Received my AFC. First impressions are ambiguous. I really like the clarity and ease with which mids and trebles are portrayed. Really good resolution and separation.
The negative for me so far: Sounds very thin. Even though bass quality is good, quantity is lacking for my taste. Many reviewers call the tonality of the AFC very neutral. I don't agree. I would call it thin.
I am coming from a Focal Clear. Which I find neutral, but only just. The Clear has slightly too forward mids and could also do with a bit more bass punch IMO.
I think it would be difficult to come from the Clear to any headphone that doesn't have "powerful" bass. If the quantity is lacking for your preference to begin with then its a double whammy... I make mention of all this because its difficult for me to go from a Meze 99 to an HD800. The HD800 would end up sounding really thin to me and unsatisfying. It takes my brain a minute to adjust.
I really like the Hugo 2's "red" cross feed setting with a lot of music, gives a nice tone and spatialization is great with it. It's fun to have the options on the cross feed...
Make every day a fun day filled with music and friendship!
Stay updated on Dan Clark Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
Okay so, I legit felt a bit bad calling the AEONs bass light, or lacking in bass, somehow it really depends on the track you're listening to. Some tracks just have a lot of bass in them, at times a lot of sub bass and then the AEONs respond. I'm generally a bit confused... are there any further things you have to look out for when looking at FR graph of these on innderfiddelity? From what I can see, they're very neutral as in flat with a dip in the higher mids. I'm really no expert in these things, but does the FR graph not clearly show that there is no bass recession and that it does depend on how the track is mastered?
I guess it's all about preference, but the AEONs can feel a bit bass light from track to track IMHO, even though this statement is not easy to make since they're such great headphones in terms of technicallity.
Your statement about bass feeling "light" from track to track makes me think that in itself can be a sign of neutrality. Perhaps if one hears variation from track to track, then it is at least more likely that they are hearing the different artist intent on the different tracks. It's hard to discern detail when things are "over-colored".
There are counterexamples, but if I start hearing variations in tracks that I haven't heard before, then, IMHO, I'm thinking I'm closer to high-fidelity.
Yes this is a short list combo for me that I want to hear one day. I currently have the WA7 fireflies 2nd Gen with upgraded tubes which is nice also, going to have to pit it against my Pro- i - Can one day.
Received my AFC. First impressions are ambiguous. I really like the clarity and ease with which mids and trebles are portrayed. Really good resolution and separation.
The negative for me so far: Sounds very thin. Even though bass quality is good, quantity is lacking for my taste. Many reviewers call the tonality of the AFC very neutral. I don't agree. I would call it thin.
I am coming from a Focal Clear. Which I find neutral, but only just. The Clear has slightly too forward mids and could also do with a bit more bass punch IMO.
i tend to agree with this. This is precisely what led me to sell the afc. Someone mentioned it needs power to reach full bass potential. how about a Moon 430HA and GS-X fed by a Kitsune level 3 dac ? Is the powerful enough ? Even then, i found the bass lacking and the lower registers felt anemic. Comparing with the clears is not fair imo as the clears cost 2x more. But they are my reference for tonal accuracy and imaging.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
