at various meets/shows. I've also previously owned some of the competing dynamic flagships, like the Sennheiser HD800, Beyerdynamic T1, and Fostex TH900, along with other planar magnetic headphones like the MrSpeakers Mad Dog and HiFiMan HE-400, and the electrostatic Stax OII MKI & HeadAmp BHSE (for a period of just over 3 years), along with many other headphones over the last 8 years that range in price from the $20 Koss KSC75 (which I still own, and consider the best-value “headphone” of all time!) all the way up to the discontinued Sony Qualia 010 which is the most expensive headphone that I've ever bought (at around $3.8K). So I consider myself somewhat familiar with the “landscape” of headphones in general, including some of the high-end models, though admittedly not all of them.
 
First Conclusions
 
I'll get straight to my personal conclusion of the LCD-X: I could quickly tell it wasn’t for me after spinning the first few tracks and now don't intend on ever buying one, well unless perhaps a future audition on a higher-power amp and high-end source makes it sound drastically different & better to me. It still had too much of Audeze's “house sound,” and although it did indeed sound very good, the longer I listened, the more that certain sonic aspects bothered me and ultimately put me off. I even ended up concluding that I'd much rather re-acquire the much cheaper AKG K712 which I previously owned (note: K712, not a typo to mean the K812, which I haven't heard yet), along with a Garage1217 Project Ember which I also previously had at the same time (which is a killer high-value amp btw—wish I'd had it to test drive the LCD-X too).
 
And to add even more insult to the LCD-X, I also concluded that it wasn’t really all that much of a sonic upgrade from my current low-end & mid-fi headphones (listed below in the Equipment Setup section). Granted, it was certainly appreciably “better” in most ways than the AD2K, HD598, and CAL, but I wouldn't say that it sonically destroyed any of my other headphones (with perhaps the exception of the CAL, but even then the CAL has the advantage of being light-weight, closed, & portable), and to the credit of both the AD2K and HD598, there were actually certain CD tracks where I preferred one of their sounds much more than the LCD-X's, like the HD598 for ambient electronica or the AD2K for certain female vocals, metal, and other types of electronica.
 
Sonic Assessment
 
I would've liked to have been able to directly compare the LCD-X to one of the other Audeze models, or to another dynamic or planar magnetic flagship (especially so that this review might have been more useful), so in lieu of that I had to rely on my previous headphone experience & recollections, which I fully admit upfront may be unreliable.
 
With that said, I found the LCD-X to generally continue the Audeze tradition established by the LCD-2 and LCD-3. It reminded me more of the LCD-3 though, and I can't state that enough. It brought back all the memories of the LCD-3, both good and bad, but at least this time all of that sound was on a much more efficient and lower-impedance headphone, which I considered a good thing. Summing up the LCD-X's sound would be re-stating the LCD-3 for me: very strong, deep bass with a highly physical, visceral, tactile sound; very full mid-range & mid-bass that added more to bass guitars and male vocals than anything else; and all of that in a notably intimate & up-close presentation. All of that made for an overall very heavy, rich, & full sound, very much like a (complementary) sonic inverse to something like the prevalent HD800. So I could easily imagine that someone would want to own both the LCD-X and HD800 for different reasons.
 
Like the LCD-3, the LCD-X performed very well overall with the variety of mostly-contemporary music styles that I threw at it, pretty much failing on only two of my main listening genres, classical music and ambient electronica. It failed on classical music especially because, like the LCD-3, it unfortunately continued the relative lack of scale, musical dynamics, & clarity. For more details on what those mean, please refer to my LCD-3 review linked below where those are all explained in the comparison to the SR-007/BHSE. This continued lack of scale, musical dynamics, & clarity was probably the most disappointing thing about the LCD-X to me, because I was hoping for some progress from Audeze on those qualities. Additionally, it didn’t help that the LCD-X’s tone on violins just didn’t sound completely “right” to me and sounded a bit “downshifted” from what would’ve been properly trebly. And on top of that, Julia Fischer’s performance on her Bach Concertos album didn’t sound very Baroque-ish either (fast, agile, light, etc).
 
One other main reason the LCD-X failed on both classical & ambient electronica for me is because it also carried over the relatively small, compacted soundstage from the LCD-2 and LCD-3. If the soundstage was any bigger than on the LCD-2/LCD-3, I obviously didn't know since I didn't have those on hand, but like those two, the LCD-X was quite suffocating-sounding to me too. Not that I personally like the imposed large soundstage of the Sennheiser HD800 either, because I don't, but I do generally prefer a soundstage that's somewhere between the HD800 and Audeze LCD headphones so nothing sounds cramped or compacted, or too diffuse either—and in my experience, AKG's K7xx headphones have typically delivered soundstages somewhere along that middle-ground. The reason I mention this is because I've always found ambient electronica (more than any other genre) to sound best on headphones with decently-sized soundstages since it needs that effect to sound properly spread-out & diffuse, and the LCD-X just didn't deliver that with its compacted soundstage.
 
And if the LCD-X was more neutral than any other Audeze headphones, of course I couldn't really tell that either. It did sound reasonably close to “natural,” but in my book “natural” and “neutral” don't mean the same thing, and the LCD-X simply didn't sound neutral to me. The lower mid-range and bass overall dominated too much over the treble, and if anything I would've expected my amp to sonically help counterbalance the spectrum. The bass seemed particularly overblown compared to the rest of the spectrum, which made it sound fun for sure, there was no denying that, but less bass and more treble quantity would've brought more neutrality to the LCD-X to my ears.
 
Amplification
 
Even though I originally thought my amp would drive the LCD-X effectively, in actuality I wasn't sure how effective it was, as it consistently seemed like the LCD-X had more bass depth to give than what the amp could supply (I've previously compared the Gilmore Lite to other amps and have found its extension to lack a bit), and I just had a continued sneaking suspicion that there was more potential than what I was hearing based on previous experience with the LCD-2 and LCD-3 on high-end amps. So I'd bet that the LCD-X is likely capable of sounding better than what I'm giving it credit for.
 
The LCD-X also exhibited almost the same level of loudness as the AD2K at the same volume setting which proved its high sensitivity, though the AD2K proved to be marginally louder. (The specs for the headphones are: 102 dB/mW sensitivity for the AD2K, versus 95 dB/mW for the LCD-X).
 
Closing
 
If this review sounds like I was being negative on the LCD-X on purpose, that's partly true. I'll admit to being nitpicky on everything I listen to, it's just how I am. (Nothing is ever perfect to me—not even the OII MKI, as awesome as that was.) Not that I wanted to dislike it though—I went in genuinely wanting to like it and hoping that it might be a future purchase. But for its price, I found the LCD-X to offer poor value and less than stellar sonics, and it was ultimately outclassed in admittedly very specific ways by my much cheaper headphones—the Sennheiser HD598 offering more treble, more clarity, and a larger soundstage; the Audio-Technica AD2K offering more forward projection on vocals, more agility & insistence, and wider spatials; and the CAL simply offering convenience features.
 
I'm honestly not sure if I can recommend the LCD-X for anyone that's expecting it to be a significant improvement over the LCD-3 or LCD-2 when I found it to be virtually the same as what I remembered those to be—and most egregiously continued to exhibit the same flaws as them too. (Side-note: I did hear the LCD-2 r2 on my Gilmore Lite so I have that frame of reference as well.) IMO the best value in the Audeze line-up has always been, and continues to be, the LCD-2, and I think the more-expensive LCD-3 and LCD-X just aren't sufficient sonic upgrades from it to justify the additional cost. The positive reviews of the LCD-X so far are certainly merited though, as I found plenty about it to like as well (and certainly enjoyed it with bass-oriented electronica/trip-hop, metal, and pop/rock). But I personally just couldn't get past its sonic caveats particularly compared to my strongest recollections of the OII MKI on the BHSE, and there was simply very little about it that made it more sonically compelling than any of my current headphones.
 
I expect that some readers will likely dismiss my experience with the LCD-X for one reason or another, and I fully acknowledge that my experience wasn't ideal either—this is just my informal “counter-opinion” on it given limited time & equipment. I'll certainly update this review at a future point in time if I ever re-acquire a pair and have a better source and amp (and can compare it to other headphones too).
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source component: NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS
- Headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, Sennheiser HD598, Creative Aurvana Live
 
Personal Info
 
As an FYI to put the comments on "natural" sound into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 33 as of this writing) and have had an opportunity many times to play in a symphony or chamber orchestra, plus much smaller ensembles that have included quartets and duets with a pianist. I've attended classical-music concerts as well.
 
Evaluation Music
 
Selected tracks from the following albums were used, not the entire albums—for most of the albums, anyway. Albums that were listened to in their entirety are marked with asterisks (*).
 
- Boards of Canada - Tomorrow's Harvest
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
- Insomnium - Above The Weeping World
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos *
- Katy Perry - Prism
- Lucius - Wildewoman *
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine *
- Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab]
- Nickel Creek - A Dotted Line *
- Nicola Benedetti - Fantasie
- OSI - Fire Make Thunder
- Phantogram - Voices
- Priscilla Ahn - This Is Where We Are
- Sarah Jarosz - Build Me Up From Bones
- The Crystal Method - The Crystal Method
- Thievery Corporation - Saudade *
- Trivium - Shogun
 
Related Links
 
LCD-2 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd2-planar-magnetic-headphones/reviews/10299
LCD-3 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/10298

published on January 26, 2014
 
- download a printable 4-page PDF version of this review (link goes to a location on my Dropbox)
 

(click for larger photo)
 
Intro
 
This is basically a short mini-review of the AD2000X (AD2KX from here on out) from while I owned it, which was June 2013 through January 2014.
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source components: Plinius CD-101 (CD player), NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Headphone amplifiers: Burson Soloist, HeadAmp GS-X MK2, HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS, Micromega MyZic, Garage1217 Project Ember
- Comparison headphones: AKG K712, Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, HiFiMan HE-400, Sennheiser HD598, Shure SRH1540
 
Evaluation Music
 
- Erin Boheme - What Love Is
- Half Moon Run - Dark Eyes
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Katy Perry - Prism
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [MFSL]
- OSI - Fire Make Thunder
- Phantogram - Eyelid Movies
- Sarah Jarosz - Build Me Up From Bones
- The Civil Wars - The Civil Wars
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend
- The Devin Townsend Project - Deconstruction
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Trivium - Shogun
 
Comparison to: AKG K712
 
The AD2KX and K712 were quite different from each other and I'd sum up the key differences between them this way: the AD2KX was “sort-of upfront but not too close-up with a full-bodied mid-range” while the K712 was “separated, airy, & spread-out with less bass quantity and more-forward female vocals”. Neither headphone was particularly bassy, and in fact I considered both of them bass-light, substantially less bassy than the HiFiMan HE-400 and Shure SRH1540 that I previously owned. The AD2KX was sort of complementary to the K712, as its mid-range was more filled-out and it had more mid-bass quantity, which made it sound more active & sweeping on music with bass & overdriven guitars. Plus its smaller soundstaging gave it much more of a “throw you in with the band” feel than the K712, which had the opposite effect with a “sitting in front of the band” feel. If there's anything that the two headphones had in common, they both had a distinct non-emphasis on the upper treble, so neither sounded “bright”.
 
Comparison to: Audio-Technica AD2000 (original)
 
This linked post says most of how I feel the AD2KX stacks up against the original AD2K: http://www.head-fi.org/t/631998/audio-technica-updates-their-open-headphones-ad-series-ad2000x-ad1000x-ad900x-ad700x-and-ad500x/1290#post_9663275
 
To further expand on that post, especially with additional listening since then, I'd say the AD2KX's more “balanced” sound is one of its obvious strengths, as that made it more musically versatile. Although it didn’t become my first choice for classical or jazz either (which the original never was), at least it made both of those genres slightly more natural-sounding, but not completely. Like the original AD2K, it didn't sound entirely tonally natural & realistic and had just a trace of Audio-Technica's trademark wonky mid-range colorations. It also lacked the overall clarity & soundstaging that I think is necessary for particularly classical music.
 
From the perspective of the original AD2K which had a bowed-out C-curve in the mid-range & mid-bass, the AD2KX also had that to a degree but was more flattened out, as it clearly had less mid-bass and mid-range quantity. So it wasn't quite as heavy- & forward-sounding as the original AD2K, though with just a slight subtraction, nothing huge. And overall it still sounded similar enough to the original that I could easily call it a minor sonic variation on the original, just with less x-factor for fast percussion & aggressive metal music.
 
Comparison to: HiFiMan HE-400
 
The AD2KX was even more different versus the HE-400 than versus the K712, almost a polar opposite in terms of both imaging & tonal balance, and even more sonically complementary to the HE-400 than the K712. To re-use the K712's summary above, the HE-400 was “separated, airy, distant, spread-out, diffuse, & thin with emphasized bass & treble”, which contrasted with the AD2KX's “sort-of upfront but not too close-up with a full-bodied mid-range”. Essentially I thought of the HE-400 as bright & bassy but wouldn't use those words to describe the AD2KX at all and would just call it “mid-range-oriented” instead.
 
The best specific example I can think of to describe the opposing sound signatures between the AD2KX and HE-400 is: percussion consistently sounded like it was in the background on the HE-400, and on tracks that used drums of some sort, the drums were never very noticeable. The AD2KX, on the other hand, brought percussion to the foreground and made it an active part of the music—very distinct & upfront, borderline in-your-face, and the only reason it was borderline is because it was actually a slight reduction on the original AD2K in that aspect (which went past borderline for full-on “in-your-face”). So for those who really want to hear drums & other percussive elements in their music, I highly recommend avoiding the HE-400 and getting something more like the AD2KX.
 
Comparison to: Sennheiser HD598
 
There weren't really any similarities to the HD598 either, as the AD2KX was just different. As in the case with the K712 and HE-400, the AD2KX simply had more mid-range & mid-bass than the HD598, enough that it was a sonic complement to the HD598 as well. Another key difference was that the AD2KX had very front & center-type imaging while the HD598's imaging was diverged & distant. If there's a recurring theme here, it's that the AD2KX was generally just an upfront, full-bodied headphone in general, which made it unique-sounding in my headphone collection. The HD598 had a definite advantage in certain areas though, as it was substantially clearer-sounding (the AD2KX was hazy-sounding) & flatter in the upper mid-range (no overt emphasis on vocals), and had more treble quantity too (it could be said that the AD2KX lacked treble quantity to an extent). Musically this meant that I found the HD598 played certain genres better than the AD2KX, specifically anything using acoustic guitars (folk, bluegrass) and treble-dominant music (ambient electronica).
 
Comparison to: Shure SRH1540
 
The SRH1540 was the only headphone that disrupted the “sonic complement” theme, as the AD2KX ended up being more similar to it than different. They both shared a similarly full-bodied mid-range and had similar tonal balances as well, down to the properly-weighted mid-bass. Even the imaging wasn't that different between them, as they were both “front & center” and had small-scale soundstaging. The only major difference between them was the fundamental difference with closed versus open headphones—the AD2KX was properly open-sounding while the SRH1540 felt like a soundproofed room and didn't carry reverb, sound-wave reflections, & decay very well. And of course there was the bass, which the SRH1540 had a large emphasis on due to being closed. The AD2KX simply didn't have the SRH1540's low-bass kick and felt distinctly weak & rolled-off in comparison. It made me wish that the AD2KX had more bass quantity in general to better play synthesized bass in electronica.
 
Amplification
 
The original AD2K and Dynalo was one of the best headphone & amp synergies that I've ever heard, and I expected that the AD2KX would share that synergy but when I actually paired it up with the Dynalo in the form of the HeadAmp GS-X MK2 (which technically has the newer Dynalo+ modules) and HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, it seemed to be a sonic mismatch. Because of the AD2KX's different sound from the original AD2K, the Dynalo ended up doing nothing sonically for it. The Burson Soloist did nothing of note either. The only amps that seemed to help with anything were the Micromega MyZic and Garage1217 Project Ember, for the same reason: they both organized the soundstaging better and improved on the mid-range qualities by adding more texture & tonal richness. The Project Ember was definitely the strongest amp pairing, at least with 12AU7 and 6DJ8 tubes. For those who'd prefer a more inexpensive amp than the Project Ember, I might suggest starting with Garage1217's Project Starlight, which is almost as tube-rollable as the Project Ember. Not that I've heard the Project Starlight though, just mentioning it as a possibility.
 
And to try to clear up a common misconception about low-impedance headphones, the AD2KX shouldn't be considered “easy to drive”. It's more accurate to consider it as “easy to make loud”, as it's very sensitive (103 dB/mW). The headphone cable is conveniently terminated to a 3.5mm mini-plug (with a screw-on 1/4” adapter provided in the box), so it can be easily used out of anything with a headphone jack, but those who want to optimize the AD2KX experience as much as possible should look into adding a proper high-current headphone amp (plus a quality source component, if applicable). Look for power output specs that list higher power into low-impedance loads.
 
Fit
 
The AD2KX's looser clamp compared to the original was also an issue, as I was never able to get a secure fit because of it and the headphones always felt like they were about to fall off. For that reason I'd advise that those with small heads should probably avoid the AD2KX. The fit would probably be much better for those who have larger heads.
 
Summary
 
Like the original AD2K, the new AD2KX was similarly unique and offered a sound unlike any other set of headphones that I've heard, so unique in fact that the only comparable headphone I've heard is the original. It was unique because most >$300 headphones I've come across simply don't have a significant focus on the mid-range (most expensive headphones tend to go for brighter or clearer sonic signatures with expanded soundstages), and of the headphones that I've heard that do focus on the mid-range, most aren't very upfront-sounding too, and none have its mean percussive streak. Hence, in the same way that the original AD2K was and still is one of the most sonically unique headphones to ever exist, the AD2KX takes on a similar position. There's no other headphone that's remotely like it. It may not have the sheer enjoyment x-factor of the original for certain types of music, but on its own it still makes for a very enjoyable listen on the same genres while also being more versatile with other genres as well.
 
I do think that the average exported price (it can vary based on the current exchange rate) is a little bit steep for the AD2KX, although it is now in the range of the original's when that first came out. I'd recommend trying to buy it used instead of new, or at least as close to $500 as possible or lower, especially for those who might have never heard the original and thus won't have much of an idea of what to expect from it sonically.
 
Related Links
 
AD2KX loaner program (2013): http://www.head-fi.org/t/688438/loaner-program-audio-technica-ad2000x
AD2K 5-year re-review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/574882/5-year-re-review-audio-technica-ath-ad2000

published on January 19, 2014

 
- download a printable 3-page PDF version of this review (link goes to a location on my Dropbox)
 

(click for larger photo)
 
Intro
 
This is basically a short mini-review of the AKG K712 from while I owned it for a few weeks in December 2013 through January 2014.
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source components: NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS, Garage1217 Project Ember
- Comparison headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000 & ATH-AD2000X, Sennheiser HD598, Shure SRH1540
 
Evaluation Music
 
- Boards of Canada - Tomorrow's Harvest
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven 5 & 7
- Erin Boheme - What Love Is
- Half Moon Run - Dark Eyes
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos, Paganini: 24 Caprices
- Katy Perry - Prism
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- OSI - Fire Make Thunder
- Phantogram - Eyelid Movies
- Sarah Jarosz - Build Me Up From Bones
- The Civil Wars - The Civil Wars
- The Devin Townsend Project - Deconstruction
- Yggdrasil - Prose Edda
 
Amplification
 
Most headphones tend to sound good enough on just about any amp, and although I wasn't able to test the K712 on any "budget"-level amps, I'd imagine that to be case with them as well. I'd say that anyone planning on buying the K712 should definitely factor in a dedicated amp for them, even if it's just a cheap one, as it's one of those headphones that really comes alive the better it's amped and requires high current & voltage in order to start sounding especially good. Case in point from my own system: the Gilmore Lite amped the K712 moderately well and didn’t reveal any audible sonic issues at low to moderate volumes, but at anything close to high volumes it started disproportionately subtracting the bass & mid-bass, leaving mostly only the mid-range and treble intact which resulted in a distinctly unbalanced sound. The Project Ember with the right tube (a 12AX7VKA), on the other hand, was able to push the K712 to high volume without any sonic subtractions and proportionately preserved bass quantity.
 
And the K712 sounded downright amazing on the Project Ember w/ 12AX7VKA, much better than it did on the Gilmore Lite. In fact, it was so good that I could've easily considered the K712 & Project Ember combo to be a "final" end-game setup, and in a lot of ways I vastly preferred its sound over other dynamic and planar magnetic headphones that I've previously heard, including the Sennheiser HD800 and Audeze LCD-2/LCD-3. Of course there are some aspects that I consider the Sennheiser and Audeze flagships to do better in, but overall the K712 was surprisingly awesome-sounding and held its own against the vastly more expensive flagships. The Project Ember (using a proper high-gain tube) is definitely an amp pairing that I’d recommend too.
 
Comparison to: Sennheiser HD598
 
Compared to the HD598, the K712's soundstaging felt more concentrated and continuous, but also more closed-in. The HD598 had a great "out & away" type of soundstage to really provide an illusion that music was occurring a good virtual distance away, but the K712 took sort of an opposite approach and brought everything forward more, closing the distance gap so to speak, but still sounding very open, separated, spread-out, & wide. In a very loose sense, I'd say that the HD598's soundstaging was quite similar to the HD800's in sounding "out & away", which I thought was overdone on the HD800 and made it sound unnaturally large & diffuse. The smaller-scale soundstaging of the K712 came across as more realistic to me and not as over-the-top as the HD800.
 
The K712 also had a better tonal balance to me, fleshing out the mid-range a bit more (specifically the vocal range) though it was somewhat at the expense of treble quantity. The HD598 had more treble quantity in comparison. Neither headphone had much bass, though the K712 did seem to have slightly more quantity throughout the 30-200Hz range. And despite having more bass quantity, the K712 was very "controlled-sounding" and was never boomy, flabby, or too thick. Its bass was always clear, distinct, & taut and was more rhythmic than deep. But probably the biggest difference between the K712 and HD598 was the way in which the K712 presented a cohesive sonic image that included left, center, & right (the HD598 sounded as if it had a hole in the center) and presented the music as if it were right in front of you (not away from you, as the HD598 did), with more physical tactility as well. Sort of unexplainable but the K712 simply made vocals, female in particular, sound physically present and very much in-front-of-you while the HD598 lacked that presence factor.
 
I'd describe the K712 as a moderately-detailed headphone with a good level of clarity (not as good as the HD800 in that aspect, which I consider to be one of the clearest-sounding dynamic headphones), a wide & open soundstage (smaller than the HD800's but probably larger than most other headphones), and some marginal lack of lower mid-range, mid-bass, & low bass. That is, it wasn't what I consider heavy- or thick-sounding, and I wouldn't call it very appropriate for music that relies on bass and/or overdriven guitars like metal or hard/heavy/prog rock, or low-pitched male vocals. The K712 seemed to be at its best with classical and generally acoustic music, and less good with music that involved a lot of electric or synthesized instruments, though I could definitely see others liking it for rock, metal, & electronica too, depending on sonic preferences.
 
Indirect Comparisons: K7xx, HD800
 
I can't say with certainty how the K712 compares to AKG's previous K7xx headphones, but as a previous owner of the original K701, original K702, and K702 65th Anniversary, it did seem to have the most balanced sound that I've heard out of AKG's K7xx line with the most amount of bass as well. I always considered the K701, K702, and K702 65th Anniversary to lack a convincing physical sound, and the K712 seemed to retain a trace of that characteristic as well, but it did seem to have the most physical presence, particularly when playing female vocals. But most importantly, and the reason why I went with the K712 instead of the Q701, was because of the headband. I've always disliked AKG's bumped headbands on their K7xx headphones and was glad to finally see the bumps removed on the K712.
 
I was never very impressed by the HD800 despite the fair shake I tried to give it on various amps that included the HeadAmp GS-X (MK1), Luxman P-1u, SPL Auditor, Schiit Lyr, Avenson Audio Headphone Amp, and a Rockhopper-built M3. Regardless of the amp I used, the HD800 always lacked mid-range to me and had too much treble quantity as well, and the only music that I could remotely tolerate it for was ambient electronica, bluegrass/folk, and generally acoustic, female vocal-based music. Although many others have said that the HD800 works well with classical music, I personally could never get past its torturous treatment of violins specifically, as it just made them too fake- & wispy-sounding, and I'm saying that as a violinist.
 
