Review: Fostex TH900
 
originally published on November 25, 2013
revised & re-published on December 29, 2013
 
- download a printable 10-page PDF version of this review (target goes to a location on my Dropbox)
 

(click for larger photo)

 
Intro
 
I first heard the Fostex TH900 at CanJam@RMAF 2012 in October, which was a costly mistake.  It was one of the most promising headphone auditions that I've ever had at an audio show, enough that I was persuaded to impulse-buy my own pair on Black Friday 2012 when they were being discounted by Moon Audio. I no longer own the TH900 though and sold them earlier this year in August for personal reasons, but I couldn't let my experience go without writing something about them, so here we are with my completed full review.
 
Apologies for the length of this review (at 10 pages printed) to those who find it too long, but there was so much that I wanted to share and not much that I wanted to delete. And given the high price of the headphones, I felt that such a long review was merited.
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (Signal Cable Silver Reference power cord, directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA on GS-X MK2, X-Series XLR on BHSE
- Headphone amplifiers: Burson Audio Soloist, HeadAmp GS-X MK2 and Blue Hawaii SE
- Headphones: Audio-Technica AD2000, HiFiMan HE-400, MrSpeakers Mad Dog 3.2, Stax OII MKI
 
Evaluation Music
 
- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane
- Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven 5 & 7
- Erin Boheme - What Love Is
- Goldfrapp - Black Cherry
- Helloween - 7 Sinners
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Kamelot - Poetry for the Poisoned
- Lee Morgan - Tom Cat [AudioWave/Blue Note XRCD]
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Nicola Benedetti - Fantasie
- Ruth Moody - The Garden
- Steve Kuhn - Mostly Coltrane
- The Crystal Method - Tweekend
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Trifonic - Emergence
 
Foreword
 
This review contains my usual “lexicon” of audio descriptors that I'm well aware may not be easily understood by all readers. Some words may be confusing, others will lack apparent explanation and/or context, and most of it will just likely be foreign to those who haven't heard a variety of headphones and won't understand what I'm trying to convey. Nothing in this review is purposely meant to confuse or obfuscate though, and I'll just say this: all lexicon used is my best attempt to try to explain the “sound” of audio using the written word, which is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible. Much in the same way as the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” holds true, so too “a sound is worth a thousand words” as well, and there are no words period that can accurately convey everything that I perceived from the Fostex TH900. My standard recommendation for all readers is this: try to find an opportunity to hear the headphones for yourself, or just buy them (new or used)—at worst you can easily re-sell them on Head-Fi if you don't like them.
 
Since the words “natural” and “neutral” are used throughout my review, I'll define them upfront:
 
- “Natural”: Meant primarily as the opposite to “unnatural” or “fake”, because of the headphones that have sounded unnatural to me for one reason or another. Unnatural-sounding headphones to me include: most Audio-Technica headphones (due to weird tonalities), most Grado headphones (due to sucked-out mid-range bands), AKG K70x (due to weird spikes in treble & mid-range), and the HiFiMan HE-400 & Sennheiser HD800 (both due to an emphasized treble & thin mid-range). Headphones that have sounded “natural” to me include: Stax OII MKI, Grado HP1000, Sennheiser HD600, Audeze LCD-2/LCD-3, and Beyerdynamic T1. For me “natural” means a tonality & timbre that makes most acoustic instruments sound reasonably close to that of real-life counterparts, instead of making them sound “fake”. Additional info should be provided here as well: I've been a violinist since age 6 and know the sound of a violin intimately (I'm 32 as of this writing), along with that of the piano and several other orchestral instruments. So when I listen to music, I seek headphones that can hence reproduce “non-fake” instrument tonalities.
 
- “Neutral”: Technically, “neutral” should mean “flat”, or a flat frequency balance across the board from bass to treble, but few headphones actually execute that. So I've since discarded that idea in favor of baselining headphones that actually sound neutral to my ears, and to me these headphones do: Stax OII MKI, Grado HP1000, JH Audio JH13 (IEMs). All other headphones that I've heard are non-neutral to me, though some have gotten surprisingly close, specifically the latest models of the Audeze LCD-2 r2. I'll repeat: all other headphones are non-neutral to me. A full list of headphones that I've heard is in my Head-Fi profile.
 
Please do not send me any PMs in regards to this review, as I won't respond to any unsolicited PMs for personal reasons (this is repeated in my sig & profile).
 
Sonic Summary
 
I'll say it upfront to get it over with: the TH900 was easily hands-down one of the best dynamic headphones that I've heard to date, closed or open. It was superbly natural-sounding (note: not necessarily neutral-sounding, because it wasn't), but what spooked me most about it was how close it got to the level of the Stax OII MKI. I thought it was by far the closest-sounding pair of dynamic headphones to the electrostatic Stax OII MKI, indeed so close that when I sold the OII/BHSE (for reasons unrelated to the TH900), I didn't miss the electrostatic system that much.
 
I'd sum up the TH900 as an open-sounding mid-range-oriented headphone (not that “mid-range-oriented” should mean “warm” though, at least as “warm” is typically used by other reviewers), with a deceptively surprising bass attack. I'd further describe it with the following list of qualities:
 

1. Uncharacteristically open-sounding for a closed headphone, similar to the Audio-Technica W5000 in solely that aspect. Very diffuse-sounding with a lot of openness/airiness throughout, preventing anything from sounding close-up and presenting a large hall- or stage-like sound—not overly spacious, but not compacted either. Somewhere in-between those, skewed slightly more towards spacious.

 

1. Low-hitting, powerful, & driller-like bass. Light on overall quantity to really fill out the 30-80Hz area, and even less in the 80-200Hz mid-bass area, but with the hitting force of a jackhammer for that 30-80Hz area. In short, the TH900 had a sneakily forceful low-bass kick that dominated over the general mid-bass “impact” zone (i.e., contrasting from something like the Audeze LCD-3, which has high mid-bass impact).

 

1. Well-balanced sonically with a very natural tonality throughout—appropriately natural-sounding enough to make most acoustic instruments sound reasonably close to realistic, from string to jazz instruments.

 

1. An overall U-shaped, scooped-out mid-range despite the natural tonality—i.e., the mid-range lacked body & fullness to an extent, primarily in the lower mid-range and mid-bass area. This negatively affected especially male vocals and instruments like bass guitars, so the TH900 wasn't ideal with music that used one or both of those components (in my case that was metal, but it could also apply to heavy, hard, and progressive rock).

 

1. Mid-range with a bold, vivid, rich character, not too far-off from certain discontinued Audio-Technica wood-lacquered headphones that I've heard in the past like the W5000 and W2002. Very “expressive”-sounding too, with a distinct inflection that especially added to plaintive-sounding music & instrument techniques (like long violin bowstrokes). This also contributed to making certain female vocalists sound somewhat lascivious, depending on the vocalist's style/range—it was more noticeable on female jazz vocalists in particular (Erin Boheme being a good example of it from my own CD collection).

 
Breakdown
 
The summary above provides a big-picture context of the TH900 for this review, but of course there were further aspects of the headphone that both positively added to it and negatively subtracted from it. I'll start with the positives:
 
+ Light weight and comfort: Headphones have to be comfortable in addition to subjectively sounding good, and fortunately the TH900 was very comfortable to wear. They were nicely light-weight and the headband was curved just right to distribute the weight evenly across my head instead of creating any singular pressure points, unlike the HE-400 and bumped-headband versions of the AKG K70x which were very uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time. The earcups were fully circumaural as well and didn't exert much clamping pressure.
 
+ Low leakage & low isolation: Leakage & isolation are tricky to balance on any headphone—they're not necessarily advantages to everyone in all situations. For example, someone looking for closed headphones might want as much isolation as possible to block out the environment, or as little isolation as possible so that they can listen to music while not being completely unaware of their environment. I thought the TH900 struck a decent balance between leakage versus isolation. At low to moderate volumes it didn't noticeably leak much sound, though if your intended purpose is to use them nearby other people within ~10 feet or less, I'd advise not cranking up the volume, because high-volume sound can easily leak out and be audible within a short distance range due to the relatively light clamp. It was two-way as well, so the isolation level was also low—i.e., it was relatively easy to hear background noise from a TV in another room with the headphones on, for example. Those who want more isolation should consider another pair of headphones or IEMs.
 
