Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared)

THE BATTLE OF THE FLAGSHIPS​

My quest to find the greatest headphone ever made!​

by David Solomon
 

​

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS​

PREAMBLE ​

1. ABOUT THIS REVIEW
2. ABOUT THIS REVIEWER
3. BEING @ HEADPHONES.COM

 
 

THE GEAR ​

1. SOURCE
2. AMPS
3. ODDS & ENDS

 ​

50+ HEADPHONES COMPARED​

TL;DR & CHARTS (spoiler alert)​

1. EPILOGUE

1. MUSIC: CDs Used For The Evaluation
2. FINAL THOUGHTS & THANK-YOU'S

The following headphones are reviewed in this evaluation...​

Please feel free to click on any model name to skip right to its review​

 

AKG:​

K501 ​

K702 ​

K1000 ​

ALESSANDRO:​ ​

MS Pro​

AUD​ ÉO:​

PFE-232 ​

AUDEZ'E:​ ​

LCD-2 (rev. 1) ​

LCD-2 (rev. 2) ​

LCD-3 ​

AUDIO-TECHNICA:​ ​

ATH-AD900 ​

ATH-W3000ANV ​

ATH-W5000 ​

BEYERDYNAMIC:​ ​

DT 660 ​

DT 770 ​

DT 880 ​

T1 ​

DENON:​ ​

AH-D950 ​

AH-D7000 ​

FOSTEX:​ ​

TH900 ​

GRADO:​ ​

HP1000 (HP2) ​

PS1000 ​

RS1 ​

RS2 ​

HE AUDIO:​ ​

Jade ​

HIFIMAN:​ ​

HE-6 ​

HE-400 ​

HE-500 ​

JH AUDIO:​ ​

JH13 ​

JH16 ​

KAM:​ ​

HP1 ​

SENNHEISER:​ ​

HD600 ​

HD650 ​

HD700 ​

HD800 ​

HE90 (Orpheus) ​

IE 8 ​

SENSAPHONICS:​ ​

2X-S ​

SHURE:​ ​

SE530 ​

SE535 ​

SRH1840 ​

SONY:​ ​

MDR-R10 (bass-heavy) ​

MDR-R10 (bass-light) ​

MDR-SA5000 ​

Q010-MDR1 (Qualia 010) ​

XBA-4 ​

STAX:​ ​

SR-007 MkI (Omega 2 MkI) ​

SR-007 MkII (Omega 2 MkII) ​

SR-009 ​

SR-507 ​

SR-Omega​

SR-Sigma ​

ULTIMATE EARS:​ ​

Custom In-Ear Reference ​

ULTRASONE:​ ​

Edition 8 Limited Edition ​

Edition 10 ​

HFI-700 ​

WESTONE:​ ​

ES5 ​

UM3X ​

Westone 3 ​

Westone 4 ​

 

PREAMBLE​

*Back To The Index​

Some opening words and thoughts...​

 

​

*Back To The Index

ABOUT THIS REVIEW​

*Back To The Index
 
This review is an attempt to compare and contrast all the headphones that are presently in my personal collection. The sentiments expressed herein are based on my own personal experiences with the headphones. I in no way intend for this review to be perceived as anything more than one audio enthusiast's personal opinion. I did not use any equipment other than my ears to measure the performance of the various headphones.
 
The review itself involved several hundreds of hours of critical listening. The basic method of comparison involved a considerable amount of flipping back and forth between headphones / amps / songs while writing shorthand opinions as I listened. I have lived with the majority of the headphones listed for a year or more. Some of them, I have lived with for multiple years or even a decade +. A few of these headphones have only been in my possession for a few months, but I have made sure to allow for a minimum of 50 hours of critical listening time before formulating any final opinions.
 
The majority of the headphones included in this review are flagship models or were considered a flagship model at some point. I did not include any headphone which was not in my personal collection because I wanted to avoid all biases related to listening-time and possible favoritism. I was hesitant to include in-ear-monitors (IEMs) in the ranking as I have a preference for 
full-size headphones which not everyone necessarily shares. However, ultimately I decided to include IEMs in the ranking as they constitute a sizeable portion of my collection and listening time.

 
The headphones are ranked on performance alone. Each headphone included in this ranking will have its own spotlighted review. The review will begin with some personal thoughts about the headphone or perhaps a brief retrospective. Following these opening thoughts will be two sections labeled "STRENGTHS" & "WEAKNESSES" respectively. These two sections will focus on the positive and negative aspects of the headphone's performance and construction. I have attempted to discuss numerous aspects of the headphone and I have listed each aspect in approximate order of significance to me. Each bulleted description will begin with a keyword (or keywords) in order to appeal to those who do not wish to read the entire description, but who still want to understand my basic impression of the headphone.
 
I have refrained from using a number system to grade different aspects of the headphones for the simple reason that I feel it may be misleading in this case. Most of these headphones are so outstanding in their performance that the number system may not ultimately reflect my opinion quite so accurately.

Furthermore, some of the things which I consider to be a "strength" may not be a strength for everyone. For example, your listening preferences may differ from my own or you may have a different opinion regarding design. Conversely, some of things which I label as a weakness may not at all be what you consider to be a "weakness."
 
Following the "STRENGTHS" & "WEAKNESSES" section is a section I have titled "ON THE FENCE." This section discusses aspects of the headphone's performance that I felt was good in some ways, but in need of improvement in other ways.
 
The "FOR THE PRICE" section is where the headphone is graded on its price-to-performance ratio. I did not use this grade as a factor in the ranking of the headphone's performance. Headphones with a grade of an A- or better are ones that I consider to be an exceptional value. Headphones with a grade of B- to B+ are a good value although there may be better options for the same price. Headphones with a grade of C- to C+ are headphones that I feel do not constitute their asking price based on the competition. Headphones with a grade of D or lower are headphones that I feel are priced disproportionately to their performance level. A low grade does not mean that I dislike the performance of the headphone. What it does mean however is that for a fraction of the price, one can get close-to or better performance from an alternative headphone.
 
"QUICK CHECK" is the final section. This section is merely a quick run-through of the headphones' specs, design, status, etc. The following key may help provide better insight into my shorthand designations:

1. DESIGN refers to whether the headphone is full-size, on-ear or in-ear.
2. DRIVER refers to the type of transducer employed.
3. IMPEDANCE refers to the nominal impedance rating of the headphone measured at 1Khz
4. ISOLATION refers to the headphone's ability to passively eliminate outside noise and prevent sound from leaking out of the headphone. I did not examine any active noise canceling headphones in constructing this review.
5. AMPLIFICATION refers to whether or not the headphone benefits from, requires or does not need an amplifier for operation.
6. MY PREFERRED AMP/S refers to the amp/s which I found to be most synergetic with the headphone in question.
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH refers to the genre/s of music which I feel the headphone excels with.
8. CABLES USED refers to the cable/s which I used in evaluating the headphone's performance. The designation "stock" refers to the original unmodified cable that shipped with the headphone.
9. REVISIONS KNOWN refers to whether or not the manufacturer made specific design changes to the headphone during the course of its production.
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS refers to whether or not the headphone in question ever held the designation of "flagship." Most of the headphones listed were at one time the flagship of their respective manufacturer's product line. If a headphone is currently the flagship of its respective manufacturer, I designate this with "Currently Is." If a headphone was once a flagship, but has been superseded, I designate this with "Once Was." If a headphone was once a flagship, but was produced in extremely limited quantities, I designate this with "Limited Production Flagship." If a headphone is / was the flagship of a specific product-line, I specify this with the designation "Specific To Product Line." And finally, if the headphone was never intended as a flagship from the manufacturer, then I specify this with the designation "Not Applicable."
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012 refers to whether or not the headphone is still currently in production.
12. COST refers to the approximate price which the headphone sells for at the time that I write this review. All amounts are shown as USD.

 ​

​*Back To The Index​

ABOUT THIS REVIEWER​

*Back To The Index

 
In case you weren't already aware, my name is David. I am 29 years old and have resided in New York City all of my life. I took an interest in music before I was even able to talk and it was discovered that I had perfect pitch when I was a young child. I play a variety of instruments including piano, guitar, bass, and drums. I sing as well. My fascination with audio gear developed out of my desire to hear as many nuances as possible from the music I loved. I acquired my first CD player (a Sony boom-box) as a gift from my parents for my 8th birthday. At that age, I was fascinated by the concept that a CD had music somehow stored inside of it.
 
In my early teens, I began a lifelong fascination with headphones. I immediately identified with the intimate sonic presentation that headphones provided and I recognized the amount of detail that I was able to hear from them. While working at a high-end audio store, I began to explore the functionality of the mixing console. Eventually, the recording and mixing process became an integral part of my life. I completed a degree in sound engineering from the Institute of Audio Research in 2001. In the years following, I worked both as an audio engineer and as a session musician for hire. During this time, I had the opportunity to work with many musicians and industry professionals who I admired and would ultimately learn from.
 
In 2007, I joined the Head-Fi community. I had never been a part of an online community prior to joining Head-Fi, and thus the concept of a message board or forum was foreign to me at the time. I had already been frequenting the site as a visitor for close to a year, but it was my eagerness to ask specific questions regarding the construction of custom-molded in-ear-monitors which served as the motivation I needed to proceed with registration.
 
Of course, many of you know that I am currently the "headphone guru" at headphones.com. For the tremendous role that the Head-Fi community played in my acquisition of this job, I am eternally grateful. I see this review partially as a thank you to the whole of the community which has enriched my life in a very personal way.
 
Lastly, I will talk a bit about my listening preferences and personal music taste. I don't have just one type of sound that I look for from headphones. I can enjoy a fun-sounding headphone as much as a more neutral/analytical headphone. A lot depends on which music I am listening to, but I usually tend to value transparency over all other aspects of sound.
 
My music tastes are pretty far-reaching. The core of my vast collection (approximately 12,000 CDs) of music can be divided into three genres: Classical / Jazz / Rock. Regarding classical music, I am a huge fan of Mahler (hence my user name), Brahms, Mozart, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Dvorak, Bartok, Ravel, Debussy, Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin…the list can go on for pages. Regarding jazz, I am a huge fan of Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, Herbie Nichols, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Wayne Shorter, Branford Marsalis, Dave Holland, Pat Metheny, Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk...and again the list can go on for pages. Regarding rock music, I am a huge fan of The Beatles, Joni Mitchell, Elliott Smith, Genesis, Steely Dan, Neil Young, Radiohead, Jeff Buckley, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan and many others.
 
For a complete listing of the CDs used in this headphone evaluation please see MUSIC: CDs Used For The Evaluation
 

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

BEING @ HEADPHONES.COM​

*Back To The Index
 
I am far from the first headphone hobbyist to join the headphone industry professionally, but I wanted to say a few words about my experience in the field thus far. Initially, I had a fear that witnessing the industry from the inside out would corrupt my enjoyment of this hobby. I am happy to express that after being at headphones.com, my intrigue and appreciation for the hobby has only increased. Getting to know several manufacturers face to face has improved my understanding of their product lines. Furthermore, the people who I work with are a rare bunch who really understand, appreciate and respect our hobby. Walking into the office feels sometimes like entering my home. It's a good feeling!
 
I love getting calls from someone who says "oh by the way, I'm from Head-Fi." It's the best part of the day for me. For those who may not know, I am always reachable via email both at davids@headphones.com or via PM me here on Head-Fi. If you write me, I will respond to your email. No question is too silly / no comment is too insignificant!
 
I began writing this review before I started at headphones.com - yes it has taken well over a year to complete! This review is a largely-expanded version of the "20 Headphones Compared" thread which I did in 2010. Initially, it was my intent to update that original review, but as my collection continued to grow and my opinions began to reshape as a result, I felt that it would be more serviceable to expand it into an entirely new  project.
 

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

THE GEAR​

*Back To The Index
 

​

I used to obsess over which component in the system was most important to the overall fidelity of the sound. Ultimately, I found that with every upgrade that I made to a single component in my system, my perception of every other component was affected (not always for the better). I personally don't feel that it is necessary for one to use more than a singular source in their audio rig; one exceptional digital-to-analog-converter (aka DAC) or turntable setup is truly all that is needed. However, if one has multiple headphones with different power needs and/or tonal balances, then one may wish to have multiple amplifiers accessible.
 
The following is a list of the gear used in compiling this review:
 

SOURCE

MSB TECHNOLOGY: Diamond DAC IV with the following upgrades:

1. Femtosecond Galaxy Clock
2. Diamond Power Base
3. Universal Media Transport
4. Pro I2S Input

 

AMPLIFIERS

1. HEADAMP: Aristaeus
2. HEADAMP: Blue Hawaii Special Edition
3. HEADROOM: Balanced Ultra Desktop Amp
4. LAROCCO: PRII MkII
5. MANLEY LABS: Neo Classic 300B
6. MEIER AUDIO: Corda Move
7. RAY SAMUELS AUDIO: Hornet
8. RAY SAMUELS AUDIO: Tomahawk
9. SPL: Phonitor
10. TTVJ / MILLETT: 307A
11. WOO AUDIO: Woo Audio 5

 

ODDS & ENDS

1. SPEAKERS: Mackie HR-824 (Pair)
2. POWER CONDITIONER: Monster Pro 3500 Surge
3. SWITCH BOX: Gold Point SW2X-O
4. INTERCONNECTS: A Pure Sound & ALO Audio

​*Back To The Index​

SOURCE​

*Back To The Index
 

The following are details and brief impressions of the gear used...​

 

MSB TECHNOLOGY: Diamond DAC IV​

I lived with the MSB Platinum DAC III for a number of years. In that time, it became the most trusted component in my system. The sound of the DAC III was the most lifelike I had ever heard from a DAC. There was no question in my mind that, if and when I would upgrade, I would stick with MSB.
 
Turn the page a few years and enter the Diamond DAC IV. The sound of this DAC is so effortless; so natural; so invisible - that the old cliché "there are simply no words..." is perhaps the most honest thing I can say. I suspect that the most impressive thing I can say about this DAC is that since becoming an owner, I have been going to concerts far less frequently - It is truly that good!
 
MSB offers an expensive state-of-the-art upgrade for their entire DAC line: the Femtosecond Galaxy Clock. With a jitter measurement of 77 femtoseconds, the Femtosecond Galaxy Clock is presently the most accurate clock in digital audio. Just for clarification purposes, a femtosecond equals one millionth of one billionth of a second. In this way, MSB Technology is truly on the cutting edge of digital audio. If you are serious about state-of-the-art sound and are looking for a no-holds-barred top-end DAC, then the MSB line deserves your highest consideration.

COST:

1. DIAMOND DAC: $21995 (starting price pre-upgrades)
2. FEMTOSECOND GALAXY CLOCK: $9950
3. DIAMOND POWER BASE $4495
4. UNIVERSAL MEDIA TRANSPORT: $3995
5. PRO I2S Input: $995

TOTAL: $41430
 

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

AMPS​

*Back To The Index
 

HEADAMP: Aristaeus

​

Sennheiser's HE90 Orpheus headphone is one of very few headphones which shipped with its own amplifier. This amplifier, known as the HEV90, was an electrostatic design, specifically intended by the manufacturer to be paired with the HE90. It was a gorgeous-looking vacuum tube amp with a built-in DAC module. Consequently, the title "Orpheus" is often synonymous with Sennheiser's complete flagship audio system, rather than just the headphone alone.
 