The K712, on the other hand, made violins sound much more realistic to me with a lot less of the glossy & wispy signature of the HD800, and its smaller-scale soundstaging came across as more convincing as well, with large studio-type acoustics instead of the extra-large auditorium acoustics of the HD800. It was also way more musically dynamic to me and conveyed the subtle transitions between piano (p) and forte (f) properly, including sforzandos, which the HD800 never did on any amp that I tried.
 
To the HD800's credit, I do view it as the vastly clearer-sounding headphone with a nicely refined treble and distinct & deep bass, but for me it was just never able to convey proper tonal depth & musical dynamism. The K712's higher mid-range quantity and greater dynamic range provided that for me, and because of that I'd call the K712 more musically versatile than the HD800, and in a few important ways, distinctly superior. Yes, I am indeed saying that a $500 headphone can subjectively sound better than a $1500 headphone in certain ways!
 
Summary
 
The K712 wasn't perfect to me—no headphone ever is—but it sure was a surprise, even after all the headphones I've gotten since 2006, when I got the original K701. I would've liked it more if it had a bit more upper treble quantity, along with more quantity in the lower mid-range, mid-bass, & low bass (particularly in the 30-50Hz range), but I still really enjoyed it overall and got more musical satisfaction out of it than I ever did with the HD800 and LCD-2/LCD-3.
 
Although I do think AKG has been over-milking the K7xx line for far too long, the K712 was easily the best-sounding K7xx to me and I think a lot of other people would be surprised by it as well. Certainly not for everyone but it's probably worth a try, especially for those who haven't yet heard an AKG K7xx.

published on January 12, 2014
updated on October 27, 2015
 
- download a printable 6-page PDF version of this review (links go to locations on my Dropbox)
- download a printable 7-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review. The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes).
 

(click any photo in this review for a larger version)
(photo note: case pictured below is the optional hard case sold separately on Garage1217's Web site)
 
Intro
 
I found out about Garage1217 several months ago, through a Head-Fier who listed "Project Starlight" in his signature which piqued my curiosity and got me on Google to find out what that was. It was the "Project Ember" on their site that really caught my eye though, largely in part to its intriguing specs. I finally asked Garage1217 about a review sample several weeks ago, which they generously provided. Thanks goes out to them for providing the review sample.
 

Note: the time duration for all listening for this review was just about 2 weeks. Not quite as long as what I'm typically used to (most of my past reviews have been of equipment that I owned and were done over months), so I wasn't able to get as familiar as I would've liked with the amp and the set of tubes that I received with it. My listening impressions should not be seen as finalized and are likely subject to change.
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source component: NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA (2 pairs: 1 from source to Gilmore Lite, 1 from Gilmore Lite's loop output to Project Ember)
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS (as a point of contrast)
- Headphones: AKG K712, Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, ATH-AD2000X, & ATH-R70x, Sennheiser HD598
 
Set of tubes used with the amp included:
- stock 6N1P gold grid
- RCA 12AU7A cleartop
- Russian Voskhod 12AX7VKA
- GE Smoked Glass 6DJ8
- GE 6BZ7 (mine, not received from Garage1217)
- RCA 6SN7
- 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7
 
Evaluation Music
 
- Boards of Canada - Tomorrow's Harvest
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven 5 & 7
- Half Moon Run - Dark Eyes
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos, Paganini: 24 Caprices
- Katy Perry - Prism
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- OSI - Fire Make Thunder
- Phantogram - Eyelid Movies
- Sarah Jarosz - Build Me Up From Bones
- The Civil Wars - The Civil Wars
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend
- The Devin Townsend Project - Deconstruction
- Trivium - Shogun
- Yggdrasil - Prose Edda
 
Foreword & Garage1217
 
Before getting into the review proper, I'd like to share why the Project Ember caught my interest, particularly when I'm not usually a fan of tube or hybrid amps in general (I'm just wary of the fragility of tubes and don't really like their aesthetic; I vastly prefer flat & sleek designs when it comes to audio equipment):
 

1. Advertised features & specifications, particularly the power output chart, which showed that it was fully capable of driving any dynamic or planar magnetic headphones from 32 all the way up to 600 Ohms.
2. Garage1217's Web site, which consisted mostly of tech-speak, as opposed to marketing-speak with superlative adjectives to describe sound quality.
3. Attractively-low price at a relatively inexpensive $325 for the built version, which I needed as I'm not a DIY-er and can't solder to save my life.
4. It was American-made and -supported. I always like to support American businesses whenever I can, particularly small ones.
5. Eye-catching aesthetics, specifically the clear plexiglass top, though I didn't like the open-frame-style chassis because I saw it as a dust trap.

 
And as a brief note on Garage1217, I want to add that my experience with them was top-notch. Customer interaction is always a major factor for me in deciding where to spend my money and I'm happy to report that Jeremy @ Garage1217 was a pleasure to deal with. He was courteous, patient, and took the time to answer all of the questions that I had, usually in very extensive e-mails. His level of accessibility & communication was simply excellent and it was clear that not only was he knowledgeable, he was also very customer-focused. He reminded me of why I prefer to support American businesses; there was simply no way that any international business could've come close to matching everything he offered from the beginning all the way to end, which included taking care of return shipping procedures.
 
Operation, Functionality, & Handling
 
Garage1217 advertises the Project Ember as having selectable gain (2 settings: Lo & Hi) & output resistance (3 settings: 0.1, 35, & 120 Ohms), and if that weren't enough, compatibility with a wide array of 6V & 12V dual triode tubes, plus auto biasing and pre-amp output, which made it probably the most functionally versatile amp that I've ever come across. I kept the amp configured to low gain though and never needed to set it to high gain, even for the AKG K712, as there was always enough headroom on the volume pot for those headphones whether using the 6V tubes or the 12-volt 12AX7VKA, or even the 12AU7A. The only reason I'd think anyone would need to use the high gain setting would be for even-more-inefficient headphones like the AKG K1000 or HiFiMan HE-6. I'd imagine the low gain would be sufficient for most other headphones, including those up to 300 Ohms (which is typical of Sennheiser & Beyerdynamic models).
 
Individual Tube Assessments
 
The sound of the Project Ember varied with each tube so I decided to break down each one:
 
- Stock 6N1P gold grid (w/ primarily Med output resistance but also Lo)
 
This stock default tube for the Project Ember was overall very good-sounding with a nicely filled-out mid-range, decent bass with good quantity & quality, and no obvious detriments in treble. Compared to the other tubes, specifically the 6BZ7, it was a touch more passive/laid-back- and spatial-sounding. Essentially a good, basic all-rounder for my set of headphones and it functionally drove the K712 well enough too, but only in terms of volume. The K712 sounded somewhat "dead" on the 6N1P but significantly more alive on the Russian Voskhod 12AX7VKA (more on that in that tube's assessment).
 

- RCA 12AU7A cleartop (w/ primarily Lo output resistance but also Med)
 
This was provided to me as an effective low-gain tube for low-impedance sensitive headphones, and as expected it provided good volume-control precision for the Audio-Technica AD2K/AD2KX. It had the least amount of tube hiss too, which was nice, as all of the other tubes had somewhat distracting hiss on the AD2K. This tube had a proportionately moderate amount of bass, mid-bass, & mid-range overall that particularly helped to offset the HD598's relative treble tilt, but it worked nicely with the AD2K/AD2KX as well and made them sound more powerful (with more bass force & impact), heavier, & "meaner". It essentially turned the AD2K into more of a bass-growling monster on metal music as opposed to a percussive speedfreak (which is the AD2K's characteristic on the Gilmore Lite). I wouldn't recommend this tube for any inefficient headphones though, even with the amp's high-gain setting available, as the K712 sounded weak, wimpy, & dull when driven by this tube. For general purposes, I'd be inclined to say that a 12AU7 is a great inexpensive type of tube to have on hand for sensitive headphones, and this specific RCA-issue tube sounded very good indeed.
 
The only major fault of the RCA 12AU7 was its inability to audibly match the blistering speed & agility of the Gilmore Lite when used with the AD2K, but otherwise it was very good with the AD2KX and HD598, specifically with its open 3D-like soundstage, tonal depth (especially in the mid-bass), and more powerful bass.
 
- Russian Voskhod 12AX7VKA (w/ only Med output resistance)
 

Note: this was a rare tube offered to me by Garage1217 for review purposes only and will probably be unlikely to be easily found on Internet sites like eBay. Those looking for a similar tube to buy should look for other tubes in the 12AX7 family.
 
The 12AX7VKA had it all over the other tubes when it came to driving specifically the K712. Not that the K712 sounded bad on the stock 6N1P, 6DJ8, and 6BZ7; it sounded very good indeed on those tubes with only slight noticeable variations in the mid-range, bass, & soundstaging. There was very little to fault with those three tubes when used with the K712, they all sounded really good, and if I hadn't had the 12AX7VKA, I wouldn't have complained. But the 12AX7VKA clearly took the K712 to another level that was enough of a sonic improvement that it was apparent that every other tube, including the Gilmore Lite, under-drove the K712. On the 12AX7VKA, the K712 simply sounded more dynamic in the musical sense, properly ranging from "piano" (p) to "forte" (f) and everything on the scale in-between. On the other tubes, the K712 sounded more like it went from only "mezzo-piano" (mp) to "mezzo-forte" (mf). The K712 also sounded substantially more physical and immediate/direct on this tube, with simply more of a "presence factor" almost like that of an Audeze headphone. It also developed the most powerful bass on this tube while retaining an open, expansive soundstage at the same time that didn't detract from the headphone's innate "separated" sound. But the most obvious sign that the 12AX7VKA was the only tube that properly drove the K712 was the effect as volume was turned up—it proportionately increased treble, mid-range, and bass simultaneously, while none of the other tubes did that and actually seemed to subtract bass as volume was turned up.
 
This tube was clearly the best one for the K712 specifically, and I'd imagine that it'd also be good-to-great for other inefficient headphones as well, specifically the HD800, Audeze LCD-2/LCD-3, and likely the HiFiMan HE-400/HE-500 too (not that I've heard the HE-500 though, just a guess on that). Another possible similar high-gain tube that Project Ember owners or buyers might want to look into is a Tung-Sol 12AX7, which I read might be a further sonic improvement over the 12AX7VKA.
 
- GE Smoked Glass 6DJ8 (w/ primarily Med output resistance but also Lo)
 
This tube was an excellent all-rounder that paired up very well with every headphone, improving on the 6N1P specifically at driving the K712, making it sound a bit more lively and with more mid-range presence. The only notable detraction with this tube was its amount of hiss, which was quite noticeable on the AD2K/X and HD598, but nothing that was too distracting once music was playing. The 6DJ8 had a very noticeable mid-range & mid-bass presence that really made everything sound filled-out, weighted, heavy, & powerful, but not ponderous or inert, while maintaining a clear 3D soundstage that had as much depth as width. Granted, it didn't have a "huge" soundstage, but it was large enough that it was a clear improvement over the Gilmore Lite, which had a very 2D-flat, compressed soundstage (with nearly zero 3D depth).
 
If this tube was indicative of 6DJ8-type tubes in general, then I'd highly recommend one for every Project Ember owner or buyer. It was a fantastic tube that worked particularly well with vocals (male & female), plus the instruments that generally make up pop, rock, metal, & electronic music—i.e., bass guitars, overdriven guitars, and synthesized & acoustic bass.
 
- NOS GE 6BZ7 (w/ primarily Med output resistance but also Lo)
 
I still had this tube as a leftover from a Schiit Lyr (in which it's used as the stock tube) that I previously owned, so of course I had to try it out in the Project Ember. It was another good all-rounder, but I'd slot its overall performance between the stock 6N1P and 6DJ8. It wasn't as wide- & spacious-sounding as the stock 6N1P and had more of an upfront, closed-in presentation. Like the 6DJ8, the 6BZ7 also sounded good with male & female vocals, and had particularly strong & forceful bass (with maybe just a tad bit more quantity than the 6DJ8, but I wasn't completely sure on that), but it didn't seem to be as clear-sounding as the 6DJ8, and definitely not as spatial (with particularly less 3D depth).
 
Since 6BZ7-type tubes are inexpensive, they're probably worth trying for those who don't mind amassing a collection of tubes, but I'd probably recommend against them for those who'd prefer having just a limited set of purpose-driven tubes.
 

- RCA 6SN7 (w/ Hi output resistance & gain) (October 2015 update)
 
I was able to try this tube with an updated Ember v2 loaner unit that Garage1217 sent to me for a local Head-Fi meet, and it proved to be a great match with the Audio-Technica R70x. I also received a couple of other new tubes to try as well, which included a 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7, but it was clear that the 6SN7 was the best choice for the R70x, as it delivered the most powerful bass & enveloping mid-range. It basically turned the R70x into somewhat of a sonic behemoth, with an insane amount of control over the bass even at very high volume, and provided a veritable gluttony of mid-range texture & presence—by far the most comparable mid-range to the classic but discontinued Grado HP1000 that I’ve ever heard! It was so astounding that I urge any owners of an Ember and R70x need to add a 6SN7 to their collection stat!
 
- 6H6N/6N6P and 6GU7 (various output resistances) (October 2015 update)
 
And because I received these two tubes from Garage1217 as well (at the same time as the 6SN7), of course I had to try them out in the new Ember v2. They were both very good, and each had different strengths. The 6H6N provided a sound that was the most “solid-statey” I’ve heard from the Ember, with clean precision and very strong clarity, while maintaining clean & solid bass. The 6GU7 provided better soundstaging with more expansive depth and width while maintaining good layering in the stage (not an easy feat to pull off). It’d be my recommendation for anyone who wants an expanded soundstage for any set of headphones. (Note: For more info on these last two tubes, please contact Garage1217, as I neglected to note their makes when I had them in-house.)
 
Overall Tube & Amp Assessment
 

I found the 12AU7, 12AX7VKA, and 6DJ8 to be the stand-out tubes in the set, each with its own purpose: the 12AU7 for both Audio-Technicas, the 12AX7VKA for the K712, and the 6DJ8 as an alternative for general-purpose use with all of the headphones. The other two tubes, the stock 6N1P and my own GE 6BZ7, didn't really offer much sonically compared to the other three. If I was selecting the most preferential tubes for my own purposes for my own Project Ember, I'd definitely want to get a 12AU7 and 6DJ8 again (probably an Amperex Orange Globe 6DJ8 in addition to the GE Smoked Glass to compare them), and likely the 12AX7VKA as well but I'd want to try a Tung-Sol 12AX7 too for comparison.
 
Being able to sample a variety of tubes in the Project Ember was extremely helpful and allowed me to gauge its overall level of performance, which seemed to be very good at any level. Though the Gilmore Lite did beat it in two specific aspects, which were clarity and speed/agility, I'd say that the Project Ember generally eclipsed the Gilmore Lite largely in part due to its soundstaging, richer tonal balance (the Gilmore Lite can be considered to have a "thin/light" tonal balance), & mid-range qualities that were consistent regardless of which tube was used.
 
The Project Ember probably won't amp every headphone to its full sonic potential, even via tube-rolling, but at $350, does that matter? How many other amps can functionally drive headphones spanning the gamut from low-impedance sensitive types all the way up to the most inefficient planar magnetics? When every aspect of the Project Ember is considered, from the vendor's level of service & support (in the USA, no less), to its inexpensive $350 (USD, built) price, to everything about it technically, and the sonic possibilities through tube rolling, it's amazingly unprecedented. I'd call it the premier absolute must-buy headphone amp for almost everyone! Of course there are better-sounding amps available, most of which cost a lot more, but for those who just want an amp that can drive any set of dynamic-type headphones, the Project Ember is the clear solution.
 

And even if the Project Ember is over your budget, Garage1217 makes a few other amps that are even more inexpensive, down to the (built L1) $160 Project Starlight!

Originally published on April 11, 2011
Updated on December 11, 2011
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/548875/review-audeze-lcd-2-r1-r2-hifiman-he-6-stax-sr-507-stax-oii-mki-bhse-et-al

- download a printable 9-page PDF version of this review (links go to locations on my Dropbox)
- download a printable 15-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review. The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes). The notes for this review in particular are HIGHLY-RECOMMENDED reading for anyone who wants the in-depth details of how most of the headphones directly compared to each other.

Intro

Not much really needs to be said to "intro" this review—it's basically just a multi-way review of various mid-level & flagship headphones, which were all owned at different points in time. Every comparison below was a simultaneous one though, and notes from every listening session were saved over the course of a few months. My review process is always at least several months (to get familiar with the equipment being evaluated) and this review was no exception.

A big disclaimer I want to add: the HiFiMan HE-6 and Stax SR-507 were the only headphones that did not get extensive listening time. I had the HE-6 in-house (on loan from another Head-Fi member) for only a couple of weeks, and the SR-507 has been in my possession for just over a week as I write this. So my opinion of the HE-6 and SR-507 should not be considered finalized.
 
This was originally a review of the LCD-2 r1 (revision 1). Review update on December 11, 2011, was for a new section covering the r2 (revision 2), see below.

Reviewer Biases & Info

My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.

Some portions of the review below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 30 now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony orchestra, and I've attended classical-music concerts as well.

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval RCA & XLR
- Headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp GS-X and Nugget Audio B22 for the dynamic headphones, where noted. HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE for the Stax SR-507 and SR-007 (OII MKI).

Evaluation Music

CDs by the following artists/bands, by genre:

- Americana/Bluegrass/Folk: Alison Krauss & Union Station, Priscilla Ahn, Sierra Hull
- Blues: Eric Clapton, Eva Cassidy
- Classical: Hilary Hahn (Bach), Julia Fischer (Bach), Carlos Kleiber & VPO (Beethoven), Pierre Boulez & VPO (Mahler)
- Electronica/Trip-Hop: Massive Attack, Orbital, The Crystal Method, The Prodigy, Trifonic, Zero 7, Zero One
- Jazz: Dave Brubeck, Lee Morgan, Steve Kuhn, Tord Gustavsen
- Rock: Led Zeppelin, Porcupine Tree, Radiohead, Tool
- Metal: Emperor, Helloween, In Flames, Megadeth, Nightwish, Symphony X

Specific tracks on the CDs are given in the review notes (see the PDF, linked at the top).

Audeze LCD-2, overall

LCD-2 w/ 2010 stock and ADZ-5 cables. Amps: GS-X in unbalanced mode and B22.

When I first got the Audeze LCD-2 in September 2010, I was unimpressed. It was dark-sounding (not a whole lot of treble quantity), closed-in (not much "air" to the sound, which made it borderline suffocating to me), and it lacked general bass drive. But my amp at that time, a Rockhopper-built M3, might not have been optimal for it. Later on in early 2011, with the HeadAmp GS-X and the Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR re-cable, the LCD-2 turned into something much more promising when driven in balanced mode. It had very solid & physical bass, actually even better than my Audio-Technica AD2000—very deep, heavy, and low-sounding, not just in the lowest bass but throughout the mid-bass and up into the mid-range. I'd call the LCD-2's overall bass & mid-range almost sneaky in a way—doing a subtle yet fantastic job at making you think vocalists and instruments like acoustic double-bass, bass guitar, etc, are right there in front of you because of how low, full, & "fat" they are, whereas most other headphones just lack that presence factor. The only other headphones in the round-up that offered a similar type of presence factor were the Grado HP1000 and Stax OII MKI.

There are 4 headphone "classes" that I personally define: excellent, above-average, average, and below-average. For reference, there are only a few headphones I classify as excellent: Qualia 010, OII MKI, and JH13 (IEMs). (Not that I think they're flawless though.) I'd classify the LCD-2 as above-average, in the company of headphones like the Beyerdynamic T1, Grado HP1000, and Sennheiser HD800. I don't think any of these headphones to be "better" than one another per se—they all have their trade-offs, the LCD-2 included.

So what I mean by my "above-average" classification is that the LCD-2 is very good—it's just not the best of the best that I've heard. I've heard the LCD-2 on a variety of amps so far—SPL Auditor, Rockhopper-built M3, Schiit Asgard, Avenson Audio Headphone Amp, HeadAmp Gilmore Lite & GS-X, and Nugget-built B22. The best I've heard from the LCD-2 has been with the GS-X in balanced mode and the B22. And with those two amps, the LCD-2's sound can be summed up as bassy, full, assertive/direct, and fast (as in impulse response). It's one of the most mid-range-focused headphones I've heard with a heavy slant towards the mids, mid-bass, & bass in general, and it offers a sufficiently different sound than any of the other headphones that were compared that one could easily find an excuse to own it along with any of the others. But if one can afford to buy only one headphone, or just a few at most, I'd call the LCD-2 an instant recommendation for anyone who doesn't really like treble very much and is seeking bass & mid-range more, for listening to music like classical/soundtracks, jazz, electronica/trip-hop, pop/rock, and/or metal. Not that I think the LCD-2 excels at any one of those genres, but it handles them all to varying degrees of success.
 
LCD-2, revision 2

LCD-2 r2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR on HeadAmp GS-X. Also with stock ADZ-6 cable on Schiit Audio Lyr.

The r1 LCD-2 that was originally used for this review was sold shortly after it was written, in April 2011. The primary reason I sold it was due to its relatively mediocre sonic performance, at least for me. After the r2 was introduced, I decided I wanted to try it and finally bought one in October 2011, so my impressions of the r2 are now about 2 months ongoing (as I write this new section, it's December 2011).

Without a direct comparison to the r1, which I was unable to do, I can't say with any certainty how the two revisions compared to each other. But I will say that the r2 seemed to sound very similar to the r1 that I previously owned, and more to the point, just about as good—I'd say it retained the "very good" quality level that I gave to the r1. Having now heard the r1 and r2—both in the exact same way, balanced on the GS-X—I'd also argue that the LCD-2 benefits from balanced operation, because the r2 sounded just as good, if not better, than the r1, when balanced on my GS-X.

In spite of not having any experience of the r2 directly versus the r1, I feel that this review as originally written completely applies to my thoughts on the r2 in addition to the r1, and I mean that in both the good and bad implications. It means that for every aspect that I thought was good about the r1, I thought the r2 was just as good; but for every aspect I thought was less than stellar, I didn't think any of them were fixed with the r2 either—specifically the areas in which I criticized the r1 versus my electrostatic system (OII/BHSE). Scale, dynamics (including intensity), clarity, soundstage, etc, were not significantly improved on the r2 enough that any of them were rectified for me. My conclusion was that the OII/BHSE absolutely sonically crushed the r2 in the same way it crushed the r1.

The Schiit Lyr was an informative experience for me as well—proving to me that an amp with loads of power output doesn't necessarily translate to better sound. I thought the HeadAmp GS-X in balanced mode (2W @ 32 Ohms in balanced mode) sonically crushed the Schiit Lyr (6W @ 32 Ohms) and the r2 sounded significantly better on the GS-X than it did the Lyr. I wrote a review of the Schiit Lyr and it can be found here: http://www.head-fi.org/products/schiit-lyr/reviews/10264

vs AKG K701

LCD-2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR. K701 w/ SAA Equinox XLR. Amp: GS-X, in balanced mode.

The K701 was my original favorite headphone before the AD2K (below)—I owned it from April 2006 up to January of this year. Over that time my opinion of it grew increasingly negative though, and at my peak of negative opinion, I thought it was one of the most average headphones I still had. Not that it was terrible, but it just didn't do anything especially good, for any type of music. So the LCD-2 really had almost nothing to go up against for me here. In almost all cases, it eclipsed the K701, offering much more natural tonality on orchestral instruments with a more realistic soundstage, more powerful and filling bass & mid-range, more overall clarity, a faster impulse response, and more diffusion (forced "separation" between musical layers to spread them out from each other more). The only thing the K701 really brought to the table was its usual forward female vocals but even that I don't consider a good quality on every music type, or every female vocalist for that matter (as it tends to deepen upper-register voices, Alison Krauss being just one example).

vs Audio-Technica AD2000

LCD-2 w/ 2010 stock cable. AD2K w/ APS V3. Amp: GS-X, in unbalanced mode.