+ Mid-range-oriented sound: This has already been pointed out but it bears repeating. The TH900 wasn't exactly subtle about adding various inflections and sonic “colors”—in fact, it was probably one of the more sonically-colorful headphones that I've heard. It added extra character to vocals and a sort of “glare” quality to brass instruments that enhanced reediness and bronzy characteristics, but just a little. Nothing that was too much, but it certainly made genres like jazz sound more colorful & flashy. Perhaps a negative aspect but I personally enjoyed the inflection, as it seemed to enhance certain kinds of music.
 
+ Open, spread-out sound and large soundstaging: The TH900's open sound can't be overstated either, it was just remarkably open/diffuse/airy for a closed headphone, with a width & depth surpassed only by the even more open- & diffuse-sounding Sennheiser HD800. The TH900’s soundstage was a bit smaller-scale than the HD800 though, which I considered a good thing, as I view the HD800's soundstage to be too over-the-top large. In terms of only the soundstaging, I might liken the TH900 more to the AKG K70x—wide & deep, but not overly so. However, lest that provide the wrong idea, unlike the AKG K70x, the TH900 positioned everything in the mix distinctly out & away and very nicely spread-out, for a good illusion of music playing in a wide, airy space.
 
And now for the negatives:
 
- Lack of sonic agility: The TH900 wasn't a very agile-sounding headphone and was downright clunky-sounding on fast music, especially in the bass/mid-bass area. It didn't “spring” from one note to the next and seemed to overhang a bit, which made it sound like it was dragging weight. It was borderline ponderous-sounding, which made no sense given its electrical characteristics (25 Ohms and 100 db/mW). I thought it should have been a lot more agile-sounding given its low-impedance spec.
 
- Short decay: This wasn't unexpected for a closed headphone, as every closed headphone I've heard has a short decay, it just goes with the territory. This affected mostly my enjoyment of ambient electronica, which relies on properly long decay to deliver the effect—i.e., sonically-disappearing layers should slowly fade away back into the background and shouldn't be cut off at the end. The TH900 cut off these “exit trails” as I call them, which made it sound sort of flat.
 
- Lack of focus & insistency: The TH900 was also “unfocused” to me, as if it lacked a sense of forward-moving drive. This was most noticeable on fast music, or fast note sequences. There was no “insistence” or “momentum” to its sound and in some cases it sounded as if it were bored & listless, almost inert, and it wasn't motivated to metaphorically start running. It was a stark contrast to my Audio-Technica AD2000, which has the opposite characteristic and always sounds like it wants to immediately tear down the nearest racetrack at breakneck speed.
 
- Lack of dynamic range at the extremes: The TH900 had a decently wide musical dynamic range, more than some of its competitors like the Audeze LCD-2/LCD-3 and Sennheiser HD800, but not as much as the even-more-dynamic Stax OII MKI. I've previously likened the Audeze models to have a musical dynamic range that goes from mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte, and using the same scale I'd say the TH900's dynamic range went from pianissimo to fortissimo (pp to ff), but not pianissimo possibile to fortissimo possibile (ppp to fff). The only headphones I've heard that have the ppp to fff dynamic range are the Stax OII MKI when amped by the HeadAmp BHSE. Granted, the TH900 had good dynamics on its own, but it just wasn't as wide-ranging as the Stax OII MKI's and lacked proper handling for both quiet and intensely loud volumes—i.e., quiet parts lacked a certain subtlety, and extremely loud parts lacked sheer tear-off-the-ceiling intensity. It simply didn't handle low volumes that well and typically sounded better moderate to loud.
 
- Lack of soundstage depth: As mentioned above in the positives under “Wide, open sound and large soundstaging”, the TH900 set up a clear stage-like presentation, but it set up everything on that stage at the same apparent depth position. Not with multiple depth planes to provide the illusion that certain instruments were behind (or in front of) others, like the Stax OII MKI was able to do. Admittedly sort of a nitpick, as most dynamic headphones lack this ability too, but it was still noticeable on very critical listening sessions.
 
- Lack of neutrality: The TH900 wasn't neutral compared to the OII MKI (which many do consider neutral, me included), and as already mentioned, it had a scooped-out mid-range leading to a sort of U-shaped frequency response. Although the mid-range was only minorly scooped-out, it was still enough to me to detract from my enjoyment of some genres like metal, which often relies on male vocals to sound heavy and/or aggressive, and the TH900 was never able to convey that.
 
- Limited multi-genre applicability: Already implied above, but for most people the TH900 may not be ideal for all genres due to its sonic signature. While some may find it perfectly acceptable for classical, like I did, some others might not. Still others might find it acceptable for rock & metal, or electronic music, but I thought the TH900 didn't do quite as well in those genres. Either way, even for me the TH900 wasn't the master of every genre and only handled a few really well (classical, jazz, acoustic in general), so I'd imagine that others would find the same results.
 
Informal Comparisons: Audeze LCD-2 & LCD-3, Sennheiser HD800, Fostex TH600
 
Unfortunately I didn't own the TH900 alongside the HD800 and Audeze headphones simultaneously, so I can't provide a direct comparison. I can only provide an “informal” comparison that loosely relates the TH900 to each headphone based on my previous experiences, going off memory. First, it should be noted that I heard the HD800, LCD-2, and LCD-3 on various amps, not only in my home but also at various Head-Fi meets and shows (like CanJam@RMAF). Second, not all of these headphones have the same amping requirements, and an amp electrically optimal for the HD800 isn't necessarily also optimal for the Audeze headphones, and certainly not optimal for the TH900 too. That doesn't even consider the sonic characteristics of such an amp, which can further skew the results. That said, here are the informal comparisons:
 
Audeze LCD-2/LCD-3: The Audeze LCD-2 & LCD-3 have a basic tonal similarity to the TH900 (i.e., they all have a “natural-sounding” mid-range) but are fundamentally different, and neither of them are necessarily “better”. I consider the LCD-2 and LCD-3 to sound a lot alike, so I'll lump them together and simply say that they both have suffocating soundstages in contrast to the open-sounding TH900—that is, their soundstage has always sounded overly compacted regardless of the amp, and despite being open headphones, they both almost sound like closed headphones with everything placed too close-up and not having enough breathing room in the virtual space. The Audezes both also have substantially more relative bass & mid-range than the TH900, particularly the LCD-3, which I consider especially bassy & full-sounding. But to get the big-picture view, to me both of the Audezes have a fantastically physically tactile and assertive sound, very American-style in their assertiveness, and with quite an upfront quality about them. Compared to them, the TH900 is a lot less physical-sounding, with a more general passive and distant sound, but on the flipside provides bigger spatials and more clarity.
 
HD800: I consider the TH900 and HD800 to be more different from each other than similar, though both have large-ish soundstages. I think they're sonically complementary and fill in for each other's weaknesses to an extent. The HD800 has always lacked mid-range to me regardless of the supporting gear, and even on the best amps that I've heard it on, which include the Luxman P-1u (at home) and Apex Teton (at RMAF), it's still always lacked a perfect treble-mids-bass balance to me. For me the HD800's best qualities are its treble (even though it's a little too emphasized relative to the mid-range) and its high level of clarity. Although some view the HD800's open & large soundstaging to be one of its highlights, I'm not one of those people, as I think that aspect of it is a little too over-the-top and it's an unnatural effect on most genres of music. So for me, the TH900's smaller-scale soundstaging and higher mid-range quantity, along with its more-powerful bass, make it more musically versatile, as I was able to enjoy more genres on it, especially bass-oriented electronica which I could never listen to with the HD800. The HD800 was always genre-limited for me and the only types of music that I could tolerate it with were ambient electronica, bluegrass/folk, and generally female vocal-based acoustic music (blues, jazz). With the TH900, I could tolerate all of those genres plus more, namely instrumental & period jazz which was another intolerable genre for me on the HD800 due to its thin mid-range.
 
TH600: My report on the TH900 versus TH600 is linked below under “Related Reading”, as I got the chance to have them in-house together earlier this year thanks to the HeadAmp Demo Program.
 
Even-More-Informal Comparisons: Audeze LCD-XC, MrSpeakers Alpha Dog
 
It's perfectly ok if most people completely discount my informal comparisons to these two headphones, as I wasn't even sure about adding them myself for the simple reason that I only briefly heard the LCD-XC and Alpha Dog at this year's CanJam@RMAF. But I ended up deciding that it's probably worth giving these new-release headphones a short comparative mention. So I also have to add the usual caveat: my experience with the LCD-XC and Alpha Dog so far has been solely in a show environment with uncontrolled variables and less than ideal conditions.
 