The Aristaeus is a vacuum tube headphone amplifier designed by Kevin Gilmore (in partnership with HeadAmp Audio Electronics) to be extremely similar to the HEV90's amp section; the Aristaeus does not feature a DAC component. According to its maker, the Aristaeus's amplifier design is nearly identical to HEV90, although the power supply is improved upon. Another notable difference between the Aristaeus and the HEV90 is that the Aristaeus offers a Stax compatible headphone output in addition to the HE90 headphone output, whereas the HEV90 featured two outputs, both intended for the HE90 headphone.
 
While the Aristaeus will work with a variety of electrostatic headphones, I use it almost exclusively to power my HE90 (Orpheus) - the headphone for which it was primarily intended. The only other headphones with which I regularly pair the Aristaeus is Sennheiser's own HE60 (Baby Orpheus) and HE Audio's Jade. My Aristaeus was built with a DACT stepped attenuator for volume control.
 
TUBES USED: 12AX7/ECC83 (JJ Electronics: Stock)
COST: $4495
 
 

HEADAMP: Blue Hawaii Special Edition (BHSE)

​

Like the Aristaeus, the Blue Hawaii Special Edition was designed by Kevin Gilmore. The BHSE is a hybrid solid state / vacuum tube electrostatic headphone amplifier. With an output voltage of 1600 peak-to peak, it is capable of driving even the most demanding Stax headphones, such as the Omega 2. My BHSE, in particular, exhibits a silver finish, and was installed with an Alps RK50 attenuator. I think it is among the best looking amplifiers in my rig. This amp's performance is breathtaking.  However, the amp does run quite hot. In order to facilitate this, I have carved out a ventilation chamber which rests above the amplifier.  Unfortunately, one cannot see this in the photographs.
TUBES USED: Mullard EL34 Quad (Stock)
COST:

1. AMP: $4995
2. Alps RK50: $1000

TOTAL: $5995
 
 

HEADROOM: BALANCED ULTRA DESKTOP AMPLIFIER (BUDA)

​

The BUDA is a solid state balanced amplifier which offers a single pair of balanced headphone outputs and two pairs of single-ended headphone outputs. It also offers a pair of preamp outputs. The front panel features a gain switch as well as a crossfeed switch. While I use the upgraded Desktop Power Supply, it may be a superfluous addition since the amp's stock power supply seems perfectly acceptable.
 
COST:

1. AMP: $1599
2. POWER SUPPLY: $549

TOTAL: $2148
 
 

LAROCCO: PRII MkII

​

The PRII MkII is a portable solid-state amp that has been long out of production. It was designed by Phil Larocco to serve as a reference-grade battery-operated headphone amplifier. One of its most impressive features is its bass contour control. Much of the design here has been implemented into Triad Audio's L3, also designed by Phil Larocco.
COST: $500 (estimated)
 
 

MANLEY LABS: NEO CLASSIC 300B

​

The Neo Classic 300B is a beautiful sounding amplifier. While it offers a variety of single-ended  outputs, I primarily use this amp for headphones. This is my go-to amp for the Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1. The amp features a switch for the option to bypass the transformers when using the main line-out. However when in headphone-listening mode, you must use the transformers. The sound of this amp is slightly slow and lush, yet romantic and beautiful; it is the best classic tube sound that I have yet heard.
 
TUBES USED:

1. 300B Pair (Sophia Electric Princess: Upgrade)
2. 6SL7GT Pair (Electro-Harmonix: Stock)
3. 5U4GBEH Pair (Electro-Harmonix: Stock)
4. OD3 Pair (NOS JAN USA: Stock)

COST:

1. $5850 (Base Price)
2. $450 (Upgrade Tubes)

TOTAL: $6300
 
 

MEIER AUDIO: Corda Move

​

The Corda Move is a discontinued portable headphone amp designed by Jan Meier. The model which I own dates from 2008; it is the original production model. I consider it to be a good value, originally having discovered it in Skylab's magnificent portable amp roundup thread. The Corda Move has since been superseded by Meier's Corda 2Stepdance.
COST: $150 (estimated)
 
 

RAY SAMUELS AUDIO: Hornet & Tomahawk

​

The Tomahawk was my first venture into the world of portable amps, and my acquisition of the Hornet followed soon thereafter. I appreciate the functionality and rugged construction of Ray Samuel's amplifiers. Not only was I a fan of these two amplifiers, but I was also impressed that I was always able to reach Ray very easily. My business experience with Ray Samuels Audio led me to several other RSA purchases, including the HR-2, Raptor, P-51 Mustang, and SR-71A. I have since parted with these four amps, but I still think highly of each one of them. Ray was also kind enough to allow me the chance to spend some time with the B-52; I enjoyed it very much. I have a great respect for Ray as an amp designer and businessman.
COST:

1. Hornet: $370
2. Tomahawk: $295

 
 

SPL: Phonitor (Black)

​

The Phonitor is the best sounding solid-state amplifier that I have used. It is a very neutral sounding amp and it powers a variety of headphones exceptionally well. The SPL Auditor features the same basic design as the Phonitor, but without the added crossfeed, centering and channel-soloing features. For those on a more limited budget, the Auditor is a great choice. On a side note, I enjoy summing the channels to mono and then putting one of the channels out of phase. hehe
COST: $1934
 
 

TTVJ / MILLETT: 307A

​

Of all the headphone amplifiers that I own, the 307A is probably the one that I use most. It has a very neutral and natural sound. In my opinion, Pete Millett is one of the pioneers of the field. Only 12 units of the 307A were made before it was discontinued. However, Pete Millett and Todd The Vinyl Junkie have teamed up once again to produce an amp that is quite similar in design: The Pinnacle. I had the opportunity to review the Pinnacle. It is a wonderful amp. The most significant differences between the 307A and the Pinnacle are fourfold. Firstly, the transformers used in the Pinnacle's design are more expensive and, according to the amp builder himself, far superior. Secondly, in order to achieve a lower noise-floor, the power supply is separated from the amplifier section. Thirdly, the Pinnacle uses the PX4 as its output tube in place of the 307A tube. Fourthly, the Pinnacle has built-in preamp functionality while the 307A does not. Minus these differences the 307A and the Pinnacle are virtually the same amp design. Both offer balanced and single-ended inputs and outputs; both are exceptionally neutral with a slight tube-y roundness. I highly recommend both the 307A and the Pinnacle!  
TUBES USED:

1. 307A Pair (Sylvania)
2. 7N7 (Westinghouse: Stock)
3. 5V4GA (Tung Sol: Stock)

COST: $5000-$7000 (estimated)
 
 

WOO AUDIO: Woo Audio 5

​

As with the Manley Labs Classic Neo 300B, the Woo Audio 5 employs the 300B as its output tube. Also, like the Manley Labs Classic Neo 300B, the Woo Audio 5 exhibits a wonderfully fluid midrange. However, the decay of the Woo Audio 5's sound is not as slow as the Manley's. Consequently, the Woo is not as lush or romantic as the Manley, but instead, more accurate and even-tempered. The Woo Audio 5's standard headphone output features a high/low impedance option in order to better accommodate each individual headphone's power needs.
 
One of the most significant features of the Woo Audio 5 is its K1K output, which was designed specifically in order to meet the power demands of AKG's K1000 headphone. This output pumps 8 watts per channel into 140 ohms impedance. However, since the release of this amp, other headphones have been introduced which are equally (if not more) demanding than the K1000, i.e., the HE-6 by HifiMan. The Woo Audio 5 powers the HE-6 brilliantly; it is presently the only amp with which I pair the HE-6. This is one of my favorite pairings. Lastly, the Woo Audio 5 can also function as a speaker amp, as it features speaker outputs in the rear panel.
 
*Woo Audio also offers the Woo Audio 5 without the K1K and speaker outputs. This version is known as the Woo Audio 5 LE.
 
TUBES USED:

1. 300B Pair (Sophia Electric Princess: Upgrade)
2. 6SN7GTB Pair (RCA: Stock)
3. 5U4G Pair (Sovtek: Stock)

COST:

1. $3150 (Base Price)
2. $150 (Teflon Tube Socket Upgrade)
3. $450 (with Upgrade 300B Tubes)

TOTAL: $3750
 
 

SINGLE POWER AUDIO: SDS-XLR

​

I've crossed this amplifier out on purpose. I own this amp. But one would never know it. It's not in my home. Not long before Single Power Audio was put out of business (as a result of fraudulent activity) the owner hand-delivered the amp to my residence - Yes hand-delivered! About a week into ownership, one of the channels started to short. I promptly shipped it back to the manufacturer for a repair. After the manufacturer diagnosed that the problem was a blown capacitor, I expected that the fix would be quick and easy. Unfortunately, my amp was never returned and I would never hear back from the company again. I was never able to track down the owner, and as such, I was never able to retrieve the money I paid.
 

*Back To The Index​

ODDS & ENDS​

*Back To The Index
 

MACKIE: HR824 Mk2 (pair)

​

The HR824 are powered monitors designed primarily for studio application. I've owned the pair for nearly a decade. I usually bring them to studios when I am unfamiliar with the provided in-house monitors. The HR824 isn't the best sounding pair around, but I know their sound signature quite well and I feel comfortable using them in just about any room. As you can plainly see from the photos, I don't have these monitors at an optimal height for listening. I don't use them in my home for anything more than listening to music while laying in bed.
COST: $1399.95 (estimated)
 
 

MONSTER: Pro 3500 Surge

​

The Pro 3500 is a simple yet effective power conditioner, which I use to keep my power clean and to protect my gear from a power surge.
COST: $300
 
 

GOLD POINT: SW2X-O

​

For convenience, I purchased the SW2X-O, a high-quality switchbox. I use it because neither the TTVJ Millett 307A nor the Head Room BUDA offer a through-output and therefore it is impossible to daisy-chain the two amps. The SW2X-O is a reference-quality passive switchbox which allows me to distribute the output signal to these two amplifiers, one at a time.
COST: $572
 
 

Interconnects by A PURE SOUND & ALO AUDIO

​

The majority of the interconnects used in my system (including all the balanced ones) are manufactured by A Pure Sound. I have always been extremely happy with the quality of A Pure Sound cables; I feel they have an exceptional price-to-performance ratio. In addition, I use two ALO Audio interconnects; the quality of these interconnects is exceptional as well.
COST: $2500 (estimated)
 
 

Now on to the core of this evaluation...

​

 

 ​

*Back To The Index
 
 


 
 
 

50+ HEADPHONES COMPARED​

 

​

 

#58 AUDIO-TECHNICA: ATH-W5000​

*Back To The Index
 
There are not too many headphones listed here that I truly dislike. I happen to enjoy most of the headphones included, and I can usually find at least one redeeming quality in a headphone, even should I feel it misses the mark. Unfortunately, the only truly redeeming quality that I can find in the ATH-W5000 is that it is one of the best looking headphones ever made. I find its sound quality to be bordering on awful.
 
I purchased a pair of the ATH-W5000 in 2007. I was completely shocked by how poorly it performed. Today, it remains the only headphone that I have ever returned. A couple of years later, I was informed by a respected member of the community that he had encountered two different pairs of the ATH-W5000. According to him, the earlier one sounded defective, while the later one sounded a bit better. After I was given this information, I contacted the manufacturer to see if there was any record of changes made with regard to the production of the W5000. According to the manufacturer, there was no record of a production change and there were no documented defects.
 
However, I was convinced that the pair I had initially purchased was defective since so many people seemed to like the sound of the W5000. In 2010, I purchased the ATH-W5000 for a second time. It sounded about as bad as I remembered. The only way that I can even begin to appreciate its sonic presentation is at an exceptionally low volume level.
 
 
STRENGTHS
ATTRACTIVE: I still think this is the most beautiful looking headphone that Audio-Technica has ever made. Its striped ebony wood finish is even prettier to my eye than the cherry wood finish of the ATH-W3000ANV (Audio-Technica's newer and far greater flagship).
 
COMFORT: Audio-Technica's leather earpads are very soft. While I'm not a fan of the self-adjusting headband design, the ergonomic fit of the headphone allows the earpads to loosely encompass the ears, which is rather comfortable. I have a larger-than-average-size head. It is possible that one with a smaller head may find that the W5000 wears a bit too loosely.
 
STORAGE: The W5000 ships with a really wonderful carrying case. It looks like a hard plastic suitcase specifically designed for your headphones. The case features a wonderfully silky interior as well.
 
ISOLATION: The ATH-W5000 is one of a small handful of full-size closed-back headphones on my list. Because of its closed-back design, it offers some attenuation of outside ambient noise.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
SOUND: Normally, I would evaluate several distinct attributes of the sound in order to determine which are successful and which are in need improvement. In this case, I find that the sound is simply poor all around. It is a nasal, congested, non-transparent, bass-less, unnatural tone.
 
HEADBAND CONSTRUCTION: I'm not a fan of Audio-Technica's self-adjusting headband design. I think it is flimsy and easily breakable. While many of Audio-Technica's full-size flagships incorporate this headband design, I do wish this design was something they would abandon.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
LOW LEVEL LISTENING: The W5000 sounds drastically improved at lower volume levels. No, I'm not trying to be funny by saying "the closer I get to not hearing it, the better" . At exceptionally low listening levels, the sound broadens and becomes more natural.
 
POWERING: Audio-Technica produced an amp specifically designed to power the W5000. It is known as the HA-5000. I am told by some owners of this pairing that the sonic results are stunning. I have never heard this pairing, so I do not know. In my experience, I have found that the W5000 never loses its nasal, unnatural character despite which amp I choose to pair it with. Of the amps I've used, I have found that it sounds best with the TTVJ Millett 307a, but it still does not sound particularly good.
 
CABLE: The W5000's cable is of a fairly high quality. However, I always prefer easily detachable cables. The W5000's cable is hardwired.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

F

I won't be giving out too many F's in this evaluation. Unfortunately, the ATH-W5000 is just insufferably nasal sounding to my ears. The drivers sound as though they are being restrained. Perhaps if it were an open-back design, the sound would improve quite a bit. At its price, I feel that every other full-size headphone I have heard outperforms it by leaps and bounds.
 

QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 40 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Low level listening
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $650-$1000 (estimated)

 
*Back To The Index
 

#57 SENSAPHONICS: 2X-S​

*Back To The Index

 
The 2X-S is a custom in-ear-monitor that incorporates two balanced armature drivers per ear in a single passive crossover design. It was the second pair of custom-fit IEMs that I ever purchased. I bought them almost immediately after I acquired the Ultimate Ears UE10 Pro. I had read several positive reviews about it, including that it offered the best noise cancellation and comfort of any customized in-ear. The shell of the 2X-S is made completely out of soft silicone material. Just that description alone sounded promising to me. The 2X-S is a solid offering in several ways. It is able to block out a tremendous amount of ambient noise and it is quite comfortable to wear for extended periods of time.  However, when removing the earpieces from my ears, the flexible material actually manages to cause my ears discomfort. Finally, the 2X-S is just average with regard to sound quality.
 

STRENGTHS
AMAZING ISOLATION: Between the 2X-S and the Westone ES, I'm not sure which offers better passive noise reduction. These two in-ears are the best I have ever tried with regard to passive noise isolation. The 2-XS is truly astonishing with regard to the amount of ambient noise it is capable of attenuating.
 