I've owned the AD2000 (AD2K for short) since June 2006 and it's become my #1 favorite headphone of all time. It started out as my headphone preference for electronica/trip-hop but is now also my preference for metal. One of the biggest reasons I like it as much as I do is due to its forward-moving, insistent sound—not a quality I've heard from any other headphones to date. It's hard to explain this forward-moving insistent quality—there's an extreme tightness to its sound overall, and on fast music it really keeps up the tempo (the musical term for "speed"). On fast music especially, it has the drive of something running really fast, like a runner leaping over endless hurdles without running out of breath. On complex, heavy bass lines, it can charge through like it's Superman smashing through boulders.

The LCD-2 had a lot going up against here simply because I've had the AD2K for years and have gotten so used to it, I couldn't imagine liking anything else for electronica/trip-hop & metal. So it was a huge surprise when I found that the LCD-2 did really well on those music types too—good enough that I'd absolutely recommend it for those music types. It could easily come in at a #2 favorite spot if I added one. For all intents & purposes, it approximately matched the AD2K's impulse response (audibly, that is), while adding an appreciated dose of heavy, deep, & physical bass. I've never thought the AD2K to really lack bass, but against the LCD-2, it sounded light-weight in comparison—but at the same time, the AD2K also had more treble quantity than the LCD-2, so it was somewhat of a trade-off. I wouldn't really say the LCD-2 is great for every sub-genre of electronica though—I thought it was best on breakbeat, trance, & techno (though a disclaimer here as I don't listen to every sub-genre).

I wouldn't say either of the headphones was better than the other but I still prefer the AD2K, at least for the music types mentioned. It has a forward/up-close, very assertive & direct sound that's addictive for metal in particular—its insistent quality makes the fast drumming in most of metal really stand out. I consider the LCD-2 more versatile though, as it handled other genres relatively well too, in addition to electronica/trip-hop & metal—classical & jazz specifically, which I don't listen to at all on the AD2K, because its mid-range makes acoustic instruments sound unnatural.

vs Grado HP1000/HP2

LCD-2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR. HP2 w/ APureSound V3 XLR. Amp: GS-X, in balanced mode.

Among all the headphones that I've heard to date, none have matched the HP1000's "living soul" x-factor, but the LCD-2 got the closest. This is an extremely unexplainable aspect of the HP1000 though—you have to hear it to understand it, and while the LCD-2 got very close, it still didn't deliver a true breath-of-life quality to orchestral music. The only other headphone I've heard to match or exceed the HP1000 in this aspect is the Stax OII MKI when amped by the HeadAmp BHSE.

It's tricky to sum up the LCD-2 vs HP1000, as there were various subtle differences. So although this glosses over the finer details, the HP2 could be described as a version of the LCD-2 with: more natural tonality on strings, brass, & woodwind instruments; more treble; a more solid, tighter bass component; more bombast when the recording calls for it; a substantially "richer" and deeper mid-range with a greater degree of texture; a smaller, compressed soundstage; and a more "integrated" type of imaging that made the orchestra sound less like disparate instrument sections and more like a unified body of sections all playing together. All of these aspects made the HP2 sound really good with jazz too, maybe even better than the LCD-2, as it provided more of an intimate setup with the jazz group, throwing you right in with the group (almost as if making you another group member to jam along with them), instead of sitting back from a distance, as the LCD-2 did instead.

vs HiFiMan HE-6

LCD-2 w/ ADZ-5 cable. Amp: B22.

The only thing I conclusively came away with after this comparison was a dislike and negative opinion of the HE-6. I found very few redeeming qualities to this headphone.

The one headphone the HE-6 reminded me most of was the Qualia 010 due to a loosely-similar treble response, but IMO the Qualia's treble is king and the HE-6 nowhere near matched it. The Qualia had the clearest, cleanest treble I've ever heard from headphones, with true razor precision, and the HE-6 simply lacked this quality. It failed to deliver clean high-speed zings, for example, or proper metallic sheens, on bluegrass-type music. The HE-6 did have a very wide, deep, & open soundstage, but that too is eclipsed by the Qualia. So as far as the HE-6 and Qualia go, I think anyone who actually likes the HE-6's treble or soundstage and wants even more would likely find a lot to like from the Qualia.

The HE-6 to me fell in the same trap as the Qualia did—I thought it fared best with bluegrass & ambient electronica due to the treble response and insufficient balance of mid-range & bass. Like the Qualia, the HE-6 was relatively thin in the mid-range (though probably not as thin as the Qualia) and did not have very much bass—though more bass than the Qualia. This made it completely unsuitable to me for every type of music that wasn't bluegrass or ambient electronica—for classical it made violins too screechy, for jazz it made brass instruments too weak-sounding & distant, for electronica it lacked bass power & force, and for rock & metal it was way too thin- and passive-sounding. It was just way too much of a weak-sounding headphone overall. The LCD-2 in contrast was a polar opposite with its full & heavy mid-range and bass, almost like a yin-yang relationship.

The HE-6 was a poor-fitting headphone as well on my small-ish head and I was never able to get a secure fit with it. At the lowest adjustment it still didn't fit my head and I had to put a hand towel under the headband to situate the earcups high enough to level with my ears.

vs JH Audio JH13

LCD-2 w/ ADZ-5 cable. Amp: GS-X, in unbalanced mode.

If there was one thing that this comparison proved, it's that the JH13 was a far easier headphone load, and that the GS-X under-drove the LCD-2 in unbalanced mode. But the GS-X is probably the only amp in the world that can drive both of them realistically, because it has unity gain for the JH13 and High gain + balanced output for the LCD-2. How did they compare, though? The frequency balance was very similar, but the JH13 had lower, more powerful bass. The biggest difference though was that the JH13 was more closed-in (not as much "air" within the soundstage) while the LCD-2 was more open-sounding with more "air" between instruments/layers in comparison.

Despite sounding more similar to each other than any other headphones should sound (not that they were identical-sounding though, just relatively close), I'd say the JH13 and LCD-2 serve separate functional purposes, considering one is an IEM and the other is a full-size headphone. The JH13 can sound really good directly out of a DAP, but it clearly takes high-power amplification to begin to get good sound out of the LCD-2.

vs Sennheiser HD800

LCD-2 w/ 2010 stock & ADZ-5 cable. Amp: B22.

Like the HE-6, the HD800 was somewhat of a treble-tilted headphone. It was better balanced throughout though, with more mid-range & bass quantity. The HD800 had a smaller soundstage than the HE-6, with less depth in particular that made it sound more closed-in. So for anyone who thinks the HD800's soundstage to be large, that should put the HE-6 in perspective, as I thought its soundstage was even bigger with substantially more depth and diffusion (resulting in more "air" throughout).

I thought the HD800 represented another yin-yang to the LCD-2—the HD800's treble tilt versus the LCD-2's mid-range tilt made for a complementary pairing. The HD800's large amount of soundstage depth & width was another contrast to the LCD-2, which was compressed in comparison. The LCD-2's soundstage was much more realistic to me though, despite sounding substantially more closed-in. Its "integrated" imaging was a good contrast from the diffuse imaging of the HD800.

vs Stax SR-507

LCD-2 w/ ADZ-5 cable, amped by B22. SR-507 amped by HeadAmp BHSE.

The SR-507 was more similar to the HE-6 and HD800 than LCD-2, so comparisons were done against those two headphones instead. And between the three, I was the most impressed by the SR-507. Qualities the three headphones had in common included relatively strong treble, high overall clarity throughout the spectrum, and appropriately diffuse imaging—layers were nicely spread out from each other. It could be said that the SR-507 was the most diffuse though, as its imaging had the most lateral span from left to right. The SR-507 had the least soundstage depth though, but I didn't think it was really a negative aspect—if anything, it made it sound less fake and more genuine with respect to the recording. It wasn't quite as good as either the HD800 or HE-6 in certain, minor aspects, but overall it had the most direct, up-close, & driving sound. The HE-6 and HD800 were passive- and detached- (HD800) or distant-sounding (HE-6) in comparison.

The SR-507 also had the fastest impulse response and hence the most precision—fast sequences of notes were the most cleanly separated on it. For bluegrass music it delivered the most pop and twang, qualities that were mostly absent on the HE-6 and HD800. I ended up liking the SR-507's treble the most of the three, primarily because of its precision—the HD800 was simply too slow & imprecise, and the HE-6 didn't accentuate note "attacks" very well—which included details like ringing and high-speed "zings".

None of these three headphones (HE-6, HD800, SR-507) were particularly bassy (and the HE-6 had the least amount of bass) but they did have some bass, just not enough that I'd call any of them satisfactory for music that rides on bass, like electronica/trip-hop. As expected, the LCD-2's higher level of bass was a good contrast against them. The LCD-2 had a substantially more full-bodied mid-range too.

vs Stax SR-007 (OII MKI)

LCD-2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR & ADZ-5 cable, amped by GS-X & B22 respectively. OII MKI amped by HeadAmp BHSE. Balanced XLR input on LCD-2/GS-X vs OII/BHSE comparison.

The LCD-2 had an uphill battle against the OII/BHSE, which remains my reference for all acoustic types of music—in the aspect of tonality & timbre, or whatever you want to call it. It's also my reference for soundstage accuracy, as the OII reacts to different recordings and grows or shrinks the soundstage appropriately.

I'll begin by stating that the LCD-2 in balanced mode on the GS-X made for a very fine-sounding LCD-2. But single-ended on the B22 was definitely better—the LCD-2 developed more bass power, more forward drive, and more fill to the bass/mid-range area for an overall slightly-thicker sound—i.e., even more of that presence factor as previously mentioned.

But as good as the LCD-2 was on the B22, and it was definitely good enough that I'd call the pairing an optimal one, it was still no match for the OII/BHSE. For classical music specifically, the LCD-2 completely lacked several qualities. Scale was missing—the sense of the orchestra sounding big with instruments coming at you from back to front. Dynamic range too—the various instrument sections all sounded at similar volume levels and nothing was truly quiet or truly loud. Volume intensity, accurate soundstage width/depth, true clarity, and proper diffusion weren't there either. The OII provided all of these and in spades at that. Julia Fischer's "Violin Concerto in E major, 2nd movement" from her Bach Concertos CD is probably the best example of the OII doing what it does best, especially in the intensity aspect, on her solo violin. The violin's intensity was completely lost on the LCD-2. It made the solo violin sound merely like a violin playing. Not that that there was anything wrong with this portrayal, but against the OII there was simply no peer—the OII made the violin "sing" with subtle rises & falls in intensity, with the orchestra coming to virtual life at the same time.

No, the LCD-2 could not compete with the OII. There were just too many areas in which the OII crushed it on sonic merit alone. But considering the relative prices between the LCD-2/B22 (approximately $2K) versus the OII/BHSE (~$6.5K), it's an acceptable compromise for those unwilling to pay for the high-end electrostatic system. Were there any aspects in which the LCD-2 was better than the OII? Oh there were a few—the LCD-2 was easily the more physical-, tactile-sounding headphone, with a more direct & assertive sound, and there was that heavy, deep bass too. In fact, one of my complaints against all of the electrostatic headphones that I've heard (which include the SR-X MKIII, SR-404LE, SR-507, and even the OII) is that they lack a sort of "directness" to the sound, but this was not an issue on the LCD-2.
 
SR-507 vs SR-007 (OII MKI)

Amp: HeadAmp BHSE.

A disclaimer here as I didn't formally compare these two headphones against each other to determine relative strengths & weaknesses, but I will say I found them different enough from each other to form a complementary pairing, similar in line with the AD2K & LCD-2 pairing.

In fact, I could take an analogy from the AD2K & LCD-2 pairing. The AD2K was brighter and more forward/up-front, while the LCD-2 was a shade darker with more mid-range & bass and a marginally more passive sound. In a loose sense then, the SR-507 to the OII paralleled the AD2K to the LCD-2. Not that the SR-507 was particularly bright or forward/up-front though, only relatively compared to the OII. But the SR-507's treble tilt & flatter imaging in relation to the OII made it more ideal for certain types of music to me, like bluegrass, trip-hop, rock, and metal, for example. And despite the flatter imaging, I still thought it was perfectly acceptable for ambient electronica, which tends to sound best on headphones with an imposed large soundstage. In fact, I thought the SR-507 ultimately beat out the HD800 which was my previous ambient-electronica headphone, primarily because of its combined clarity, treble, & precision.

Although some might call the SR-507 inferior to the OII, to me it was more of a different flavor that went well with music genres I don't typically use the OII for, as the OII is my preferred classical & jazz headphone. And in my system, I thought it went alongside particularly well with the OII, to comprise a strong electrostatic counterpart to my remaining two full-size dynamic headphones (AD2K & LCD-2).

Summary

Alex and Sankar at Audeze, whom I've met in person on a few occasions now, came up with a really good headphone in the LCD-2. They're good guys too and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend dealing with them.

The LCD-2 did very well in most aspects, all things considered. No single headphone can be all things to even one person IMO, which is why I own multiple headphones, but for me the LCD-2 nicely filled in a void—a (planar) dynamic headphone capable of being driven by the HeadAmp GS-X for classical, jazz, & rock, for times when I don't want to rotate in my electrostatic system. I consider it a bonus that it just happens to also do electronica/trip-hop and metal just as well too. The AD2K, SR-507, and OII MKI fill in for its weaknesses nicely—forward-moving drive & insistence in the case of the AD2K; more treble, diffusion, & clarity in the case of the SR-507; and dynamic range, intensity, & scale in the case of the OII MKI.

Once again I defer to the Notes file (linked at the top) for in-depth details of every headphone comparison that was staged. This review was just a scratch on the surface on the iceberg of notes that were written—so read the notes if you want the full compilation of everything that went down for the listening of this review.
 
4/25/11: relevant info & backstory on the OII/BHSE in my system: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/548875/review-audeze-lcd-2-hifiman-he-6-stax-sr-507-stax-oii-mki-bhse-et-al/60#post_7427838
 
Related Reading

- LCD-3 multi-way review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/10298
- Audio-Technica AD2K 5-year re-review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audio-technica-ath-ad2000/reviews/10293
- Beyerdynamic T1 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-tesla-t1/reviews/10295
- Sennheiser HD800 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-800-headphones/reviews/10294

Originally published on February 6, 2012
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/594426/mini-review-audeze-lcd-3-vs-lcd-2-r2-sr-007-et-al

- download a printable 5-page PDF version of this review (right-click the link & save target)
- download a printable 5-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review (right-click the link & save target). The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes).
 


Intro

This is basically a mini-, multi-way review of the Audeze LCD-3 headphones, which were announced and demonstrated at CanJam@RMAF 2011. Though I also included the AD2K and HD800 for the sake of calling this a multi-way review, the most extensive comparisons were made specifically against the LCD-2 r2 and Stax OII MKI (SR-007 from here on out). The LCD-2 r2 and SR-007 comparisons were done specifically to address what I thought would be two of the most common questions about the LCD-3: (1) What does the LCD-3 offer over the LCD-2 r2? (2) Is the LCD-3 competitive with the SR-007?

To clarify my "mini-review" heading, I always call my reviews "mini-reviews" when the review period is a relatively short length of time, as my reviews are usually done over months. In this case for the LCD-3, the review period was approximately 4 weeks.

This mini-review can be considered as a companion/follow-up piece to my Audeze LCD-2 multi-way review, which can be read here: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd2-planar-magnetic-headphones/reviews/10299

Note: the review LCD-3 unit is one I bought. I usually write reviews on stuff I buy, as I'm averse to manufacturer loans—IMO this removes any manufacturer expectations on the review, and it allows me to take as much time as I want as well.

Reviewer Biases & Info

My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.

Some portions of the review/notes below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 30 now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony or chamber orchestra, and I've attended classical-music concerts as well.

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval XLR
- Headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp GS-X for the dynamic headphones, HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE for the SR-007 (OII MKI)
- Comparison headphones: Audeze LCD-2 r2, Audio-Technica AD2000, Sennheiser HD800, Stax SR-007
- Aftermarket headphone cables: Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3 XLR on Audeze headphones and HD800, APureSound V3 XLR on AD2000

It should also be noted here that I used the LCD-3, LCD-2 r2, and AD2000 solely in balanced mode. I never once used the stock ADZ-6 or ADZ-6-B4 cables. I used balanced mode because I expected the LCD-3 to sonically benefit from it, as I previously compared the LCD-2 r2 balanced on my GS-X versus unbalanced on the Schiit Lyr and found that it sounded better when balanced on the GS-X.

Evaluation Music

CDs by the following artists/bands, by genre:

- Americana/Bluegrass/Folk: Alison Krauss & Union Station, Priscilla Ahn
- Blues: Eva Cassidy
- Classical: Carlos Kleiber & VPO, Julia Fischer, Nicola Benedetti
- Electronica/Trip-Hop/Industrial: Andrea Parker, Fluke, Front Line Assembly, Future Sound of London, Hybrid, Massive Attack, Neotropic, Orbital, Portishead, The Crystal Method, The Prodigy
- Jazz: Dave Brubeck, Lee Morgan, Tord Gustavsen
- Rock: Porcupine Tree, Tool
- Metal: Amon Amarth, Anthrax, Arch Enemy, Behemoth, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Helloween, Lacuna Coil, Meshuggah, Soilwork
- Soundtracks: Batman Begins (film OST), Descent II (PC game)

Specific tracks on the CDs are given in the review notes (see the PDF, linked at the top).

vs LCD-2 r2

When I first started informally comparing the LCD-3 to the LCD-2 r2, I wasn't sure there was a huge difference between them—the differences seemed subtle, primarily in the soundstaging.

However, after extended critical comparisons I ended up concluding that the LCD-3 was more different than I initially thought—and in some ways, better, though not in every aspect. The primary differences that I found between the two were: more treble quantity and more of a treble tilt on the LCD-2, accordingly less bass and mid-range quantity on the LCD-2, and a suffocating forward/up-front/closed-in soundstage on the LCD-2—specifically, too-close positioning of musical elements that made music sound more directly in front (as well as directly to the left & right sides), plus just a slight sense of trapped sound-wave reverberation (sort of like the acoustics of a small soundproofed room). The LCD-3's soundstage, on the other hand, wasn't as suffocating and for me was a step in the right direction—adding just enough breathing room and pushing everything away so nothing felt too close.

The more listening I did between the LCD-2 and LCD-3, the more I came to like the LCD-3—for specifically its added mid-range body and bass quantity. Though it did seem to sacrifice a bit of treble quantity in comparison, the LCD-3 sounded even more full, visceral, and tactile, traits that I thought were already done fairly well on the LCD-2. Not that this was a day & night type of difference, but for me it was noticeable enough to increase my enjoyment of certain music genres like electronica/trip-hop and metal.

Based on my cumulative headphone experience since 2006 (dynamic & electrostatic), I'd call the LCD-3 one of the most visceral-, tactile-sounding headphones that I've heard to date. To me it represented almost exactly what I originally wanted from Audeze when I first heard the LCD-2 r1—a ballsy, gut-driving, bass-focused, and very assertive-sounding headphone. I'd probably sum it up as a less-suffocating, heavier-, and darker-sounding version of the LCD-2 r2—sort of like the LCD-2 r2 tuned down for even more mid-range/bass presence, and with more spatial dimension at the same time (primarily in z-axis depth, but also x-axis lateral span). In other words, the LCD-3 offered more physical-, deeper-sounding vocals (mostly male, but also female) and brought out instruments like bass guitars more. For me this made the LCD-3 an even more obvious choice than the LCD-2 for electronica/trip-hop, heavy/hard rock, and metal music—it just made everything sound more atmospherically "dark" or malevolent. In fact, I think I'd recommend the LCD-3 for listeners of dark or malevolent music in general, it was that awesome. By the end of my LCD-3 ownership, I was seriously enjoying the LCD-3 on industrial music as well—I'll just say it was bad-ass! I can't think of a reason why anyone who listens to electronica/trip-hop, hard rock, or metal, would be dissatisfied with the LCD-3.

vs SR-007/BHSE

Not that the LCD-3 didn't also do well with other genres like classical and jazz, because it did—it was completely fine. Acceptable for most people I'm sure, and for me it was probably among the best dynamic headphones I've heard for this music type—but that's not really saying all that much for me, as the only other full-size dynamic headphones that I think are the best for classical & jazz are the Grado HP1000 and Sennheiser HD600.

However, classical music is where I started noticing most of the LCD-3's recurring flaws from the LCD-2 (r1 & r2). The LCD-3 continued to lack in the aspects that I criticized the LCD-2—specifically scale, dynamic range, soundstage accuracy, clarity, and diffusion. To be more specific on scale, dynamic range, & clarity:

- Scale: This is a subjectively nebulous term admittedly, but on orchestral recordings, usually you want the orchestra to sound "big"—i.e., to generate a wall of sound that fills up the acoustic space and sounds like every instrument section is contributing to it left to right, back to front (violins to cellos, including percussion and brass from the back). The LCD-3 never sounded like anything more than mid-sized, while the SR-007 consistently generated that filling wall of sound from a massive-sounding symphony orchestra. For me, scale also alternately means a single instrument (or a few at most) sounding small as well, which the LCD-3 didn't convincingly portray and made single instruments stick out way too much in the soundtrack mix.

- Dynamic range: The LCD-3 rehashed the LCD-2's relative inability to produce really quiet versus really loud volumes, in contrast to the SR-007, which is extremely adept at this. Pianissimo-level violin parts, for example, simply sounded not very quiet on it, and likewise fortissimo volume levels weren't tear-off-the-ceiling loud. Additionally, everything in between quiet and loud all sounded at similar volume levels with barely any audible modulation. In fact, it seemed like there were only 3 volume settings on the LCD-3: slightly quiet, moderate, and slightly loud. This actually negatively affected my enjoyment of recordings like Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven 5 & 7 with the VPO, Nicola Benedetti's Fantasie (specifically "Spiegel Im Spiegel"), and Julia Fischer's Bach Concertos & Paganini: 24 Caprices. In contrast to the LCD-3's might-as-well-have-been 3 volume settings, the SR-007 rendered everything from barely-there quiet to intensely loud, and every music piece sounded way better because of it.

For those familiar with the musical terms, I'd describe the dynamic range of the LCD-3 vs SR-007 this way: the LCD-3's seemed like it went from mezzo-piano (mp) to mezzo-forte (mf). The SR-007's seemed like it went from pianissimo possibile (ppp) to fortissimo possibile (fff). The LCD-3 was completely incapable of rendering sforzando, which the SR-007 handled easily. Other musical dynamics that were also mostly lost on the LCD-3 but properly conveyed on the SR-007: crescendo/diminuendo, fortepiano, & marcato (among others as well, but notably these).

- Clarity: I expected this to be a large improvement on the LCD-3 from the LCD-2 given its new "Lotus" driver as reported by Audeze, but found that in actuality it was actually largely exactly the same and didn't offer any improved clarity. As in the case of LCD-2, there was a severe noticeable disparity between the LCD-3 and SR-007 in this aspect. I ended up concluding that its lack of clarity was completely unacceptable for a $2K headphone—it should have been much better considering the ~100% price increase over the LCD-2.

Ultimately the LCD-3 failed just about as much as the LCD-2 in approaching the level of my SR-007 electrostatic system for classical & jazz, barely sounding like any kind of progress over the LCD-2. Though it was certainly at least one step closer with the improved, less-suffocating soundstaging, it needed at least 100 more steps (if not more) to even get on the same plane of existence as the SR-007. It had less-realistic-sounding violins than the LCD-2 as well (not enough treble quantity), which to me was a step backwards.

vs HD800

I wrote in my LCD-2 multi-way review that I thought the LCD-2 had a yin-yang relationship with the HD800, with the two as sonic opposites—the HD800 being clear and treble-tilted with a very open soundstage, the LCD-2 being more mid-range- and bass-tilted with a compressed soundstage.

