The best of both worlds: End-game headphone entertainment for a fraction of the TOTL (Top of the line) price.
I will draw a lot of comparisons to the Fostex X00-Purpleheart that I also have owned for 4 years now as that headphone is hypothesized to contain the same driver as the E-MU Teak, but with a different wooden-cup enclosure. Next to the actual wood resonating differences the Teak cup has a differently cut interior which apparently contributes to the bigger difference in sound compared to the other wooden cup variants. For smoother writing and reading purposes I will refer to the Fostex X00-Purpleheart as PH and the E-MU Teak as Teak. There are also many anecdotal reports on that headphone, which some I found to be now extremely contradicting to my own opinion as I now can compare them to the Teak.
First, a bit about my listening experience. So far I clocked in over 50 hours with the Teak's by listening over a wide range of activities such as all sorts of music genres, gaming and movies. I will thus update this review in a few months to see if my opinion adjusted. I do not think my opinion of this headphone will change much as I have so much experience with the PH and having such a reference point makes comparisons on quality easier. However, even if I consider myself an experienced listener I am no professional by any means. My music preferences range from Trip Hop such as Bonobo or Emancipator, to movie soundtracks such as Blade Runner 2049 or The Dark Knight and ambient track such as what Moby or DJ Shadow can provide. If you are curious of my tastes in headphones you can further check out my profile page where you can see other reviews of headphones and the gear that I own. As an extra here is my current Spotify playlist 2020:
My Spotify Playlist
Now about my general impressions of the Teak compared to the PH.
It didn't take me long to notice the qualities the Teak, the first hour of listening I noticed it had many qualities the PH didn't. But for some qualities the reverse was also true. That's right, the PH still has a flavour the Teak doesn't always achieve. This is the crux in the world of audio: when one aims to get as close to reference as possible you lose out on potential intimacy music can transcend, or when one tries to colour the music with some extra spices on top you can lose out on details the artists likes you to hone in on. Like putting too much salt in a soup that actually contains many flavours, details of the taste get lost because of the prominent salty taste. Same applies to music. There has to be this fine balance and that is the challenge headphone engineers face when designing a headphone. The PH is the latter example of colouring the music, it does so by raising the upper sub-bass region of 60-100hz, the lower mids from 200-1000hz and the lower highs from 5khz-8khz in comparison to the rest of the frequency response. This creates a flavour that can favour some tracks and mask details in others. It is also a flavour that makes sounds feel much closer, which is good for intimate vocals or single instruments but not for complex tracks with a multitude of instruments asking for a spacious representation. Being in the front row of an orchestra can get overwhelming from time to time after all. The center image of the PH is a bit fuzzy and it's soundstage is not very deep but is more divided over a wide horizontal plane, it is a sound stage that feels outside of your head though. The tracks where the PH is still very enjoyable are instrumental Trip Hop tracks and tracks with vocals and single instruments. The close location of the vocals and the general warm signature of the PH can be immensely entertaining.
But enough of the PH's frequency response.
Where does the Teak stand in comparison to an even tuning?
The Teak has a lot less of these intrusive peaks. In fact I feel the Teak only has it's entire bass range lifted up a bit in comparison to the rest of the spectrum, but I prefer this presentation as I think bass simply needs that bit of extra volume in order to be felt as bass. More on that Teak's bass later. Back to the fine balance the Teak provides that the PH doesn't. While the PH can win on some tracks concerning intimacy, it loses out on pretty much everything else. I prefer the Teak's most of the time, and the times that it doesn't it's presentation is still technically superior. The bass is tighter and faster, the mids are cleaner and more detailed, the highs extend better and are more detailed, the layering and imaging are better and the soundstage a lot bigger. Now this does not render the PH useless. Again, definition and enjoyment don't always go hand in hand. The resonating Purpleheart wood creates a flavour of intimacy and energy. But you don't just eat your dessert as a main dinner. Eating a kilogram of dessert would get overwhelming fast. You enjoy a broad meal before having the ice cream with the cherry on top. The Teaks are that finely served favourite meal of yours, with the PH serving as that dessert like the ice cream with the cherry on top, or chocolate cream if you'd prefer that, but as an extra and not a necessity. So the Teak is like the staple of food that you absolutely love, the PH being that occasional sugar fest of a dessert. This means that I don't just find the Teak a technically superior headphone, it's also mostly tonally more enjoyable. I would rate the Teak a league above the PH, maybe even two. The PH is fun and great, but the Teak is excellent and timeless. For those of you who'd heard both of the HE-400 and HE-500 before, it's the same story as the comparison between those were.
Now let me try to dissect the Teak's actual frequency response from bass to mids to highs.