FIT: Let me specify that by the word "fit" I do not mean comfort. The reason I state this is that the fit itself is essentially perfect. However, when I remove the earpieces from my ear, the silicone bends, causing my inner ear great discomfort.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the 2X-S inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Most IEMs are easy to drive. On the rare occasion that I use the 2X-S, I do not use an amplifier. I have used the 2X-S primarily with just my iPod.
 
SERIALIZED: As any customized item should be, the 2X-S is serialized.
 
 
WEAKNESSES NOT TRANSPARENT: I find the sound signature of the 2X-S to be extremely unnatural. Sadly, the sound is stained by a shrill metallic quality throughout the entire frequency spectrum.
 
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
TONALITY: I've found that throughout the frequency response here, there are odd peaks and dips. The bass is most definitely lacking in impact. The treble sounds slightly rolled off and brittle. The midrange presentation has its moments, however, the upper-mids sound odd and unnatural.
 
CABLE: Today, I believe that Sensaphonics offers a replaceable cable option. However, back when I ordered the 2X-S, I am pretty sure that the cable was only offered in a hardwired configuration. The cable on my 2X-S appears to be quite flimsy.
 
RESELL VALUE: When I first joined Head-Fi, I remember someone putting up a thread in the "For Sale" section in which they announced the sale of their custom-molded earphones. This thread turned out to be a joke. Reselling a custom-molded product was almost unheard of at the time. Today however, there are many companies which offer a refitting process that makes reselling custom-molded earphones an option. Still, be prepared to take a major hit should you resell them.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
IMAGING: All criticism aside, the 2X-S is actually decent at imaging. The instrument separation is enhanced by a rather smooth decay.
 
STORAGE: My 2X-S shipped with a hard plastic case and a vinyl zipper carrying pouch.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

D

I feel that the 2X-S is extremely overpriced. The silicone material is quite effective at attenuating outside noise, but ultimately I find that every other in-ear-monitor listed in this evaluation is more natural sounding. Coming off the heels of my favorable UE10 purchase, I was greatly disappointed with the 2X-S when I first heard it. Five years later, I still have not yet warmed up to its sound signature.  
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 27 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: AMP: n/a (iPod without amp)
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: N/A
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least 1 known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $750 + Audiologist

​*Back To The Index​

 
 
 

#56 SENNHEISER: IE 8​

*Back To The Index
   
The IE 8 was produced by Sennheiser for approximately three years. It served as their flagship in-ear model during this time. It has since been replaced by the IE 80 and (and most recently, IE 800). I have not heard the IE 80, although its basic design is nearly identical to that of the IE 8. Therefore, let me specify that this evaluation is of the IE 8 only. The IE 8 employs a single dynamic driver per earpiece. The IE 8 features a very small bass contour control which allows you to adjust the amount of bass. The only problem is that for most of the music I listen to, I have found that even at its lowest setting, the bass is simply too forward. The most impressive aspect of the sound here is its soundstage presentation, which feels more outside-the-head than average.  
*The IE 8 was later offered with an optional Apple remote. The version that I own is the original (without the Apple remote).
 
 
STRENGTHS IMAGING: As far as in-ear-monitors are concerned, the IE 8 has wonderful imaging abilities. While it doesn't quite compete with full-size headphones in this regard, it is certainly near the top of the class with regard to in-ears.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Like most IEMs, the IE 8 is not difficult to drive. I typically use my iPod with the IE 8. Because the iPod's bass output is inherently rolled off, the bass contour control is sometimes fun to play around with.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the IE 8 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an HD800.
 
BASS CONTROL: The IE 8 features a little dial on the faceplate of each earpiece which allows you to tailor the bass response to your preference. In order to turn the dial, you need to use a little tool (included by Sennheiser) which functions like a flathead screwdriver. One small issue I have with the way the bass feature is implemented here is that the dial is not stepped. This means that you have to match the left and right channel's bass output by trusting your eyes and ears only.
 
SILICONE GUIDES: While I never use them, the silicone ear loops are intended to add reinforcement to the cable so that it stays behind your ear when wearing the earphones.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
LACKS TRANSPARENCY: I find that the IE 8 is demonstrative of a grainy midrange presentation. In contrast, the Shure, Audéo and Westone universal in-ear models below offer a  far more fluid midrange to my ears.
 
MIDS: The mids sound grainy and unnatural. Sometimes it also seems as though the midrange gets swallowed up by the bass.
 
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. As I've said before, not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
STORAGE: I find that the IE 8's carrying case really detracts from the portability of an IEM. It is excessively large (bigger than an iPod) and cannot easily fit in one's pocket. It forces the user to wrap the cable up around an internal guide. This is not my preference. I never use this carrying case.
 
COMFORT: The ergonomic design here feels awkward to me. I also can never manage to achieve an optimal seal from the supplied silicone or foam tips. I believe the reason may be as simple as the larger-than-average size of the earpieces.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
SOUNDSTAGE: Of all the in-ears included in this review, I feel that the IE 8's soundstage presentation is most similar to that of a full-size headphone. I don't generally like the soundstage presentation of IEMs. The IE 8 actually succeeds here in many ways. The soundstage is wider than average for an IEM and has surprising depth as well.
 
TONAL BALANCE: The IE 8 has a warm tonality. Many people (particularly bass-lovers) will enjoy this. However, in my opinion the tonality is awkward due to a grainy upper-midrange.
 
TREBLE: The IE 8's treble presentation is non-sibilant. I appreciate this. Conversely however, there is an awkward quality about the treble; it is slightly rolled-off yet can sound abrasive at times.
 
ISOLATION: Due to the ergonomic fit (or lack of), I am never able to get an optimal seal with the IE 8. The isolation ability is subpar for an IEM.
 
NO SWEET SPOT: I have never really figured out what music the IE 8 sounds good with. It doesn't strike me as the perfect earphone for any genre. However it doesn't sound particularly horrendous with anything.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

D

I'll say it here: Sennheiser is probably my favorite headphone manufacturer of all time. In terms of value, I find that the IE 8 is the weakest offering I've come across from them. It's not even that it's a bad earphone. It was simply overpriced based on the sound quality it offered.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 16 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: AMP: n/a (iPod without amp)
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: N/A
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was Product Line Specific
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $350 (estimated)

​*Back To The Index​

#55 SONY: XBA-4​

*Back To The Index
 
I owned the MDR-EX700LP for several years. This was Sony's flagship in-ear model until the release of the MDR-EX1000. While I liked certain aspects of the EX700LP's sound (particularly the bass presentation), I was never thrilled by neither the earphone's overall sound quality nor its ergonomic design. It was because of my lack of enthusiasm for the EX700LP that I never ventured to try the EX1000.
 
In 2012, Sony introduced their very first in-ear product-line to utilize balanced armature drivers. This product-line is known as the XBA line. While they released several different XBA models at different price-points, it was the quad-driver model, which was to be the most highly anticipated within the audiophile community.
 
The XBA-4 is Sony's newest flagship in-ear model. To my knowledge, it is the one of only two quad-driver universal-fit IEM currently available; the other being the Westone 4. However, unlike the Westone 4, which incorporates dual bass drivers, the XBA-4 has a single bass driver and a single driver dedicated to sub-bass frequencies. I pre-ordered the XBA-4, but shortly after it arrived, Sony sent headphones.com a sample of the entire XBA-line. When I had the chance to spend time with each of the earphones, I discovered that I actually found that the XBA-3 sounded better to me. The XBA-4 is brighter and a bit sharper. It seems to me that the XBA-4's sound signature is more revealing than that of the XBA-3, but at the same time the XBA-3 sounds more natural and balanced. If I had known that I was going to be given the opportunity to review the entire series, I probably would have gone with the XBA-3 instead.
 
*The XBA-4 is offered in two different versions. One comes with an Apple Remote and is known as the XBA-4iP, while the other comes without this feature and is known simply as the XBA-4.
 

STRENGTHS
DETAILED: The XBA-4 offers a highly detailed sound signature. This type of sound signature is very desirable for classical-music-listening.
 
IMAGING: The XBA-4 exhibits exceptional imaging abilities. As far as IEMs are concerned, the XBA-4's ability to separate instruments and provide a real sense of roominess is far above average.
 
CLASSICAL MASTER: The XBA-4 can sound a bit sharp with most popular music, but it excels with classical music. In addition, the XBA-4 tends to sound good with very well-balanced (non bright) recordings.
 
ISOLATION: The simple fact is that in-ear-monitors are inherently designed with the ability to offer the user superb isolation from outside noise. That said, the XBA-4's enclosures are rather large and cumbersome. It is not entirely easy to get a seal with the XBA-4. However, once the user manages to get a seal, the isolation achieved is very good. Sony offers silicone and foam/silicone hybrid eartips to facilitate the user with this task.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the XBA-4 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Like most other IEMs, the XBA-4 is designed with the portable user in mind. An amplifier is not necessary to drive the XBA-4, but I have found that they sound particularly good when paired with my Ray Samuels Audio Hornet connected to my 5th generation iPod Classic. The Hornet gives it a tad more impact than going through the iPod headphone output directly. Part of this has to do with the fact that the iPod's headphone output rolls off the sub-bass frequencies.
 
STORAGE: The XBA-4 comes with a hard-shell carrying pouch that locks via magnet. This is a massive improvement over the very awkward carrying case that shipped with the EX700LP. This magnet-locking design is especially considerate of the fast-paced user who may accidentally damage the cable while zipping the pouch.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
NOT TRANSPARENT: I find that the XBA-4 lacks a sense of smoothness. Ultimately, I find that it does not showcase an extremely transparent sound signature.
 
MIDS: The midrange here sounds a bit metallic and lacking in transparency. Voices do not always sound natural to my ears.
 
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. As I've said before, not everyone agrees with me here, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. As I've stated previously, a lot of people happen to like the inside-the-head feeling, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's outside-the-head ability.
 
SIBILANT: The XBA-4 is not overtly sibilant. However there are moments when I find that the earphones can border on problematically-sibilant.
 
CONSTRUCTION: I do not like the ergonomic design of any of the Sony in-ears that I've tried. I find that the earpieces do not sit particularly snug in the ear. It is especially difficult to get a seal with the XBA-4 due to the fact that the earpieces are quite large. Furthermore, I detest when manufacturers design their earphones with the cable worn straight down (as is the case here), rather than behind the ear. By wearing the cable straight down, the cable is guaranteed to be microphonic.
 
CABLE: Sony really misses the mark when it comes to cable design. If you're an audio purist like me, you will prefer using the earphones without the Apple remote (especially should you have the intention of using it with a dedicated headphone amplifier). However, should you opt for the XBA-4 without Apple remote you may end up regretting your decision (as I have). The reason for my regret is that the XBA-4 (without remote) features an extremely awkward cable design, where the left and right earpieces are connected to one another unevenly. The XBA-4iP features the more common (and much less awkward) Y-split cable design. I do not like the uneven-cable-split at all. Lastly, my final complaint is that all of the models within the XBA series feature non-detachable cables.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TONAL BALANCE: The XBA-4 exhibits a neutral-ish tonality but it doesn't quite hit the mark of neutrality. It is a little bass deficient, particularly if you find getting a seal with it to be as much of a task as I do. Furthermore, the midrange is not entirely natural-sounding. All in all, the tonal balance is very good, but not outstanding.

BASS: The XBA-4's bass extends rather deep. When one is able to get a proper seal with the XBA-4, the bass is quite impactful; if not, the bass presentation sounds a bit lean. I actually found the XBA-3's bass presentation to be a bit more impactful, particularly in the mid-bass region. Part of the reason for this difference may be due to the fact that I found that the XBA-3 was easier to fit inside my ear.
 
TREBLE: The XBA-4's treble presentation is wonderfully extended, however it exhibits moments of grain and edginess.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

Apart from this review, I evaluated the XBA-4 not too long ago. In this previous review, I gave the XBA-4 a value rating of 8.5 out of 10. This differs significantly from the C rating which I am awarding it here. The reason for this notable difference is due entirely to the fact that in this review I am comparing it against all types of headphones; not just in-ears. Although the XBA-4 shows itself to be an improvement over the EX700LP, I still feel that Sony has yet to address the awkwardness of their ergonomic in-ear designs. While the XBA-4 does not perform poorly, I can't help but suggest that the XBA-3 will be preferable to a large amount of listeners. It is for this reason that I cannot give it a value grade any higher than a C. Had the XBA-3 been included in this evaluation, I would have awarded it a grade of B or B- with regards to its price-to-performance ratio.  
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 8 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: AMP: Ray Samuels Audio Hornet
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical Music / Well-Recorded Music
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: : Currently Is Specific To Product-Line
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $349.99 (without Apple Remote) 369.99 (with Apple Remote)

*Back To The Index​

#54 ULTRASONE: HFI-700​

*Back To The Index
 

Of all the headphones that I own, the HFI-700 is the only one which is regularly not in my home. I keep it at the small space where my band rehearses. When we are recording, I like to use this headphone specifically for monitoring drums. Much of this has less to do with the sound quality and more to do with the fact that my HFI-700 is roughed-up after years of use.
 
The HFI-700 was my introduction to Ultrasone. At the time which I purchased it (I think around 2005), I really enjoyed its sonic presentation. In many ways, I still think it provides an exceptionally fun listen. The HFI-650 happened to be an earlier model, but I am told that it is sonically identical to the HFI-700. Today, Ultrasone continues their HFI series, with the HFI-780 being the HFI-700's distant relative.
 
 
 
STRENGTHS
FUN TONALITY: I have always enjoyed the HFI-700's sound for casual listening. It offers a tremendous mid-bass hump, as well as a recessed upper mid presentation. Perhaps the most problematic area of the frequency response is the loose bass. In fact, out of all the headphones in my collection, the HFI-700 probably resembles the typical hip-hop headphone of today. However, unlike most of these consumer-grade headphones, the HFI-700 offers tremendous treble extension. I am not convinced that any particular region of the frequency response here is exemplary, yet the overall tonality is very enjoyable to me.
 
HIP HOP & R&B MASTER: I love listening to hip hop, modern r&b and classic soul with the HFI-700. It has a visceral sound due to a looser bass response. I find that this bass presentation has a tendency to clutter up the mix when listening to rock, jazz and especially classical music.
 
ISOLATION: One of my favorite aspects of the HFI-700 is its ability to seal really well. Of course, it does happen to showcase a closed-back design (closed-back headphones typically provide isolation). However, even when compared with most other closed-back headphones, it ends up in a high place on the totem pole of isolation.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
LACKS TRANSPARENCY: The HFI-700 lacks a sense of realism when compared against higher-end headphones. However, when compared with similarly-priced closed-back headphones, the HFI-700 actually fares quite well in the transparency department.
 
NOT NEUTRAL: The HFI-700 has an extremely colored/fun tonality. In my opinion, it is not suited for critical listening.
 
MIDS: The HFI-700's midrange showcases some unnatural peaks and dips. Sometimes it is easy to overlook this flaw because it is not so extreme. However once one listens to a headphone that offers an extremely pure sounding midrange, the HFI-700 can sound odd.
 
COMFORT: Very early on, the HFI-700's faux leather earpads began to harden and crack. As the earpads continued to harden, I found that the HFI-700 went from being fairly comfortable to physically fatiguing.
 