I ended up thinking that the LCD-3 was even more yin to the HD800's yang. It was even more opposite to the HD800 thanks to its increased, heavier mid-range & bass and dulled treble, contributing to a fuller, more "assertive" sound compared to the HD800's thinner, "passive" sound. The two headphones seemed like a good complementary pairing and I could easily believe that a Head-Fier would want to own both for different reasons.

vs AD2000

I wrote of the LCD-2 in its multi-way review that it was heavier-, deeper-, and more physical-sounding versus the AD2K, with less treble quantity as well. This was even truer for the LCD-3, enough that it was almost an opposite to the AD2K in only the frequency-balance aspect. It was clearly a darker-, heavier-sounding "version" of the AD2K as well with much more of a fill in the lower mid-range and bass. It was a very nice difference, as this made the LCD-3 sound more "mean".

Although the LCD-3 got substantially closer than the LCD-2 to unseating the AD2K as my favorite headphone (disturbingly close, actually), it failed mostly because it just didn't have the AD2K's forward-moving insistent sound that I've gotten used to. If the LCD-3 had that elusive quality from the AD2K, that would probably be my ideal headphone—or to put it another way, if the AD2K had the LCD-3's bass, that'd be my ultimate electronica/rock/metal headphone, period.

Postmortem

I really enjoyed my short time with the LCD-3. So much that I actually kinda miss it a little bit now (sold it just after my 4th week with the headphones). It kicked serious ass on especially electronic, industrial, and metal music.

Some might ask why I sold both the LCD-2 r2 and LCD-3. There were two major reasons: (1) Neither of them were very comfortable to wear and exerted too much clamping pressure, and (2) Neither of them sonically offered much beyond the AD2K or HD800 for my music preferences while downright detracting my enjoyment in certain ways (lack of forward-moving insistence versus the AD2K, lack of treble versus the HD800) and as a dynamic counterpart to my electrostatic system it wasn't remotely good enough. For all the times I tried listening to music I would've otherwise used my electrostatic system for, I couldn't get past the LCD-3's sub-standard portrayal.

I think anyone seeking more high-end options than the LCD-2 should seriously consider an electrostatic system instead of the LCD-3, like an SR-007 & KGSS, or just not bother upgrading at all. For me personally, I can easily get just about all of the LCD-3 enjoyment through my Audio-Technica AD2K instead, which is ~25% the cost. I do admittedly miss the heavy bass and extreme tactility of the LCD-3 now, but the AD2K is awesome in its own way. My current headphone system comprised of the balanced AD2K and HD800 plus the SR-007 & BHSE, with the JH13 IEMs thrown in for good measure, meets my preferences just about perfectly for every music type that I listen to. I can live without the LCD-3, but that doesn't mean I didn't think it was awesome—it was, but it was also a severe let-down to me at the same time. Despite that, the LCD-3 easily earned a place on my personal above-average headphone ranking, which also includes the HD800, T1, LCD-2 (r1/r2), and Grado HP1000, but for me it's too bad it couldn't transcend to my excellent ranking, which includes the SR-007, Qualia 010, and JH13 (IEMs).

As highly as I thought of the LCD-3 in certain aspects, at the same time I thought it was very mediocre too. It took some steps forward from the LCD-2—wider & deeper soundstaging, fuller mid-range contributing to increased tactility; but it made no progress at all in other aspects including scale, dynamic range, and clarity. As awesome as it was for the music types mentioned above, it didn't sound like the improvement it should have been over the LCD-2 at approximately twice the price, and for that I can't recommend it for any kind of critical listeners who'd be expecting the LCD-3 to be "better" than the LCD-2.

Related Reading

- LCD-2 multi-way review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd2-planar-magnetic-headphones/reviews/10299
- Audio-Technica AD2K 5-year re-review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audio-technica-ath-ad2000/reviews/10293
- Beyerdynamic T1 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-tesla-t1/reviews/10295
- Sennheiser HD800 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-800-headphones/reviews/10294

Originally published on November 11, 2012
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/635893/mini-review-stax-sr-009

- download a printable 6-page PDF version of this mini-review (target goes to a location on my Dropbox)

Intro

I've been an owner of the HeadAmp BHSE for just over 3 years so far, which I use with the Stax SR-007 (OII MKI). My opinion of the OII/BHSE is that it forms the best headphone system that I've heard and is so amazing that it's changed me on the inside forever and continues to do so every time I listen to it.

Things just never stay still in the headphone world though, and when the SR-009 came out, of course I had to hear it. I got that opportunity at a few audio shows & Head-Fi meets over the last year, but those experiences didn't compel me enough to buy an SR-009 for myself. Despite that, I still remained optimistic and held out hope to one day hear one on my own system, to see if my CD player would make a difference. I finally got that chance recently thanks largely to CanJam@RMAF 2012, where I managed to acquire a loan from one of the most reliable sources that I know of (who shall remain nameless).

This mini-review is based on approximately 3 weeks of listening—not an ideal length of time for me, as I usually prefer to devote at least a month for a review, if not longer. My usual disclaimer applies: my opinion of the SR-009 shouldn't be considered final and is subject to change.

Reviewer Biases & Info, Equipment Setup, etc

For those who haven't seen it before, here's a link to one of my more recent mini-reviews; nothing has changed since then with the exception of my equipment setup: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/10298

Here's a breakdown of my current equipment setup:
- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series XLR
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE w/ stock Mullard EL34 tubes (power cord: Parasound AWG12)
- Comparison headphones: Stax SR-007 (OII MKI)

Evaluation Music

CDs by the following artists/bands, by genre:

- Bluegrass: Alison Krauss & Union Station, Sierra Hull
- Classical: Carlos Kleiber & VPO, Julia Fischer, Nicola Benedetti
- Electronica/Trip-Hop: Goldfrapp, Massive Attack, Orbital, The Crystal Method, Trifonic
- Jazz: Dave Brubeck, Lee Morgan, Tord Gustavsen
- Rock: Porcupine Tree, Radiohead
- Metal: In Flames, Helloween, Megadeth, Meshuggah

Preconceptions & Initial Impressions

I had one big preconception of the SR-009 going into this review—I thought it would be like an electrostatic equivalent of the Sony Qualia 010. Not for any particular, logical reason, just an assumption based on informal listening in show/meet environments.

After having formally heard the SR-009 now, I'd now call my assumption to be false and I no longer think the SR-009 and Qualia 010 to be each other's equivalents in an electrostatic/dynamic kind of way. More to the point, I think the two headphones are clearly different from each other sonically. The Qualia 010 is probably best described as a very treble-oriented headphone, with a very wide & open soundstage, extremely clear-sounding, and fast (as in impulse response). To me, it remains the single clearest-sounding headphone that I've ever heard, of any type, eclipsing the SR-009 as well. Its treble also remains the best that I've heard to date—perfectly pristine and sharp. Not that the SR-009 had "bad" treble—it's just that I think the Qualia has the right amount of treble energy to make music sound realistically trebly, when necessary. I'm sure there are lots of people who would find the Qualia over-bright—but IMO, its treble quantity is perfectly realistic and remains my benchmark for all future headphones.

As far as initial impressions, to say that the SR-009 was a disappointment would be an understatement. I thought there'd be a significant difference between it and the OII MKI, but on first listen, I found that the two headphones were more similar than different and that the SR-009 didn't offer any immediately-obvious advantages over the OII MKI. It was clear that I'd have to do very critical listening in order to identify any sonic advantages it had.

Listening Test #1 - Synopsis

Although the OII MKI is admittedly my classical & jazz headphone primarily, I use it relatively often for other music genres as well, including electronica/trip-hop, folk/bluegrass, pop/rock, & metal. I consider the OII MKI as the single most "neutral"-sounding headphone that I've ever heard, of any type—almost every other headphone I've heard has had some type of overt sonic coloration, from brands like AKG, Audio-Technica, Beyerdynamic, Grado, Sennheiser, etc. The only other specific headphone models I'd class as close to "neutral" are the Grado HP1000 and JH Audio JH13 (IEMs). And no, I don't consider the Audeze headphones to be neutral either, though the LCD-2 r2 is certainly closer than the LCD-3. How do I define "neutral"? Mostly by the OII MKI and previously the HP1000—a balance between the bass, mid-range, & treble where none of them over-balance each other, providing a tone & timbre that sounds "realistic" when playing instruments that exist in real life, like a violin, which I'm intimately familiar with as a violinist. The OII MKI and the HP1000 are the only headphones, electrostatic or dynamic, that I've heard which I'd call neutral—none of the other full-size headphones I've heard to date deserve such a label, IMO.

With that said, I found that the SR-009 was relatively neutral-sounding too, though not quite as much as the OII MKI, with a marginal bass & mid-range detraction and slightly elevated treble. I'd summarize it as a somewhat brighter- and thinner-sounding OII MKI overall, but not excessively so, just marginally. And although I'd call the SR-009 "brighter" than the OII MKI comparatively, I wouldn't call the SR-009 "bright" per se, certainly not on the level of headphones like the Sennheiser HD800, let alone the Sony Qualia 010. The SR-009 was actually very well-balanced to me, easily more balanced-sounding than the dynamic (or orthodynamic) flagships that I've heard from Audeze, Beyerdynamic, and Sennheiser.

To summarize the SR-009's distinction versus the popular dynamics that I've heard: compared to both the Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-3, I'd say that it has a lot more clarity & treble quantity and a wider, more open soundstage. It's also more laid-back and passive-sounding compared to the assertive sound that the Audeze headphones have, without the visceral & tactile mid-range/bass either. I'd consider the SR-009 more loosely similar to the Sennheiser HD800, in that it has a similar level of clarity throughout the spectrum (but being better than the HD800), along with a similar passive sound, and a very generally similar sort of frequency-spectrum balance, except being better. Or to put it another way, I might say the SR-009 is sort of like a fixed version of the HD800 for me—less treble snarl/gnash, more mid-range quantity, more extended bass & treble, and a more accurate, smaller soundstage. (I'll note here that my HD800 thoughts are from it amped by the HeadAmp GS-X, and not a tube amp, which I might say is optimal for it.)

Listening Test #2 - Classical Music

My most critical listen throughout this review was classical music—specifically, the Adagio from the Violin Concerto in E major (BWV 1042) on Julia Fischer's Bach Concertos (or track 8 on this CD), which IMO remains the single best, most amazing display of prowess of the OII MKI/BHSE. There are so many awesome qualities that are revealed by the OII MKI, so my first question was, would this track sound even better on the SR-009?

No, it didn't, and the SR-009 actually ended up being somewhat of a bitter disappointment. Ok sure, the music still sounded technically "amazing" on the SR-009. It was also still way, way better than all of the dynamic headphones I've heard. And to its credit, it was still on the same plane of existence as the OII MKI.

However, the problem with the SR-009 was that it just wasn't as good as the OII MKI, and it had none of the OII's "magic" or x-factor either. On this track, the OII reveals so many details: Fischer's beautiful, pure, & radiating tone; a direct intimacy to her violin, so close you can practically hear into it; the vanishingly subtle rises & falls in intensity; an almost heat-like warmth quality; the organic sense of the orchestra. All of those details were subtracted with the SR-009—most of them completely! The SR-009's portrayal took away so many of those details that the music reverted to simply sounding like a really good pre-recorded performance and not something that was being played live, like the OII MKI can do.

I tried other classical CDs as well to round out the test and would put my position of the SR-009 for classical music this way: saying that the SR-009 is ideal for classical music would be like saying the same for the Sennheiser HD800—which is not something that I can personally agree with. I think of the HD800 to be a less-than-stellar headphone for classical due to some serious flaws, most notably the unrealistic & unnatural tone and timbre of the instruments in the orchestra, especially violins. It was the same way with the SR-009, which gave too much treble emphasis on violins so that they became wispy-sounding. Also like the HD800, the SR-009 "split" the 1st Violin section too much so that the violins sounded more like individual violins rather than a unified section body. There are only 2 headphones I've heard that properly portray the unified body concept, the OII MKI and the Grado HP1000—which should be the goal for accuracy, but most headphones fail to achieve it and the SR-009 was no exception.

Listening Test #3 - Versus The OII MKI

Comparing the SR-009 and OII MKI directly against each other across multiple genres of music was both educational and introspective—it repeatedly made me ask myself which headphone sounded more accurate, which one was more rewarding & satisfying to listen to, and most importantly, which was better, if one could be called better than the other.

I ended up concluding that the OII MKI essentially beat the pants off the SR-009. The SR-009 was certainly a very strong contender though, and I'd affirm that it's definitely among the best-sounding headphones overall of any type. Easily among the Top 5 that I've heard to date. I might as well list my Top 5 for reference (not necessarily in order, as I don't "rank" headphones per se): (1) Stax OII MKI, (2) Sony Qualia 010, (3) Grado HP1000, (4) JH Audio JH13, and now (5) Stax SR-009. Moreover, I'd call the SR-009 probably one of the most technically-amazing headphones that I've heard to date, after the Qualia 010. Very clean- & clear-sounding, inherently fast (i.e., impulse response), and appropriately diffuse-sounding with very good separation between layers/instruments.

But the SR-009 wasn't really that awesome next to the OII MKI. The most notable difference to me was the lack of "magic" or x-factor like the OII has. The OII was also simply more natural- & authentic-sounding in the mid-range with a fuller sound and heavier, more physical-feeling bass. Or to put it another way, the OII had more impactful drums & bass lines, heavier guitars, and more vocal presence. This made the OII MKI seem like a more musically versatile headphone, as it played electric & synthesized music very well too. I thought the SR-009 was at its best with primarily acoustic, laid-back types of music—classical, jazz, folk, etc. However, it didn't fare as well with trip-hop, pop/rock, & metal, as it lacked the OII's mid-range, mid-bass, & bass spark to really make them come alive.

I also felt that the SR-009's imaging was a step down from the OII MKI's. Granted, it did have a wide, deep soundstage that felt more 3D due to the increased z-axis depth and some added height as well, but it also felt narrower than the OII. More importantly, the SR-009 did not have clearly-delineated walls in the soundstage and felt very flat & vapid. Or in other words, it had a very limited ability to clearly render reverberation and the sense of sound waves reflecting throughout the virtual soundstage. It was because of this aspect that despite having a smaller soundstage, the OII actually sounded "bigger" and more "expansive" than the SR-009, as it allowed sound to really fill up "everywhere" to the point of hitting the walls, so to speak.

Needless to say, this affected "scale" as well, as the SR-009 never quite sounded as "big" as the OII MKI and consistently failed to deliver a sweeping "wall of sound" that wrapped from one end of the soundstage to the other. The SR-009's idea of a "wall of sound" felt like a small, translucent wall instead that was just sad in comparison.

Tube Rolling & Gain/Volume

I briefly tried the Genalex Gold Lion KT77s on the SR-009 and would have to say that these tubes had a better effect on the SR-009 than the OII MKI. I've found that these tubes add bass impact and more body to the mid-range, which was a better result on the SR-009 than the OII MKI. The KT77s didn't rectify the SR-009's sonic issues for me though, but there was still an appreciable added difference with them.

The issue of gain is one that's been reported by other SR-009/BHSE owners, but I didn't run into this issue myself, as my specific BHSE has a lower gain than normal due to its configuration of Stax Pro + Normal jacks. This made my BHSE well-suited for driving the SR-009, as I could achieve just about any volume that I wanted, even from the 4V RMS balanced output of my source.

On the subject of sensitivity, I found that the SR-009 required about 3 less steps on my DACT-configured BHSE to achieve approximately the same volume as the OII MKI. I also tried turning up the volume to moderately high levels on the SR-009 to see how it would respond and it continued to sound very good even at high levels. No issues or detractions that I can report from high volume.

Conclusion

The SR-009 ended up being about as underwhelming & disappointing to me as it is expensive, and I'd have to dissent with the prevalent opinion among other Head-Fiers that it's one of the best headphones currently in production, electrostatic or not. I saw it as essentially a step backwards from the OII MKI—enough that I'd degrade its ranking to "above average" from the OII MKI's "excellent".

I view the OII MKI as the superior headphone and recommend it instead for anyone truly seeking a serious & honest high-end electrostatic setup.

For reference, these are some other headphones that I rank as "above average"—Audeze LCD-3, Beyerdynamic T1, Grado HP1000, Sennheiser HD800, Shure SRH1840, and Stax SR-507. However, just because I classify the SR-009 as being "above average" doesn't mean I think it actually deserves the company of those other headphones, as I think it's better than all of them. It's just that it ultimately fell short of being "excellent" to me, as did those other headphones. As might be inferred, there's a lot of subjective gray area within my rankings, which is intentional—I've historically avoided numerically ranking gear for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that it's extremely subjective and prone to misinterpretation. The only reason I have a ranking scale that goes from "atrocious" to "excellent" is to help identify equipment that truly stands out from the rest. "Average" for me includes headphones like the AKG K2xx/K70x, most of the Audio-Technica woodies, most of the Grado models made under John Grado, Sennheiser HD6xx, etc—i.e., most of the venerable classics that sound very good to the highest cross-section of Head-Fiers with mid-level gear & experience. It's easy for most headphones to fall under "average" to me for this reason—there aren't very many that are below-average or atrocious to me. "Below-average" to me includes the Audio-Technica ATH-ES7 and Sennheiser HD419 (both of which I own—yes, I'm critical even of the headphones that I own!) and the new Denon AH-D7100, for example. Finally, "atrocious" includes Apple iBuds. Enough said?

My ranking system is in place primarily for two reasons: (1) to help set reasonable expectations for newbie or mid-level Head-Fiers seeking to upgrade, (2) to help equalize the field among the high-end options for high-level Head-Fiers seeking to sidegrade or upgrade—i.e., someone who's heard as much dynamic gear as I have who thinks the HD800 is one of the best headphones available might come to the conclusion that he might not need to get an SR-009 or the BHSE. Or someone who already owns the SR-009 and BHSE might conclude that he needs to try an SR-007. Or conversely, someone who owns the OII MKI and BHSE might conclude that he doesn't need to try the SR-009.

Related Reading

- Stax SR-007 & HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE review & story: http://www.head-fi.org/t/598589/review-story-stax-sr-007-headamp-blue-hawaii-se
- Audeze LCD-3 mini-review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/10298
- Beyerdynamic T1 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-tesla-t1/reviews/10295
- Sennheiser HD800 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-800-headphones/reviews/10294

Addendum - Review Notes

My review notes are included here in their own section for convenience. These provide specific detailed info not included in the review. Notes start below the asterisks.

***
009 not the electrostatic equivalent of Qualia, as previously thought.

009 imaging more divergent/diffuse. More front- & center-loaded, not as close & wide as 007. Almost like a shell, but large. Instrument positioning further away, yet lacks the "air" of the 007 that allows details like reflected sound to be heard on it. Reflected sound not very apparent on 009. Room acoustics in general not as clear on 009 as on 007.
 
Spatially-larger imaging on 009—narrower width than 007, but more depth & height, more of a 3D-like effect. More "air" in the acoustics. Somewhat HD800-like, but not as much as HD800.

Deeper mids & bass on 007—more of a heavier, almost physical sound, for a stat that is (dynamics tend to sound more physical than stats). 009 lighter- or thinner-sounding with more treble quantity, but not as much as Qualia (or even the HD800). Relative to 007, not absolute.

SR-007 consistently more percussive sounding (harder-sounding pops).

Despite lack of stats sounding "direct" in general, 007 sounds more direct & assertive than 009. 009 more laid-back and passive.

Reverb more pronounced on 007, allows ambient electronica to sound more "space-filling" than on 009 where it sounds vapid. Sounds "bigger" on 007 due to clearly-delineated walls. No clear "walls" on 009. 009 like HD800 in this aspect—neither has walls, they just sound open & empty yet flat at the same time.

Violin tone more natural/authentic on 007, more wispy & ghostly on 009. 009 also reduces "unified body" of 1st violin section—too much of an individual-violins effect, not enough of the group effect. 007 renders a properly intact 1st violin section. 007 also tends to put the listener position at the conductor; 009 puts the listener in the audience row. 007 also renders more detail in violin-bowing technique—speed, inflection, etc.

009 loses the 007's magic/x-factor—the intensity, the live-performance surrealistic immersion. 009 slides back to more of a pre-recorded music feel. 007 has a more tactile/visceral sound, esp in bass/mids. 007 has more depth/richness/fullness in mids than 009—i.e., violins & vocals "swell" more on 007. 007 has more "fill" factor. 007 capable of a more powerful/intense sound.

007's smaller soundstage and mids better-suited for jazz. 007 "brassier" and "reedier" sounding than 009, which loses those elements.

Piano semi-plinky on 009—lack of depth/weight to notes. Not enough "weight" to various instruments on jazz recordings on 009, notably piano & brass (Dave Brubeck, Steve Kuhn). A440 that should "pound" on Brubeck's Time Out LE doesn't really pound on 009. More integrated imaging on 007 better for jazz, puts listener more in with the group (a la Grado HP1000, but not as much).

Julia Fischer Bach Concertos track #8: 007 captures a more beautiful, radiating, pure tone on Fischer's violin than 009. The almost heat-shimmering radiance not there on 009. 007 also has more of a chamber-orchestra feel than 009 in terms of the imaging, like you're in with the orchestra, practically right next to Fischer, which is probably more accurate. 009 has more of a sitting-away-from-the-orchestra feel. 007 does have smoother treble, sort of negatively affects edginess of harpsichord specifically, but nothing that overly detracts from it.

CD albums used for review:
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - So Long So Wrong, Paper Airplane
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition]
- Goldfrapp - Black Cherry
- Helloween - 7 Sinners
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Lee Morgan - Tom Cat [AudioWave/Blue Note XRCD]
- Massive Attack - Blue Lines, Mezzanine
- Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab]
- Meshuggah - Chaosphere
- Nicola Benedetti - Fantasie
- Orbital - Snivilisation, The Middle of Nowhere
- Porcupine Tree - In Absentia
- Radiohead - OK Computer
- Sierra Hull - Secrets, Daybreak
- The Crystal Method - Vegas [2007 Deluxe Edition]
- Tord Gustavsen - Changing Places
- Trifonic - Emergence

Originally published on September 6, 2010
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800

- download a printable 8-page PDF version of this review
- download a printable 9-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review. The notes contain much more detailed info broken down by individual CD tracks and will probably be worth reading for those seeking even more info to assist with a buying decision. The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes) - I recommend reading this review first and then reading the notes.
 
Post-review amp comparison installments (comparing M3 vs SPL Auditor):
- T1: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800/75#post_6928382
- K701: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800/75#post_6943875
- HD800: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800/105#post_6985524

Intro

As is typical of previous reviews I've written on Head-Fi, the review that follows below is a comparative one—because writing about only one headphone does not put anything into context and without context it's impossible for anyone to determine how a headphone might sound through inference. In fact, this review assumes that the reader has heard one of the headphones that were used as a comparative reference—be it the T1 or HD800 themselves, or the AKG K701, Audio-Technica AD2000, Grado HP1000/HP2, or Sony Qualia 010. But for those who have not heard one of those headphones, I have also tried to accommodate for that as well, drawing from my cumulative headphone experience gained since 2006 through either buying/selling or exposure at Head-Fi meets. (All gear I've heard is listed in my profile for reference.)

Reviewer Biases & Info

My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.

Some portions of the review below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 29 now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony orchestra, and I've attended classical-music concerts as well.

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- RCA interconnects: BPT IC-SL
- Headphone amplifier: Rockhopper-built Balanced M3 (used in unbalanced mode)
- Other comparison headphones: AKG K701 (re-cabled with SAA Equinox), Audio-Technica AD2000 (re-cabled with APS V3), Grado HP1000/HP2 (re-cabled with APS V3), Sony Qualia 010 (re-cabled with Moon Audio Black Dragon)

Beyerdynamic T1 vs AKG K701

Music used for this comparison:
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Lonely Runs Both Ways - "A Living Prayer"
- Pierre Boulez w/ Vienna - Mahler Symphony No. 6 - "I. Allegro energico"
- Priscilla Ahn - A Good Day - "Dream"
- Radiohead - In Rainbows - "Reckoner"

Now that I personally dispelled for myself the idea that the K701 was not a substandard version of the HD800, a different thought came to mind: would the K701 be a substandard version of the T1 instead? Actually....incidentally that's exactly what I discovered. Yes, the T1 is a better version of the K701! Wait...what?! I had to re-check this many times to confirm, but I indeed found that the K701 and T1 actually had some overall similarities, enough that one might be able to call the T1 an improved version of the K701. But first, before getting to the sonic differences, both headphones tended to sound better loud, though it was the K701 that sonically broke apart at high volume (while the T1 maintained its sonic integrity).