First things first, about that bass. The Teak has both the huge body of a subwoofer and the tightness and control to be able to detect minor differences in fast sub-bass fluctuations. The control the Teak has is entirely missing in the PH which sounds loose in comparison. This was one of the bigger surprises to me, as the PH was claimed by many to be excellent in it's sub-bass department. It is only really excellent when it comes to feeling the sub-bass and even then it get's too loose to be able to track it in busy passage ways some soundtracks can have.
It's the difference between sitting in a car with a subwoofer and the windows closed, or hearing a car with that subwoofer pass by next to you on the street. Sitting in the car would provide a great physical sensation to the bass. You can feel the vibrating energy around you. The accuracy of the subtle notes that for example a bass guitar can have are mostly lost to the actual physical sensation of the bass being overwhelming. Being outside would provide a better tracking perspective, you know there is sub-bass emitting from the car but you would not have the sensation of being engulfed in it. There is less distraction and the notes can be perceived. Of course this is a symbolic analogy that I needed to portray in order to compare the headphones further. The Teak has both this physical sensation and due to it's tightness tracking is easy which makes the bass absolutely masterful and the best I have heard to date. It's the perfect balance between body and control. On the other hand, the PH has the tendency to sound slightly boomy and interferes with the rest of the spectrum in comparison, making the PH bass kicks and thumbs less rounded and thus less impactful than the Teaks by a decent amount. While the teaks feel they can reach deeper into the bass, I believe their extension is quite similar and such a feeling is more explained due to the aforementioned factors. And the best part of all, and this is a pitfall for many other headphones, the Teak's bass never bleed into the rest of the spectrum and in turn resolve more than headphones a category below.
The Midrange on the Teaks I can describe as being smooth, clean, full bodied and impactful with a natural timbre and soundstage, though being slightly on the warm side. The mids their layering and imaging are again above the PH. The lower midrange is a bit more distant than the PH which creates a more sense of spaciousness to the soundstage. This distance does not hinder the detail in any way. The lower midrange is in fact cleaner and more detailed with nuances to fluctuations being easier noticeable because of the smoother and more neutral response. Layering in turn is also vastly improved. The upper midrange is more forward and smooth, allowing more detail to be perceived with for example the textures of instruments such as the fingers of a guitarist changing chords or the impact of a piano note leading again to a more natural and detailed response, providing much better timber to both the impact and transition of notes. The sense of spaciousness make the Teak portray some vocals sounding further away than the PH. Female vocals sound a bit more distant than males due to a bit more recessed higher mid-range. Some would consider this undesireable to their enjoyment, but the vocals to me never seemed too distant for me to feel disconnected from them. Again I noticed many more subtle nuances and layers to the mids in a track that I was not able to perceive very well on the PH. In complex soundtracks with multiple instruments playing with bass vibrating in the background the Teak never fails to impress, it doesn't miss a note it's a very fast headphone.
The highs on the Teaks are also truly special. Being very articulate and fast, they decay and blend in very nicely with the whole soundstage. I am usually quite critical with highs on a headphone. I find most headphones sounding a bit thin and artificial despite them having a good range. This artificial edginess on those headphones always intrudes the rest of the spectrum. Here the Teak's highs are smooth with a hint of tightness giving them a good texture without sounding too edgy, sibilant or fatiguing. There is a very slight graininess to the highs when comparing them to the most open headphones, but when considering these are semi-open they are already way above that class. This is also because they are very extended and drop until after round 16khz, which gives this sense of airiness and thickness to the highs that can be perceived as bright to people who come from headphones that always rolled off the highs after the 10khz mark. This extra extension is worth it to my ears, music soundtracks such as blade runner have a tremendous soundstage and a few times I got fooled that I was actually listening to one of the better open headphones.
And this is where I find myself concluding the Teaks are a truly timeless headphone. They near a reference-like neutral frequency response in a presentation that is still entertaining because they contain a massive bass body and response due to their woody semi-open nature, while not sacrificing anything of the mids or highs in the process. The best of both worlds if you will, while simultaneously oozing details on the whole frequency spectrum. A lot of headphones sacrifice something somewhere. The high-fi headphones I tried either lack bass quantity because of their open nature, bass extension because their focus is on the mids and highs or they are simply too bright. The Teak being a highly resolving headphone with a slight emphasis on it's bass has a combination of a presentation that I never heard before. The build quality is also made to last with a beautiful lacquer finish on Teak cups and a silver coloured metal chasis. The stock pads are comfortable to my ears and the headphone feels light on my head. All in all, this headphone is now my all time favourite and earns a perfect score in my book. I hope you enjoyed the review and I can only recommend you get this headphone if you appreciate this hobby.
*Update: After having tried multiple wooden cups supplied by E-MU, I have now replaced the Teak wood with the Zebra wood, which has better upper mids, intimate vocals and can sound a bit more detailed (but less warm) at the cost of soundstage.