CABLE: The HFI-700 features a one-sided hardwired cable. This style is not my preference. I prefer a Y-split detachable cable design because it allows the headphone to be easily re-cabled for balanced application.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
BASS: Of all the headphones listed in this evaluation, I might suggest that the HFI-700's bass presentation is the least tight. However, the actual feel of the bass is very full and enjoyable for certain types of music.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: As far as closed-back headphones are concerned, the HFI-700's soundstage is impressive. It is wider than I typically expect from a closed-back headphone. However, it still possesses the closed-in feeling which seems to be an inherent side-effect of closed-back headphone design.
 
TREBLE: I appreciate how forward the treble is here. It helps the sonic presentation remain uncluttered despite the loose bass response. On the other hand, the treble here is not particularly grain-free.
 
AMPING: In truth, the HFI-700 is not a difficult headphone to drive. Yet I think the sound is greatly improved when paired with a neutral solid-state amp. When I pair it with the SPL Phonitor for instance, the soundstage opens up quite a bit and the bass feels slightly more controlled.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

If you had asked me in 2005 (when the HFI-700 was still new to me) what I thought of it, I would have most certainly given it a B or B+. I thought a lot of this headphone at the time. Of course I had far fewer headphones to compare it with. Over time my allegiance towards it has faded. However, it does carry the designation of being the headphone for which I've held on to the longest besides the Denon AH-D950. As far as closed-back headphones are concerned, I think the HFI-700 was a solid offering in its time. I do however wish that the earpads were made of a more supple/durable material.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 75 Ohms
4. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
5. ISOLATION: EXTREME
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Hip Hop / R&B / Soul
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $150 (estimated)

​*Back To The Index​

#53 SHURE: SE530​

*Back To The Index
 
In the early 2000's, Shure introduced the world's very first one-size-fits-all triple-driver balanced armature in-ear-monitor. It was known as the E5. Shortly thereafter, Shure debuted the E500 (also a triple-driver). Upon its release, the E500 was the most expensive universal-fit IEM ever made. It included a device known as the Push-To-Hear module, a small microphone which enabled the user hear outside sounds without having to remove the earpieces from his/her ear. For the most part, the E500 received fantastic reviews. In the mid 2000's, Shure re-branded the E500 as the SE530. To my disappointment, Shure abandoned the Push-To-Hear component with the release of the SE530. However, the SE530's sound signature remained identical to the E500.
 
Like many longtime headphone companies, Shure Inc. began as a manufacturer of radio parts and microphones. In the late 90's, Shure entered the listening device market, specializing exclusively in earphones and personal monitoring components. As far as I am aware, Shure is the only manufacturer thus far to have started out as a maker of earphones, only to add full-size headphones to their product-line later. Usually it is the other way around.
 
For a long time now, I have considered the SE530's sonic character to be demonstrative of what a forward midrange presentation sounds like. Ironically, the SE530's midrange presentation may be its greatest asset to some and its most bothersome liability to others. I personally hold the SE530's sound in fairly high regard even though I feel that there are several IEMs which fare better overall.

I should mention here that Shure's newer triple driver model, the SE535, is viritually identical to the SE530. As a result, the SE530s have been discontinued. I have decided to review the two models separately since there are some very slight, yet distinct differences between them. However, if you already own the SE530, I do not feel it is worth the cost of upgrading to the SE535.
 
 
STRENGTHS MIDS: I truly adore the SE530's midrange presentation. It's so smooth and grain-free. For a time, it was this midrange presentation which made the SE530 my favorite universal-fit IEM.
 
MALE VOCALS: I've found that the SE530's lush midrange enhances the sound of the male voice. Here, male vocals sound thick and come forward with great presence and depth.
 
COMFORT: In the mid-2000's, Shure introduced a foam ear-tip that resembled the shape of an olive. The SE530 came pre-installed with these tips already on the nozzle. This ear-tip manages to provide a good seal and is relatively comfortable. Although Shure generously included an assortment of silicone and foam ear-tips in addition, I have found that most users prefer the "olive tips."
 
ISOLATION: Once the ear-tip is properly sealed in the ear canal, the SE530 is able to block out quite a bit of ambient noise. It is not quite as impressive in this regard as Westone's universal-fit IEMs. The Westone models are designed to utilize Comply foam tips. Of course, Comply makes foam tips which are compatible with the SE530 (as shown in the photo above). However, I have often found that the SE530's sonic presentation is affected negatively by the Comply tips.  The Comply tips seem to exaggerate the SE530's rolled-off high-end.
 
JAZZ MASTER: Jazz sounds sultry and smooth with the SE530, particularly the old bop records which exhibit an excess of analog hiss and record pops.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: As is the case with most IEMs, the SE530 is extremely efficient and easy to drive. However I do prefer the earphone's sonic presentation when paired with a neutral solid-state amplifier. I find that in doing this, the treble is brought forward a bit.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the SE530 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an SRH1840.
 
FORGIVING: The SE530 is one of the most forgiving of all the headphones/earphones reviewed in this evaluation. This is most certainly a pleasant side-effect of the rolled off treble response.
 
STORAGE: I think Shure did an extremely good job at packaging the SE530. Much like Apple's lauded packaging displays, the SE530 was packaged in a compact yet succinct manner. Thankfully, the SE535 continues this tradition. Perhaps, the most important accessory included with the SE530/5 is the protective zippered carrying pouch. I like this case very much. I have used it to store several of my other earphones in addition to the SE530.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
TREBLE: The SE530's treble presentation is enormously rolled-off. At times, this causes the sonic presentation to sound congested and muddy. When I first heard the SE530, I was taken aback by the absence of treble. While the earphones have a very smooth sound, I cannot help but wish for more treble presence and greater extension.
 
LACKS DETAIL: If I attempt to listen to classical music with the SE530, I feel as though my ears are squinting to hear the upper harmonics. Simply put, the SE530 is truly not a detailed sounding earphone.
 
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
IMAGING: I find that the SE530's sonic presentation is squeezed toward the center. Perhaps, because of the absence of upper-harmonics, the sound feels slightly smeared and cluttered.
 
CABLE: The most distinct difference between the SE530 and SE535 is that the SE530's cable is hardwired while the SE535 features a user-detachable cable. The latter is clearly the more durable design. I know several SE530 owners (including myself) who have had the misfortune of the cable tearing at precisely where the cable connects to the earpiece. It was a terribly fragile design. Shure was wise to address this issue when designing the SE535.
 
 
ON THE FENCE TONAL BALANCE: I feel ambivalent about the SE530's tonal balance. I really do think the SE530's mid-centric tone enhances the sound of jazz music. At the same time, when it comes to classical music, the missing upper-harmonics makes the music sound as though it is submerged.
 
BASS: The bass response here is well-extended and fairly flat. Unfortunately however, I find that it is not as impactful as I would prefer.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

The SE530 is the only headphone/earphone in this entire evaluation to have been superseded by a virtually identical replacement: the SE535. For this reason, I would only recommend purchasing the SE530 at an extremely attractive price. The SE535 is a better purchase because it addresses the cable issue discussed above. Either way, the SE530 serves as phenomenal earphone for one who loves a lush forward midrange.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 36 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor / Ray Samuels Audio Hornet
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Male Vocals / Jazz
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least one known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $300-$500 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 
 

#52 SHURE: SE535​

*Back To The Index
 

In 2011, Shure discontinued the SE530, replacing it with the SE535. The two earphones are almost identical with regard to their overall sonic presentations. However, there is a very slight difference with regard to how the two models handle treble; the SE535 offers just a hint more. Yet it is not really this difference which compels me to favor the SE535. The main reason that I prefer the SE535 is due to the detachable cable design. I owned an SE530 which became unusable after the cable began to experience problems. Upon sending my faltering SE530 to Shure for repair, they replaced it with the SE535. Because of the fact that the SE535 has a detachable cable, using it is a far less worrisome experience than using the SE530. The SE535 is offered in two finishes: clear and metallic bronze. I really like the appearance of the bronze finish.
 
In the nature that SE535 was the direct replacement of the SE530, I should mention here that my review of the SE535 will read quite similarly to my review of the SE530 (directly above).
 
 
STRENGTHS
MIDS: I truly adore the SE535's midrange presentation. It is so smooth and grain-free. For a time, it was this midrange presentation which made the SE535 my favorite universal-fit IEM.
 
MALE VOCALS: I've found that the SE535's lush midrange enhances the sound of the male voice. Here, male vocals sound thick and come forward with great presence and depth.
 
COMFORT: In the mid-2000's, Shure introduced a foam ear-tip that resembled the shape of an olive. The SE535 comes pre-installed with these tips already on the nozzle. This ear-tip manages to provide a good seal and is fairly comfortable. While Shure generously includes a variety of silicone and foam ear-tips in addition, I have found that most users prefer the "olive tips."
 
ISOLATION: Once the ear-tip is properly sealed in the ear canal, the SE535 is capable of blocking out quite a bit of ambient noise. It is not quite as impressive in this regard as Westone's universal-fit IEMs. The Westone models are designed to utilize Comply foam tips. Of course, Comply makes foam tips which are compatible with the SE535. However, I do find that the SE535's sonic presentation is affected negatively by the Comply ear-tips.  The Comply foam seems to exaggerate the SE535's rolled-off treble.
 
JAZZ MASTER: Jazz sounds sultry and smooth with the SE535, particularly the old bop records which exhibit an excess of analog hiss and record pops.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: As is the case with most IEMs, the SE535 is extremely efficient and easy to drive. However I do prefer the earphone's sonic presentation when paired with a neutral solid-state amplifier. I find that in doing this, the treble is brought forward a bit.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the SE535 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with a SRH1840.
 
FORGIVING: The SE535 is one of the most forgiving of all the headphones/earphones reviewed in this evaluation. This is most certainly a pleasant side-effect of the rolled off treble response.
 
STORAGE: I think Shure did an excellent job in packaging the SE535. Resembling Apple's highly-praised packaging displays, the SE535 is packaged in a compact yet succinct manner. Perhaps, the most important accessory included with the SE535 is the oval-shaped protective zippered carrying pouch, which zips up to stay closed. I like this case very much. I have used it to store several of my other earphones in addition to the SE535.
 
CABLE: The biggest difference between the SE530 and SE535 is that the former has a hardwired cable (susceptible to tearing) while the latter has a much more durable user-detachable cable. According to Shure, that is the most distinct difference between the SE530 and SE535.I know several SE530 owners (including myself) who have had the misfortune of the cable tearing at precisely where the cable connects to the earpiece. It was a terribly fragile design. Shure was smart to address this issue when designing the SE535.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
TREBLE: A lot of people claim that the SE535's treble response is improved over the SE530's. The manufacturer claims that the SE535's driver construction is identical to that of the SE530. Therefore, any discernible changes regarding the SE535's treble presentation must be an aftereffect of its slightly different ergonomic fit. With the SE535, I have confirmed that the treble is brought forward to a nearly imperceptible degree. I still find the SE535's treble to be significantly rolled off. At times, this causes the sonic presentation to sound congested and muddy.
 
LACKS DETAIL: If I attempt to listen to classical music with the SE535, I feel as though my ears are squinting to hear the upper harmonics. Simply put, the SE535 is truly not a detailed sounding earphone.
 
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with my claim here, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
IMAGING: I find the SE535's sonic presentation to be squeezed toward the center, meaning in this case that is lacks a bit of left/right dimension. Perhaps, because of the absence of upper-harmonics, the sound feels slightly smeared and cluttered.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TONAL BALANCE: I have mixed feelings regarding the SE535's tonal balance. I really do think the SE535's mid-centric tone enhances the sound of jazz music. At the same time, when it comes to classical music, the absence of upper-harmonics causes the music to sound as though it is submerged.
 
BASS: The SE535's bass response is well-extended and fairly flat. Unfortunately however, I find that it is not as impactful as I would prefer. For those who wish to get more bass from their SE535, try using Compy foam ear-tips in place of the included Shure foam tips. However, I found that an unfortunate consequence of using these ear-tips is that the treble presence is slightly diminished.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

The SE535 is a fantastic choice for fans of older recordings that wish to screen out some of the analog hiss. From a sonic perspective, the SE535 is virtually identical to the SE530. In addition, the SE530 was sonically identical to the E500. In essence, one can say that the sound signature of the SE535 has been around for many years. During this time, it has remained favored by many who prefer a forgiving sound presentation. Fortunately for everyone, Shure addressed the SE530's fragile cable problem when they designed the SE535.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 36 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor / Ray Samuels Audio Hornet
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Male Vocals / Jazz
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is Specific To Product-Line
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $499.99

*Back To The Index​

 
 
 
 

#51 WESTONE: WESTONE 3​

*Back To The Index
 

Westone started out as a pioneer in the field of hearing care. Later they would become one of the key figures in the evolution of in-ear-monitors during the 1990's. Westone served as an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) for Shure and worked alongside Ultimate Ears in the development of the world’s first custom-fit in-ear headphone.
 
Introduced in 2008, the Westone 3 was the very first two-way crossover universal-fit IEM. Essentially, what this means is that there are three balanced armature drivers in the earpiece, each targeted at a different frequency region (lows, mid, highs). Other triple-driver IEMs which preceded the Westone 3 (such as the SE530 and Ultimate Ears' Triple Fi 10 Pro) featured dual drivers for lower frequencies and a single driver for the highs. When I heard the Westone 3 for the first time, I was struck by how full the sound was. In my opinion, it offers a significantly improved sound over their dual-driver model, the UM2. Shortly after acquiring the Westone 3, I began to prefer them to the SE530.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: The Westone 3 offers a fun tonality that features an impactful mid-bass response and decent treble extension. In contrast to the SE535's bloomy midrange, the Westone 3's mids are slightly recessed.
 
BASS: The Westone 3 demonstrates a rather noticeable mid-bass hump that adds quite a bit of depth to bass guitar and drums. I find that its bass presentation is ideally suited for rock and metal music.
 
COMFORT: For me, the ergonomic design of Westone's universal-fit IEMs is the most comfortable of all universal-fit in-ears. The angle of the nozzle allows the user to achieve a more comfortable seal. In addition, Westone ships their universal-fit IEMs with Comply brand foam ear-tips. These tips are extraordinarily comfortable and easily provide the best seal of all the ear-tips that I have used.
 
ISOLATION: While Westone ships the Westone 3 with a generous assortment of eartips, I suggest using the longer Comply ear-tips in order to achieve the best seal. Once the foam tips are sealed in the ear, they manage to provide an extreme amount of isolation. Only custom-fitted IEMs do better in this regard.
 
ROCK MASTER: The Westone 3 offers a genuinely fat sound with great impact. I really enjoy listening to rock (particularly modern rock) with the Westone 3.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the Westone 3 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: I have found that the Westone 3 really doesn't benefit much from amplification. It sounds almost the same out of an iPod as it does out of a high-end rig.
 
STORAGE: When Westone began shipping the Westone 3, they supplied a round hard zippered carrying case, which resembled Shure's carrying case. However, more recently Westone has switched to a longer, more rectangular zippered carrying case. Both of the carrying cases offered are extremely effective with regard to fitting in the pocket and protecting the IEMs from damage.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
IEM'S INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with this claim, but I stand by my assertion.

IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.

NOT NEUTRAL: The Westone 3 is not a neutral-sounding earphone by any means. I would not suggest it as a choice for anyone looking to monitor a live mix. I would opt for the UM3X or Westone 4 in this scenario.

IMAGING: The Westone 3 is not particularly impressive with regard to imaging. Even though I enjoy the bass presentation, sometimes I feel as though the extra bass emphasis gets in the way of pinpointing the placement of instruments.