Now what were the similarities? Well, neither headphone had particularly good treble and were both rolled off (preventing me from enjoying the actual bluegrass songs on the Alison Krauss CD, hence the use of only the last track), their soundstages were similarly-sized (more on that in a bit), and they both sounded less than clear (compared to the HD800 at least, let alone the Sony SA5000/Qualia 010, or the JH Audio JH13 IEMs).

There were plenty of differences to note though, almost all of which could be considered improvements from the K701. First, the K701 seemed to exaggerate vocal power on both Alison Krauss and Priscilla Ahn (as neither of them have powerful voices which is why it was noticeable) while the T1 minimized this, though it too sort of had this effect, just not as much. Vocalists who don't have powerful lungs shouldn't sound like they do, right? And the T1 did the more convincing job at conveying how these two female singers should sound. The soundstage also seemed to be more accurate on the T1 (but not completely)—just a bit more air injected than the K701, but not too much to have the almost cavern-like acoustics of the HD800, while placing instruments further away (like more to the left or right) and displacing the female vocals (that the K701 routinely brought forward) for a better 3D sense of depth and width. The T1 also had more clarity overall than the K701 (but not as much as the HD800), for example allowing proper distinction of the left-channel acoustic guitar and right-channel acoustic bass in the Priscilla Ahn track. There was also a certain type of detail that the T1 routinely captured that the K701 didn't: the "resonance" an instrument like an acoustic double-bass or guitar can exhibit when the right note is played and the instrument vibrates along with the string to add a kind of "warmth" to the sound.

The T1 was also a significant step up from the K701 on classical music—with good clarity on the opening double-basses on Boulez's Mahler #6 for example, capturing their fast bow strokes and the similarly fast bow strokes from the violins. The horns filled the acoustic space more than on the K701 with a good amount of sonority and their position relative to the trumpets was better delineated too. The T1 also caught the pizzicato of the violins and the rat-a-tats of the snare drum, which were largely missed by the K701.
 
Beyerdynamic T1 vs Grado HP1000/HP2 (flat pads)

Music used for this comparison:
- Carlos Kleiber w/ Vienna - Beethoven Symphonies No. 5 & 7 - No. 5 - "Allegro con brio"
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition] - "Blue Rondo a la Turk"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - Concerto for 2 violins in D minor - "III. Allegro"
- Lee Morgan - Tom Cat [XRCD] - "Twice Around"
- Medeski Martin & Wood - Uninvisible - "Uninvisible", "Ten Dollar High"
- Pierre Boulez w/ Vienna - Mahler Symphony No. 6 - "I. Allegro energico"
- Steve Kuhn - Mostly Coltrane - "Song of Praise"
- Weather Report - Heavy Weather [1997] - "Birdland", "A Remark You Made"

If there was a commonality throughout all of the jazz music selections on the Grado HP2, it was that they all sounded good—but more specifically, it sounded like the featured instruments (which were mostly saxophones or trumpets) were playing at me, not just for me or in front of me, but like their directed point of focus was towards the listener. This made all of the jazz sound really personal and very direct on the HP2. Combined with the HP2's thick and very full mid-range, it was like sitting right in there with the jazz group and jamming along with them.

Throwing the T1 into the mix produced some interesting results, not all of which were positive. On Weather Report's "Birdland" for example, the T1 sounded like it had less mid-range body on the instruments, almost making them sound lightweight even, coming immediately after the HP2. The T1 also made the piano on this song sound almost like a honky-tonk piano—which neither the HP2 (or the HD800) did, it was only the T1. And on Steve Kuhn's "Song of Praise," the HP2 delivered the most closest-positioned, soulful-sounding tenor sax with a fantastically rich tone—but the T1, on the other hand, displaced the tenor sax and almost made it sound like not part of the jazz group due to its positioning. And on Lee Morgan's "Twice Around," the HP2 had the fullest- and most direct-sounding trumpet, alto sax, and drums, with a fantastic sense of the group interacting with each other. The HP2 also made it really easy to tell apart the trumpet, alto sax, and trombone too—not so much with the T1 though, and even less so with the HD800, which lost a portion of these brass instruments' textures.

The T1 was better in other aspects though, like conveying a more realistic brighter-tuned piano on Dave Brubeck's "Blue Rondo a la Turk" (it was a little too heavy-sounding on the HP2) and providing harder impacts on the piano keys (the HP2 blunted these impacts). The T1 also produced a significantly clearer-sounding bass on Medeski Martin & Wood's "Uninvisible" with a great ground-shaking bass reverberation (proving itself to have better bass extension than the HP2). And on MM&W's "Ten Dollar High," the T1 properly captured the variety of different instrumental inflections and physical movements & interactions.

And to go back to the topic of realistic tonality of violins in classical music, the HP2 eclipsed the T1. Violins simply sounded more correct/realistic/natural on the HP2 versus the T1. The T1 made them sound just a bit too dark, as the HP2 actually gave a bit more treble sheen to them. But to the T1's credit, the HP2 sounded muffled in comparison—again, clarity isn't exactly one of the HP2's strengths. For some reason though, I ended up concluding that the HP2 required the most "psychoacoustic acclimation" (compared to the T1 and HD800) to really get a transcendental experience for classical music.

Sennheiser HD800 vs Beyerdynamic T1

Music used for this comparison:
- Anne Bisson - Blue Mind - "Camilio"
- Beyond Twilight - Section X - "The Path of Darkness"
- Global Communication - 76:14 - "4:02", "9:39"
- In Flames - The Jester Race - "Moonshield", "Artifacts of the Black Rain"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - Concerto for 2 violins in D minor - "III. Allegro"
- Katie Melua - Piece by Piece - "Shy Boy", "On the Road Again"
- Laika - Good Looking Blues - "Widows' Weed"
- Medeski Martin & Wood - Uninvisible - "Uninvisible", "Ten Dollar High"
- Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction [MFSL] - "Sweating Bullets"
- Meshuggah - Chaosphere - "New Millennium Cyanide Christ"
- Nightwish - Once - "Wish I Had An Angel", "Planet Hell"
- Orbital - The Middle of Nowhere - "Way Out"
- Pearl Jam - Ten - "Even Flow", "Alive"
- Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine - "Bombtrack", "Take The Power Back", "Know Your Enemy"
- Symphony X - Paradise Lost - "Oculus Ex Inferni", "Set the World on Fire", "The Walls of Babylon"
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend - "Murder", "Ten Miles Back"
- The Crystal Method - Vegas [Deluxe Edition] - "High Roller"
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land - "Smack My Bitch Up", "Breathe", "Diesel Power", "Fuel My Fire"
- Trifonic - Emergence - "Emergence", "Transgenic"

And finally for the real showdown, the so-called big guns. Which is the better headphone, the HD800 or T1? Well anyone reading this will probably expect my answer: it's not really that simple and both headphones have their strengths and weaknesses.

I'll start with the recurring subject of violin tonality in classical music, because personally it's a big issue for me as a violinist. My position is: if the violins don't sound real, forget it! And neither the HD800 or T1 delivered realistic violin tone—the HD800 was too bright and wispy and the T1 wasn't "light" enough. What does one do as a solution then? You get the right headphones—and in my case that usually means the Stax OII MKI amped by the HeadAmp BHSE, which achieves the perfect tone. No other headphones need apply. Bam, done. Can't afford the OII/BHSE? IMO the next best solution after that is the Grado HP1000, or if that one is too expensive also, then the Sennheiser HD600.

Next subject, electronica. For ambient electronica specifically, only the Sennheiser HD800 was remotely good enough to do it justice, while the T1 was not, primarily due to the HD800's superior overall clarity, treble tilt, and faster impulse response. Ambient electronica is often buried in lots of layers (more than the average song in any other music genre) and requires a very hi-fi transducer to reveal them all cleanly and clearly—and in the case of Global Communication, Laika, and Trifonic, only the HD800 had the right amount of "clean & clear" to make these artists sound good. The T1 didn't have the silent background required for this type of music and its lack of treble and clarity worked against the type of detail inherent to ambient electronica. Not that the HD800 was perfect though, it was just better at this—as there are other headphones that have even more "clean & clear" sounds, like the Sony SA5000 & Qualia 010. For more bass-driven electronica like The Crystal Method, The Prodigy, etc, the T1 is probably a better choice than the HD800, but not the best one there is. The T1 had more bass quantity in general and delivered a good amount of bass impact and its low extension nearly matched the Audio-Technica AD2000's too. But the T1 didn't deliver a particularly strong bass overall and its slow impulse response held it back from being ideal—the Audio-Technica AD2000 probably being a better choice for people who want a powerful low bass response that's also extremely fast.

Metal is a tricky genre for headphones to handle, as it goes in a lot of different directions. But if there's one commonality in most of metal, it's speed combined with aggression, and the HD800 was consistently too passive-sounding to really get into metal and give it that needed aggression. I will say simply that the HD800 was boring with metal, and who wants boring metal? The T1, on the other hand, was a much better choice for metal, primarily due to its fuller mid-range/mid-bass and smaller soundstage, allowing every band to sound closer and more personal. The T1 simply had a very good direct and assertive sound that made it work very well for a wide variety of metal. However, the T1 wasn't completely ideal for some types of metal, like thrash metal, as its impulse response couldn't quite keep up with some of the faster sequences. For that type of metal, another headphone would be recommended instead, and I've personally gotten better experiences for thrash metal with the Audio-Technica AD2000, JH Audio JH13, and Stax OII MKI.

And finally, jazzy or pop female vocals is one of the most pedestrian forms of music, as it's typically easy for almost any headphone to sound good with and the artists spun for this (Anne Bisson, Katie Melua) didn't really reveal much that wasn't already discovered before, other than perhaps that piano was more realistic sounding on the T1 with its generally richer tone.

Originally published on September 6, 2010
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800

- download a printable 8-page PDF version of this review
- download a printable 9-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review. The notes contain much more detailed info broken down by individual CD tracks and will probably be worth reading for those seeking even more info to assist with a buying decision. The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes) - I recommend reading this review first and then reading the notes.
 
Post-review amp comparison installments (comparing M3 vs SPL Auditor):
- T1: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800/75#post_6928382
- K701: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800/75#post_6943875
- HD800: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800/105#post_6985524

Intro

As is typical of previous reviews I've written on Head-Fi, the review that follows below is a comparative one—because writing about only one headphone does not put anything into context and without context it's impossible for anyone to determine how a headphone might sound through inference. In fact, this review assumes that the reader has heard one of the headphones that were used as a comparative reference—be it the T1 or HD800 themselves, or the AKG K701, Audio-Technica AD2000, Grado HP1000/HP2, or Sony Qualia 010. But for those who have not heard one of those headphones, I have also tried to accommodate for that as well, drawing from my cumulative headphone experience gained since 2006 through either buying/selling or exposure at Head-Fi meets. (All gear I've heard is listed in my profile for reference.)

Reviewer Biases & Info

My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.

Some portions of the review below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 29 now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony orchestra, and I've attended classical-music concerts as well.

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- RCA interconnects: BPT IC-SL
- Headphone amplifier: Rockhopper-built Balanced M3 (used in unbalanced mode)
- Other comparison headphones: AKG K701 (re-cabled with SAA Equinox), Audio-Technica AD2000 (re-cabled with APS V3), Grado HP1000/HP2 (re-cabled with APS V3), Sony Qualia 010 (re-cabled with Moon Audio Black Dragon)

Sennheiser HD800 vs AKG K701

Music used for this comparison:
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Lonely Runs Both Ways - "A Living Prayer"
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - New Favorite - "The Lucky One"
- Carlos Kleiber w/ Vienna - Beethoven Symphonies No. 5 & 7 - No. 5 - "Allegro con brio"
- Eva Cassidy - Live at Blues Alley - "Autumn Leaves"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - Concerto for 2 violins in D minor - "I. Vivace", "III. Allegro"
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine - "Teardrop"
- Pierre Boulez w/ Vienna - Mahler Symphony No. 6 - "I. Allegro energico"
- Porcupine Tree - In Absentia - "Blackest Eyes"
- Priscilla Ahn - A Good Day - "Dream"
- Radiohead - In Rainbows - "Reckoner"
- Zero 7 - When It Falls - "Home"

It could be said that female vocals are one of the K701's strengths, as they're typically very prominent on the headphone as a result of being pushed forward in the mix. This can work for certain female vocalists, like Eva Cassidy and the ones part of Zero 7's group, but not all, notably Alison Krauss. Having heard Alison Krauss on other headphones, including live (at a music festival earlier this year in Colorado), I would say that the K701 portrayed her completely wrong—Alison does not have a particularly "strong" or "powerful" voice and typically sings at lower volumes too, but to make up for it her voice is crystal clear with an extremely "radiant" quality. I found that the K701 unnecessarily added to her lower vocal range and made her sound more "sultry" than "angelic." This was not the case on the HD800, which made her voice sound more correct at a higher register and also maintained her clarity and radiance. The HD800 also made Priscilla Ahn sound more authentic too, retaining the youthful "little girl" quality to her voice, while the K701 tuned her voice away from that "little girl" to something a bit more lower-pitched.

It's been said by other people on Head-Fi that the HD800 is a better version of the K701, but in actual comparative listening between the two headphones, I did not find many similarities to be able to call the HD800 a version of the K701—in fact, I found more differences between them than similarities. Both headphones have a large soundstage, but I found the HD800 to have the bigger one, injecting more air and space into the music than the K701—or in other words, displacing instruments more and translating displacement as a sort of reverb-type effect, like a larger auditorium than the K701 with more acoustically-reflective surfaces. The HD800 also had better frequency extension than the K701, by a wide enough margin that I would call it better in that aspect. The K701 for example missed the second-half of the 3rd note of the heartbeat rhythm on Massive Attack's "Teardrop" but the HD800 was able to audibly resolve this note. The HD800's treble was also able to clearly highlight aspects like guitar plucks, sliding, & string vibrations, cymbal tizzes, and other percussive impacts, while these were largely blurred over by the K701. Granted, the HD800 had a higher degree of clarity throughout the entire spectrum but its treble also brought out the aforementioned details more.

It's probably easier to contrast the two headphones overall—the K701 projected a large soundstage and brought forward the female vocal range while displacing everything else, gently rolled off the treble and bass, and exerted a high degree of control over the entire bass range. The HD800 projected an even larger soundstage with a noticeable "whoosh" of air within it, sounding flatter and significantly clearer throughout the mid-range, with more treble and bass extension & quantity—on the HD800, bass actually boomed and thudded, if it was there on the recording. The K701 also typically sounded better louder, but the HD800 sounded good even at moderate volume and maintained sonic integrity at lower volumes too. The two headphones also reacted differently at very high volume—the K701 sounded "harder" and lost control over multiple concurrent layers (blurring them as a result) while the HD800 didn't break its character and simply just sounded louder. There was also a different style between them—the HD800 simply sounded passive more than anything else, lacking a "directness" to the sound, and sounded more like a headphone playing music for you to analyze by ear. The K701 had a passive sound too but hid behind it better due to its smaller soundstage and closer instrument positioning for a more personal type of sound—in contrast to the HD800, which came across more as away & detached.

There are also some really critical points I have to assess against the HD800 (and K701) for classical music. While everyone may have their own sonic preference, there are certain things that some people will want and others won't. For example, violin tonality—which honestly I've heard very few headphones get correct, and neither the K701 nor the HD800 made violins sound natural. The K701 was too "dark" on them and didn't bring out their treble "brilliance," but the HD800 was too "bright" on them and made them sound too wispy and glossy. The K701 also struggled to separate individual violins in the two sections, but this was easily pulled off by the HD800. The HD800 also had better "macrodynamics," giving more impact & power into sudden volume bursts than the K701. The HD800 also had a faster impulse response that allowed it to better resolve minor details like rolling timpani and pizzicato. Yet, for all these seeming advantages of the HD800, its expanded soundstage & air was actually distracting and key tonalities were off too—violins as already mentioned, but also brass which didn't sound very sonorous.

Sennheiser HD800 vs Grado HP1000/HP2 (flat pads)

Music used for this comparison:
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - Concerto for 2 violins in D minor - "III. Allegro"
- Zubin Mehta w/ Vienna - Mahler Symphony No. 2 - "III. In ruhig flieBender Bewegung"

There were just two musical selections for this comparison to answer just one question: would the venerable Grado HP1K make a stronger case for classical music? Answer: it depends on how you like your classical music to sound. The HD800 was vastly clearer-sounding with a lot more separation between the instruments—or in other words, the position of every instrument section was very discrete and widely spread out across the soundstage. The HP1000, on the other hand, had a compressed soundstage in comparison, almost 2D-like flat and not as wide. But then soundstage is not one of the HP1000's strengths, and neither is clarity, as any owner or fan of it could tell you.

The key strength of the HP1000 is what many of its fans call its "neutral" sound. I think "natural" is a better word for the HP1K, as it gave instruments the kind of sonic texture they need to sound authentic with a real presence, to transcend the headphone experience and make you think you're listening to real instruments (in terms of their sonic texture and body only, not necessarily because of anything else). "Musical" is a vague word but it's one of the words that came to mind listening to the HP1K versus the HD800, because with the HP1K it was easier to focus on the actual music—its concept, its style, its character. With the HD800, it was a lot less than that—it was easier to merely focus on listening to the instrument sections than the actual musical concept. Not that the HP1K's mid-range-focused sound had anything to do with this (whereas the HD800 could probably be considered treble-focused). No, it was completely in their contrasting presentations—the HD800's splitting/separation/diffusion (whatever you want to call it) versus the HP1K's cohesion and integration. The HD800 made it easier to follow the individual instrument sections as a result (sacrificing tonality and "musicality"), and the HP1K made it easier to follow the musical picture (sacrificing clarity and soundstage). To quantify this in a frequency sense, if one considers the HD800 to lack mid-range, then the HP1000 might be a polar opposite (and vice versa).

Sennheiser HD800 vs Beyerdynamic T1

Music used for this comparison:
- Anne Bisson - Blue Mind - "Camilio"
- Beyond Twilight - Section X - "The Path of Darkness"
- Global Communication - 76:14 - "4:02", "9:39"
- In Flames - The Jester Race - "Moonshield", "Artifacts of the Black Rain"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - Concerto for 2 violins in D minor - "III. Allegro"
- Katie Melua - Piece by Piece - "Shy Boy", "On the Road Again"
- Laika - Good Looking Blues - "Widows' Weed"
- Medeski Martin & Wood - Uninvisible - "Uninvisible", "Ten Dollar High"
- Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction [MFSL] - "Sweating Bullets"
- Meshuggah - Chaosphere - "New Millennium Cyanide Christ"
- Nightwish - Once - "Wish I Had An Angel", "Planet Hell"
- Orbital - The Middle of Nowhere - "Way Out"
- Pearl Jam - Ten - "Even Flow", "Alive"
- Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine - "Bombtrack", "Take The Power Back", "Know Your Enemy"
- Symphony X - Paradise Lost - "Oculus Ex Inferni", "Set the World on Fire", "The Walls of Babylon"
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend - "Murder", "Ten Miles Back"
- The Crystal Method - Vegas [Deluxe Edition] - "High Roller"
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land - "Smack My Bitch Up", "Breathe", "Diesel Power", "Fuel My Fire"
- Trifonic - Emergence - "Emergence", "Transgenic"

And finally for the real showdown, the so-called big guns. Which is the better headphone, the HD800 or T1? Well anyone reading this will probably expect my answer: it's not really that simple and both headphones have their strengths and weaknesses.

I'll start with the recurring subject of violin tonality in classical music, because personally it's a big issue for me as a violinist. My position is: if the violins don't sound real, forget it! And neither the HD800 or T1 delivered realistic violin tone—the HD800 was too bright and wispy and the T1 wasn't "light" enough. What does one do as a solution then? You get the right headphones—and in my case that usually means the Stax OII MKI amped by the HeadAmp BHSE, which achieves the perfect tone. No other headphones need apply. Bam, done. Can't afford the OII/BHSE? IMO the next best solution after that is the Grado HP1000, or if that one is too expensive also, then the Sennheiser HD600.

Next subject, electronica. For ambient electronica specifically, only the Sennheiser HD800 was remotely good enough to do it justice, while the T1 was not, primarily due to the HD800's superior overall clarity, treble tilt, and faster impulse response. Ambient electronica is often buried in lots of layers (more than the average song in any other music genre) and requires a very hi-fi transducer to reveal them all cleanly and clearly—and in the case of Global Communication, Laika, and Trifonic, only the HD800 had the right amount of "clean & clear" to make these artists sound good. The T1 didn't have the silent background required for this type of music and its lack of treble and clarity worked against the type of detail inherent to ambient electronica. Not that the HD800 was perfect though, it was just better at this—as there are other headphones that have even more "clean & clear" sounds, like the Sony SA5000 & Qualia 010. For more bass-driven electronica like The Crystal Method, The Prodigy, etc, the T1 is probably a better choice than the HD800, but not the best one there is. The T1 had more bass quantity in general and delivered a good amount of bass impact and its low extension nearly matched the Audio-Technica AD2000's too. But the T1 didn't deliver a particularly strong bass overall and its slow impulse response held it back from being ideal—the Audio-Technica AD2000 probably being a better choice for people who want a powerful low bass response that's also extremely fast.

Metal is a tricky genre for headphones to handle, as it goes in a lot of different directions. But if there's one commonality in most of metal, it's speed combined with aggression, and the HD800 was consistently too passive-sounding to really get into metal and give it that needed aggression. I will say simply that the HD800 was boring with metal, and who wants boring metal? The T1, on the other hand, was a much better choice for metal, primarily due to its fuller mid-range/mid-bass and smaller soundstage, allowing every band to sound closer and more personal. The T1 simply had a very good direct and assertive sound that made it work very well for a wide variety of metal. However, the T1 wasn't completely ideal for some types of metal, like thrash metal, as its impulse response couldn't quite keep up with some of the faster sequences. For that type of metal, another headphone would be recommended instead, and I've personally gotten better experiences for thrash metal with the Audio-Technica AD2000, JH Audio JH13, and Stax OII MKI.

And finally, jazzy or pop female vocals is one of the most pedestrian forms of music, as it's typically easy for almost any headphone to sound good with and the artists spun for this (Anne Bisson, Katie Melua) didn't really reveal much that wasn't already discovered before, other than perhaps that piano was more realistic sounding on the T1 with its generally richer tone.

Originally published on October 6, 2011
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/574882/5-year-re-review-audio-technica-ath-ad2000

- download a printable 7-page PDF version of this review (target goes to a location on my Dropbox)

Intro

How many times does one get to re-review of a set of headphones originally reviewed exactly 5 years ago? Not very often, that's for sure, and the reason I was prompted to write a re-review came about when I recently looked back at my 2006 review thread, which can be read at this link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/199739/review-audio-technica-ath-ad2000

I wasn't planning to write another review after my most recent one of the Audeze LCD-2 but I did this one anyway to share my newest thoughts on my #1 favorite headphone of all time, the Audio-Technica AD2000 (AD2K from here on out). Many other headphones have come and gone over the years but the AD2K has stayed with me since June 2006, which is amazing to me. As I've seen recent questions and have received PMs about it as well, this re-review is my attempt to address those in a more public format. It's also a retrospective and an updated review with my latest thoughts on audio & headphones - because today I'd retract parts of the 2006 review due to changes in my listening ability, my writing style, the evolution of my attitude to headphones in general, and the gear that I've used with the AD2K over the years.

I now consider my 2006 review to exist as merely a "time capsule" of thoughts from back then and nothing more. This new-for-2011 re-review should be considered my definitive review of the headphones, and the 2006 review should now be mostly disregarded.