I will draw a lot of comparisons to the Fostex X00-Purpleheart that I also have owned for 4 years now as that headphone is hypothesized to contain the same driver as the E-MU Teak, but with a different wooden-cup enclosure. Next to the actual wood resonating differences the Teak cup has a differently cut interior which apparently contributes to the bigger difference in sound compared to the other wooden cup variants. For smoother writing and reading purposes I will refer to the Fostex X00-Purpleheart as PH and the E-MU Teak as Teak. There are also many anecdotal reports on that headphone, which some I found to be now extremely contradicting to my own opinion as I now can compare them to the Teak.
First, a bit about my listening experience. So far I clocked in over 50 hours with the Teak's by listening over a wide range of activities such as all sorts of music genres, gaming and movies. I will thus update this review in a few months to see if my opinion adjusted. I do not think my opinion of this headphone will change much as I have so much experience with the PH and having such a reference point makes comparisons on quality easier. However, even if I consider myself an experienced listener I am no professional by any means. My music preferences range from Trip Hop such as Bonobo or Emancipator, to movie soundtracks such as Blade Runner 2049 or The Dark Knight and ambient track such as what Moby or DJ Shadow can provide. If you are curious of my tastes in headphones you can further check out my profile page where you can see other reviews of headphones and the gear that I own. As an extra here is my current Spotify playlist 2020:
My Spotify Playlist
Now about my general impressions of the Teak compared to the PH.
It didn't take me long to notice the qualities the Teak, the first hour of listening I noticed it had many qualities the PH didn't. But for some qualities the reverse was also true. That's right, the PH still has a flavour the Teak doesn't always achieve. This is the crux in the world of audio: when one aims to get as close to reference as possible you lose out on potential intimacy music can transcend, or when one tries to colour the music with some extra spices on top you can lose out on details the artists likes you to hone in on. Like putting too much salt in a soup that actually contains many flavours, details of the taste get lost because of the prominent salty taste. Same applies to music. There has to be this fine balance and that is the challenge headphone engineers face when designing a headphone. The PH is the latter example of colouring the music, it does so by raising the upper sub-bass region of 60-100hz, the lower mids from 200-1000hz and the lower highs from 5khz-8khz in comparison to the rest of the frequency response. This creates a flavour that can favour some tracks and mask details in others. It is also a flavour that makes sounds feel much closer, which is good for intimate vocals or single instruments but not for complex tracks with a multitude of instruments asking for a spacious representation. Being in the front row of an orchestra can get overwhelming from time to time after all. The center image of the PH is a bit fuzzy and it's soundstage is not very deep but is more divided over a wide horizontal plane, it is a sound stage that feels outside of your head though. The tracks where the PH is still very enjoyable are instrumental Trip Hop tracks and tracks with vocals and single instruments. The close location of the vocals and the general warm signature of the PH can be immensely entertaining.
But enough of the PH's frequency response.
Where does the Teak stand in comparison to an even tuning?
The Teak has a lot less of these intrusive peaks. In fact I feel the Teak only has it's entire bass range lifted up a bit in comparison to the rest of the spectrum, but I prefer this presentation as I think bass simply needs that bit of extra volume in order to be felt as bass. More on that Teak's bass later. Back to the fine balance the Teak provides that the PH doesn't. While the PH can win on some tracks concerning intimacy, it loses out on pretty much everything else. I prefer the Teak's most of the time, and the times that it doesn't it's presentation is still technically superior. The bass is tighter and faster, the mids are cleaner and more detailed, the highs extend better and are more detailed, the layering and imaging are better and the soundstage a lot bigger. Now this does not render the PH useless. Again, definition and enjoyment don't always go hand in hand. The resonating Purpleheart wood creates a flavour of intimacy and energy. But you don't just eat your dessert as a main dinner. Eating a kilogram of dessert would get overwhelming fast. You enjoy a broad meal before having the ice cream with the cherry on top. The Teaks are that finely served favourite meal of yours, with the PH serving as that dessert like the ice cream with the cherry on top, or chocolate cream if you'd prefer that, but as an extra and not a necessity. So the Teak is like the staple of food that you absolutely love, the PH being that occasional sugar fest of a dessert. This means that I don't just find the Teak a technically superior headphone, it's also mostly tonally more enjoyable. I would rate the Teak a league above the PH, maybe even two. The PH is fun and great, but the Teak is excellent and timeless. For those of you who'd heard both of the HE-400 and HE-500 before, it's the same story as the comparison between those were.
Now let me try to dissect the Teak's actual frequency response from bass to mids to highs.