SIBILANT: The Westone 3 has the tendency to emphasize the sharpness of the letter "s" and other percussion instruments such as a hi-hat which fall into that same frequency region.
 
 
ON THE FENCE TRANSPARENT?: I feel as though the Westone 3's sound-signature is on the cusp of transparency, but it doesn't quite make it.

MIDS: I would prefer a slightly more forward midrange. However, the mids here are still quite natural-sounding. Overall, the midrange presentation is ideal for those who enjoy a slightly raised bass/treble EQ curve.

TREBLE: When I heard the Westone 3 for the first time, the first thing I thought was that its treble presentation was a drastic improvement over the SE530's. It is certainly more forward. However, I still wish at times that the treble was more smoothly integrated with the midrange.

CABLE: Westone's braided cable design is the best I have seen in the in-ear market. It is rugged, light and avoids tangling. I only wish the Westone 3's cable was detachable from the earpiece. Westone would later offer this as an optional feature with their UM-series models and the Westone 4.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B-

Upon its debut, the Westone 3 was probably the best sounding universal-fit IEM I had ever heard. Today it has been surpassed by a few models - namely by Westone themselves and Audéo. I still prefer the sound of the Westone 3 to any of Sony's XBA series IEMs. For rock fans, I think the Westone 3 may still be the one to own.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 30 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: n/a (iPod without amp)
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Rock
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $349

​*Back To The Index​

 

THE BATTLE OF THE FLAGSHIPS continued...​

My quest to find the greatest headphone ever made!​

by David Solomon

#50 WESTONE: UM3X​

*Back To The Index
 

The UM3X was introduced shortly after the Westone 3. I remember when Westone released the Westone 3, many people mistakenly called it the UM3 because Westone's earphone line at the time was known as the Universal Monitor series. Therefore, when I read that Westone had a UM3X, I actually thought it was a misprint. When I realized that the UM3X actually did exist, I was curious to see how it compared against the Westone 3. What I found was that while the two IEMs offer some distinct differences with regard to tonality, they share several similarities with regard to the sonic presentation. I am still not entirely sure if I prefer one over the other. I consider the UM3X to be the more neutral of the two and as a result I have placed it one rank higher on this list.
 
Not long after its debut, the UM3X was offered with a removable cable for $20 more. Had I known at the time that I purchased the UM3X that a UM3X with removable cable was in the works, I would have waited.

 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: The UM3X is a bit more neutral-sounding than the Westone 3. However, I still find that the tonality is a tad warmer than neutral.
 
BASS: The bass presentation of the UM3X is a bit more impactful than neutral, but I would say it is a bit flatter when compared with the Westone 3's bass presentation.
 
COMFORT: For me, the ergonomic design of Westone's universal-fit IEMs is the most comfortable of all universal-fit in-ears. The angle of the nozzle allows the user to attain a more comfortable seal. In addition, Westone ships their universal-fit IEMs with Comply brand foam ear-tips. These ear-tips are extraordinarily comfortable and easily provide the user with the best seal of all the universal tips I have used.
 
ISOLATION: While Westone ships the UM3X with a generous assortment of eartips, I find that the longer foam tips provide the best seal. Once the Comply foam tips are sealed in the ear, they manage to provide an extreme amount of isolation. Only custom-fitted IEMs are better in this regard.
 
JAZZ MASTER: The UM3X is one of the best IEMs I've heard for jazz listening. Its sound-signature is somewhere between warm and neutral. I feel that this balance fares very well with jazz music.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the UM3X inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: As is the case with nearly all IEMs, the UM3X is exceptionally easy to drive. Unlike the Westone 3 however, the UM3X does seem to benefit from amplification. I tend to use the UM3X in portable scenarios more often than with my home-rig. When I'm using it with my iPod, I like to plug it into the Ray Samuels Audio Hornet.
 
CABLE: The UM3X features Westone's signature braided cable design. I love this design because it is resistant to tangling and creasing. Less than a year after the UM3X made its debut, Westone introduced a UM3X-RC for twenty dollars more; RC stands for removable cable. At just twenty dollars more, I find that the UM3X-RC is a much better offering.  Having a removable cable may add years to the longevity of your earphones.
 
STORAGE: The UM3X ships with Westone's standard hard rectangular zippered carrying case. The case is quite protective and perfectly shaped for storing in one's pocket. I like to store my Westone ES5 in this case as well.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
SIBILANT: Similarly to the Westone 3, the UM3X has the tendency to emphasize the sharpness of the letter "s" and other percussion instruments such as a hi-hat which fall into that same frequency region.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TRANSPARENT?: The UM3X's sound signature gets rather close to transparency, yet I feel that it isn't quite there. It seems to me that the decay of the sound is lacking just a bit of naturalness.
 
MIDS: The UM3X's midrange presentation is not as recessed as the Westone 3's, but at the same time I actually feel that the resonance of the Westone 3's midrange is more natural sounding in some ways.
 
TREBLE: I find that the treble presentation of the UM3X is similar to that of the Westone 3. However, I feel that the UM3X's treble presentation brings forth just a hint more airiness. Even still, as I had mentioned with regard to the Westone 3, I wish that the treble here was more smoothly integrated with the midrange.
 
IMAGING: The UM3X has a superior imaging ability to all the universal-fit IEMs I've reviewed thus far in this evaluation. With the UM3X, it is easy to hear the basic location of instruments. However, when it comes to universal-fit IEMs and imaging, the Westone 4 and Audéo PFE-232 are superior.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B-

I do not necessarily feel that the UM3X is superior to the Westone 3. The UM3X's tonality is certainly closer to neutral. However, I feel that the Westone 3 offers more impact than the UM3X. I would probably use the UM3X over the Westone 3 for monitoring a live mix due to its superior imaging ability and flatter tonality. However, neither the Westone 3 nor the UM3X is as detailed or balanced as the Westone 4. The UM3X excels with jazz music. For a jazz listener, I may suggest that the UM3X is the best choice of all the universal-fit IEMs that I've heard.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 56 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Ray Samuels Audio Hornet
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least one known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $379 (without removable cable) $399 (with removable cable)

*Back To The Index​

#49 AUDÉO: PFE-232​

*Back To The Index
 
I had never heard of Audéo until I started working at Headphones.com. However, I was somewhat familiar with Phonak, which happens to be the parent company of Audéo. Like Westone, Phonak entered the in-ear-monitoring field, already well-established as a pioneer in the field of hearing aids and aural health.
 
When I first got the chance to hear Audéo's single balanced armature driver model, I was intrigued by the very unique user-installable sonic filter technology which it offered. Audéo created three sonic filters intended to manipulate the earphone's tonality. The filters are quite effective. I prefer the gray filter because it is the most neutral, although sometimes it can produce a rather bright sound. The green filter is designed to produce the most bass impact, while the black filter is sort of in between the gray and green, yet creates a somewhat U-shaped frequency curve.
 
The PFE-232 is Audéos flagship dual-driver model. Here, as they had done with their single driver model, Audéo made use of their very clever sonic filter system. And as was the case with the single driver model, I prefer the sound of the PFE-232 with the gray sonic filters installed.
 
Yes, the PFE-232 is the most expensive dual-driver universal-fit IEM ever made. However, it is also one of the best IEMs I have ever heard. Its sound signature doesn't quite match the transparency of the ES5, JH13, JH16 and UE10, but it is easily the most detailed universal-fit IEM I have ever come across.
 
 
STRENGTHS
SONIC CUSTOMIZATION: One of the most unique and significant aspects of Audéo's design is their user-installable sonic filters. There are three sonic filters to choose from, each one colorized for ease of use. The green filter provides the most bass output; the black filter provides a slightly U-shaped curve and a slightly reduced treble; the gray filter offers the most balanced sound-signature to my ears. Albeit, the gray filter can cause the earphones to sound a bit strident in the treble, but I think its overall effect sounds the best. Just for clarification, let me express that you cannot use the PFE-232 without one of these sonic filters installed.
 
DETAILED: From the perspective of tonality, the PFE-232 boasts the most upper harmonics of any universal IEM that I've used. In order to achieve the most detail, one must use the gray sonic filter. For some ears this sound signature may be too bright and/or sharp. However, due to what I perceive as a slightly unnatural decay, the earphone seems strained at times in order to produce these upper harmonics. Yet, the PFE-232 is able to display complex orchestral passages with more clarity and detail than most IEMs can.
 
BASS: Audéo includes three sonic filters with the PFE-232. The green filter raises the bass impact while bringing down the highs. However, when using the gray filters, the PFE-232 still offers outstanding bass extension and plenty of highs.
 
COMFORT: The PFE-232 is an exceptionally compact in-ear. I find that the shape of the earpiece makes it extremely intuitive to install in the ear. For sonic reasons, I prefer to use the included silicone tips rather than the Comply foam tips. I find that these earphones in particular sound more accurate when using silicone ear-tips as opposed to foam.
 
ISOLATION: Once the ear-tip is properly installed into the ear, the PFE-232 is able to isolate very well.
 
CLASSICAL & JAZZ MASTER: Due to the fact that there are three distinct sonic presentations which the PFE-232 has to offer, it is very difficult for me to determine in one fell swoop which genres it excels the most with. Because of the fact that I find that the gray sonic filter yields the best sounding results, I am basing my preferences largely on this presentation. The gray filter provides a bright, yet highly detailed sound signature. I feel that this sound signature will be too sharp with popular music. However, with classical and jazz it performs very well.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the PFE-232 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: The PFE-232 performs loudest with the gray filters installed. I dislike the way this configuration sounds when paired with a tube amp. The top end becomes smeared and murky. To be honest, most of the time that I've spent with the PFE-232 has been directly out of my iPod and I've been perfectly happy with the results.
 
CABLE: The PFE-232 is the only IEM in this evaluation to ship with a smart-phone enabled remote and mic embedded into the cable. However, Audéo wisely chose to offer a second cable (without this feature) as an added accessory. For those who prefer less in their signal path, the remote-less/mic-less cable will be the one to use. I suppose it goes without saying at this point that the cable is detachable. The quality of the cable seems about average, although it proves to be slightly more microphonic than average.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
NOT TRANSPARENT: The PFE-232 displays a rather noticeable metallic hue which prevents it from being definitively transparent.
 
MIDS: The upper-mids here tend to be grainy. I find that this graininess especially comes to the forefront when listening to male vocals.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: No matter which sonic filter is used, the treble presentation lacks some naturalness. While I find that the gray sonic filter offers the best tonal balance and the most detailed sound signature, the earphones always sound slightly strained at times, specifically in the treble region.
 
IMAGING: I feel ambivalent regarding the PFE-232's imaging capability. In one sense I think that the tonal balance is ideal for exemplary imaging. In another sense, I feel that the decay (especially in the upper-mids and treble) is lacking a sense of naturalness. This diminishes the earphone's ability to home in on the location instruments. It's simply not as precise as I would prefer.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

Despite the fact that I think the PFE-232 is one of the best universal-fit IEMs ever made, I am convinced that that the PFE-232's price-tag is a bit too high. Simply put, Audéo is a lesser-known brand, newer in the marketplace than most of their high-priced competitors. Because the PFE-232 boasts only a dual-driver design while costing a great deal more than several quad and triple-driver designs, I feel there is the potential for criticism. However, the PFE-232 is among the best sounding universal-fit IEMs I have ever tried.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 47 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: n/a (iPod without amp)
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz / Classical
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $599

*Back To The Index​

#48 KAM: HP1​

*Back To The Index
 

 
The KAM HP1 is probably the least-known headphone in this evaluation.  It is manufactured by a small American-based-company known as KΛM Instruments. The HP1 may not look like much, but they are one of the finer closed-back offerings that I've heard. It looks as if it were an AKG clone; and in some ways they exhibit a similar tonal balance to AKG's headphones - very flat and a tad light in the bass. They also utilize the one-sided detachable mini-XLR cable design which AKG employs several of their models, including the K240, K271S, and K702. I think the HP1 is a solid choice for someone looking to purchase a relatively inexpensive pair of headphones that is suited for studio monitoring. When used in a dedicated headphone setup the HP1 does not truly compete with the “big guns” in terms of overall fidelity. However, it is much less expensive and easier to drive than most options which perform at its level.
 
 
 
STRENGTHS
TONALITY: The HP1's tonal balance is a bit more bass-lean / brighter than neutral, but even still it is quite flat. This makes it an ideal choice for studio application as it really does not color the mix all that much.
 
MIDS: As far as closed-back headphones go, the HP1 has some of the flattest sounding mids I've heard. Perhaps, the lower mids could be brought forward a bit, but overall the midrange is very honest sounding to these ears, even if it is just slightly shouty at times.
 
CLASSICAL MASTER: While the HP1's sound signature proves to be lacking a little meat on its bones, it possesses an airiness that facilitates classical music very well.
 
DETAILED: The HP1's sound signature is strikingly detailed for a closed-back headphone. The treble response is titled a bit forward, creating an added sense of air. It may be a tad bright for some listeners, particularly those listening to brightly-mastered pop music recordings. However, the HP1 is far more detailed than I ever expected it to be.
 
SOME ISOLATION:The HP1 was designed with professional application in mind. Because of this, it was necessary to design the HP1 with a closed-back ear-cup in order to avoid sound leakage.
 
COMFORT:The HP1 utilizes a self-adjusting headband design that is nearly identical in presentation and function to that of AKG's standard headband. I find the level of clamp-force exerted by this style headband to be comfortable. The round earpads exhibit a faux leather material that looks cheap, yet manages to feel rather comfortable on the head.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: The HP1 does not demand a lot of power in order to sound good. I reckon that it even sounds good directly out of the iPod.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
NOT TRANSPARENT: With regard to transparency, it is not surprising that a headphone in the sub-$150 price-range would not be able to compete with some of the greatest (and most expensive) headphones ever made. That said, the HP1's transparency-level is above average for its price.
 
BASS: While the bass presentation exhibits very good extension, the overall impact of the bass is lacking. I suspect that bass-heads would not be satisfied with this, and it is possible that the bass may even be a little  meager for some neutrality-heads as well.
 
ANALYTICAL: Part of what makes the HP1 such a good headphone for studio application is that it brings forward the upper-harmonics, allowing the user to hear a lot of subtle nuances. However, some may find its sound signature to be a bit sterile and analytical.
 
APPEARANCE: The HP1 looks cheaply made. The box that it ships in is perhaps the most budget-looking aspect of the headphone's presentation. It is a generic white cardboard box with segments of computer paper printouts hand-glued to the exterior; this makes Grado's mundane packaging look luxurious.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: The treble presentation here is tilted a bit forward, allowing for upper-harmonics to be easily heard. Some listeners may find that the treble is a bit too forward for everyday listening, particularly if they prefer popular music genres such as rock, pop, hip hop and r&b.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: As far as closed-back headphones are concerned, the HP1's soundstage presentation is very large. Of course, being that the headphone features a closed-back design, there is an inherent lack of openness with regard to the sound. The width of the soundstage is fairly large, but the overall depth and dimension is not as notable as the typical open-back headphone.
 
IMAGING: The HP1's imaging capability is above average for a closed-back headphone. I am able to home in on the approximate location of instruments, however without the highest degree of accuracy.
 