In addition to the 2006 review, I also ran a 2007 loaner program where I loaned out the AD2K to 7 Head-Fi members who each wrote about their experience. The results from that loaner program can be read in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/229452/7-part-review-audio-technica-ath-ad2000

Reviewer Biases & Info

My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.

Some portions of the review below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 30 now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony orchestra, and I've attended classical-music concerts as well.

Equipment Setup

The supporting gear that I've heard with the AD2K over the years has been a varied selection - gear that I've owned, or been loaned, or heard at meets. Instead of listing every single piece of gear I've heard with the AD2K (because it would be too long of a list and I can't remember everything), this is a sampling:

Source range:
- CD players: Arcam DiVA CD73 - Arcam FMJ CD33 - Audio Aero Prima - Plinius CD-101 - Accuphase DP-500
- standalone DACs: Arcam rDac - Bryston BDA-1 - Ayre QB-9

Amps range:
- Transistor, portables: Little Dot Micro+ - Portaphile V2^2 Maxxed - HeadAmp AE-2
- Transistor, full-size: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, GS-1, & GS-X - Schiit Asgard - SPL Auditor - DIY M3 - DIY B22 - Luxman P-200 & P-1u
- Tubes & hybrids: DIY Millett Hybrid - Cayin HA-1A - Woo Audio WA22 - EarMax Anniversary

Almost every source & amp in my profile was listened to with the AD2K; see my profile for the full listing. My current system for the AD2K is also in my profile; it consists of the Plinius CD-101 and HeadAmp GS-X.

Evaluation Music

As I've listened to tons of music on the AD2K over the years, instead of listing tracks or CDs, this is by genre with notable artists as examples:

- Electronica/Trip-Hop: Massive Attack, Orbital, The Crystal Method, The Prodigy
- Metal: Emperor, Helloween, In Flames, Megadeth, Nightwish, Symphony X
- Rock: Led Zeppelin, Porcupine Tree, Radiohead, Tool

I've listened to other music genres on the AD2K as well of course (usually for the purpose of writing reviews), but I don't listen to every genre either. Genres I don't listen to include: rap, hip-hop, modern pop (i.e., mainstream), soul/R&B, ska/reggae, and world.

FAQ #1: What does the AD2K sound like?

In comparing the AD2K to other headphones, I should link to some other reviews & threads that I've written, that provide some references against some other common headphones from AKG, Sennheiser, Grado, et al. (Despite some of the below review titles, every review made at least one comparison or reference to the AD2K.)

(review) Multi-way review including Audeze LCD-2 & AKG K701, et al:
- http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd2-planar-magnetic-headphones/reviews/10299

(review) JH Audio JH13 IEMs:
- http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/482773/review-jh-audio-jh13

(review) Beyerdynamic T1 vs Sennheiser HD800:
- http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800

(review) Audio-Technica ESW9 vs Denon D2000:
- http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/311973/mini-review-audio-technica-ath-esw9-and-denon-ah-d2000

(non-review thread) Grado RS1 vs AD2K:
- http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/308713/grado-rs1-eats-ad2000-for-breakfast

To address the question, I'll answer first what the AD2K doesn't sound like - it sure doesn't sound like anything from any other brands, or even like any other Audio-Technica headphones for that matter.

Versus Grado headphones in general, the AD2K has a full mid-range (most Grados tend to be relatively thin - like the SR60, SR80, SR325i, RS1, GS1000) and an extreme "forward & upfront" presentation. Grados tend to have a small soundstage too, and the AD2K's is bigger, but it's the contrast between soundstage and a "forward" presentation that makes the key difference. Grados tend to have a limited soundstage (not very much "air" to the sound overall) and forward upper-mids (so the vocal range sticks out), while the AD2K has a more expansive & defined soundstage (allowing you to clearly hear virtual distance between instruments & walls for example) but is probably even more forward & upfront, as it sets up vocals and full-range instruments practically right in your face. The one dominant trait that most Audio-Technicas (the AD2K included) share with Grados doesn't relate to sound specifically but is something much more academic & objective - low impedance and high sensitivity. The AD2K specifically is rated right at 40 Ohms while almost every Grado is rated at 32 Ohms. This means that an amp electrically ideal for Grados will also probably be ideal for the AD2K, as well as most other Audio-Technica headphones (sonic quirks of the amp aside).

The AD2K isn't anything like AKG's two major headphone lines either, the K2xx series and the Kx01 series. The AKGs all have a relatively slow impulse response (while the AD2K's is extremely fast) and their best traits are probably their relatively-clear sound signatures coupled with mid-scale to large-ish open soundstages. AKG soundstages tend to sound very open with no defined wall in back and can make it seem as if the music wants to escape away from your virtual position. The AD2K, on the other hand, isn't very clear-sounding and has a limited, very defined soundstage with clearly outlined walls.

Sennheiser's prevalent HD600, HD650, and HD800 are also very different from the AD2K, though it could be said that the HD650 takes the closest step in its direction. The HD650 and AD2K share roughly the same quantity of mid-bass impact & power along with a heavy tilt towards the mid-range in general, but that's about all they have in common - all the Senns I've heard including the HD650 have very slow impulse responses, and the HD650 is fairly "dark" overall, with not much treble quantity. I consider the AD2K mid-rangey more than dark, as it has a fair amount of treble quantity too (contrasting from the HD650, which can seem to not have much treble). The Senn HD6xx models can also sound like there's a sort of veil or curtain over the sound, while the AD2K doesn't have a veiled character at all.

As far as Sony goes, you'd think there might be some similarities to headphones made by another Japanese company, but compared to the models I've heard, like the V6, SA5000, & Qualia 010, the AD2K wasn't anything like them either. Those three Sony models all have very thin mid-ranges (with the V6 having the most V-shaped frequency response out of the three) and a very high tilt towards the treble in general - most people have described them as "bright," which is probably an accurate word to use. The SA5K and Qualia are also extremely clear-sounding, much more than most other headphones, with the Qualia in particular taking the top spot for me as the single clearest-sounding headphone that I've ever heard of any type - dynamic, orthodynamic, and electrostatic included. The one thing the AD2K might share with the SA5K and Qualia might be a fast impulse response, but that's about it.

To summarize and bottom-line it, the AD2K is the #1 single fastest-sounding dynamic full-size headphone I've heard to date, and that includes everything I've heard (all of which is listed in my profile). In fact, I now believe that 99% of other headphones are actually too slow to properly portray fast music or fast sequences in music. The best analogy I can think of is like imagining a rocket-powered, destructive plasma racquetball - one could think of the AD2K to be the racquetball, tearing & running through music without anything slowing it down. The AD2K also has a mean forward-moving insistence, with the drive of an agile but unstoppable force - once it starts running (so to speak), it takes off, and nothing can stop its rampage. With the forward mid-range and ultra-tight bass (not even a tiny bit plodgy), all of this can make the AD2K sound like it's practically attacking the music and then throwing it at your face for good measure. When it's all said & done, this can be extremely awesome on the right kind of music - like thrash metal, for example, where the AD2K will run into the drums and send them flying at you while simultaneously shearing the guitars. It's also the meanest, most viciously aggressive-sounding headphone I've heard to date - it's the equivalent of a malevolent monster with a bad attitude. A monster that snarls at the mention of words like "neutral", "transparent", and "warm", and will run towards you when you're not looking. Note that I keep using the word "run" or "running" here - the AD2K never sounds like it's walking, like AKGs or Senns do. It always sounds like it wants to immediately start tearing down the racetrack! This is not a laid-back or passive headphone - it's ultra-aggressively forward-moving & in-your-face. Let me put it this way: if most other dynamic headphones are either sedans or sports cars at best, the AD2K is like an invulnerable F1 race-car, and you're the bug flying into the windshield, not the driver. It's kind of like that. If you'd rather be the driver then I suggest the Audeze LCD-2 for something nowhere near as in-your-face.

Not that the AD2K doesn't also do well with slower music if that's your thing though. It can do that too. Heck, it's probably equally adept at doing brain-melting female vocals with 0% subtlety, setting up a female vocalist practically right in your lap and deepening the lower register for a true private one-on-one feel. Again, the 0% subtlety which just cannot be overstated - the AD2K can make a straight man want to have, let's say, relations with the female vocalist due to how close & full it'll make the female's voice sound. The AD2K can definitely be a "let's get it on now!" type headphone too!

FAQ #2: Ok enough raving, what about the flaws?!

Flaws, you say? The AD2K is awesome! It makes sweet music! It's a mean & sexual monster! What flaws could there be? Well quite a few, actually, mostly on the technical/academic side:

- Lack of bass quantity in general. (It can sound light-weight, especially for those who've heard the Audeze LCD-2 or the bass-heavy version of the AKG K340.)
- Mid-range thickness can seem to sometimes obscure layers in the mid-range.
- Short decay (unfortunately goes with the territory of its ultra-fast attack).
- Partial lack of clarity.
- Unnatural-sounding frequency response, negatively affecting tonality of acoustic instruments - piano, brass, woodwinds, strings, etc.
- Inaccurate & unnatural-sounding soundstage positioning - bringing the entire music very close, possibly too close for comfort for most people, especially at the left, center, & right.
- May not be physically comfortable to wear for some people, primarily due to the thin earpads. Smaller ears may also touch the driver.

FAQ #3: What amp should I get for these headphones?

Ahh, the quintessential question that's asked about every headphone on Head-Fi.

The good news is that the AD2K requires no amp at all and can be easily driven directly out of anything with a headphone jack. It's more than sensitive enough to reach loud volumes with minimal volume adjustment too, though this also makes it highly susceptible to picking up electrical noise. So if you really don't want to spend money on an amp, then you don't need to.

But if you do want to get an amp, the even better news is that the best amps for the AD2K are downright inexpensive. Out of all the amps I've heard with the AD2K to date, there are two that stand out and each can be had for less than $500 - the Dynalo and M3, both of which are DIY circuits, so you can even build your own. The HeadAmp Gilmore Lite is a commercial version of the Dynalo but was discontinued in 2010 and is now available only on the used market. The Dynalo is so good for the AD2K, it's the only amp I highly recommend for it, and I'd add that no one has really heard the AD2K unless (or until) they've heard it on a Dynalo.

But for those who don't mind spending more, HeadAmp's higher-up models GS-1 and GS-X are also just as good. Further up in price, the DIY B22 and Eddie Current Zana Deux & Balancing Act are solid options too. As general advice, amps designed for high-current output at low impedance loads should perform great with the AD2K (amp-influenced sound characteristics notwithstanding). Typically that means solid-state amps will be better than most tube/hybrid amps for the AD2K, but there are some exceptions, like transformer-coupled tube amps, or in rare cases certain OTL amps (like the Zana Deux).

FAQ #4: Is the AD2K good for <insert any music genre>?

This is a subjective question I can't answer for someone else, but these are my opinions on certain genres:

- Classical & Instrumental Jazz: I group these together because they tend to use solely acoustic instruments (rarely electric or electronic). I consider the AD2K one of the worst headphones for genres like these due to its unnatural-sounding mid-range. This is a common trait of Audio-Technica headphones though and it tends to affect AT's lacquered wood headphones the most.

To be more specific on the unnatural mid-range, I mean that most acoustic instruments can seem to sound weird from the AD2K's unusual tonal shift. From a musician perspective, an instrument has a certain tonality when played live, and there are some headphones that just flat-out portray certain instrument tonalities completely inaccurately. The AD2K is one of those headphones, as are others I've heard that include the flagship AKG K70x, Beyerdynamic T1, and Sennheiser HD800, all notably on string instruments. Tonally-accurate headphones I'd recommend for musicians, in price ascending order: Sennheiser HD600, JH Audio JH13 (IEMs), Grado HP1000 (discontinued), and Stax OII MKI (SR-007, also discontinued).

- Vocal Jazz: "Good" will inevitably depend on the music and/or artist. The AD2K has a unique take on vocals in particular which may or may not be to one's liking. Its effect can be really surreal on female vocal jazz though, as already mentioned above. A vocalist like Jane Monheit comes to mind. Imagine her sitting virtually in your lap and singing right into your ears - that's what the AD2K does.

- Electronica/Trip-Hop: This was the first genre I started out listening to, back when I first got into headphones, and the AD2K became and has remained my favorite for this genre. Although the Audeze LCD-2 is also really good for this genre, I prefer the AD2K because I've grown used to it. Both headphones deliver plenty of bass impact (the LCD-2 a lot more than the AD2K) but the AD2K's handling of percussive instruments in particular makes it my preference. I should add that I listen to primarily breakbeat, techno, trance, IDM, and ambient; most other sub-genres not at all. I find ambient less than stellar on the AD2K though and prefer it on headphones that have crystal clarity and large imposed soundstages, like the Senn HD800 which was a step in the right direction for me.

- Rock/Blues: This has too many sub-genres but I'd think the AD2K to cover most types of rock & blues at least moderately well, especially modern rock, which tends to use electric guitars and synthesized elements.

- Metal: Too many sub-genres here as well. Personally I see most metal as being either aggressive or oppressive, or both, and the AD2K can easily shift character to convey either of those attitudes effectively. It's also more than fast enough to convey really fast speedruns. IMO the AD2K is awesome for metal and it's my next-favorite genre on it after electronica/trip-hop.

- Americana/bluegrass/country/folk: Same as for rock, I consider the AD2K moderately good for this type of music. However, for me its partial lack of clarity and treble quantity make it less than ideal for bluegrass, as I prefer to really hear the string action of steel guitar, dobro, & banjo. I vastly preferred the treble of headphones like the Qualia 010 and HD800 for bluegrass (I no longer own those for other reasons).

- Pop: I can't think of any reason the AD2K would be bad for pop, given its general mid-rangey/mid-bassy signature. The AD2K can easily reveal dynamic-range compression though, among other artifacts (like MP3 compression), so it may not necessarily be the best choice for poorly-recorded/mastered music.

Any genre not listed above is music I don't listen to, so I can't speak to anything else.

FAQ #5: Does the AD2K benefit from re-cabling or balanced mode?

In my experience I've found the AD2K to not benefit from either a re-cable or balanced mode - mine has the APureSound V3 XLR with a matching XLR-1/4" cable adapter so I've been able to try both, and I heard no difference after the re-cable or after I had balanced equipment. I recommend keeping the AD2K with the stock cable. For anyone who might want to further optimize the AD2K experience, I recommend upgrading either amp or source, or both, and staying with unbalanced equipment.

Summary

In the 5+ years that I've owned the AD2K, it's become my #1 favorite headphone of all time and it's safe to say that I'll never part with it either. It's my go-to headphone for all things electronica, rock, & metal. It's definitely not for everyone though, and I'd be hesitant to recommend it for everyone too. But it's definitely at least a headphone worth trying and who knows, it might end someone else's headphone journey too, like it did mine.

Originally published on June 2, 2013
 

(click for larger pic)

- download a printable 5-page PDF version of this review (target goes to a location on my Dropbox)

Intro

I'll admit it upfront, I haven't exactly been a fan of Beyerdynamic's headphones so far. The 2005 DT880, 2003 DT770-80, 2003 DT250-80, T50p, T1, and T70 have all been disappointments to me in one way or another. But when I started reading the raving on the DT1350 last year, including by Tyll Hertsens (of InnerFidelity.com), I decided that I had to hear them for myself and ordered up a pair in November 2012. This review is hence based on approximately 5 months of ownership (Nov '12 - Apr '13).

Equipment Setup

- Source components: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (Signal Cable Silver Reference power cord, directly into wall), desktop PC w/ headphone jack on Yamaha YSTMS50 speakers, iAudio X5
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Headphone amplifiers: Burson Soloist, Schiit Magni
- Headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000 & ATH-ES7, Fostex TH900, HiFiMan HE-400, V-MODA M-100

Evaluation Material

Music:
- Alison Krauss - Forget About It
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7
- Goldfrapp - Black Cherry
- Helloween - 7 Sinners
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Jane Monheit - Surrender
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [MFSL]
- The Crystal Method - Vegas [2007 Deluxe Edition], Tweekend
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Trifonic - Emergence

Movies & Games:
- Black Hawk Down [DVD]
- Far Cry, Half-Life 2 [Windows]

Pros & Cons

+ Hang-able on the neck (because you'd be surprised at how many closed portable headphones can't be worn around the neck!)
+ Split headband allows for a greater degree of comfort than a single-piece headband
+ Extremely transportable with the supplied carrying case
+ Durable
+ Very good overall sound quality and versatile with multiple genres

- Supra-aural clamping pressure created a lack of comfort during extended listening sessions (i.e., caused ear soreness)
- Not really efficient enough to get loud enough out of portable sources at medium settings
- Relative lack of clarity
- Slow impulse response
- Uneven frequency response leading to some unnatural-sounding instruments (like string instruments)

Computer & Portable Applications

For computer audio in general, I found the DT1350 to be an overall strong performer, but crippled by its lack of comfort for long usage sessions. I frequently had to take them off due to discomfort approximately every half-hour or so, primarily due to the supra-aural clamping pressure from the relatively small-diameter earpads. If the earpads were larger in diameter (close to the diameter to that of my Audio-Technica ES7), it probably would have increased comfort substantially.

Overall the DT1350 did well with movies & games - specifically the action-based material that I tested it with. Explosions were decently boomy on it, and it seemed to have accurate-sounding gun reports too - importantly, automatic gunfire having quick-sounding reports (I'm sort of a stickler on automatic gunfire sounding fast). It had a fairly open-sounding soundstage too, which worked well for locating enemies by ear. In fact, it was a significant improvement over my ES7, which has a flat soundstage and doesn't work well for locating enemy positions by ear.

As far as amplification, the DT1350 seemed to sound nearly as good out of my PC (through a headphone jack on my PC speakers) as it did on my reference audio CD system with dedicated headphone amps. Although it did sound best out of the Burson Soloist, it wasn't really a huge difference from out of my PC. It sounded just about the same on my portable DAP (iAudio X5) as well. The only thing that I really noticed with the iAudio X5 was that the DT1350 wasn't very efficient, as I had to turn up the volume past 20 (out of 40) for it to sound loud. In comparison, my JH Audio JH13 IEMs were slightly louder at 17-18 than the DT1350 got at 22-23.

Critical Music Listening

Honestly, the DT1350 wasn't particularly "excellent" or outstanding to me, and I wouldn't use any superlatives to describe its sound. However, that's mostly because I've heard headphones that are way better than it, that are also more expensive (some a lot more). I'd class it as "average" in my overall ranking of headphones, in the company of others like the AKG K2xx/K70x, Senn HD6xx, and the Grado SRxxx/RSx lines. So if those other headphones impress you (or would be upgrades from whatever you currently have), then sure, I'd recommend the DT1350. However, if those don't impress you, or you already have something like the more-expensive Senn HD800 or Audeze LCD-2 (or something else comparable), then the DT1350 likely won't impress either.

However, just because I call the DT1350 "average" doesn't mean it's bad - I only say that to provide a frame of reference against headphones that are both worse/cheaper than it and better/more expensive than it. In fact, I thought it sounded very good, better in many ways than a lot of other closed portable headphones that I've heard over the years. It was decently clear-sounding, with a good frequency balance (recessing primarily the upper treble & lower bass), and provided just enough satisfaction that I could use it for a decent variety of genres. There were actually only 2 genres that I thought weren't very good on it - electronica & classical. Primarily because the DT1350 lacked general bass quantity and extension to really provide a satisfactory impact for electronica, and it effectively reduced large orchestras to sounding small & smashed-in. It added a somewhat unpleasant bronzy/nasal character to violins, brass, & woodwinds too.

For my other genres though, like bluegrass/folk, rock, & metal, I found the DT1350 to be very good-sounding - and could believe that it'd even be potentially "great" to those who it would be an upgrade for. I'd sum it up as a semi-assertive- & clear-sounding headphone (not too different in style from the Shure SRH840/SRH1840) without distracting mid-range colorations (like forward vocals or anything like that), and relatively mid-range- & bass-light. And definitely closed-headphone-sounding too - i.e., it had a compacted soundstage not unusual for closed headphones, but fortunately the soundstage wasn't too small either, as it was deceptively large for such a physically small headphone.

I'd say the DT1350 would be a sonic upgrade from the following headphones specifically (all of which I've owned/heard): Audio-Technica ES7 & M50, Creative Labs Aurvana Live, Sennheiser HD419, Shure SRH840, and Sony MDR-Z700. Moreover, I recommend it for anyone looking to buy a set of closed portable headphones for the first time. Beyerdynamic has finally made a headphone that I can get behind for once! Granted, it doesn't exactly win sonic awards from me in the grand scheme of things though - let's just say that if it cost twice its $300 MSRP, I would've been a lot more critical of it and wouldn't be purposely glossing over the sonic nitpicks that I have with it. The best praise that I can give it is that it sounds like a $300 headphone. I can't think of any better closed portable headphones at its price and I'd call it the best new headphone of its type currently available for combined computer & dedicated music applications! I was actually more impressed with it as a computer headphone though and it'd be my first recommendation for anyone seeking a computer headphone since it combines moderately good sound with a very good level of isolation. It's easily the best "office cubicle"-type headphone that I've ever heard and if that's your intended use, then buy one now!

The best way that I can spin the DT1350 would be to call it something like a closed version of a micro-HD800. Not "mini", which would be stretching it a bit for me, just "micro" along with everything that implies. Not that "micro" is bad - in the case of the DT1350, that's actually a good thing!

Comparison: V-MODA M-100

I found that the DT1350 and M-100 sounded somewhat opposite to each other - the DT1350 being substantially clearer-sounding with less mid-range and bass overall than the thick- & full-sounding M-100. In fact, if the M-100 is considered bassy (as many people claim it is), then the DT1350 was definitely bass-light compared to it. However, while I thought the M-100 had very good bass and mid-range (with especially nice, full-sounding vocals), it was also somewhat suffocating-sounding to me, as if it was literally trapping the music within its confined driver chambers, while the DT1350 had more of a spacious (i.e., "airier") and spread-out sound. Its diffuse presentation was definitely a plus for certain music genres, as it allowed music to sound spatially bigger than the M-100 did. Nothing sounded too up-close with the DT1350 either, as opposed to the M-100 which was very up-close & intimate-sounding.

However, in the grand scheme of headphones, neither the M-100 or the DT1350 impressed me by their sound quality all that much, but that's only because I've gotten used to some very good-sounding headphones in recent years like the Audeze and Sennheiser flagships, including my previous high-end electrostatic system (Stax OII & BHSE). But at the $300 price point, it's hard to find better than either the DT1350 or M-100, and I think the choice of headphones comes down to the type of music you listen to and what kind of sound you like. I view the M-100 as the more obvious choice for most listeners of contemporary music genres who favor bass - pop, rock, metal, electronica, etc. The DT1350 might be the better choice for those who don't care as much about bass quantity and listen to classical or generally acoustic (non-synthesized) music. I'd go even further to say that the DT1350 and M-100 are sonically-clear byproducts of their respective manufacturer's geographic regions - Europe for Beyerdynamic, the USA for V-MODA.

Related Reading

Story of my closed portable headphone journey: http://www.head-fi.org/t/235997/how-my-journey-for-closed-portable-bliss-came-to-an-end
Beyerdynamic T70 mini-review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/584599/mini-review-beyerdynamic-t70
Beyerdynamic T1 vs Senn HD800 review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800
V-MODA M-100 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/v-moda-crossfade-m-100/reviews/10283

Addendum - Review Notes

My review notes are included here in their own section for convenience. These provide specific detailed info not included in the review. Notes start below the asterisks.

***
Far Cry / Half-Life 2: Clearer than ES7, and just about as fast - quick gunfire and satisfying explosions. Better imaging - sound field more spread out which helps to locate enemy positions by ear. Also easier to hear layered effects like footsteps, etc.

Trifonic - Emergence: Lacks overall "dimension" to the spatial image, so this type of music (ambient electronica) completely lacks the "empty-space void" feeling. Spatially flat-sounding - almost no sense of "air" within the music. Very closed-in sounding; however, this type of sound not unusual for closed headphones in general. Acceptable spatials for a closed headphone, could be worse. Also lacks some clarity, though treble and bass quantity is decent. However, treble lacks precision. Bass also lacks depth & general quantity (below 80Hz).