First, as stated before, there are very few amps that will functionally drive the LCD-XC, Alpha Dog, and TH900 equally well, and that's not even considering the sonics of such an amp. With the sonics factored in, there are definitely no amps that will drive all 3 headphones perfectly. So with that said, here are the informal (and speculatory!) comparisons. Take them with extra grains of salt!
 
LCD-XC: The physical aspects should be factored in first, because Audeze headphones in general have been big & heavy with a lot of clamping force, and it seemed that the LCD-XC was especially bulky & heavy. Sonically I might consider the LCD-XC to be darker than the TH900 with less of its finesse and subtlety and more of that classic Audeze sound—more physically tactile and even more forward & assertive than the existing Audeze models, almost borderline aggressive. The LCD-XC also seemed to be quite closed-in-sounding, with even more of a compacted soundstage. It had more mid-bass quantity too—probably just the right amount for most bassheads, I'd imagine. So I don't view it as being very similar to the TH900 and more like a contrast as something different. The LCD-XC is probably a better headphone for those who like electronic, pop/rock, and/or metal—or just generally “American Top 40” types of music, because it is an American-made headphone, after all. I even saw Alex Rosson (the president of Audeze) DJ-ing at RMAF 2013 using the LCD-XC.
 
Alpha Dog: I think the TH900 is probably a natural upgrade from the Alpha Dog due to sounding more open & diffuse (separated), with more clarity as well. The Alpha Dog is more neutral though, since I found its tonality to be surprisingly close to the Audeze LCD-2 r2 when I directly compared them at RMAF on the same amp (I consider the LCD-2 to be relatively close to neutral). For those who might already be stretching to afford the Alpha Dog and are wondering if the TH900 is worth stretching further for, I say just buy the Alpha Dog. It's an incredible value at its price and the TH900 isn't a huge landslide improvement over it, plus the Alpha Dog is closer to neutral which makes it more musically versatile. But for “cost no object” buyers, I think the sonic advantages of the TH900 relative to the Alpha Dog make it worth the purchase for its more-open soundstage (with more air & diffusion throughout), tonal richness, and overall finesse at handling various musical subtleties, especially those in classical music. Moreover, those who want a “large-scale” soundstage for classical music would probably do well to skip straight to the TH900. Finally let's not forget, the Alpha Dog is planar magnetic and the TH900 is a low-impedance sensitive dynamic, which means that they have very different amplification requirements. A good high-voltage amp needs to be factored in for the Alpha Dog while the TH900 can be easily driven by anything with a headphone jack (though it benefits from proper high-current amplification).
 
Direct Comparison: vs MrSpeakers Mad Dog 3.2
 
The only reason for this comparison was because the Mad Dog and TH900 are both closed, even if the two headphones are different types (the Mad Dog being planar magnetic, and the TH900 dynamic) and vary wildly in price. That said, the Mad Dog is a great budget closed headphone that's not really comparable to any other closed headphones up to $300, unless we count the KEF M500 which goes in another sonic direction completely. Perhaps I should just say that the Mad Dog and M500 are two different sides of a coin and are both highly recommended for those on a budget. That is to say, if you buy one and don't like it, then the other would probably sound better to you since they're close to polar opposites.
 
The TH900 was closer-sounding to the Mad Dog than the M500 overall, but it took the Mad Dog formula and improved on it significantly. For one, it was way more efficient, obviating the need for a high-voltage amp (but a high-current amp would naturally be useful). The TH900 was basically like a much more open-sounding Mad Dog with a more relaxed, laid-back sound, slightly thinner bass (but no reduction in low-level depth & force), and more refined treble. That covers the “basics” but there was also much more subtlety to the TH900 that can't be succinctly put into words. Suffice it to say that I thought the TH900 was a definite upgrade over the Mad Dog.
 
Direct Comparison: vs Stax SR-007/BHSE
 
The TH900 got awfully close to the OII MKI, much closer than any other headphones that I've heard. What made it so close to the OII was its combo of an essentially open, clear sound and a natural, rich tonality that added quite a bit of color & expressiveness to its sound. Though the OII wasn't colorful or expressive on its own, that added quality of the TH900 helped it to get closer to the OII's level of performance on my system. Without it, the TH900 would've had quite a bit less going for it. That said, I almost could've considered the TH900 (along with the GS-X MK2) as a dynamic replacement for the electrostatic system completely and not have missed much other than some really subtle musical details that the OII MKI brought to the table. It's only for that proverbial last 1% that the OII MKI eclipsed the TH900. The electrostatic setup simply transcended typical headphone limitations to provide something unbelievably surreal-sounding.
 
There was the TH900's non-neutral mid-range too, contrasting from the perfect neutral balance of the OII MKI. It also had less treble extension than the OII MKI and sounded less precise. However, one of the most noticeable contrasts came about from the fundamental difference between closed versus open headphones—the TH900 didn't really have a black, silent background and its note decays were consistently cut-off, as previously mentioned above. With that exception, the TH900 had more genre versatility than the OII, mostly thanks to its added bass (because that's sort of a lacking aspect of the OII MKI). It was more adept at electronica & metal than the OII MKI, while still being great for classical. It could have been even better for classical though if its dynamic range was wider, closer to the level of the OII MKI's, but it was still very acceptable, if not completely ideal for very quiet or very loud music.
 
For those interested in the minutiae, I've included detailed info on how the TH900 compared to the OII MKI in the Notes section below.
 
Amplification
 
I was able to test the TH900 on only two amps, the Burson Soloist and HeadAmp GS-X MK2, so I can't really speak for how it might sound with any others. But I can say that the TH900 requires a proper high-current amp to sound its best given its electrical characteristics, and it sounded very good on the Soloist, and great on the GS-X MK2. I recommend trying other amps though, as I'd expect that there are probably plenty of others that would pair even better with it.
 
Conclusion
 
If there's one thing that I want readers to take away from this review, it's that the TH900 was awesome-sounding but not perfect either. No headphone ever is, and even the Stax OII MKI had its flaws to me, though admittedly the OII MKI had the fewest number of flaws that I've ever found with a headphone. But for me, the Stax OII MKI was the closest that I ever got to sonic perfection—it was positively amazing and life-changing, and reaffirmed to me the potential of high-end headphone audio.
 
That's not to say that I can't say the same about the TH900 though, because it too was amazing. Even with all of the other headphones that I've heard, I consider it one of the top dynamic flagships currently in production! The mere fact that I could compare it to the Stax OII MKI for this review (and that it came away with its dignity intact) is high praise for it, especially when I haven't found any other dynamic or planar magnetic headphones that can remotely compare to the OII MKI's level.
 
I say buy it if you can afford it and then be happy, because this hobby is full of endless pursuits and for most people it won't be worth it to keep going further for a high-end electrostatic system. For those who honestly want the truly best-sounding, cost-no-object headphones, go ahead and skip straight to a Stax OII MKI w/ BHSE. But for those who value their time & money (and their energy bill, because the electrostatic system soaks up tons of wall power), go for the Fostex TH900 instead. It simply offers high-quality sound and is worthy of being one of the “final” set of headphones for anyone.
 
Related Reading
 
Audeze LCD-3 mini-review: http://www.head-fi.org/t/594426/mini-review-audeze-lcd-3-vs-lcd-2-r2-sr-007-et-al
Fostex TH600 micro-review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/fostex-th600-dynamic-headphones/reviews/9723
 
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. Not all listening data was documented either, this is only a fraction of the total listening that was done (much more listening was done than the notes might indicate). Lastly, the review was not written directly from solely these notes, this is only provided as a supplement. Notes start below the asterisks.
 
***
TH900 vs OII MKI
 
Massive Attack - Mezzanine, Goldfrapp - Black Cherry, Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane, Ruth Moody - The Garden, Helloween - 7 Sinners
 

1. OII's imaging has more center-fill and sounds more “continuous” and “integrated”, TH900 more divergent to left and right. TH900 lacks OII's “swift lightness” and sounds heavier/clunkier, very obvious on percussion (i.e., belly drums on “Inertia Creeps”). TH900 also partially blurry in mid-bass/mid-range. OII's lightness/”spring” works for it a lot more, while TH900's clunk works against it. TH900 lacks blinding-speed percussive impact of OII and AD2K—lacks that hard- & fast-hitting aspect. TH900 is “hard” but not completely “fast”. Recovery specifically is slow; lingers too long. Very slightly “plodgy” or “rounded-off”.