First things first, about that bass. The Teak has both the huge body of a subwoofer and the tightness and control to be able to detect minor differences in fast sub-bass fluctuations. The control the Teak has is entirely missing in the PH which sounds loose in comparison. This was one of the bigger surprises to me, as the PH was claimed by many to be excellent in it's sub-bass department. It is only really excellent when it comes to feeling the sub-bass and even then it get's too loose to be able to track it in busy passage ways some soundtracks can have.
It's the difference between sitting in a car with a subwoofer and the windows closed, or hearing a car with that subwoofer pass by next to you on the street. Sitting in the car would provide a great physical sensation to the bass. You can feel the vibrating energy around you. The accuracy of the subtle notes that for example a bass guitar can have are mostly lost to the actual physical sensation of the bass being overwhelming. Being outside would provide a better tracking perspective, you know there is sub-bass emitting from the car but you would not have the sensation of being engulfed in it. There is less distraction and the notes can be perceived. Of course this is a symbolic analogy that I needed to portray in order to compare the headphones further. The Teak has both this physical sensation and due to it's tightness tracking is easy which makes the bass absolutely masterful and the best I have heard to date. It's the perfect balance between body and control. On the other hand, the PH has the tendency to sound slightly boomy and interferes with the rest of the spectrum in comparison, making the PH bass kicks and thumbs less rounded and thus less impactful than the Teaks by a decent amount. While the teaks feel they can reach deeper into the bass, I believe their extension is quite similar and such a feeling is more explained due to the aforementioned factors. And the best part of all, and this is a pitfall for many other headphones, the Teak's bass never bleed into the rest of the spectrum and in turn resolve more than headphones a category below.
The Midrange on the Teaks I can describe as being smooth, clean, full bodied and impactful with a natural timbre and soundstage, though being slightly on the warm side. The mids their layering and imaging are again above the PH. The lower midrange is a bit more distant than the PH which creates a more sense of spaciousness to the soundstage. This distance does not hinder the detail in any way. The lower midrange is in fact cleaner and more detailed with nuances to fluctuations being easier noticeable because of the smoother and more neutral response. Layering in turn is also vastly improved. The upper midrange is more forward and smooth, allowing more detail to be perceived with for example the textures of instruments such as the fingers of a guitarist changing chords or the impact of a piano note leading again to a more natural and detailed response, providing much better timber to both the impact and transition of notes. The sense of spaciousness make the Teak portray some vocals sounding further away than the PH. Female vocals sound a bit more distant than males due to a bit more recessed higher mid-range. Some would consider this undesireable to their enjoyment, but the vocals to me never seemed too distant for me to feel disconnected from them. Again I noticed many more subtle nuances and layers to the mids in a track that I was not able to perceive very well on the PH. In complex soundtracks with multiple instruments playing with bass vibrating in the background the Teak never fails to impress, it doesn't miss a note it's a very fast headphone.
The highs on the Teaks are also truly special. Being very articulate and fast, they decay and blend in very nicely with the whole soundstage. I am usually quite critical with highs on a headphone. I find most headphones sounding a bit thin and artificial despite them having a good range. This artificial edginess on those headphones always intrudes the rest of the spectrum. Here the Teak's highs are smooth with a hint of tightness giving them a good texture without sounding too edgy, sibilant or fatiguing. There is a very slight graininess to the highs when comparing them to the most open headphones, but when considering these are semi-open they are already way above that class. This is also because they are very extended and drop until after round 16khz, which gives this sense of airiness and thickness to the highs that can be perceived as bright to people who come from headphones that always rolled off the highs after the 10khz mark. This extra extension is worth it to my ears, music soundtracks such as blade runner have a tremendous soundstage and a few times I got fooled that I was actually listening to one of the better open headphones.
And this is where I find myself concluding the Teaks are a truly timeless headphone. They near a reference-like neutral frequency response in a presentation that is still entertaining because they contain a massive bass body and response due to their woody semi-open nature, while not sacrificing anything of the mids or highs in the process. The best of both worlds if you will, while simultaneously oozing details on the whole frequency spectrum. A lot of headphones sacrifice something somewhere. The high-fi headphones I tried either lack bass quantity because of their open nature, bass extension because their focus is on the mids and highs or they are simply too bright. The Teak being a highly resolving headphone with a slight emphasis on it's bass has a combination of a presentation that I never heard before. The build quality is also made to last with a beautiful lacquer finish on Teak cups and a silver coloured metal chasis. The stock pads are comfortable to my ears and the headphone feels light on my head. All in all, this headphone is now my all time favourite and earns a perfect score in my book. I hope you enjoyed the review and I can only recommend you get this headphone if you appreciate this hobby.
*Update: After having tried multiple wooden cups supplied by E-MU, I have now replaced the Teak wood with the Zebra wood, which has better upper mids, intimate vocals and can sound a bit more detailed (but less warm) at the cost of soundstage.