AKUS - Paper Airplane: Intimate-sounding but lacks a presence factor compared to flagship headphones - doesn't sound very "physical/existential". Lacks center fill in the imaging. Also seems to be somewhat "dead" sounding - no vividness to sound, and no particular emphasis anywhere in the spectrum either. Relatively neutral though.

Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [MFSL]: Front-loaded/forward male vocals not a detraction here, helps make the music sound more "metal". Assertive-type sound - neither "aggressive" or "passive" per se. Reminds me of Shure headphones in a way. Background details either lost in mix or blurred.

Helloween - 7 Sinners, In Flames - The Jester Race: Good drive, overall very appropriately-assertive sound for this type of music. No obvious emphasis on either bass (instruments) or guitars. If anything, guitars somewhat in background compared to most treble-heavy headphones (sort of like a counter to the Grado-like sound). Not really fast enough to keep up with fastest speedruns though, and relative lack of clarity subtracts from the enjoyment. Small-ish soundstage does work great for this music type, provides a good "up-close w/ band" feel.

Goldfrapp - Black Cherry: Bass lacks drive and ultra-low extension. Relative lack of treble quantity as well. Female vocals sound only ok, nothing noteworthy. Again sounds "dead" - lacks a spark to make it engaging, reminds me of K701 in that aspect, which also sounded dead.

The Crystal Method - Tweekend: Bass in general acceptable for this music type - decent impact & quantity. Easy to hear bass, even if it doesn't extend very low. Not enough bass though to truly satisfy like an Audeze.

Massive Attack - "Teardrop": Bass rolled off, notably on the heartbeat rhythm (lowest notes inaudible). Also lacks a heavy/fat presence. Texture/slap of kick drum also muddled, not very easy to tell it's a kick drum.

Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos, Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven 5 & 7: String instruments not very clear-sounding. Lack of soundstage depth distracting but not a total dealbreaker. Because of the "closed" nature, music sounds a bit stuffed-up/suffocating. Decent balance overall between sections and frequencies - no major flaws. Violin treble level acceptable - not too much, not too little. Strings overall nasal/bronzy-sounding, consistently initially off-putting on every listening session. Not really ideal for classical music due to off-putting frequency balance (the nasal/bronzy sound) and lack of clarity. However, not terrible either - just acceptable enough.

Seems to have a slight "veil" over everything as well. Not as "transparent" as it could be and has a slight "muffle" factor that especially affects guitars (especially overdriven guitars).

Overall: For the cliché "I hear more details with xxx new headphone!", the reverse is true for DT1350. The details that should be on the music test tracks weren't there on DT1350 - i.e., "With the DT1350, I can't hear the details that I know are there!". Not bad, but not great either. Squarely decent, acceptable for price and for being closed - hard to get a decent-sounding closed headphone in this price bracket. To that point, above-average considering the other options of its type in this bracket.

Also scales with amps somewhat - sounds substantially better on Soloist than on Magni. Most obviously clearer throughout the spectrum, with improved soundstaging as well (more depth & width).

Originally published on June 16, 2013
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/668277/review-v-moda-m-100
 

(click for larger pic)
 
- download a printable 4-page PDF version of this review (target goes to a location on my Dropbox)

Intro

I first heard V-MODA's M-100 at CanJam@RMAF 2012 (in October), where it was "unveiled" for the masses following a long period of pre-hype on Head-Fi. I'd previously owned the M-80 so I was interested to hear the new M-100 at the show, and it sounded very promising. I finally got around to buying my own set back in February and this is my review of them. This review is based on approximately 3 months of ownership (Feb-May '13).

Equipment Setup

- Source components: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (Signal Cable Silver Reference power cord, directly into wall), desktop PC w/ headphone jack on Yamaha YSTMS50 speakers, iAudio X5
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Headphone amplifiers: Burson Soloist, Schiit Magni
- Headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000 & ATH-ES7, Beyerdynamic DT1350, Fostex TH900, HiFiMan HE-400

Evaluation Material

Music:
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7
- Coldplay - X&Y
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition]
- Diablo Swing Orchestra - Sing-Along Songs for the Damned & Delirious
- Gojira - L'Enfant Sauvage
- Jane Monheit - Surrender
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Katy Perry - Teenage Dream
- Lee Morgan - Tom Cat [AudioWave/Blue Note XRCD]
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [MFSL]
- The Crystal Method - Vegas [2007 Deluxe Edition], Tweekend
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Tool - Lateralus

PC Games:
- Far Cry, Half-Life 2 [Windows]

Pros & Cons

+ Highly durable construction
+ Highly transportable with a convenient hard-shell molded travel case
+ Fold-able
+ Deep, heavy bass & full mid-range
+ Forgiving of poor-quality recordings

- Very uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time (> 1 hour) due to supra-aural clamping pressure
- Not efficient enough to get loud enough out of portable sources at medium settings
- High lack of clarity, especially in lower mid-range and bass
- Slow impulse response
- Relatively "dark" frequency response due to primarily a lack of treble quantity to counterbalance the mid-range & bass
- Forgiving of poor-quality recordings

Computer & Portable Applications

I briefly tested the M-100 on my PC for Internet video streaming (i.e., YouTube) and some PC gaming (first-person shooters). It turned out to be moderately good for this purpose and provided satisfactory explosions & gunfire effects, though it also had a lack of clarity that affected primarily clarity of multiple simultaneous audio streams, like gunfire on top of ambient effects (water, wind, or other natural/mechanical ambience) with footsteps at the same time (i.e., firing while moving).

I also tested the M-100 on an iAudio X5 DAP (with MP3 files @ 256 kb/s VBR). It sounded ok this way but it was also clearly a step down from my dedicated audio setup, as it lacked general force to the sound in all parts of the frequency spectrum. It also required extra-high volume settings to achieve loud volume—on average 25-28 to sound loud, compared to my JH13 IEMs which were loud at 17-18.

Critical Music Listening

For this review of the M-100, I changed up my usual set of test music CDs and discarded some, replacing them with much newer music from the likes of Coldplay, Diablo Swing Orchestra, Gojira, Tool, and Katy Perry (I'll freely admit to liking her songs, they're catchy and have cool beats!). I did this on purpose for two major reasons: (1) I figured most of the targeted audience for the M-100 would be listening to modern music from the past decade or so, and (2) Too many of my CDs were still stuck in the 90s anyway. They needed updating. I thought it was time to use more recent stuff!

The M-100's sound made me think of it as a consumer-level headphone for the masses. It simply had the sort of sound that I associate as prime for American Top 40-type music—an assertive-sounding signature, with focus on the mid-range & bass, in a somewhat compacted soundstage that placed vocals close-up yet clearly setting up "walls" for some illusion of 3D depth. It was actually really good, probably at its best, with the variety of modern music that I tested it on. It made pop/rock, electronica, & metal sound quite bassy overall, with very good depth, force, and impact. Its mid-range was nicely full-sounding as well, translating to full (but not "forward") vocals & bass guitars, for example. Drums also sounded appropriately "heavy" on it too. The M-100 essentially had a strong, solid, & full/heavy sonic signature overall, with nicely stereo-diverged imaging as well (yet severely lacking in the aspect of an open/airy soundstage). And I just have to say it again, it had bass to spare too!

However, while the M-100 sounded "very good" for general intents & purposes, there was no way that I found it acceptable for "critical listening" or as a serious "audiophile" level headphone. It sounded like a mid-level set of headphones to me and I'd class it as "average", in the company of the $200-$300 mid-level headphones from AKG and Sennheiser, for example. To me its biggest flaws were a lack of clarity, a "slow" impulse response that blurred over fast sequences, plodgy bass (most obvious on fast-paced electronica & metal), and a lack of treble quantity. Add "bloated" bass quantity too—but I viewed this more as a positive than a negative in the case of the M-100, as the high level of bass added to its fun & enjoyment factor. In fact, if it weren't for the bass, I thought the M-100 would've had less going for it.

As far as other types of music, I briefly ran the M-100 through some classical and jazz. Its lack of clarity hurt both genres in particular though, as IMO classical is inevitably dependent on a clear-sounding violin section and jazz is dependent on clearly-audible instrument textures (for brass & bass instruments especially). The M-100's stereo-diverged imaging also made both genres sound the opposite of cohesive, as it effectively took out the "center" part of the sonic image. (This didn't negatively affect any other genres nearly as much.) So while classical & jazz didn't sound ideal on the M-100, they weren't terrible on it either though and were acceptable for non-critical listening. I'd add a caveat here though that vocal jazz (i.e., Jane Monheit) was generally better on the M-100 than instrumental jazz (Dave Brubeck & Lee Morgan), primarily due to the M-100's portrayal of vocals.

Comparison: Beyerdynamic DT1350

The DT1350 wasn't a "better" headphone to me than the M-100, mostly just different. Although it was substantially clearer-sounding compared to the semi-hazy/blurred sound of the M-100, it also had less bass & mid-range quantity that negatively affected electronica, pop/rock, & metal for me. Drums & bass, for example, didn't have as much weight & presence on the DT1350. In fact, when directly comparing the two, I typically found that the DT1350 sounded mid-range- and bass-anemic coming right after the M-100. The M-100, on the other hand, had very emphasized weight, presence, & physicality in comparison.

As far as imaging/soundstage, the M-100 was clearly the more intimate and "forward-sounding" of the two, as it made everything sound close-up, almost in a Grado-like sort of way. It also set up "walls" in the soundstage, which enhanced effects like reverb and helped to make room acoustics stand out, which the DT1350 didn't do as much. Because of this, the M-100 had more consistent illusion of 3D depth between the position of a singer and the back wall of the virtual studio/room. So it had a definite advantage for certain types of music like pop/rock & metal.

I'd be inclined to recommend the M-100 for primarily electric, synthesized, or otherwise "American mainstream" types of music as it had a great type of sonic signature for those, and the DT1350 more for "period" or traditional music like classical, jazz, or acoustic/folk (or even traditional "European" type music to go that far). In other words, general sonic expectations for an American vs German company wouldn't be amiss.

Comparison: Audio-Technica ES7

I've owned the ES7 for a long time (since 2007) and have become so heavily biased to it that it's actually my measuring stick for all other closed portable headphones now. And true to my bias for it, the ES7 was not beaten by the M-100—in fact, I thought the ES7 was superior to the more-expensive M-100! The ES7 had the following aspects in its favor: (1) A "faster" sound, as it had less plodge and faster/cleaner note attack, (2) Higher amount of clarity throughout the spectrum, (3) A more "open" soundstage, and (4) Higher efficiency (or "sensitivity" for the technical term). The ES7 is also my preferred computer headphone, specifically for gaming, as machine guns always sound appropriately "fast" on it. The M-100 simply didn't compare to it in that aspect, as it was just too plodgy-sounding.

For those who also own the ES7 and like how it sounds, I'd recommend keeping it and not "upgrading" to the more-expensive M-100. The M-100 was more of a side-grade (at best) to me than an upgrade. Though the M-100 had a lot more bass than the ES7 and a more full-bodied mid-range, the ES7 was simply more "clean" and "agile" sounding.

Conclusion

I ended up disappointed by the M-100 coming after the M-80. It wasn't really the upgrade I'd been hoping for, and I thought it suffered from the same flaws too. Not to take anything away from it though. At $300, I view the M-100 as great-sounding mid-level closed headphones for listening to any type of mainstream music. Anyone upgrading from iBuds or anything less than about $150 (roughly) will probably find it to be a worthwhile purchase.

I'd probably sum up the M-100 as something of a closed micro-version of the Audeze LCD-x headphones. Not that the M-100 is sonically comparable with the Audeze headphones though, just loosely similar in overall type of sonic signature—i.e., a similar American-type assertive sound skewed towards the mid-range & bass. To put that another way, anyone who likes the M-100 and wants an upgrade without drastically veering away from its sonic signature might want to look into the LCD-2 or LCD-3.

Related Reading

Beyerdynamic DT1350 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-tesla-dt-1350/reviews/10284
V-MODA M-80 vs Audio-Technica ES7 review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/587296/mini-review-v-moda-m-80-vs-audio-technica-es7
Story of my closed portable headphone journey: http://www.head-fi.org/t/235997/how-my-journey-for-closed-portable-bliss-came-to-an-end

Originally published on July 11, 2010
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/501781/mini-reviews-luxman-p-1u-and-p-200

Intro

First, thanks to Todd @ TTVJ for allowing me (and the other people in this loaner program) to audition the Luxman P-1u at home for serious evaluative listening. I wanted to participate in this loaner program because I've had a long-running interest in desktop solid-state amps for a few years now, and I also have previous experience with both the Luxman P-1 (at a Head-Fi meet) and P-200 (which I also had in my home for a few days of critical listening last year).

A disclaimer I want to add is that I consider this to be more of a mini-review, given the limited time that this loaner program allowed me to keep the amp for (approximately 2 weeks). Reviews I've written on Head-Fi in the past were done with listening periods over a few weeks, or in some cases, even months. My review methodology has always been to listen and re-listen daily (or as often as possible) so I can re-check my ongoing impressions of a piece of equipment (and usually with just 1 headphone per week). A time period of ~2 weeks did not allow for too much re-listening so this mini-review lacks the thoroughness of previous reviews that I've written.

Reviewer Biases

My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.

All previously owned (or heard, in some cases) equipment is listed in my profile for reference.

Equipment Setup

- Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- BPT IC-SL RCA & Analysis Plus Silver Oval RCA/XLR interconnects
- AKG K701 (re-cabled with SAA Equinox), Audio-Technica AD2000 (re-cabled with APS V3), Beyerdynamic T1 (stock cable), Grado HP1000/HP2 (re-cabled with APS V3), Sennheiser HD800 (stock cable), & Sony Qualia 010 (re-cabled with Moon Audio Black Dragon)
- comparison headphone amp: SPL Auditor

Functionality & Operation

The P-1u has a form factor that allows for easy rackmounting, which I personally liked, even though I don't currently own a rack - I like it because this kind of form factor usually allows components to be stacked, which I took advantage of. The amp has quite a few features - dual single-ended headphone jacks, balanced XLR and unbalanced RCA inputs, balanced XLR phase inversion, and loop output (which I neglected to test, but I assume it's loop output).

Operationally there's nothing unusual about the amp - everything on it works as expected. There was only one thing I noticed, and it was that the amp didn't activate immediately upon power-on, similar to the P-200. The LED next to the power button lights up faintly first, and then after a few seconds, the amp fully powers up, which is noted by an audible internal click (presumably from relays) and then the LED becomes brighter at that point.

with: AKG K701

Music used for this headphone:
-* Alison Krauss & Union Station - New Favorite - "Let Me Touch You For Awhile"
-* Andrea Parker - Kiss My Arp - "Melodious Thunk", "Elements of Style"
-* Orbital - The Middle of Nowhere - "Way Out", "Know Where to Run"
- Priscilla Ahn - A Good Day - "Dream"
- Robert Planet & Alison Krauss - Raising Sand - "Trampled Rose"
-* The Crystal Method - Community Service - "Breakin On The Streets (False Prophet Remix)", "Dude In The Moon (Luna Mix)"

As the K701 is a difficult load in general for headphone amps, I used it primarily to determine the P-1u's driving ability, using the music marked with asterisks above, and the P-1u easily passed what I tested for - namely, audible distortion in any part of the frequency spectrum at very high volume. I cranked up the volume to the 2 o'clock position (way past ear-safe level) and checked for audible distortion in either the bass or treble, and there was none, and it still sounded like the P-1u had power to spare too. I could not say the same for the P-200 back when I tested it for this last year.

So the P-1u could drive the K701 well enough, and how did it sound? Not bad, though since my opinion of the K701 has since degraded over the years that I've had it (I got in April 2006), it means that sonically there was nothing I could fault the K701 for. Most parts of its innate sound were intact as far as I could tell. The P-1u seemed to reduce the K701's soundstage a bit (which is a good thing in my book) and drew out longer mid-range tones too and imbued female vocals with even more presence, compared to the SPL Auditor.

with: Audio-Technica AD2000

Music used for this headphone:
- Massive Attack - Heligoland - "Pray for Rain"
- Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction [MFSL] - "Sweating Bullets"
- Neotropic - Mr. Brubaker's Strawberry Alarm Clock - "Mr. Brubaker's Strawberry Alarm Clock"
- Orbital - Snivilisation - "I Wish I Had Duck Feet", "Are We Here?"
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend - "Murder", "Ten Miles Back"
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land - "Smack My B***h Up", "Fuel My Fire"

The AD2000 is the primary headphone I use to listen to electronica and metal, because it does 3 things really well that work for this kind of music: it's really dang fast (as in impulse response), it has excellent bass extension (and the bass quantity & balance is perfect for my tastes), and it's actually relatively flat in the treble. The music I used for this headphone is all music that can be seen as stressing any kind of headphone, but what makes the AD2K stand out is that it easily plays all of that music without breaking a sweat.

With that said, it's because of the AD2K's strengths that it actually takes a bad amp (or at least, a less than stellar one) to sonically subtract from this headphone, and unfortunately I found a couple aspects in which the Luxman P-1u was "less than stellar" compared to the SPL Auditor ("Luxman" and "SPL" from here on out). Probably the one quality I noticed the most was that the Luxman outright slowed down the AD2K's impulse response while the SPL did not. The Luxman reduced the AD2K's speed enough that percussive pops didn't "pop", spring-coil vibrations didn't "vibrate", brush stroke-like impacts weren't completely rendered, fast-note separations weren't completely separated, and there was even a kind of "blur" on fast multi-note passages. The Luxman also inflected a different tonal balance compared to the SPL that negatively affected the AD2K's bass response, in that it didn't provide as much bass weight and depth (in the 50-80Hz area).

Despite these flaws I found with the AD2K, the Luxman was still able to provide a satisfactory sound that provided a higher level of enjoyment, at least in terms of a "fun" sound. It did have excellent bass extension (and even seemed to drive slightly more power into ultra-low bass rumbles) but what made the bass in general stand out was a thick, meaty presence that was also very visceral and vicious, that made The Prodigy's "Fuel My Fire" a blast to listen to. And even if the Luxman wasn't all that fast, it still sounded as if it were enthusiastic because more often than not percussive hits sounded really "hard" - they just weren't "hard & fast" as they should have been.

with: Beyerdynamic T1

Music used for this headphone:
- Beyond Twilight - Section X - "The Path of Darkness"
- Dissection - Storm of the Light's Bane - "Unhallowed", "Thorns of Crimson Death"
- In Flames - The Jester Race - "Moonshield", "Artifacts of the Black Rain"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - "Concerto for two violins in D minor: Allegro (3rd movement)"
- Katie Melua - Piece by Piece - "Shy Boy", "On The Road Again"
- Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction [MFSL] - "Sweating Bullets"
- Symphony X - Paradise Lost - "Domination", "The Walls of Babylon"

It was with this headphone that I really was able to notice a general difference in frequency balance between the Luxman and SPL - the Luxman seemed to be more mid-range focused, while the SPL seemed to be more treble-focused. There was also a difference in soundstage and presentation that was noticed: the Luxman had a smaller soundstage and a more-forward presentation while the SPL had a bigger soundstage in comparison (more virtual air and space) and also sounded more laid-back. The SPL also had a very "separated" sound (musical elements distinctly placed in the soundstage out and away from each other on clear x-, y-, and z-axes) while the Luxman had less of this diffusion and more of a cohesive, less-separated sound.

I wouldn't say that metal music is necessarily ideal for this headphone, but I used some of it anyway just because I felt like it. And for metal music, the SPL certainly had a strength - it was clear-sounding, fast, & precise, with a very good forward-moving insistence too. Metal sounded more engaging on the Luxman though, because that amp's more-forward presentation sounded more assaulting and it had the fuller, thicker mid-range. The "diffusion" of the SPL also did not seem to work very well for metal either, at least on the T1 (it didn't matter much on the AT AD2K).

On the one Baroque-classical track, I thought it played more to the SPL's strengths than the Luxman's, as the SPL had the clearer sound, with wider, deeper imaging. It was also more "expressive" on the violins with greater dynamics and more apparent detail on bowing movements (like the speed of a bow stroke, or reversal of direction, for example).

It's possible that the SPL may be better-suited for driving the T1 than the Luxman but I wasn't able to look into this fully. I would've liked to have ABX'd the two amps against each other with the T1 more but ran out of time.

with: Grado HP1000/HP2

Music used for this headphone:
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - "Concerto for two violins in D minor: Largo ma non tanto (2nd movement)"
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition] - "Take Five"
- Renee Fleming - Thais - "Meditation"
- Steve Kuhn - Mostly Coltrane - "Song of Praise"

Now that the sound of the Luxman and SPL amps was starting to emerge to my ears, I ran through only a short selection of music to play to the HP1000's strengths - classical-type music and jazz. Both amps did well with the HP2, but I'd give the edge to the Luxman. While instrumental tones sounded more trebly "brilliant" on the SPL (highlighting violins, for example), they were deeper on the Luxman, affording a higher sense of body, fullness, texture, and overall physicality. This worked well for the jazz selections in particular and made them sound more alive and engaging. The tenor sax on Steve Kuhn's "Song of Praise" for example sounded more connected with the musical group on the Luxman than on the SPL and even a bit more "soulful".

I haven't heard too many other amps with the HP2 and can't speak directly to previous amp experiences, and the Luxman sounded fine with it, but I felt that there are probably better amps to seek out for the HP1000 - even in my own experience earlier this year I felt the Woo Audio WA22 might be better-suited as it did not have the Luxman's reduction in the soundstage.

with: Sennheiser HD800

Music used for this headphone:
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition] - "Take Five"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - "Concerto for two violins in D minor: Allegro (3rd movement)"
- Porcupine Tree - In Absentia - "Blackest Eyes"
- Trifonic - Emergence - "Emergence", "Transgenic"
- miscellaneous metal

There was really no contest with this headphone - the Luxman was clearly the better amp for the HD800 than the SPL. IMO one of the HD800's worst qualities is its overly large soundstage that does not adapt to the size on the recording and the Luxman's forced reduction was actually a good thing in this case, because for me the expanded soundstage with the SPL downright detracted from the listening experience. The soundstage with the Luxman was a step in the right drection for a better sense of realism - but it wasn't completely realistic, it just got closer.

The HD800's overall treble-tilted frequency response benefitted a lot from the Luxman, as the musical selections sounded wispy and wimpy on the SPL, as if lacking gut and flesh (forget about body). While the SPL did help out in the aspect of treble articulation (another of the HD800's flaws IMO), it did very few favors for the HD800 - take a treble-tilted headphone and pair it with a treble-tilted amp, and you get a lot of treble. Now I personally like treble (a LOT in fact), but this particular combo did not appeal to my ears and made the treble sound bad.

The Luxman/HD800 combo, on the other hand, was a great example of synergy. Soundstage was actually precise, as it was easier to locate sounds and discern definite points in the virtual space. There was a good illusion of a center point too. The SPL, in contrast, made it feel like instruments were everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The Luxman also brought out the mid-range and mid-bass for a balance that sounded good on the HD800 - still not enough that I thought it was the perfect balance necessarily, but good enough to fix the HD800's main weak spots. It made the HD800 actually sound physical and tactile, and drums were even nicely impactful and powerful (specifically the ones on Dave Brubeck's "Take Five"). There was also a good full-range thrash and meaty sound to the overdriven guitars on Porcupine Tree's "Blackest Eyes." Even for the random metal tracks that I spun, the Luxman made the HD800 sound pretty good with the added mid-range/mid-bass and smaller soundstage - but this didn't really make the HD800 ideal for metal, as I think that metal is one genre that the HD800 almost completely fails in, and the Luxman didn't rectify any of its issues for that kind of music for me.

with: Sony Qualia 010

Music used for this headphone:
- Alison Krauss - Forget About It - "Ghost In This House", "It Don't Matter Now"
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Lonely Runs Both Ways - "Unionhouse Branch", "Doesn't Have To Be This Way"
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - New Favorite - "The Boy Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn"
- Global Communication - 76:14 - "4:02", "9:39"
- Laika - Sounds of the Satellites - "Almost Sleeping"

There wasn't much left to evaluate the Luxman for by this point, but I continued anyway for the final speed and treble tests. And in the aspect of treble, it was expected that the SPL would beat the Luxman, and it did. It had more quantity and was substantially cleaner and clearer, properly rendering fast plucks, creaks, vibrations, etc. In some instances, the Luxman even felt hazy. But to its credit, the Luxman balanced against the SPL's shortcomings in texture and mid-bass weight, and its soundstage reduction worked well on the Qualia too. The Qualia did reveal one thing none of the other headphones really caught though, and that was a sense of "silence" to the background on the Luxman. The sonic background of the SPL never really felt "dead" or "black," while it did on the Luxman - and it definitely seemed like the Luxman was the "quieter" amp too. As in, it had a better ability to convey quiet-volume passages in music, while the SPL seemed to struggle with this and sounded louder and didn't contrast soft versus louder very well.