 

1. TH900 sort of like a darker OII—less treble quantity, more mids, deeper & heavier bass. Also slightly smaller-scaled in the soundstage. OII soundstage more “organized”. OII still has more clarity and cleaner treble as well—actually substantially more clarity. Even if mids make OII sound “thinner” than TH900, OII's clarity provides more “detail” on timbre & tone. TH900 has a slight tendency towards a “congealed thickness” and congestion, while OII does not.

 

1. Bass: deep/full on TH900, satisfactory impact with moderate thickness as well. Very clear on OII, not as heavy/deep. Bass seems “faster” on OII than TH900. More “powerful” on OII though, as well as lower extension on it. OII more capable of producing low-extending, hard-driving bass when amped by BHSE. TH900 lacks extension and an aggressively “hard” drive into its bass range—i.e., TH900's bass notably heavy & deep but not particularly focused. Lacks the parallel focus/drive of OII.

 

1. More air/spatials/separation/dimension on OII—more sense of soundstage depth & width. Can make OII sound “bigger” than TH900. TH900 more “intimate” than OII, vocals are pushed forward more (more in-your-face) and have less depth to them.

 

1. OII has excellent low-volume integrity; TH900 not as adept. OII sounds just as good extremely quiet as it does loud, TH900 sounds better moderate to loud.

 

1. TH900 otherwise very close to OII—probably closest-sounding dynamic headphone to OII, nearly an equivalent. There are no real dynamic equivalents to the OII—but the TH900 gets awfully & scarily close nonetheless.

 
Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos: OII sets up more realistic soundstaging—not too close, not too far, just the right width span. Just the right spatials & separation too—excellent sense of the acoustic space, the sound waves reverberating throughout. TH900 lacks that aspect of the acoustics. TH900 also lacks the “radiating” sound of the OII and the pure/clean sound of Fischer's violin. TH900 a little bit “masked”, OII simply has purity of sound and maintains a beautiful purity to Fischer's violin. Specifically, TH900 masks Fischer's violin-bowing technique a little—volume modulation, string-crossing, etc. TH900 seems to have excessively “warm”-sounding violins, not an unpleasant addition though. Violin “wood” tone also spot-lighted on TH900, so they sound extra “woody”. TH900 also lacks fast, light Baroque touch that OII has.
 
Carlos Kleiber & VPO - Beethoven 5 & 7: Unconvincing wall of sound via TH900—lacks coherency. Though OII has more “separation”, it's the TH900 that has a disjointed-sounding orchestra, with way too much space/distance between violin & cello sections. Depth planes not apparent on TH900 either—everything seems at same depth plane. TH900 doesn't project outwards very well and lacks the “air” that would make the orchestra sound larger. TH900 also has blobby-sounding violins—sort of a mess. Sections too “unified”, individual violins not distinct enough. OII has more volume intensity than TH900—TH900 seems louder because of more mid-range, but lacks sheer intensity that makes horns in particular scary-sounding. OII has more “projection” on the horns too so they seem more powerful.
 
Nicola Benedetti - Fantasie - “Zigeunerweisen Op.20”, “Spiegel Im Spiegel”: TH900 lacks “subtlety” of OII—specifically in low-volume parts. TH900 has more of a bold, rich, vivid character while OII is capable of more of a subdued character, not quite as bold/vivid. TH900 makes Benedetti's long, wide bow strokes very expressive-sounding.
 
Steve Kuhn - Mostly Coltrane - “Song of Praise”: Very full-sounding sax on TH900. Everything close/converged & full on TH900; OII divergent & thinner. TH900 has more of a “throw you in with the jazz group” effect, like Grado HP1000.
 
Lee Morgan - Tom Cat [AudioWave XRCD] - “Twice Around”: fuller-, closer-sounding instruments on TH900 that add to more “presence” factor, like Grado HP1000. Guessing, TH900 not far from HP1000 in terms of texture? TH900 seems like a crossover of both HP1000 and OII—soundstage & texture of HP1000, clarity & tonality of OII.
 
TH900 vs AD2K
 
The Crystal Method - Tweekend - “Murder”, “Over the Line”, “Blowout”: TH900 sort of like the sonic inverse of AD2K—U-shaped mid-range sinkhole contrasts to AD2K's bowed-out C-curve (more mid-range, less lower bass). Bass phase/pass stronger on TH900. In general TH900 has more sub-80Hz quantity than AD2K that contributes to it sounding bassier down low; however it also sounds thinner & more recessed than AD2K in upper mid-bass & lower mid-range.
 
In Flames - The Jester Race - “Moonshield”, “Artifacts of the Black Rain”: Lack of mids on TH900 bothersome on these tracks; the guitars are highlighted too much in the treble and don't have enough mid-range thrash to counterbalance. Fuller sound of AD2K better for these tracks. Vocals also shoved too much to background on TH900, but not an issue on AD2K.
 
Kamelot - Poetry for the Poisoned - “The Great Pandemonium”: Track distinctly boring on TH900 due to lack of mids and overall aggression. Much more “alive” on AD2K. Percussive hits shoved to background on TH900, very forward on AD2K.
 
TH900 lacks that “x-factor” that would make it truly awesome for hard-driving industrial/electronic/rock/metal. Lacks a “growl” or mean streak. However, definitely complementary to AD2K; opposite styles. AD2K is aggressive/forward, TH900 is passive/laid-back.

Review: Micromega MyZic
 
- download a printable 4-page PDF version of this review (target goes to a location on my Dropbox)
 

 
Intro
 
The Micromega MyZic initially caught my interest when I was previously in the market for an inexpensive solid-state AC-powered amp some months ago and came across it in the product listings on TTVJ's site (ttvjaudio.com). Several weeks ago I was inspired to finally try out the amp and inquired about a review sample, which TTVJ generously provided. Thanks goes out to them for providing the review sample. The MyZic ended up being a very worthwhile discovery!
 
Equipment Setup
 
- Source component: NAD T533 (DVD player)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite w/ DPS
- Headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000 & ATH-AD2000X, Audeze LCD-2 r2
 
Evaluation Music
 
- Diablo Swing Orchestra - Sing-Along Songs for the Damned and Delirious
- Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Machine Head - Through The Ashes Of Empires
- Morcheeba - Blood Like Lemonade
- Ruth Moody - The Garden
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Trivium - Shogun
 
Operation, Handling, etc
 
The MyZic's form factor was easily one of its highlights—squarish and quite compact, in a light-weight ABS plastic enclosure. However, I don't consider light weight to necessarily be a good quality in an amp, as it usually translates to poor bass quality—i.e., I've traditionally only heard good bass from amps with a properly hefty toroidal power transformer inside, and it was fairly obvious from the MyZic's weight that it didn't have a full-size toroidal transformer inside. So that sort of set up expectations immediately for me—I was already expecting disappointment in its bass response well before I plugged in the amp and turned it on.
 
Operationally there were two quirks of note, one of which was visually obvious: the rotary volume control. Although a unique idea, in practice it wasn't completely intuitive, because it wasn't marked with which direction made it become louder or with any lines that indicated how far along the control was turned. At its lowest setting, it also effectively put the amp into standby. The other operational quirk was the lack of a power switch, and the amp's use of a 2-pole IEC C7 power cord, which meant that the amp was always drawing at least a little power, whether in standby or not. So for those who want to be able to easily turn it completely off, I recommend plugging the amp into an easily-accessible power strip with an on/off switch.
 
I was pleased to note an especially low gain on the volume control though, low enough that I could get any volume setting desired on my two low-impedance/high-sensitivity Audio-Technica headphones. At the same time, there was more than enough play on the volume control to push the inefficient Audeze LCD-2 to very loud volumes and still have some available headroom left. That being said, the Audeze LCD-2, or any other planar magnetics for that matter, are not headphones that I'd recommend using the MyZic to drive, which I'll get into in the next section.
 
Sonic Assessment
 
The amp's bass certainly lived up to my expectations—that is to say, it really didn't produce much quantity and was downright bass-light compared to the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite, which itself is also a relatively bass-light amp. It was a noticeable detraction, so much so that once I discovered it, I sort of stopped using electronica for the review. There was a noticeable lack of bass force & depth that effectively "neutered" heavy, synthesized bass lines.
 