CABLE: The HP1 uses a one-sided, detachable, mini-XLR cable design. Because of this design specification, I am able to use the Stefan Audio Art Equinox which I purchased for my K702 (a headphone which also employs a one-sided mini-XLR connector). The quality of the stock cable seems to be about average.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B+

“You can't judge a book by its cover.” Isn't that the old-time expression? Well it's definitely applicable here. The HP1 may not look like much, but it is a very revealing and honest headphone. It possesses a sense of "wisdom" which many more expensive headphones lack.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 47 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $130 (estimated)

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#47 DENON: AH-D950​

*Back To The Index
 
Growing up in my household, we had a Denon turntable. This turntable was my introduction to anything audio-related. Therefore, it is not surprising that when I picked out my first pair of headphones, I opted for a pair of Denon headphones. I remember going with my parents to Nobody Beats The Wiz for my 11th birthday with the instructions to pick out anything under 150 dollars and that would be my birthday gift - quite a generous gift, I know! I picked out the Denon AH-D950 headphones.
 
This was to be my first experience with headphones aside from the generic stock headphones which came with my Walkman and Discman. I remember very clearly, the first song I listened to with these headphones was "Driven to Tears" by The Police. The sound quality of the AH-D950 was so much better than any speakers I had heard up to that point. I was barely 11 years old, but that moment lit a spark in me that remained aflame for all these years. For this reason, Denon holds a very special place in my heart.
 
The open-cell foam cushion of the earpads began to deteriorate several years ago. I have since managed to replace them. The headphones also experienced a short in the cable many years ago. Fortunately, I was able to install a new plug and get rid of this short. As far as I am aware, most AH-D950s are long gone as the headphone was made rather cheaply and flimsily. After I refurbished the headphone, I decided that I wouldn't use it all too much. While I have preserved it primarily for sentimental reasons, I must say that it is a real eye-opener at times when I compare any new headphone to the first headphone I ever remember hearing (and loving).
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: In a way, the AH-D950 sounds like a precursor of things to come from Denon. It's sound signature resembles the recently discontinued AH-D2000. The AH-D950 leans toward neutral, but with a bit of extra warmth.
 
DECAY: All of the Denon headphones I've heard offer a very natural and smooth decay. I remember when I was about 17 the cable of my AH-D950 started to short. I wasn't aware at the time what was causing the issue and I put the headphones away for many years. Following this, I searched many years for a closed-back replacement that sounded as good. I wasn't sure as to what made the AH-D950 sound much better to my ears. Several years later, I came to the conclusion that it was the quickness and naturalness of the decay which made the difference.
 
MIDS: The midrange presentation of the AH-D950 is relatively flat. The quick decay of the sound enhances the midrange tone. Vocals in particular are rendered with tremendous realism.
 
GENRE MASTER: While it lacks the sonic refinement of higher-end headphones, the D950 offers quite a flexible sound presentation. I don't feel it is lackluster with any genre.
 
SOME ISOLATION: The AH-D950 is a closed-back headphone. However, there is a very small section on the ear-cup where acoustic ports are featured. In other words, the AH-D950 is a ported closed-back headphone. It offers adequate isolation.
 
COMFORT: The AH-D950 is a generously padded headphone. The clamp of the headband is not particularly tight, although I do feel that the ear-cups would benefit from being a bit larger. The size of the earpads is somewhere between on-ear and over-ear. However, I presume the AH-D950 was intended to be used portably; any bigger would have detracted from this purpose.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: I had never even heard the AH-D950 with an amp until recently when I fixed the shorted cable. The bass gains impact when the headphone is amplified. However, the headphones sound wonderful even if just out of a standard portable player.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
LACKS TRANSPARENCY: If you had asked me when I was much younger if the AH-D950 sounded transparent, I would have responded with a big fat "YES." However, as I've become aware of other headphones, I am able to see past the pedestal I once put the D950's sonic presentation on. The AH-D950 is certainly one of the most transparent headphones to ever sell for $150. However, I am hesitant to suggest that it is definitively transparent. It seems as though the top end has some harshness and the bottom is not as extended or balanced as I would prefer.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The AH-D950's soundstage presentation is extremely narrow. It is not impressive in this regard.
 
TREBLE: The AH-D950's treble presentation is lacking both extension and air. I also feel as though there is an awkwardness where the upper-mids transition into the highs.
 
CONSTRUCTION: As it is one of the least expensive headphone models in this entire evaluation, it's not surprising that the headphone itself is made of cheaper parts. However, in my opinion, the AH-D950 feels way too cheap and deteriorated way too early. It is made entirely of plastic and cheapo faux-leather. The open-cell foam guard which sits in front of the driver started to deteriorate less than three years after I purchased it. It turned a strange orange color and then disintegrated. I have since replaced this part.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
BASS: The AH-D950 lacks bass extension although the mid-bass is quite impactful. It is noticeably lacking with regard to the sub-bass region.
 
DETAILED: While the decay is quite fast here, I would say that the sound feels too closed-in for an optimal amount of detail to be retrieved by the listener.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

The AH-D950 foreshadowed even greater things to come from Denon. It was my first headphone and therefore I hold it in high regard. If you can find one in good/refurbished condition for a price of $250 or less, I would consider it an excellent value. It sounds good with any genre that I throw at it and it can be used directly out of a portable device without evidence of clipping. I consider myself lucky that it was my first headphone experience.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: On-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 30 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Preferred
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $200 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

#46 BEYERDYNAMIC: DT 770 (250 Ohm)​

*Back To The Index
 

The DT 770 was discontinued in 2011, but for the time it was produced it was one of the best closed-back headphones on the market. Its sound signature resembled that of Beyerdynamic's own DT 880, but featured more bass slam and a recessed midrange. It is worth mentioning here that the DT 770 Pro edition still remains available, but this pair is not identical to the standard DT 770.
 
Like the DT 880 and DT 990, the DT 770 was offered with different impedance ratings (32 ohms; 250 ohms; 600 ohms). Beyerdynamic also released the DT 770M which was targeted towards musicians and featured an inline volume control. The DT 770 was replaced by the T70/T70p, a headphone which utilizes Beyerdynamic's breakthrough patented Tesla driver technology. While the T70 boasts quite a bit more detail, the DT 770 had a smoother sound overall. I would say that the T70 has a noticeably quicker decay, but the DT 770 is less sharp. Overall, I prefer the T70, but the DT 770 was a whole lot more affordable.
 
Interesting little tidbit: It is well-known that the "T" in the model name of all of Beyer's latest headphones stands for Tesla. The DT headphone series, which preceded the Tesla series, is actually the longest continuously produced series of headphones. Beyerdynamic has been manufacturing headphone models using the "DT" designation for over seventy years. However, what I recently learned from talking with a Beyerdynamic rep is that "DT" does not stand for Dynamic Transducer as I had imagined; it stands for Dynamic Telephone.
 
 
STRENGTHS BASS: The DT 770 really digs down deep with tremendous impact. Despite this, its bass presentation manages to be rather tight. What may be most impressive about the DT 770's bass presentation is that it really is able to bring forward the sub-bass frequencies that many headphones skimp out on.
 
TREBLE: The treble presentation is nicely extended and nearly grain-free (although not entirely). It is rare to find a closed headphone so well-extended in both the bass and the treble.
 
GENRE MASTER: Although it has a very impactful bass response, the DT 770 has a sonic presentation that manages to not overstep itself. I wouldn't say it performs phenomenally with classical music, but I've used them to monitor classical recording sessions and have success in doing this. However, with jazz and rock the DT 770 is a very fine closed-back choice.
 
ISOLATION: The DT 770 offers a surprising amount of passive ambient noise reduction. It prevents sound leakage nearly as well.
 
COMFORT: The DT 770 employs the same velour earpads as the DT 880 and DT 990. These circular earpads are extremely comfortable. The grip of the DT 770's headband is not all that tight. Similarly to the DT 880, the DT 770 is a full-size headphone that manages to be relatively light for its size.
 
CHOOSE YOUR IMPEDANCE: I appreciate that Beyerdynamic offered this headphone in three different impedance variations. The manufacturer presently offers the DT 880 and DT 990 with these three impedance ratings as well. The version I own has an impedance rating of 250 ohms.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
LACKS TRANSPARENCY: When it comes to transparency, I feel that each and every "DT" model that I have heard lacks absolute transparency. The DT 770 is no exception. There is a graininess to the sound, however slight it may be.
 
MIDS: The DT 770 showcases an awkwardly recessed midrange presentation. It is not an ideal choice for homing in on vocals.
 
DECAY: The decay here is not exemplary. I would guess that if the treble was not raised, the tonality of this headphone would be noticeably cluttered and congested.
 
IMAGING: The DT 770 has a rather linear presentation that fails to impress with regard to imaging.
 
 
ON THE FENCE TONAL BALANCE: This headphone's tonality is nowhere near perfect. The recessed midrange presentation was a deal-breaker for me at one point and I sold my first pair. However, I regretted this decision almost immediately because the DT 770 has a lot of things going for it. It possesses an inoffensive tonality in the sense that it does not sound terrible with any genre of music. Yes, the sound is possibly the archetype of a smiley EQ curve (raised bass and treble), but sometimes that's just what I'm looking for.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: As far as closed-back headphones go, the DT 770 is quite impressive regarding soundstage width and depth. However, when compared against high-end open-back headphones, the DT 770 sounds closed-in and limited.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

In my view, the DT 770 was the best closed-back headphone at its price-point for many years. I'm sad to see it discontinued and replaced by the T70 because while the T70 is probably a better headphone overall, it is also a whole lot more expensive.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 250 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Woo Audio 5 / SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: Several known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $250 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

#45 WESTONE: WESTONE 4​

*Back To The Index
 
As far as I'm aware, the Westone 4 was the world's very first universal-fit quad-driver IEM. In my opinion, it is the most balanced sounding universal-fit in-ear that I have heard. While the Westone 4 exhibits Westone's classic warm house sound, it is more neutral and airy sounding than any other Westone universal-fit IEM. Furthermore, the Westone 4 is the most chameleonic of all the universal-fit IEMs that I've heard; it seems to excel with every style of music that I listen to.
 
As of 2012, there is only one other quad-driver universal-fit IEM on the market, the XBA-4. Some may want to know which of the two is the better IEM. Firtsly, I will say that I find the Westone 4 to be undeniably more comfortable than the XBA-4. The Westone 4's earpieces are more discrete and the overall design is a bit more ergonomically satisfying. While sound quality tends to be a rather subjective science, I find that the Westone 4 exhibits a tone that is more natural sounding overall. By comparison, the XBA-4 sounds leaner and less transparent, particularly in the treble region where I notice some unpleasant abrasive qualities.
 
About a year after the Westone 4 made its debut, the manufacturer introduced a removable cable version. The pair that I own is the original (non-removable cable) version.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONAL BALANCE: The Westone 4's tonality is just a bit warmer than neutral. However, its tonal balance manages to get fairly close to the neutral mark.
 
BASS: When comparing the Westone 4's bass presentation to that of the Westone 3 and the UM3X, the Westone 4's sounds flatter and better controlled. The Westone 3's bass presentation features a significant mid-bass hump. In comparison, the Westone 4's bass presentation is leaner, but with superior extension.
 
MIDS: I find that the midrange presentation here is fairly flat, yet with a bloomy quality that gives it a lush presentation.
 
COMFORT: In my opinion, the ergonomic design of Westone's universal-fit IEMs is the most comfortable of all universal-fit in-ears. The angle of the nozzle allows the user to achieve a more comfortable seal. In addition, Westone ships their universal-fit IEMs with Comply brand foam ear-tips. These tips are extraordinarily comfortable and easily provide the best seal of all the ear-tips that I have used.
 
ISOLATION: While Westone ships the Westone 4 with a generous assortment of eartips, I suggest using the longer Comply ear-tips in order to achieve and maintain the best seal possible. Once the foam tips are sealed in the ear, they manage to provide an extreme amount of isolation. Only custom-fitted IEMs are better in this regard.
 
GENRE MASTER: I think the Westone 4 could be described as a jack of all trades. It handles every genre well, especially classical. If I listened primarily to rock music then I would probably opt for the Westone 3 instead; if I listened primarily to jazz then I would probably go with the UM3X.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the Westone 4 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Although one can get fantastic results by simply plugging the Westone 4 directly into their iPod, I find that a neutral solid-state amp is able to open the sound up and add sparkle to the treble. I enjoy the way that the Westone 4 sounds with the SPL Phonitor.
 
CABLE: The Westone 4 features the manufacturer's signature braided cable design. I love this design because it is resistant to tangling and creasing. Approximately a year after the Westone 4 made its debut, the manufacturer introduced the Westone 4R; R stands for removable cable. Unlike the UM3X-RC which costs only $20 more than the non-removable-cable version, the Westone 4R is priced $50 higher than the Westone 4.
 
STORAGE: The Westone 4 ships with Westone's standard hard rectangular zippered carrying case. This case is quite protective and perfectly-shaped for fitting into one's pocket. While on the go, I often store my Westone ES5 in this carrying case.
 
 
WEAKNESSES IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. A lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TRANSPARENT?: I have not found a single universal-fit IEM that reaches a level of transparency comparable to that of the ES5, the UE10 Pro, the JH13 and the JH16, all of which are custom-fit IEMs. However, of all the universal-fit in-ears that I have used, the Westone 4 is easily the most transparent to my ears. If it had one obvious fault, it would be that the decay at times feels slightly unnatural to me; the Westone 3 and UM3X share this issue as well.
 
TREBLE: The Westone 4 offers superior treble extension to either the Westone 3 or the UM3X. I prefer its treble presentation even over that of Westone's flagship custom in-ear, the ES5. However, I still find that some of the upper-harmonics are smeared, diminishing the overall clarity just a hair.
 
IMAGING: I think that the Westone 4 images quite well. While its ability to precisely render the placement of instruments does not quite measure up to that of the UE10 Pro, it probably possesses most spatial acuity of all the universal-fit IEMs that I've tried.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B-

At the time which I write this review, the Westone 4 is undoubtedly my favorite universal-fit in-ear-monitor. Although I feel that there are some areas which could be improved, I find its overall sound signature to be quite natural. In terms of fidelity and resolution, I find that the Westone 4 actually gets rather close to Westone's flagship custom-fit IEM, the ES5. On the other hand, the two models have incredibly different sound signatures, and are therefore difficult to compare with one another. The Westone 4R is virtually the same price as the SE535, and yet it offers a much clearer and balanced sound presentation, in my opinion.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 31 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least one known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $449 (without removable cable) $499 (with removable cable)

*Back To The Index​

#44 SONY: MDR-SA5000​

*Back To The Index
 
 
The MDR-SA5000 was Sony's flagship model for several years... sort of. Sony began producing this model shortly before they discontinued their much grander flagship, the MDR-R10. The SA5000 continued to be produced even as the MDR-CD3000 and Q010-MDR1 (aka Qualia) challenged it for the title of official Sony flagship. Sony continued production of the SA5000 for over a decade, but discontinued it in 2012 without a releasing a clear replacement.
 
Sonically, the SA5000 is quite similar to the famous (or infamous) Qualia 010. Neither headphone offers tremendous bass impact or extension. However, both headphones offer the listener with a generous amount of detail. The SA5000's soundstage presentation is less impressive than that of the Qualia. Conversely, I find that the SA5000 is slightly less abrasive in the treble region. Both the Qualia and SA5000 excel with electronic music. However, the SA5000 may in fact be more forgiving.
 