Testing

There were a few non-music tests that I was compelled to do to wrap up my auditioning of the Luxman, and these included checking it for any noise whatsoever (no music playing & no input), checking the fine-tuning ability of the fixed gain, and comparing the balanced XLR to the unbalanced RCA input.

Noise: I used my always dependable highly-sensitive Audio-Technica AD2000 for this test and cranked up the volume to max with no music playing and nothing on the input. The amp was completely silent at minimum volume and as I turned up the knob, but at maximum there was an extremely slight high-frequency feedback of some type. It was very minimal though, I had to strain to hear it - but it was definitely there as I repeated this test several times and heard it every time. I also checked the SPL and it did not have the silence of the Luxman - it had what sounded like power transformer feedback, very slight, but was audible at any volume level (even zero).

Gain: For this test I spun some music and used again the AD2000, slowly turning up the volume knob from zero and listening to the adjustment of volume. Both amps had a nice low gain that allowed for proper fine-tuning on the AD2000 to achieve just about any desired volume with proper channel balance too at lower volumes. The SPL allowed for slightly more precision though in comparison.

XLR vs RCA input: For this test I used both of my pairs of Analysis Plus Silver Oval RCA and XLR interconnects along with the HD800, which I know improves in balanced mode (not that the Luxman has balanced output, but if I was going to hear a difference, the HD800 would reveal it). The only difference I could hear (after properly calibrating the volume between XLR and RCA of course) was a more dimensional soundstage on the XLR input that provided more air and space between instruments, and made them sound farther away. The Plinius CD-101 does not have true dual-differential output on its XLRs though, so I suspect there would probably be more sonic difference with true-balanced sources.

Summary

Throughout my listening of the Luxman P-1u, it proved to be a capable-enough amp for my headphones but it was far from ideal for a few of them, and given its price of $3K, I don't think I would buy one either. It wasn't really what I was expecting coming after the Luxman P-200 last year and if I had to pick one of them, it'd probably be the P-200.

I know that there will be people looking for a recommendation for or against this amp but I can't give one. Perception of sound is too subjective for that kind of thing and this was only my experience. Others will probably have different experiences. It's overall a fine amp, it just didn't particularly work for me sonically.

Originally published on August 2, 2009
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #2 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/501781/mini-reviews-luxman-p-1u-and-p-200
 
Please note that I never wrote a review of the FET-A and cannot write anything about it now as I no longer have it and all impressions were forgotten.

The following is sort of my "mini-review" of the P200 to share my impressions. Disclaimer: these impressions are based on 6 days of listening, far from ideal. Normally I would've liked to spend at least a week per headphone which is what I've done in the past, so even I might disagree with my own impressions later. My opinions varied a few times during listening in fact and without enough time to confirm what I heard via repeated listening, take these impressions with an extremely small grain of salt.

Equipment used:
- Source: Plinius CD-101
- RCA interconnects: BPT IC-SL
- Headphones: AKG K701, Alessandro MS2i, Audio-Technica AD2000, Grado HF2 and HP1000, Sony SA5000 and Qualia 010

Music used:
- Alison Krauss & Robert Plant - Raising Sand
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - New Favorite, Lonely Runs Both Ways
- Jane Monheit - Surrender
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Orbital - The Middle of Nowhere
- Priscilla Ahn - A Good Day
- Shelby Lynne - Just A Little Lovin'
- The Crystal Method - Community Service

To get right to the point, I thought both the P200 and FET-A are good amps, at least for the price. The P200 crushed the FET-A, enough that I thought it was the sonically superior amp. And at $650, the FET-A isn't a bad amp at all, but I did find some detractions that would make me hesitant to recommend it for everyone in every situation. I'll write more about the FET-A later in a different thread since I want to keep the subject here to the Luxman.

The P200's gain could probably be a little lower but I actually found it not that bad with the low-impedance headphones I used, as I got enough control to achieve just about any volume I wanted. Also it's worth noting the amp doesn't turn on immediately - it takes about 10 seconds to actually fully power up after the power button is pressed (the LED blips for a while as it turns on).

As far as sound quality, the Luxman was right up my alley. It was very fast and kept up with everything I threw at it. Strong, clear, & clean treble, in fact quite a noticeable contrast against the FET-A which didn't have as pronounced treble. The FET-A smeared over fast notes in comparison and failed to deliver some key details in the AKUS CDs, like vibrating strings and high-speed twangs.

The Luxman also separated & splitted musical elements from each other more distinctly than the FET-A, enough that each could be clearly discerned and located by ear (the FET-A had more of an "integrated" image). I felt the Luxman also had more of a "sharp focus" type of sonic image whereas the FET-A was a bit blurry - very good "crystal clear" sound on the Luxman, but some loss of distinction between musical elements on the FET-A. It also had more controlled and defined bass (the FET-A was a bit flabby and generic-sounding). Good strong, deep bass, though not too much mid-bass quantity (the FET-A was more of a mid-bass pounder).

I'd guess the Luxman might sound somewhat similar to a discrete HeadAmp amp but without a Gilmore Lite or GS-1 on hand, I can't say for certain. It had a similar type of sound compared to my AE-2 but I didn't directly compare the two, only going off of memory (the AE-2 has been my primary amp for the past several months). The Luxman did sound "flat/linear" compared to the FET-A which seemed to have a few colorations.

I listened for soundstage on every appropriate CD track but my impressions kept varying so I'll say nothing on the subject, other than that the Luxman seemed to do a proper job as far as width and size. For CDs that were recorded with studio acoustics, it did really feel like I was in the studio.

I also compared my Plinius CD-101 to my Arcam FMJ CD36 with the Luxman (using the Qualia 010) to check how well it could scale. Oh and it scaled all right, I could hear the clear sonic advantages of the Plinius over the Arcam. The soundstage was smaller on the Arcam and instruments were placed much closer too. Musical elements weren't as properly delineated on the Arcam and multiple concurrent voices/instruments weren't properly separated either. The Plinius also came across as edgier and quicker, and had clearer bass too (somewhat generic-sounding bass on the Arcam). Both CDPs are good though, and both conveyed the kinetic energy of AKUS properly, it's just that the Plinius sounded more detailed due to its faster speed and more separation. (Technical addendum: both the Plinius and Arcam output 2V, so I did not need to adjust the volume for compensation between the two. I also found that the two CDPs have the same remote control codes! I was able to use the Arcam remote on the Plinius and the Plinius remote on the Arcam!)

Overall I was impressed by the Luxman. For $1500 it's a very good amp that can scale with high-end sources and it didn't really have any major disadvantages that I could tell, other than perhaps a lack of authoritative low-bass power. It was actually a really good match for my low-impedance headphones from Audio-Technica, Alessandro, Grado, and Sony, and I would recommend it for those brands too.

The amp had a hard time driving the K701 though which leads me to not recommend it for use with high-impedance AKGs, Beyers, or Senns. The K701 lacked oomph with this amp, and when I turned up the volume to a very high level (past ear-safe volume), the bass started distorting and the frequency balance went wonky.

Originally published on February 22, 2010
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/473873/mini-review-woo-audio-wa22
 
Below are my impressions of the Woo WA22 from while I owned it (October 2009 - February 2010). However, while I owned the amp for that long, I should add a disclaimer that I put in only 2 weeks of actual listening on the amp. This is only my opinion of the amp and even I might disagree with my own impressions later. This is not meant to be a full-length review especially given my limited listening time and I did not compare the amp to any of its competition.

My reason for buying the WA22 was to try out a tube amp after going quite a while without one (the last tube amp I previously owned was an SP Extreme in 2007). I sold the WA22 not too long ago as I was done using it, as I prefer solid-state amps for the operational convenience.

All tubes were stock except for an addition of the Sylvania 7236 power tubes.

Equipment

- Source: Plinius CD-101 (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference)
- Interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval for XLR, BPT IC-SL for RCA
- Headphones: Sony Qualia 010, Grado HP1000/HP2, Audio-Technica AD2000, AKG K701. All re-cabled to balanced with the Moon Audio Black Dragon on the Qualia 010, APureSound V3 on the HP2 and AD2000, and SAA Equinox on the K701.
- Comparison amp: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite as a point of contrast only.

Evaluation Music

Alison Krauss - Forget About It
Alison Krauss & Union Station - Lonely Runs Both Ways
Andrea Parker - Kiss My Arp
Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [MFSL]
Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
Porcupine Tree - In Absentia
Shelby Lynne - Just A Little Lovin'
Orbital - Snivilisation
The Crystal Method - Tweekend
The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land

Stock 6AS7 vs Sylvania 7236 power tubes

I found the WA22 to sound ok with the 6AS7 power tubes, which I tried after getting used to the 7236 tubes first. But the 7236 tubes were a clear upgrade that I would recommend for use in almost all situations. There was a greater sense of power to the sound with them, with more overall punch and bass depth and force. The 7236 simply provided a fuller mid-range and a more direct sound as opposed to laid-back. However, the 7236 tubes raised the noise floor and generated some tube hiss - not much, though noticeable with sensitive headphones. This wasn't a distraction once music was playing. The 7236 tubes also provided more volume at any one setting and a higher gain so they weren't entirely optimal for a sensitive headphone like the Audio-Technica AD2000 as one example.

Grado HP1000/HP2 (7236 tubes)

I came away from the WA22 thinking that it may very well be a very good amp for the HP2 in particular, even though I haven't heard many amps on the HP2 (the other amps being a Balanced B22, CIAudio VHP-2, Luxman P-200, and TTVJ FET-A). The WA22 had a wider, more expansive soundstage than the Gilmore Lite ("GL" from here on out) with more space between the instrument sections, especially noticeable on Julia Fischer's Bach Concertos. It also added more body to the lower mid-range and fleshed it out a bit for a richer, more natural sound. It also better delineated multiple violins and provided more spatial/ambient cues for a better representation of the "concert hall" acoustic, in contrast to the GL which has more of a compressed soundstage.

The HP1000 did not respond much to being balanced - there was maybe some marginal widening of the soundstage and more depth to the mid-bass. However, I should add that the Plinius CD-101 is NOT a dual-differential source and instead generates its balanced output via phase inversion, so results will probably be different on sources that are dual-differential.

Audio-Technica AD2000 (7236 tubes)

Despite this headphone's sensitivity, I was able to achieve satisfactory volume control, even despite the stepped attenuator. With this headphone I noticed a number of less than optimal qualities though. The WA22 didn't have the blinding speed of the GL and trailed behind it in attacks on very fast impacts that were easily heard on the spring coil effects and percussion hits in Orbital's "I Wish I Had Duck Feet" and the similarly percussive but a lot more hard-driving "Smack My B***h Up" by The Prodigy. The GL was quicker, more agile, and had a more complete sound, with harder-feeling and more sudden impacts. For its part though, the WA22 had a more intuitive positioning of the layers with a more 3D aspect and a greater "reach out and grab it" factor, while the GL felt like it was maybe a little too tightly-wound and overly controlled especially with the attack/decay. The WA22 seemed to stretch out decays longer for a more realistic sound.

Also noticed with this headphone, the WA22 had a thicker, fatter bass than the GL, which is actually on the lean (but fast) side. Low "slap"-type bass sounded looser on the WA22 though, not as controlled as the GL. It did pulsate and throb low bass very well, but the GL had a more insistent, forward-moving bass while the WA22 didn't keep up as well. The GL also more easily captured details like vibrations on strings and drums, which were lost a bit on the WA22 (just a tiny bit though).

The WA22's extra dimensionality on the soundstage was easily noticed on this headphone even though it doesn't naturally have a large soundstage. To its credit the AD2000 does have an ability to tell you where the virtual walls are, so to speak.

Sony Qualia 010 (7236 tubes)

I love this headphone primarily for its treble response which is the cleanest and quickest that I've ever heard to date, and it does it without grating on the ears (or my ears, at least). One of my standard Qualia tests is Alison Krauss & Union Station's "This Sad Song." With the WA22, I noticed the treble wasn't as "hard" sounding and seemed to have less quantity. However, the WA22 helped to separate the instruments out from each other better with more accurate-sounding spatials. I still thought the GL's treble response was the better one though, as "hard" is an aspect that I think is probably more accurate for this recording, and the GL also helps the Qualia sink its claws over the metallic sheens better.

In balanced mode, the music actually took up the resident innate spatials that the Qualia allows for. There was a deeper, wider soundstage, with a greater enhanced "peering into space" effect. There was also cleaner separation between left & right with almost a perfectly mid-point center. Impulse response also seemed to increase a bit and there was less haze/blur to multiple simultaneous instruments. Overall the Qualia responded well to balanced mode, as instruments sounded off-center in single-ended mode.

AKG K701 (7236 tubes)

For this headphone, I engaged the impedance switch. On the previous headphones, I had this set at Lo, but for the K701, I turned it to Hi, and I did notice a sonic difference. At Hi, the K701 sounded clearer and less blurry. There was also more separation between instruments and a fuller mid-range & mid-bass with more body to the sound. Overall there was just a sense of the K701 being better driven, as it sounded a bit weak with the switch set to Lo.

I find the K701 to be the most average-sounding headphone that I currently own and in accordance with this, I detected no faults to the WA22 with it. In other words, the K701 sounded good, very good in fact, but it didn't reveal anything about the amp that my other headphones picked up. The WA22 simply drove the K701 well, and in fact drove it to very, very loud volume (past ear-safe levels) with absolutely no audible distortion. There was no noticeable added mid-range body, but nothing was subtracted either. It was just a strong, fluid sound that went well with the K701.

In balanced mode I found the soundstage to actually get a bit smaller but it became wider and more precise, with a better illusion of a center-point (not very apparent in single-ended mode). There was also better separation between the left and right channels and more depth to the mid-range and mid-bass, and also more dynamic range (especially on low-volume music). Impulse response improved too but still not to the point where the K701 sounded fast enough.

Final Notes

I did not listen to the WA22 with any other headphones and did not do any other amp comparisons - this review is only what it was, an informal comparison to the only other amp I had at the same time.

Originally published on November 16, 2011
 
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/580636/mini-review-schiit-lyr
 
Intro

This mini-review covers my thoughts on the Schiit Lyr vs HeadAmp GS-X in balanced mode, specifically for the Audeze LCD-2 r2 (with additional comments on the Senn HD800 and Audio-Technica AD2000 as well). Why these two amps? Because I already had the GS-X and was curious to find out what sort of sonic difference could be expected from triple the output power - the GS-X is rated at up to 2W @ 32 Ohms in balanced mode (1W per channel), and the Lyr is rated at up to 6W @ 32 Ohms.

Listening for this mini-review was done over about a week, a lot shorter than my typical listening for full reviews which are usually done over months. Primary reason for this is general lack of time available, along with general lack of motivation for a prolonged review period - i.e., there are other things I'd rather do with my time nowadays. Standard disclaimer hence applies: the below impressions should not be considered final and subject to change. I also don't typically trust even my own impressions on 1-2 week review periods. The best way I'd describe my approach for this mini-review: informal & short-term but critical listening.
 
Note: the review Lyr unit is one I bought. I usually write reviews on stuff I buy, as I'm averse to manufacturer loans - IMO this removes any manufacturer expectations on the review, and it allows me to take as much time as I want as well (though the time factor was certainly ignored for this review).

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (Signal Cable Silver Reference power cord, directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval RCA & XLR
- Tubes used on Lyr: 6BZ7 and 6N1P pairs supplied by Schiit Audio
- Headphones: Audeze LCD-2 r2 w/ stock ADZ-6 cable and Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3 XLR cable (for balanced operation), Audio-Technica AD2000, Sennheiser HD800

Both pairs of the Lyr tubes were "burned in" for 2 days each before listening started for this mini-review.

Evaluation Music

- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Lonely Runs Both Ways, Paper Airplane
- Dave Brubeck - Time Out [Legacy Edition]
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7
- Helloween - 7 Sinners
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Leftfield - Leftism
- The Crystal Method - Community Service II, Legion of Boom, Tweekend
- Trifonic - Emergence

Assessment

Regardless of which tubes were used in the Lyr, I ended up concluding it was the inferior amp to the GS-X in balanced mode, despite having the power output advantage. I also concluded that maybe the LCD-2 doesn't really need very much power to sound great, because while it sounded good on the Lyr, it actually sounded better on the GS-X - it sounded awesome!

I didn't compare the tube pairs to each other, which was impossible with only one Lyr unit (would have needed a 2nd one to do a tube comparison), but I did compare each to the GS-X in a "which tube set is better than the GS-X?" kind of way and neither comparison went very favorably for the Lyr. The GS-X beat both tube pairs to me, in the same way, as described below.

(From here on to the end, assume that my Lyr opinion applies to both of the tube pairs.)

I'll begin by stating that the Lyr produced really good sound on the LCD-2 (and HD800) and probably very few people would have any complaints unless they compared it to something a lot better (like I did for this mini-review). In the classic "ignorance is bliss" scenario, the LCD-2/Lyr combo could be considered bliss, as long as you don't hear anything else. It was obvious the Lyr capably drove the LCD-2 - plentiful bass & mid-range, keeping the LCD-2's overall tactile sound intact. More mid-bass & mid-range than the GS-X in fact, which could be a good thing for those who don't care about anything other than that. Lots of "substance" and "body", in other words. The Lyr also consistently compressed soundstages (depth & width), removing quite a bit of the "open air" element and tended to make music sound closer and more upfront - sometimes even in-head, depending on the recording. This kind of thing can be considered a good thing for certain music types like rock or metal (even jazz) but far from ideal for others, like classical.

But the more comparing that I did with the GS-X, the more it revealed shortcomings to the Lyr, enough that I couldn't help but conclude that the GS-X essentially crushed the Lyr in almost every key sonic aspect. The Lyr bliss went out the window every time I switched over to the GS-X - it really was that much better. And considering I think of the LCD-2 as merely above-average (and not the "excellent" pedestal that I place the Stax OII MKI on), that actually says a lot for the LCD-2.

On the GS-X, the LCD-2 sounded substantially clearer, while it was muddy-sounding on the Lyr with either tube set. This significantly improved the perception of detail throughout the spectrum - bass was more distinct and treble more precise. The improved clarity made instruments sound more "raw" and "existential" as well - the Lyr just muddied & smoothed over things too much. There was also more balance towards the treble, which helped to add to the clarity. The GS-X also vastly improved the soundstage, rightfully shoving elements away so they didn't sound too close and had actual dimension, depth, & width. There was substantially more "air" between instruments on the GS-X so it didn't sound nearly as compressed & suffocating as the Lyr. Even the HD800 with its large soundstage still sounded almost in-head on the Lyr - going out-of-head only on the GS-X. Speaking of the HD800, I also found that the Lyr outright robbed the HD800 of its clarity. Definitely would not recommend it for anyone who likes the HD800's clarity.

There was simply no loss in anything else on the GS-X - no obvious detractions from treble, mid-range, or bass, or from impulse response. The GS-X may not have had the Lyr's up-close & filling sound, but it more than made up for it with vastly improved clarity and soundstaging, and it powered the LCD-2 just as well as the Lyr. At really high volumes it showed absolutely no sign of distortion or loss in dynamic range.

There was another setback with the Lyr and that was driving the Audio-Technica AD2000, which developed a weird treble gnashing along with a loss in bass & mid-bass. And the AD2K picked up an electrical hum from the Lyr as well (as expected for its sensitivity rating) which was distracting except during loud music (it was audible during quiet music).

If anyone is curious at this point, yes I changed the tubes 6 times for Lyr/GS-X comparisons with 3 headphones. This got annoying, because the tubes were tricky & frustrating to remove.

At the end of the day I'd call the Lyr a decent value for what it is, an amp for driving inefficient headphones, but at the same time I really wasn't impressed sonically by it (next to the GS-X) and the best I can give it is a neutral impression. IMO, it's at around the minimum level of acceptable sonic performance - but for its price range, I can't really fault it either. Not to take anything away from Schiit Audio though - I always like American companies building products in the USA providing exceptional service & support, which they're doing, and I applaud them for making affordable products.

My recommendation for LCD-2 (or LCD-3 even?) owners: if your source is good enough, spring for something better than the Lyr. The HeadAmp GS-X is just one option and IMO it's a great amp for it, but only in balanced mode (so a balanced source is also required). Plus, owners of true-balanced sources with dual-differential DAC configurations will potentially yield even better results than mine, as mine isn't dual-differential. I'll add that amping the LCD-2 with the Lyr undermines the LCD-2's potential, and if you're buying or own the LCD-2, which isn't exactly a cheap headphone, why cheap out on an amp and subtract from its potential?

I learned from doing this mini-review that more power output isn't always better, and that the GS-X has what it takes to power the LCD-2 and make it sound awesome. I'm also looking forward to Schiit's upcoming statement amp, which I hope will be awesome. I'm optimistic that Schiit will make an amp that will impress me.
 
Operation/Handling
 
One important aspect of the Lyr that should be reiterated was the difficulty that I had in removing the tubes. Because they were so far inset into the amp with not much space to grip them, it was often very tricky to remove them—in fact, I outright shattered a 6BZ7 tube under my fingers due to applying too much pressure on it. Schiit was kind enough to supply me with a replacement 6BZ7 and offered to check for broken glass inside the amp as well, but I opted to open the amp myself and shook the glass out that way.
 
So anyone who intends on rolling tubes may want to look into convenient solutions for removing tubes. Info on this subject can be found on Head-Fi in the Amps forum.

Related Reading

Previous reviews that I've written that will help provide additional context on my opinion of the LCD-2 r1, including on the Schiit Asgard 1:

- Audeze LCD-2 multi-way review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/548875/review-audeze-lcd-2-hifiman-he-6-stax-sr-507-stax-oii-mki-bhse-et-al/
- Schiit Asgard comparison review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/531228/review-schiit-audio-asgard-avenson-audio-headphone-amp/
 
Addendum to mini-review: Gilmore Lite comparison
 
I formally compared the Lyr w/ 6N1P tubes to my Gilmore Lite w/ Elpac btw and my conclusion is: the LCD-2 r2 exhibited obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL. The GL actually sounded worse than the Lyr.
 
The LCD-2's obvious signs of being under-driven by the GL: very weak bass & mid-range overall. Severe lack of directness to sound. Slowness in note attacks. Music sounding like an unorganized blurry mess. Percussive impacts lacking impact. Lack of actual volume increase when turning up the knob.
 
If I didn't know better I'd actually call the GL a slow amp based on its performance with the LCD-2, but I know better (because it's not slow, it's actually one of the fastest amps I've ever heard when driving far easier headphone loads) and my conclusion is that the GL simply lacks the power output to properly drive the LCD-2. The GL is not an amp I'd recommend for the LCD-2 at all - it really sounded that bad to me. The Lyr, on the other hand, would be my recommendation as a minimum amp.
 
Considering the identical Dynalo "architecture" of the GL and GS-X, I'd make another conclusion: it's not the circuit that's to blame, only the power output difference, because the LCD-2 sounds way better on the GS-X (when balanced) than it does on the GL. Considering the GS-1 has the same power output spec as the GL, I wouldn't recommend it for the LCD-2 either. The GS-X in balanced mode is the only Dynalo-based amping that I'd recommend for the LCD-2. For better unbalanced amps I'd recommend either the B22 or Dynahi. The LCD-2 r1 that I previously owned performed better on a B22 than it did balanced on my GS-X.