The MyZic was also clearly incapable of properly driving the Audeze LCD-2—increasing the volume control actually resulted in more subtraction from the bass/mid-range on the LCD-2, and the sound blurred at higher volumes too. Not that the Gilmore Lite was much better though, as it too under-drove the LCD-2, but not quite as much or as obviously. Due to how the LCD-2 behaved on the MyZic, I'd recommend not using the MyZic to drive any planar magnetic headphones—it was obviously a huge mis-match. Based on experience with previous headphones & amps, I'd further recommend not using the MyZic to drive headphones like the AKG K70x or other >300 Ohm impedance headphones either, as those typically require high-voltage amps, which the MyZic clearly wasn't.
 
It became apparent that the MyZic's prime application was with low-impedance, efficient headphones, generally ones like Audio-Technica, Denon, Grado, Fostex TH-series, Sony, etc, and true to form it did perform better with my AD2K and AD2KX than with the LCD-2. However, even with the Audio-Technica headphones, I noted some further sonic flaws with the amp, including a minor lack of clarity, the lack of bass quantity as already mentioned, lack of upper treble extension & quantity, and some bluntness to the sound (i.e., it wasn't completely "quick/agile"-sounding).
 
But I think enough has been made of the MyZic's flaws at this point, so that its highlights can be pointed out as well, and for that I'll start with the MyZic's subtle mid-range qualities. This was definitely one of those rare cases where the sound was deceptively textured in a way that didn't call attention to itself, so it took some time to detect. I wouldn't call the amp "warm-sounding" per se but it was definitely a mid-range-oriented amp in the very subtle ways that it added to the mid-range—deftly imbuing vocals with a sense of just enough body/fullness so they didn't "float" and were grounded, and adding just a slight (but not overt) tonal richness to instruments like violins, woodwinds, & acoustic guitars. This helped to fill out the sound overall, resulting in a balance that was very pleasing on the AD2KX, and to that point the AD2KX seemed to pair better with the MyZic than the AD2K (which paired better with the Gilmore Lite). The MyZic's mid-range was exactly the type that I'd imagine would pair very well with headphones that lack mid-range body to some extent, like most Grados, the Fostex TH600/TH900, Sonys, and the Sennheiser HD800. It was such a mid-range-complementary amp that I'd actually strongly recommend it for those brands & models.
 
The MyZic also had very good 3D imaging & soundstage, unlike the Gilmore Lite, which was very 2D-sounding in comparison. In fact, one of the Gilmore Lite's biggest flaws was its imaging & soundstage, because it collapsed nearly everything to single-plane depth and diverged the channels too much, resulting in a sort of "concave"-type sound. The MyZic properly converged the channels more for a good illusion of the center, along with pushing everything out and away more so nothing felt too close. With the AD2KX, it actually presented the orchestra realistically, in terms of the instrument sections sounding appropriately spread-out yet cohesive at the same time. This more spatial sound of the MyZic was very consistent and I'd imagine that it'd be a good effect on any headphones with a limited soundstage to help make them sound more open/airy.
 
Conclusion
 
Although the Micromega MyZic wasn't without its flaws, it was also one of the more interesting amps that I've heard recently and I'd enthusiastically recommend it for a certain limited range of headphones, as mentioned. And at $269, it's a good value too.
 
Addendum - Review Notes
 
Not as upfront/forward as GL. Less "drive" into upper mids and mid-bass. More rawness/grit to sound on GL. More "rounded" sound on MyZic vs GL, not as sharp/incisive.
 
More apparent low bass current on GL—deeper, heavier (at extreme low point). MyZic more spatial/dimensional.
 
AD2KX/MyZic has more laidback/passive sound while AD2K/GL has extreme upfront/aggressive sound. Seem to be ideal headphone/amp pairings.
 
MyZic better pairs w/ AD2KX than GL due to frequency balance—somewhat of a mid-range sinkhole (and treble emphasis) noticeable with GL that's not really pleasant on AD2KX. MyZic balances w/ AD2KX mid-range better—less grain and more mid-range that reinforces vocals.
 
Diablo Swing Orchestra - Sing Along Songs For The Damned & Delirious - "Vodka Inferno"
The Prodigy - Fat of the Land - "Funky ****"
Morcheeba - Blood Like Lemonade - "Blood Like Lemonade"
Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious - "Vicious Delicious"
 
Bass/mid-bass thinner on GL, slight thickness/bloom on MyZic. MyZic under-drives LCD-2, so the bass in general loses some quantity, force, & depth compared to GL. Despite MyZic under-driving LCD-2, LCD-2 sounds decently ok regardless, if a bit bass-light.
 
GL w/ DPS better drives LCD-2—more clarity throughout spectrum, increased bass. Blurry sound on MyZic. On the other hand, mid-range thinness of GL doesn't work for LCD-2, while MyZic pushes mids/vocals more to forefront.
 
Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - "Concerto for 2 Violins in D minor: Allegro"
 
MyZic spatially wider & deeper than GL, better for orchestral music. More cohesive. GL diverges too much to left/right sides. Violins seem to lack some body on GL, not so on MyZic. MyZic seems to have more of a subtle touch as far as inflection/texture/bow "brushing". Sonically a better match with LCD-2, adds more "texture/richness" to its sound while GL subtracts from it.
 
Machine Head - Through The Ashes Of Empires - "In the Presence of My Enemies"
Trivium - Shogun - "Kirisute Gomen"
 
Attacks/decays more defined on GL (esp in fast percussion), but MyZic has more "metal" low/growly sound to it. (Except on LCD-2.) Faster impulse response of GL contributes to sharper-sounding drumming.
 
Also a sort of concave imaging on GL; more evened out on MyZic that spatially fills out more left to right. More convex imaging than GL.

Review: HiFiMan HE-400 (revision 4)
 
published on October 14, 2013
 

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

Intro

I originally got interested in the HiFiMan HE-400 due to early positive impressions by other Head-Fiers and eventually bought my own pair in November 2012, new from HeadAmp. This review contains my thoughts on the headphones, which I owned up until August 2013. Caveat: for various reasons I didn't listen to these headphones that much while I owned them and used them only for about 65-80 hours. I don't personally believe that planar magnetic headphones burn in either, which is another reason that the headphones never got many hours on them.

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
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Headphone amplifiers: Burson Soloist, HeadAmp GS-X MK2, Schiit Magni
- Headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, MrSpeakers Mad Dog 3.2, Fostex TH900
 
The HE-400 (revision 4) was used only with the velour earpads, not the stock pleather ones.

Evaluation Music

- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane
- Andrea Parker - Kiss My Arp
- Goldfrapp - Black Cherry
- Helloween - 7 Sinners
- Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Machine Head - Through The Ashes of Empires
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Megadeth - Countdown To Extinction [MFSL]
- Orbital - Snivilisation
- Ruth Moody - The Garden
- The Crystal Method - Vegas [2007 Deluxe Edition], Tweekend
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Trifonic - Emergence
 
Negative Aspects
 
The flaws listed below collectively soured my experience with the headphones:
 
- Comfort & fit: The HE-400 was very uncomfortable on my head mostly because of the headband, which wasn't padded at all and frequently left the top of my head sore. I also never got a full "seal" with the ear cups due to the size and shape of the frame—i.e., the headphones were just slightly too big for my head at the smallest slide setting and didn't "clamp" enough to my head either, leaving slight open space. That may in part explain some of why I heard what I did with the HE-400, and it's admittedly possible that my fit issues could very well have been the source of my negative experience with the headphones.
 
- Cable quality & appearance mis-marketing: The HE-400's cable was one of the worst things about it to me. For one, the screw-in connectors were an annoyance to deal with (primarily because they were too small to easily turn) and always left me wary that they might break as well. In fact, I did break one of them from over-torquing and had to get a replacement cable through HeadAmp. Second, I thought the 3.5mm mini plug at the other end was a major error too for two reasons: (1) 3.5mm mini plugs usually indicate that a headphone can be driven well by portable & computer sources. I found this to not be the case at all with the HE-400. On my computer it required extra-high volume to sound loud. And on my amps it required high gain (where configurable) + high volume adjustment to sound loud. (2) I occasionally experienced sound drop-outs when I used the cable with a 3.5mm-1/4" adapter and frequently had to "shake" the adapter's connection to the headphone amp in order to regain sound. This occurred with all 3 amps, so it wasn't limited to a single amp. The problem was clearly with the cable's 3.5mm mini plug, as I've never experienced the issue with any other 3.5mm-terminated headphones.
 