 
STRENGTHS DETAILED: At the time that I purchased the SA5000, it was the most detailed sounding headphone I had ever heard. Its tonal balance is on the brighter side of neutral and its decay is quite fast. Some may find their sonic presentation to be hyper-detailed and inauthentic. I certainly could understand this assessment. However, I cannot help but marvel at just how detailed the MDR-SA5000 is.
 
DECAY: Believe it or not, I actually prefer the SA5000's decay to that of the Qualia 010 (Sony's pricier flagship with which the SA5000 is often compared). While the two headphones are markedly similar in presentation, the SA5000's decay sounds smoother to my ears.
 
IMAGING: The SA5000 is supremely skilled at imaging. At the price for which it sold ($350-$700), the SA5000 may have been the very best in its class with regard to imaging. The drivers are angled in order to bring instruments forward and create a more well-defined sense of space.
 
CLASSICAL & ELECTRONIC MASTER: The SA5000 possesses a boosted treble response. As a result, there is quite a bit of air and upper-harmonics. This will be a good thing for some listeners while others may experience ear fatigue. However, I find that the tonality is suited very well for classical music. It is very easy to discern the individual lines of multiple instruments all playing together at once. Similarly, the SA5000's tonality succeeds at providing the detail necessary for an exciting trance listening experience.
 
COMFORT: Considering its size, the SA5000 is fairly light. The headband features a vented cloth material and stepped adjustment rods. The earpads are made of faux-leather material. Overall, I find the fit to be very comfortable.
 
STAND: The SA5000 shipped with its very own proprietary headphone stand . Although it is not quite as extravagant as the Qualia 010's headphone, it looks quite similar; they are both solid metal. The Fostex TH900 and the Ultrasone Edition 10 also ship with their very own proprietary headphone stands.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: The SA5000 exhibits a very analytical sound signature that sometimes comes off as sterile and lifeless. I wouldn't say that the SA5000 is offensively nontransparent, but I would suggest that it is not exceptionally high on the totem pole of transparency when compared against several other high-end headphones.
 
MIDS: The mids are not a highlight of the SA5000's sonic presentation. When I listen critically, I find that its midrange sounds a bit honky and unnatural. Perhaps, if the lower mids had more presence, this issue would be somewhat alleviated.
 
FATIGUING: As one may find to be the case any bright sounding transducer, the SA5000 can cause fatigue, particularly at louder volume levels.
 
CABLE: The SA5000's stock cable is easily kinked and, unfortunately, is not user-removable.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TONAL BALANCE: If you have a preference for forward treble, then the SA5000 is a headphone worth considering. While I don't find the SA5000's tonal balance to be overly aggressive, it is bright.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The SA5000's soundstage presentation is fairly wide, yet not all that tall. While it suits orchestral music very well, it does feel as though it is lacking dimension at times.
 
TREBLE: Yes, the SA5000 is bright, but its treble presentation does not sound particularly awkward to me. However, I feel it is worth stating that the SA5000 is among the brightest sounding headphones in this evaluation.
 
TRANSIENT RESPONSE: The SA5000's transient response is a bit on the sharper side. This is definitely part of the reason that I find its sound signature to be a bit sterile. Conversely, it is also part of the reason that I find its sound to be extremely detailed.
 
BASS: The SA5000 is lacking a bit with regard to bass extension. However, I find that its bass is capable of being quite impactful at times. I enjoy using the Larocco PRII MkII bass contour control to really bring out the bass here.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C+

A few years back, I was talking with someone who was looking to find the perfect complement to their beloved Sennheiser HD650 (a headphone which offers a beautifully romantic sonic presentation). I suggested the MDR-SA5000. The SA5000 offers an analytical / icy tonality. This tone will not please everyone. As such, I would not recommend the SA5000 as a first headphone purchase. However, it is impressively detailed (especially when one considers its price) and performs exceptionally well with classical music.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 70 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A / Manley Neo Classic 300B
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Well-Record Classical / Electronic
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $350-$700 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

#43 GRADO: RS2​

*Back To The Index
 
I have fond memories of hearing Grado's SR60 for the first time. I was a young teenager at the time, and it was one of the first audiophile-category headphone's I'd ever heard (only third to the Denon AH-D950 and Sony MDR-7509). Upon joining the Head-Fi community in 2007, I quickly noticed that Grado headphones appeared to polarize the headphone community more than many other brands. While I have encountered some headphone enthusiasts who are unusually devoted to the manufacturer, I have also come across some who find Grado's entire headphone line mediocre.
 
I traded my Ray Samuels Audio SR-71 for a used RS2. When I received it, I noticed that the left channel had a rattling issue. I contacted Grado and they quickly addressed the problem. It was at this time that I was introduced to the word “grattle” (a word which means the rattling of Grado drivers - an unusually common occurrence it seems).
 
Upon receiving a replacement RS2 from the manufacturer (this time rattle-free), my impression of the headphone was favorable. I feel as though Grado headphones have a rather aggressive, colored sound signature that suits guitar-oriented music exceptionally well. For this reason, I consider it an ideal headphone for the rock and metal fan. I find that the HD650 (which possesses an entirely different sound signature from that of the RS2) is also an ideal headphone for rock music because it diminishes the sharpness of brightly-mastered recordings without removing transparency. However, whereas the HD650 is carries the impact of a boxing glove jab, the RS2 feels more like a raw closed-fist punch to the face.
 
For clarification purposes, let me mention that the “i” in RS2i is specifically used to distinguish newer models from older ones. Grado Labs claims that the RS2i is an improved version of the RS2, although some people disagree with this assessment.
 
 
STRENGTHS FUN TONALITY: The RS2i exhibits a forward mid-bass, adding weight and impact to the sound. The top end is slightly forward, though lacking in extension.
 
MIDS: In true Grado fashion, the RS2i's sound signature features a significant mid-bass hump which gives the sound a sense of and liveliness.
 
ELECTRIC GUITAR MASTER: The RS2's sound signature portrays electric guitars with great power. The headphone's mid-bass hump adds significant bottom to the tone of the guitar, while the upper harmonics (around 6-10 KHz) are bring forward the guitar's upper-harmonics.

DECAY: I am a fan of the decay presentation which Grado headphones offer. While it's not exceptionally fast, it is very natural sounding to my ears.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: None of Grado's offerings are particularly difficult to drive. However, I do find that powering them with an amp yields positive results. I have found that the RS2 sounds the most balanced when paired with the TTVJ Millett 307A.
 
SERIALIZED: Each RS2 is individually serialized. This can be particularly helpful in identifying the date of manufacture.
 
 
WEAKNESSES COMFORT: I find Grado's on-ear headphones to be remarkably uncomfortable. Regardless of how loose or tight I make the headband, I never seem to find wearing the RS2 to be a comfortable experience. The ear-cups simply feel awkward on the ears. Perhaps the shape and texture of the foam are just not right for me. Many others have voiced a similar sentiment.
 
NOT NEUTRAL: Neutrality-seekers should look somewhere else. The RS2 is a fun sounding headphone, but is far from uncolored.
 
CONSTRUCTION: The ultra-simplistic aesthetic design of Grado's headphones fails to impress me. While I do know others who appreciate the home-made look, I haven't yet warmed up to it. I don't believe I ever will. Perhaps if it was a more comfortable design, I would feel differently.
 
STORAGE: The RS2i ships in the same thin cardboard box as the SR60i, SR80i, RS125i, RS225i, RS325is and PS500. The box feels extremely cheap and appears under-protective.
 
 
ON THE FENCE TRANSPARENT?: I am convinced that none of Grado's offerings are definitively transparent. However, all of the Grado headphones that I have heard manage to get relatively close.
 
BASS: I would prefer for the RS2 to have more sub-bass extension, but its bass is quite tight and impactful. I find that the RS1 exhibits a broader bass tone. While I favor the RS1's bass presentation overall, the RS2 possesses a snappier bass presentation, which some may prefer.
 
TREBLE: The treble presentation here is a bit forward, yet it lacks sparkle up on the very top. Ultimately, I find that I enjoy the RS2's treble presentation, but I do recognize that it is not entirely devoid of grain.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The RS2's soundstage presentation is neither wide nor tall. However, it does display a sense of roundness and depth.
 
IMAGING: The RS2 is able to suggest the positions of instruments, but it doesn't quite home in to their locations with extreme definition.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

For well over a decade, Grado's budget model, the SR60 (today the SR60i) has been one of the most highly-praised headphones at its price-point ($60-$80). The RS2i carries a price-tag of six times more than that of the SR60. Being overly critical perhaps, I will say I am convinced that the RS2i is two times better than the SR60i, let alone six. On the other hand, he RS2i is a whole lot more affordable than its big brother, the RS1i, and it manages to get extremely close to the same level of performance. The RS2i is a very good choice for rock fans because it renders guitar with a sense of aggression and intimacy.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: On-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 32 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Electric Guitar / Rock / Metal / Blues
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: Several known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $495

*Back To The Index​

#42 BEYERDYNAMIC: DT 660​

*Back To The Index
 
I first learned of the DT 660 when Beyerdynamic sent me a variety of headphones for review purposes. Upon unboxing the DT 660, I noticed that its headband design appeared to be nearly identical to the headband used in the majority of Ultrasone's full-size headphones. I assume that both manufacturers have some of their headbands made at the same facility.
 
My initial impression of the DT 660's sound signature was that it was dull and lacking in weight. However, as I continued to use them, I started to become enthusiastic about its sound. Over the course of a few weeks, they had become one of my favorite headphones for classical music. At its price-point, I can think of very few headphones that perform as well with orchestral music. What's even better is that the DT 660 features a closed-back design; this makes them perfect for monitoring when in the studio. In recent times, the DT 660 has become  my go-to pair for when I am tracking guitar or bass. It has a very flat and uncolored sound signature.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: The DT 660 has an extremely flat tonality. If it possessed just a bit more bass impact I would say that the tonality was perfectly neutral. However, the tonal balance is just a bit on the bass-light side. Other than this, I feel that the DT 660 offers an exceptionally honest, uncolored and flat tonality.
 
MIDS: The midrange presentation is the core of what this headphone has to offer. As far as closed-back headphones go, I find that it has the least colored mids I have ever heard. It is very impressive to me.

CLASSICAL MUSIC MASTER: As far as sub $1000 closed-back headphones go, the DT 660 is the best that I've heard at rendering classical music. For a closed-back headphone, it demonstrates significant breadth and air.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: While there are several open-back headphones which offer a superior soundstage presentation to the DT 660, this headphone possesses some very unique soundstage properties for a closed-back headphone. It doesn't sound quite as closed-in as the majority of closed-back headphones. It almost gives off the illusion of being open-back.
 
PROFESSIONAL MONITORING: The DT 660 has become my favorite headphone for monitoring in the studio during recording sessions. It's just the right size, price and offers a very honest tonal balance. When I'm on the drums I typically reach for the DT 770 for the added bottom, otherwise I prefer to use the DT 660.
 
ISOLATION: The DT 660 offers quite a bit of isolation - even more than the already generously isolative DT 770. I have worn this headphone within inches of a microphone and found that the cue mix audio leaked minimally onto the track. The DT 660 offers some of the best anti-leakage properties of any headphone I've used.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: In order to really bring out the warmth and add depth to the mix, one is going to want to power these with a warm amp. I happen to prefer tubes in this instance.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: The DT 660 is a highly impressive headphone for what it can do. However, it is no surprise to me that it is not an ultra-transparent sounding headphone. The sonic presentation is not entirely free of grain and the decay is not perfect either.
 
BASS: There is no doubt that the DT 660 is a bass-light headphone. Would it benefit from more bass? Yes. However, being that the DT 660 has a closed-back design, I wonder if any more bass would have cluttered the sound presentation.
 
ANALYTICAL: As impressive as the DT 660 may be to me now, my initial impression was that it was analytical and flat sounding. A lot of this has to do with the lack of visceral impact. Over a short span of time the sound signature grew on me and I eventually reformed my opinion.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: The DT660 has a wonderfully extended treble presentation; it is most certainly a forward treble presentation, but the sound is not as bright as it is airy. Of course, a forward treble presentation has the potential to ultimately lead to added graininess and unnaturalness. The DT 660 handles the forward treble quite well, but even still the treble is not entirely grain-free.
 
COMFORT: While the DT 660's round velour earpads are soft and plush, the headband grip is a little tighter than I would like. However, it is in part due to this tighter-than-average grip which rewards the listener with such fantastic sound isolation.
 
IMAGING: While the DT 660's imaging capability is slightly better than average, I would not say it is a highlight of the headphone's sonic presentation.
 
DETAILED: On first listen - maybe even second, I was under the impression that the DT 660 was extraordinarily detailed. The tonality boasts a forward treble which provides quite a bit of detail. However, the decay is a bit slower than would be optimal for ultimate detail retrieval.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A-

I had never planned on purchasing a DT 660 for myself. I rarely ever saw the name pop up in conversation on the headphone forums. Yet it is one of the most uncolored sounding of all closed-back headphones. It deserves far more acknowledgement than it receives.
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 32 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: Several known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $239

*Back To The Index
 

#41 GRADO: RS1​

*Back To The Index
 
Like the RS2, the RS1 features a mahogany ear-cup housing. The RS1's housings are just slightly larger. The RS1 is a bit warmer sounding than its less expensive sibling. The sonic superiority of the RS1 is really not that extreme and, in my opinion, does not seem to justify the $200 price difference.
 
That said, the RS1 is a very good sounding headphone. Like the RS2, it excels with rock and metal music. I tend to find myself listening to a lot of progressive rock with the RS1. Since I find that the RS1 and RS2 share several of the same sonic characteristics, this review will read rather similar to my review of the RS2.
 
I should mention that I own two pairs of RS1. One pair is roughly five years old and was re-terminated by Grado Labs with a Stefan Audio Art balanced Equinox cable. The other pair is considerably newer and has the distinction of being an "RS1i." The manufacturer has used this "i" suffix since 2010 in order to distinguish recent models from older ones. According to the manufacturer, "i" stands for improved. Unfortunately, I do not notice any distinct sonic differences between the two pairs.
 
 
STRENGTHS FUN TONALITY: The RS1i exhibits a forward midrange with quite a bit of extra emphasis in the mid-bass transitional region. I would say that the RS1 is even punchier than the RS2. Its top end can be slightly aggressive at times. The RS1 offers slightly better treble extension than the RS2.
 
MIDS: The RS1's midrange presentation is nearly identical to the that of RS2's - forward and lively with an emphasis in the lower mids, adding impact and depth.
 
ELECTRIC GUITAR MASTER: Just in case you haven't noticed, the review of the RS1 reads almost identically to the RS2's review thus far. This is because the two headphones are remarkably similar; they both excel in the same areas. The sonic presentation here enhances the sound of electric guitars. With respect to the rendering of electric guitars, the RS1's mid-bass hump adds significant bottom to the sound, while the upper harmonics (around 6-10 KHz) are brought forward, adding an aggressive three-dimensional quality.

DECAY: I am a fan of the decay presentation which Grado headphones offer. It's not exceptionally fast, yet it is very natural sounding to my ears.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: None of Grado's offerings are particularly difficult to drive. However, I do recommend using an amp to power them. As with the RS2i, I have found that the RS1i sounds the best when it is paired with the TTVJ Millett 307A.
 
SERIALIZED: Each RS1 is individually serialized. This can be particularly helpful in ascertaining the date of manufacture.
 