- Overall lack of mid-range: I put the HE-400 through every major music genre that I listen to (classical, bluegrass/folk, metal, electronica/trip-hop) and had a hard time appreciating it for most of them simply because I found the mid-range overall to be too recessed, which negatively affected my enjoyment. It was just way too thin-sounding and never presented instruments like bass guitars or other elements like male & female vocals as properly full-bodied. It severely detracted from atmospherics/ambience as well—on music that was atmospherically dark, like trip-hop and certain types of metal, the stylistic "darkness" that should've been there was missing with the HE-400. I don't mean sonic darkness, I mean that kind of heavy, creepy, menacing quality that some tracks can have (for example, Massive Attack's "Inertia Creeps"). And the HE-400 tended to shove key musical layers to the background, like drums/percussion. In that aspect it was like the sonic inverse of the Audio-Technica AD2000/AD2000X, which both bring percussion to the extreme foreground.
 
- Boring bass: You'd think just having a lot of bass on a headphone would make it fun-sounding, right? Wrong. It depends on how it sounds, and the HE-400 had one of the most boring bass responses that I've ever heard. It reminded me of the "oonce oonce" bass in dance clubs—completely generic and indistinct with absolutely no real energy to speak of. Ok, the HE-400 had a lot of bass quantity. But the quality of that bass was just non-exciting, as it was just the equivalent of a generic-sounding bass "drop". There was just no impact, or force, or anything that sounded like the bass had some type of forward motion and wanted to keep pace with the rest of the music. And there was no tightness to it either, it was just a generic-sounding plodgy and ploppy blob. In fact, if there's one word that could sum up the bass for me, it'd be "ploppy".
 
- Spiked & unrefined treble: Ok, a lot of headphones have unpleasantly spiked treble. The HE-400 was just another case of that to me, and I like treble too! I'm a fan of the treble in the Sony Qualia 010 and Sennheiser HD800 for example. But the HE-400 had just too much zing and sibilance that made my ears wince on too many occasions. And it was unable to stay clean at high volumes, on music that was especially treble-heavy—i.e., it tended to blur ambient electronica at points where the music got increasingly complex & trebly.
 
- Over-diffusion: I'm generally not a fan of headphones that diffuse/separate the sound a lot, especially when it's obviously unnatural to the recording. (Case in point: HD800.) The HE-400 overdid this as well IMO and completely lost a sense of cohesion—it split apart bands way too much so they didn't sound like they were playing in the same room, for example. I'm pretty sure that most metal bands don't intend for their music to sound overly diffuse/separated and this aspect of the HE-400 especially annoyed me when listening to metal.
 
Positives?
 
Normally I'd try to balance a negative review with some positive aspects but unfortunately my experience with the HE-400 really turned me off to it, way more than any other headphones in recent memory. So I apologize if I can't come up with anything especially positive to say about it. I guess the best thing that I can say about the HE-400 is that it was technically competent—i.e., it had treble and bass, a fast impulse response, etc, but for me it strayed so far from the point of conveying music that it ended up registering as below-average in my personal rankings. Additionally, by the time I really started putting the HE-400 through its paces for this review, I also had the MrSpeakers Mad Dog 3.2, which I'd be inclined to say is the superior-sounding planar magnetic headphone for less money.
 
As far as amping went, I used mostly the Burson Soloist and HeadAmp GS-X MK2, and only minorly the Schiit Magni. The Magni was able to drive the HE-400 effectively but that's about all it did—the HE-400 really didn't sound that great on it, especially compared to the Burson Soloist. The Magni was also unable to drive the HE-400 at ultra-loud, non-earsafe volumes without causing audible distortion in the bass frequencies (on extra-low/powerful bass notes). And although the Soloist and GS-X MK2 were better-sounding amps, neither of them helped to rectify my issues with the HE-400. The GS-X MK2 in particular only amplified its sonic flaws.
 
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.
 
***
Terrible cable quality at both ends (screw connectors too small to easily handle, connectivity issue when mini-plug used with 1/4" adapter). 3.5mm plug mis-leading, HE-400 nowhere remotely efficient enough for use with portable sources. (Needs High gain to achieve sufficient volume on Soloist and GS-X at moderate settings.)
 
Overall passive, laid-back sound, in a V-type signature, with very emphasized treble and bass.
 
Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos

1. Strings clear & "shimmering", not too unlike HD800, but also diverges instrument sections widely. Very separated sound, not very cohesive. Almost too much channel separation. Treble overall reminiscent of HD800—has similar issue as HD800, causing wispy/glossy-sounding violins. Lacks subtle musical details that the OII would have (inflection, dynamics, bowing technique, etc). Lack of overall mid-range content negatively affects both violins & harpsichord.

 
Massive Attack - Mezzanine - "Teardrop", "Inertia Creeps"

1. HE-400 fails to portray analog-like warmth of Teardrop that should be there. Tape hiss doesn't add atmospherics either and is just “there” as background noise. Kick drum not very obvious as a kick drum either, also lacks distinction. Lacks percussive-hit drive into belly drums of Inertia Creeps as well. Drums sound slow and lack the fast vibration decay as heard on OII/BHSE. Dark atmospherics & ominous sound of track totally not conveyed by HE-400 either. 3D's vocals also lack a heavy intonation.

 
The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious - "Becoming Insane", "Vicious Delicious", "Change The Formality"

1. Bass on HE-400 is low but also sounds very boring. Has quantity, but lacks "motion" and power—i.e., drive/punch/impact. Not tight either and is semi-plodgy. Sort of blobby & ploppy. Almost excessively ploppy depending on music.

 
Helloween - 7 Sinners - "Who is Mr. Madman?"

1. This recording especially shows faults of HE-400—drumming is barely noticeable on it. Shoved too much to background and doesn't sound like an integral part of the music. Polar opposite of something like AD2K which brings drums to extreme foreground. Bass guitars also completely lack fullness. Track completely lacks excitement of AD2K.
2. For metal music specifically, HE-400's frequency balance skews more towards guitar string plucks/vibrations. Huge lack of general bass fill to bass guitars and vocals that more often than not offsets the intended atmosphere, so most tracks don't have an appropriate "metal" sound.

 
Porcupine Tree - In Absentia - "Blackest Eyes", "Lips of Ashes"

1. HE-400 lacks heavy/full sound that would add more to music. Guitars stick out too much in mix. Bass guitars detracted too much. Separated, diffuse sound lacks cohesion. Opposite of Grado-like where the band is close together and upfront. HE-400 splits the band too far apart. Treble is the aggressive element on HE-400, not the band's bass guitar as it probably should be.

 
Beyond Twilight - Section X - "The Path of Darkness"

1. HE-400 shoves male vocals to background too much and recesses them too much as well. Lacks heavy, dark sound on HE-400 that should be there.
2. Not sure HE-400 would be ideal for black or tech metal due to lack of mid-bass & mid-range (male vocals too recessed, bass guitars detracted from too much as well).

Note: this micro-review was previously posted verbatim in HeadAmp's Headphone Demos thread on 6/30/13. Cross-posting here for greater visibility. Note the date, as that was before Fostex reduced the MSRPs on the TH600 and TH900 to $1K and $1.5K (USD), respectively (from $1.3K and $2K, respectively).
 
Micro-review: Fostex TH600 vs TH900 Comparison

Disclaimer: this micro-review is based on 3 days of listening, with an approximate total of about 7-8 hours of listening across those 3 days.

Equipment Setup

- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (Signal Cable Silver Reference power cord, directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Emotiva X-Series RCA
- Headphone amplifier: HeadAmp GS-X MK2

Setup Note: Since the HeadAmp GS-X MK2 has dual 1/4" headphone outputs, I plugged both the TH600 and TH900 into the amp to be able to "hot swap" between them.

Equipment Note: Other currently-owned and previously-owned headphones are listed in my profile.

Evaluation Music

- Alison Krauss & Union Station - Paper Airplane
- Diablo Swing Orchestra - Sing-Along Songs for the Damned & Delirious
- In Flames - The Jester Race
- Infected Mushroom - Vicious Delicious
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos
- Laika - Good Looking Blues
- Massive Attack - Mezzanine
- Ruth Moody - These Wilder Things
- The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land
- Trifonic - Emergence

TH900 Preface

I should start by saying that I think the TH900 is one of the best dynamic full-size headphones that I've heard, closed or open! I thought it was good enough against my previous OII/BHSE, that when I sold the OII/BHSE (for reasons unrelated to the TH900), I felt like I wasn't losing that much sonically. It's easily the closest dynamic equivalent to the OII MKI that I've heard to date!

Since acquiring the TH900 in December last year, it's been my preferred headphone for classical & jazz primarily, but also ambient electronica, bluegrass/folk, and even electronica & metal, for those times when I want a different flavor from my Audio-Technica AD2000.

TH600

The reason I signed up for the TH600 loaner program was more for curiosity than anything else, and to see if I could potentially downgrade to the TH600 from the TH900. I can now say with certainty that maybe I could downgrade to the TH600 without being too dissatisfied, but it wouldn't be without regrets.

The TH600 was very good on its own, and for all the music that I tested it on, it plowed through everything surprisingly well - good enough that I didn't have any complaints listening to it by itself. Just like the TH900, it handled the musical range from classical to metal extremely well, better than a lot of other headphones that I've heard! It also really worked great for electronica too and had enough bass quantity for personal satisfaction (though I wouldn't call it a bassy headphone).

To get straight to the direct comparisons:
- The TH900 had more powerful bass. If that sounds unclear as to what means, sorry but that's the best way that I can describe it. The TH900 exuded substantially more bass & authority—more depth, force, etc. The TH600 didn't have the driller-like bass of the TH900 either, which marginally took away from its overall bass impact. It wasn't enough to be a huge detraction, just something noticeable.
- The TH900 had a more spread-out, expansive sound with more apparent 3D depth. It placed instruments/layers more obviously further away than the TH600. The TH600 had more of a closed-in sound—not that it sounded closed-in per se, only relatively in comparison to the TH900!
- The TH900 had more clarity and more refined treble, leading it to sound cleaner. This was most evident with ambient electronica, which the TH600 didn't handle very well, as it was semi-indistinct on various "hairline" effects.
- The TH900 had more overall mid-range as well and exuded more "fill" than the TH600, particularly in the lower mid-range and mid-bass. This enhanced its physical presence factor over the TH600. The TH600 had a slightly thinner & brighter tilt compared to the TH900. Music with either vocals (male or female), bass guitars, or drums tended to be the most negatively affected by this, although it was only a minor detraction, not huge.

Conclusion

Based on sonics alone, I'd take the TH900 over the TH600 any day. While the TH900 could be considered an incremental improvement over the TH600, I think those increments easily make the TH900 distinctly superior. The TH600 wasn't bad though and would be a very viable cheaper alternative for most people. That said, I think the $700 difference plays more in the TH900's favor—i.e., I'd say it makes more sense to just spend the additional money to get the TH900. If the TH600 cost less than $1300 though, say $1K flat (or less), I think it would be more fairly priced relative to the TH900 and the other competition from the HD800, LCD-2/LCD-3, et al. But even at its price I'd still say it's generally superior to the HD800, LCD-2 (and LCD-3), and Beyerdynamic T1. Plus it has the advantage of being a closed headphone (with isolation being good enough for home or office).
 
Note: I'm assuming MSRPs for the TH900 and TH600 in the USA btw, as might be inferred. Both the TH900 and TH600 can be bought for substantially less than MSRP through Japanese export sites but I personally wouldn't recommend that when Fostex has distribution in the USA - IMO, it's worth paying MSRP for a valid warranty in the USA. (I only use Japanese export sites to buy headphones that aren't distributed in the USA, like certain Audio-Technica models.)

Note: this is not a "current" review (as of March 2012) and is mostly a direct copy from post #108 of this full review's thread, which I wrote in September 2010: http://www.head-fi.org/t/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vs-sennheiser-hd800. That forum post has simply been copied here for greater visibility, because it ended up somewhat buried in that review thread as it was posted near the end.
 
Equipment Setup:
- Plinius CD-101 (CD player) w/ Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference power cord
- Rockhopper Audio-built M3 as a point of comparison
- BPT IC-SL RCA interconnects (used with Cardas MXLR-FRCA gold adapters to plug into Auditor's XLR inputs)
- Sennheiser HD800 & Beyerdynamic T1 headphones

Music used:
- Eva Cassidy - Songbird - "Autumn Leaves"
- Julia Fischer - Bach Concertos - Concerto for two violins in D minor - "I. Vivace", "III. Allegro"
- Katie Melua - Piece by Piece - "Shy Boy"
- Laika - Sounds of the Satellites - "Almost Sleeping"
- Priscilla Ahn - A Good Day - "Dream"
- Trifonic - Emergence - "Transgenic"
- Zero 7 - When It Falls - "Home"

Between the M3 and SPL Auditor for the HD800 specifically, I thought the M3 was the better amp and that the SPL was flat out not very good for it. I also ended up concluding that the SPL and T1 paired well together while the M3 and HD800 also paired well together - and that these are probably the ideal pairs from the equipment that I own.

When paired with the SPL, the HD800 consistently revealed a less-than-desirable quality that was sort of hard to pin down exactly - I can't really find the words to express it, but it almost felt like an artificial, synthetic type of sound, most noticeable around vocals and full-range instruments. It almost made music sound like it was being waveguide MIDI-synthesized, not particularly "real" or "physical." I considered this a detraction from the music - but will add that this wasn't an issue on the T1, just the HD800. In contrast there were no such issues on the M3, which had a nice full mid-range, nothing "synthetic" about it. The M3 brought proper body and fullness to instruments and vocals and made them sound "existential" while the SPL tended to make things sound almost "ghostly" in contrast. It could be said that the SPL had a thin, disembodied mid-range compared to the fuller, rich mid-range of the M3, and since the HD800's sound lacks mid-range to an extent (IMO at least), I thought the M3 filled in for this weakness nicely. It definitely added some much-needed balance to the violins on the Julia Fischer CD as they sounded too wispy on the SPL, with not enough substance, but they sounded more natural on the M3 and the "character" of sound from a wooden source (as in, a violin) was correctly conveyed only on the M3.

In the aspect of treble, the SPL's highlighting of details like guitar plucks and sliding made the HD800 sound more treble-tilted than usual, but it wasn't too bad. Some people would probably find it too grating though, and in my case, I thought the resulting treble was not really pleasant to listen to (and I personally like treble in general). Conversely, the SPL had a relative bass sinkhole to match and didn't really help out the HD800 in that aspect. It mostly simply lacked a heavy bass presence in general. The M3, on the other hand, had strong & deep bass, with good impact and power, allowing the HD800 to really assert its bass power. The SPL simply held back too much and did not produce what I thought was a satisfactory level of bass quantity.

Finally, the HD800 clearly showed the soundstage differences between the two amps and revealed a facade behind the SPL - it tended to sound more like it was translating "air" as literal displacement of every layer in the music. Or in other words, the SPL seemed to push everything backwards for the illusion of a deeper soundstage instead of accurately depicting the size. This double-expansion of soundstage with the HD800 (as I also think the HD800 has a larger-than-necessary soundstage) made for distracting listening sessions where it just seemed too over-the-top. Fortunately the M3 recovered a much more accurate soundstage in comparison, smaller in overall depth but it actually seemed to have more width, with a better lateral left-right span that really accentuated the positions of musical elements panned hard left or right.

If I had to sum up the "sound" of each amp, I would describe the SPL Auditor as "pure, colorless, ghostly, synthetic" and the M3 as "vivid, physical, tactile."

I'd recommend the SPL Auditor primarily only for the Beyerdynamic T1 and possibly other ultra-high-impedance headphones (>300 Ohms). As can be inferred from this review, I wouldn't really recommend it for the Senn HD800. For low-impedance, efficient headphones I'd recommend looking elsewhere as this amp does not have the appropriate electrical characteristics to drive such headphones. It was a very poor amp for driving specifically my Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000, Audeze LCD-2 r1, and Grado HP1000.

Intro

This mini-review was originally posted on another forum in November 2008. Cross-posting it here for the Head-Fi archives. Other than this intro, the mini-review below is posted in its entirety as originally written - nothing was modified or updated.

This was an accelerated mini-review - all listening was done over only 4 days. The amp was received as a loaner from another local Head-Fi member for that time.

Associated Equipment

Power cord: Black Sand Silver Reference MKV
Digital source: Plinius CD-101
RCA interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval
Comparison amplifier: HeadAmp Gilmore Lite (used only as a reference point of contrast)
Headphones: AKG K701 (re-cabled w/ SAA Equinox), Audio-Technica W5000 and AD2000 (both re-cabled w/ APureSound V3)

Evaluation CD Tracks

A Fine Frenzy - One Cell In The Sea - "The Minnow & The Trout"
Alison Krauss & Union Station - New Favorite - "Let Me Touch You For Awhile", "The Lucky One"
Alison Krauss & Union Station - So Long So Wrong - "Little Liza Jones"
Porcupine Tree - In Absentia - "Blackest Eyes", "Trains", "Lips of Ashes"
Priscilla Ahn - A Good Day - "Dream"
Rachel Portman - Chocolat [OST] - "Main Titles"
The Crystal Method - Tweekend - "Murder" (aka "You Know It's Hard")
The Prodigy - The Fat of the Land - "Smack My Bitch Up"
Vienna Teng - Dreaming Through The Noise - "Nothing Without You"

Features, Operation, etc.

The WA6 was heavier than expected - looks compact but with clearly substantive weight, primarily from the dual power transformers. Relatively nice-looking amp too, with a clean finish that can come in either silver or black.

Not much in the way of features, but the amp does have an impedance selector switch that flips between 8-99 Ohms and 100-600 Ohms. I flipped the switch to 100-600 Ohms and plugged in my Audio-Technica AD2000 to check for noise - and found the tubes to be completely silent. Literally the only noise that could be discerned was a very low-level hum from the power transformers. The lack of tube noise was amazing, the WA6 is the first amp I've found to have absolutely no audible noise from the tubes.

I neglected to check if the impedance selector switch actually changed the gain multiplier or just increased the output power.

Sound - with K701

On Priscilla Ahn's "Dream," the WA6 placed Priscilla Ahn's voice closer than the Gilmore Lite did, for a more intimate presentation. The added prominence felt like a detraction though, and reduced the sense of overall depth to the soundstage. There didn't seem to be much air around the instruments. Treble was also not as sharp as the GL's, and not in a good way - there was a severely noticeable lack of razor-lined edges to the guitar strings. Dynamics also seemed to be a bit restrained compared to the GL, but the amp was still quite dynamic on its own.

On A Fine Frenzy's "The Minnow & The Trout," and Vienna Teng's "Nothing Without You," the WA6 gave a softer tone to the piano keys than the GL, but it was still strong enough to convey proper dynamic range. It also gave a stronger lower-mid/mid-bass anchor that made the piano sound heavy and deep. Overall there was more fullness and body, and it was very fluid as well - long piano notes with strong decays, fleshed out very well.

AKUS' "Let Me Touch You For Awhile" revealed some serious detractions though. The WA6 was a tad sluggish on the bass action and not really rhythmic enough. There wasn't enough "spring" to the guitar or mandolin notes either. Dynamic range also seemed to suffer here - the track overall felt too loud, with not enough contrast between softer and louder parts.

And on "The Lucky One" also by AKUS, while the WA6 removed a sense of Alison's voice carrying on air, it did make her voice sound more luscious and sultry. It was also positioned more closely/intimately and much more fluid. As far as detractions here, the WA6 missed conveying the metallic overtones and pops on the steel guitar, and the ambient air and space also felt significantly reduced - enough that the sense of space felt more like an enclosed studio room as opposed to an open hall. The various instruments comprising the band were discretely positioned though and were easy to locate by ear.

Porcupine Tree's "Blackest Eyes" went ok on the WA6 but not particularly great - the amp wasn't totally aggressive and dynamic on the opening overdriven guitars. It lacked a sense of brashness and intensity. It was still very dynamic though, and exuded its own confidence and power. It also separated the multiple guitars well to line up a convincing soundstage. Its presentation was also very direct - almost borderline in-your-face, but still a sense of some air around the band to not sound too suffocating.

Sound - with W5000

Revisiting Priscilla Ahn's "Dream," the WA6 paired well with the W5000 - although a closer, more intimate presentation, the W5000's intrinsic soundstage created a good outward curve to the image - that may still be too intimate for some people. The track was highly fluid with the W5K but not overly so, with a bold mid-range and strong firm bass. The lack of treble on the guitar was even more noticeable with the W5000 than the K701 though.

On Porcupine Tree's "Trains" and "Lips of Ashes," the most noticeable detraction was in treble extension, as it was audibly rolled off, but in spite of that, both tracks still sounded relatively good. The amp also gave more substance and body to the male vocals than the GL which was nice.

Rachel Portman's "Main Titles" from Chocolat [OST] went very well with the W5000 - the amp organized the soundstage much better than the GL. The individual orchestra sections were placed more realistically with percussion & strings on the left, brass and woodwinds in the center and center-right. It wasn't exactly as wide a soundstage as the GL, but there seemed to be more discrete horizontal positions within the image. There was also a better sense of depth in relation between the violins and the flute, as the flute felt distinctly further away.

Sound - with AD2000

On The Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up," the WA6/AD2000 pairing had its quirks. The GL had the clearer bass, as the WA6 felt a tad indistinct, even almost had what could be called generic-sounding bass. It was also less agile and didn't power through the bass as deftly. But it did pump up the >50Hz area for a nice added punch and boom that felt more satisfyingly deep. It didn't take much away from the AD2K's inherent speed - slightly less, but not too much that it made anything sound too slow.

The Crystal Method's "Murder" went worse for the WA6. Bass on this track sinks to a lower level than The Prodigy track, and the WA6 struggled to deliver it, it just didn't sound low or deep as the GL does, which maintains clear control over the low bass current. TCM's "Over The Line" is another bass reference, and it was here where it was obvious that the WA6 amped up 50-70Hz more than the GL, and 30-50Hz less than the GL, as it simply conveyed more impact than it did rumble (and conversely, the GL conveyed more rumble than impact). There was audible bass roll-off on the WA6, approximately around 40Hz. The amp just didn't creep or ooze low bass.

For a non-electronic test, both Vienna Teng and and Priscilla Ahn tracks were spun on the AD2000. The WA6 had the more realistic imaging than the GL. There was maybe less horizontal span than the GL but it was very integrated, very rounded, and very existential. The amp gave a proper impression of weight and realism to both voices and instruments.

Conclusion

The Woo Audio 6 is a solid tube amp all-around. I found it to have some key flaws but none really take away from what's essentially a very decent amp that can work well with different headphones. It may not really be optimal for the headphones I tried it with, but it works well enough and may very well be acceptable for listeners not as discerning as I was.
 
Pics
 

 

This "review" is based off a couple weeks' worth of experience with the ClarityOne, which I bought out of curiosity.
 
I used them primarily with my MP3 player, the iAudio X5, which contains files encoded with LAME 3.90.3, using VBR at 96-256 kb/s. So not necessarily an "audiophile" setup, but that was primarily what I intended to use them with if I was going to keep them.
 
First a preface that I own the JH Audio JH13 custom IEMs, which I like a lot. I didn't buy the ClarityOne to replace my JH13 but rather merely to try them and see if I could maybe use them as a back-up for secondary purposes.
 
So it could be said that I've been spoiled by the JH13, which I actually find pretty amazing with my MP3 player, and in comparison the ClarityOne didn't really hold up. It lacked the cohesive "wall of sound" element that the JH13 has, and it sounded very weak in the bass & mid-range too. I just couldn't tolerate these for either metal (In Flames, Helloween, Kamelot) or prog rock music (Porcupine Tree). The bass wasn't very deep or forceful either and I ended up very dissatisfied with electronica too (The Crystal Method, The Prodigy).
 
I'd describe the ClarityOne as sounding relatively thin in the mid-range & bass, with more of a tilt towards the treble than the bass, and very diverged towards the left & right too, as I never got proper center-point imaging with them, regardless of music. Also, considering that "clarity" is in its name, I didn't think its clarity was that great either. Definitely good, just not great - not as good as the Etymotic HF5 that I also recently bought for example, or my JH13.
 
I also want to single out the treble as being not very good either - when I tried some classical music, the violins came across as very screechy and fake-sounding. Not sure I'd recommend them for classical music for this reason.
 
But the one thing that detracted the most from them for me was the discomfort, primarily due to the large diameter on the plastic tip on which the silicone eartips are placed. Or in other words, the plastic tip was too large for my ear canal, and when I used these for long periods of time, it made my inner ear hurt. Trying the other eartips didn't do anything to help, as the plastic was just too large in diameter for my ear canal.
 
In short I'd describe these as having average sound quality for the price (not great but not terrible either), with a warning that not everyone will find them comfortable. I ended up deciding not to keep them and gave them to someone else as a gift, who didn't report any discomfort btw.