 
WEAKNESSES COMFORT: I find Grado's on-ear headphones to be remarkably uncomfortable. Regardless of how loose or tight I adjust the headband, I never seem to find wearing the RS1 to be a comfortable experience. The ear-cups simply feel awkward on the ears. I've concluded that the shape and texture of the foam is just not my not for me. Many others have voiced similar opinions to what I express here.
 
NOT NEUTRAL: Neutrality-seekers should look somewhere else. The RS1 offers a very fun tonality, but is far from uncolored.
 
CONSTRUCTION: Grado headphones exhibit an ultra-simplistic design that fails to impress me on an aesthetic level. While I do know others who appreciate the home-made look, I haven't yet warmed up to it. I don't believe I ever will. Perhaps if I found the design to be more comfortable, I would feel differently.
 
STORAGE: The RS1i ships in a simple white cardboard box. It resembles a pizza box; not very impressive at all. The box includes an internal foam cutout, intended to preserve the headphone from damage when in storage.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TRANSPARENT?: I am convinced that none of Grado's offerings are definitively transparent. However, all of the ones which I have heard get very close.
 
BASS: The RS1 exhibits a bit more bass impact than the RS2. Unfortunately, it offers no deeper extension than the RS2. I prefer the RS1's added impact, but the RS2 has a slightly snappier bass presentation.
 
TREBLE: The treble presentation here is a bit forward, yet it lacks sparkle up on the very top. Overall, I like the treble presentation, but I would say that it possesses a very slight grainy texture.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The RS1's soundstage presentation is neither wide nor tall. However, it does display a sense of roundness and depth. I do not find the soundstage presentation of the RS1 to be particularly different from that of the RS2.
 
IMAGING: The RS1 is able to insinuate the positions of instruments, but it doesn't quite zoom in with extreme definition.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B-

The RS1 has remained in production for more than two decades and, according to many, has taken on several sonic incarnations during this time. I have only heard the more recent versions of the RS1. I consider its sound signature to be ideal for rock and metal music, especially if you prefer an intimate yet aggressive presentation. Those who are in the process of reading this whole evaluation will notice that my review of the RS1 is nearly identical to my review of the RS2. The reason for these similarities is that the overall differences between the two headphones are not extreme. Yes, the RS1 is a better, warmer sounding headphone, yet I am not convinced that it is worth $200 more.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: On-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 32 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Electric Guitar / Rock / Metal / Blues
8. CABLES USED: Stock / Stefan Audio Art Equinox Balanced (dual 3-pin)
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: Several known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $695

*Back To The Index​

#40 AKG: K702​

*Back To The Index
 
The K701 was the first full-size headphone that I purchased after joining Head-Fi in 2007. My initial impression was a sour one. At the  time, iLounge.com reviewed the headphone, stating that it sounded great even when directly out of an iPod headphone output. Therefore, I assumed that the limited amplification I had at the time would suffice. However, my findings over time were that the K701 is an extremely difficult headphone to drive. Its low-sensitivity design requires the amplifier to put out a substantial amount of current. I owned the K701 two times and sold both pairs.
 
AKG released the K702 in 2008. According to AKG, it is sonically identical to the K701. However, while the K701 showcases a glossy white finish and a hardwired cable, the K702 showcases a matte black finish and a detachable cable. Some have found that the K702 offers more bass impact. If this is true, I would surmise that it has something to do with an altered earpad design. I have not yet had the opportunity to compare the K701 with the K702. From memory, the sonic differences between the K701 and K702 are indiscernible.
 
I have long had a love/hate relationship with the K702. At times, the praise for this headphone seemed so hyperbolic, so off the mark (in my opinion), that eventually i disputed this praise in the form of extreme criticism. Truthfully, I find that the K702 manages to do certain things extremely well when it is properly driven. It offers one of the widest soundstage presentations in the business and it succeeds in providing a neutral-ish tonality.
 
In 2010, AKG re-branded the K701 yet again, this time as the Q 701 (with acclaimed record producer, Quincy Jones as its celebrity spokesman). Some have specified that the Q701 bares some slight sonic distinctions from the K701. However, I have not had the opportunity to confirm these differences with my own ears. According to AKG, the Q701 utilizes the same transducers as the K701. Quite frankly, I was annoyed with AKG when they re-packaged the K701, yet a third time, without adding anything wholly new to their flagship line. In the time since I compiled this review, AKG released a K702 Anniversary Edition. I heard this headphone at a meet and I was unable to determine if there were any distinct sonic differences. Some people have claimed the Anniversary Edition offers a massive improvement. I would need to hear it in my personal setup in order to determine how different it does in fact sound to me.
 
 
STRENGTHS MIDS: The K702's midrange presentation is fairly flat. The midrange gains a bit of forwardness and roundness when I pair the headphone with a tube amp.

SOUNDSTAGE: The K702 offers the listener with an exceptionally wide soundstage presentation. The soundstage is a little bit more linear than I would like, but nevertheless, it is wide and spacious.
 
CHAMBER MUSIC MASTER: The K702 is a bit lacking with regard to bass impact. However, its midrange presentation is not particularly colored. In addition, the headphone's wide soundstaging abilities provides a sense of space not typically achieved by headphones. If I want to listen to a piece of chamber music, I sometimes reach for the K702. It offers an airiness which is not devoid of intimacy.
 
COMFORT: Many have criticized the K701/2 for being uncomfortable due to the padded leather bumps on the underside of the headband. In my experience, I find that the headphones are perfectly comfortable to wear for long listening sessions, even should the earpads and headband not be all that soft.
 
SERIALIZED: Each K701/2 is individually serialized. This can be helpful in determining the age of the headphone. The earlier K701s are stamped with  AKG's original trademark logo, while later K701s and K702s feature the more simplistic modern AKG logo.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: The biggest criticism I have of the K701/2 is that it lacks transparency. The overall sonic presentation is not free of grain. I never quite forget that I'm listening to headphones when listening to music with the K702.
 
BASS: The K702's bass presentation lacks punch. While it offers a deeply-extended bass, it is simply lacking impact. As such, the K702 is not a headphone which accommodate many listening preferences.
 
DIFFICULT TO DRIVE: Due to its low sensitivity rating, the K702 is a very difficult headphone to drive. I have found that it sounds best when paired with the Woo Audio 5 and TTVJ Millett 307A. When opting for the latter amp, I use a balanced aftermarket cable, designed by Stefan Audio Art. However, I am not convinced that it has any sonic impact.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
NEUTRAL?: The K702 possesses a fairly neutral tonal balance, and yet it is too lacking in bass impact for me to call it truly neutral. I have used the K702 for mixing; in doing this have I found that myself I overcompensating with regard to bass.
 
TREBLE: I am impressed by the K702's treble extension. However, I take issue with what I perceive as a slightly metallic hue.
 
IMAGING: The K702's imaging ability is slightly above average. I can detect the horizontal positioning of instruments quite well even though the sonic presentation falls short a bit with regard to dimension.
 
DETAILED: It seems to me that the K702 exhibits a slower decay than optimal. However, it exhibits a widespread sound presentation that permits the listener to retrieve quite a bit of detail.
 
CONSTRUCTION: I must admit that the K701 is probably a nicer-looking headphone than the K702. For my money, it is prettier still than the sportier-looking Q701. I don't mind the construction or appearance of the headphone all that much. I only have two complaints. One, I feel that the K702 should have been designed with a glossy finish because not only is it better-looking, but it is also less susceptible to nicks. Two, I would have preferred a Y-split cable design over the one-sided cable design. I do appreciate that AKG designed the K702 with a detachable cable. However, for best results (particularly when connecting to an amp in balanced-mode) I believe that a Y-split design is preferable as it avoids a longer signal path.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B+

For several years, the K701, HD650 and DT 880 were considered by many to be the three top non-limited-edition dynamic headphones on the market. The K701 was always my least favorite of this trilogy, as I simply found that its presentation was the most forced and least transparent. However, when it comes to chamber music and small ensemble acoustic music, the K701 performs the best out of any headphone at its price-point.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 64 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Required
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Woo Audio 5 / TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Chamber Music
8. CABLES USED: Stock / Stefan Audio Art Balanced Equinox (dual 3-pin)
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is (along with K701)
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $349 (without aftermarket cable) $600 (with aftermarket cable)

*Back To The Index​

#39 AKG: K501​

*Back To The Index
 

 
 
 
 
The K501 is a fantastic headphone for classical music listening.  I rarely, if ever, listen to anything else with the K501 besides classical music. In true AKG fashion, the K501 doesn't boast a tremendous amount of bass. However, it offers a very honest midrange and decent treble extension. I find that this headphone sounds just slightly more transparent than the K701/2. As such, it is my preference. Unfortunately, AKG discontinued the K501 several years ago. If you find it on the used market in good condition for around $200, I say grab it! There is no $200 headphone on the market today which impresses me as much as the K501.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRENGTHS
TONAL BALANCE: I find that the K501 offers an articulate, analytical tonal balance, without going too far with regard to treble emphasis. To my ears, the tonality seems to be essentially flat minus an absence of bass impact and extension.

MIDS: The K501's midrange presentation is very similar to that of the K702 (or perhaps I should say it the other way around since the K702 is a later model). The most obvious difference between the two presentations is the way in which the midrange transitions into the treble. To my ears, the K501 offers a smoother midrange-to-treble transition. This difference is the main reason I prefer the K501.
 
CLASSICAL MASTER: The K501 is a real prize for the classical music enthusiast. While it lacks the absolute transparent and euphonious qualities offered by higher-end headphones, it gets about as close to sounding like a real concert hall as I've ever heard for a headphone of its price. I find that opera sounds particularly good with the K501. The K501's sound signature seems to complement voices recorded from distantly-placed microphones.
 
COMFORT: The K501 is a comfortable headphone; one which boasts AKG's classic self-adjusting elastic headband. Its earpads are a bit softer than the K702's earpads. The K501 does not feature the cushion-bumps on the underside of headband; this may be a plus for some.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
BASS: The K501 definitely lacks bass. In terms of impact and extension, it is one of the most bass-light headphones listed in this evaluation. For some, this may be seen as a major issue.
 
ANALYTICAL: The sound here can feel emaciated at times. At times, I feel the sound is a bit sterile. In truth, I'm not sure the sound is as sterile as it is just lacking in bottom.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: The treble can sometimes lack a sense of naturalness. Even though the treble is very well extended, I feel as though there can be awkward resonances that emanate from a slower-than-optimal decay. For instance, sometimes during dense orchestral passages, I begin to notice that the upper-harmonics sound as though they are competing for attention.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The K501's soundstage presentation is not quite as wide as the K702's. However, the K501 has a more focused center. The K501's soundstage presentation would have probably gained dimension if the drivers were angled drivers.
 
IMAGING: The K501 possesses decent imaging ability. I find that the sound is not as contoured as I would prefer. Yet I can still pick out the basic position of instruments.
 
DETAILED: I feel as though the K501 suffers from many of the same problems which I criticize the K702 of having. The decay and transient response are slower than I would like. What seems to happen as a result is upper-harmonics seem to blend into one another.
 
AMPING: I have found that the K501 benefits from being paired with a warm solid-state amp. The added harmonic distortions which tubes provide, seems to degrade the sound a bit. For this reason, I prefer using the Headroom Balanced Ultra Desktop Amp.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A-

In the headphone comparison which I did in 2010, I attempted to compare the K702 and K501. To paraphrase myself, I said that I felt the K501 did everything the K702 could do except better. I still agree with this overall sentiment. It lacks even more bass than the K702. This assertion may cause some to be turned off to the K501 since the K702 already shows to be lacking in bass. However, the midrange presentation of the K501 is more realistic as far as I am concerned. Neither headphone is blemish-free, but to my ears, the K501 is more transparent. It was one of AKG's finest offerings. I wish they hadn't discontinued it.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 150 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Headroom Balanced Ultra Desktop Amp
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $200 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

#38 SONY: Q010-MDR1 (aka Qualia 010)​

*Back To The Index
 

The Qualia 010 is a headphone which I dreamed about owning for a long time. In the world of elite audio, it is considered to be one the most legendary out-of-production models. At the risk of inciting a debate, I want to express that I feel that the Qualia is the most overpriced headphone of all time. I paid just around $5,000 for my pair (a standard asking price for the Qualia 010 today). I can honestly say this was the most disappointed I have been with a headphone purchase. I've held onto it merely for collection purposes (as well as for this review). Now I know a few will believe that my sour opinion emanates from an improper fit. I do not think my opinion is related to this at all. I presently own both the medium-size and small size headbands.
 
Since publishing the initial review, I purchased the small headband (for the enormous price of $660) direct from Sony, hoping that it would make a difference in the way in which the headphone sounded. Despite the headband's jaw-dropping price, I was happy to see that Sony still has parts available for this long discontinued model. Did the headband make a difference. The short answer is "yes, it sounds better with the small headband." However, the longer answer is that the difference is primarily found in the bass presentation - not in the transparency. The Qualia 010 still suffers from a largely nontransparent sound signature no matter which headband I use. I haven't altered the review a great, but I did move the headphone up a few spots because the over tonality feels more even to me with the added bass impact. I have a fairly large head and I use the medium-sized headband (considered by most to be the ideal size for large heads).
 
To further reiterate what I've said about the awkward/unforgiving fit of these headphones, I will repeat what I stated upon my initial publication of this review: I have raised and lowered the ear-cups several times, searching for a sweet spot. I have even attempted to use a sponge beneath the headband in order to manipulate the fit. I am able to get the headphones to sound good, yet not astounding; for $5000, I expect the headphones to astound. In my opinion, the MDR-R10 (Sony's earlier and equally-pricy flagship) literally wipes the floor with the Qualia 010.
 
The biggest complaint I have about the Qualia is that it just never sounds entirely natural. I never get lost in the music when using it. It is an exceptionally detailed sounding headphone. However, this detail comes at the price of sounding thin and often metallic. Considering that one could collectively purchase the LCD-3, HD600, T1 and AH-D7000 for approximately the same amount it takes to afford a single Qualia 010 on the used market, I can only recommend the Qualia to completists.
 
Last but not least, I find that Sony's own MDR-SA5000 (recently discontinued) is a very similar sounding headphone and costs just a fraction of the price. On the basis of sound quality alone, I would not have ranked the Qualia 010 any closer to #1 in this list, even if its standard asking price was $300.
 
 
STRENGTHS
SUPER DETAILED: The Qualia offers a tremendously detailed sound signature. In fact, in terms of revealing the most harmonic content possible, I would say the Qualia ranks as one of the top 3 headphones I have heard (along with Stax's SR-Omega and SR-009). Because of this, I am able to hear certain nuances when using the Qualia that I cannot ordinarily hear when using other headphones. Sometimes that's an awesome thing to behold, while other times I wish it were a bit more forgiving.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The Qualia's soundstage presentation is a triumph. It is large, well-defined and very spherical. For this reason, listening to dense orchestral passages with the Qualia is often an engulfing experience.
 
TRANSIENT RESPONSE: The Qualia's transient response is very fast, exhibiting a sharp attack. While it is not my favorite transient response of all, I do find it interesting.
 
ELECTRONIC MASTER: The Qualia 010 doesn't sound phenomenal with all that many genres. It is simply too revealing to facilitate the majority of my listening preferences. However, the Qualia's sonic presentation really does enhance the sound of trance, dubstep, and other electronic music genres.
 
IMAGING: The Qualia's imaging ability is phenomenal. A friend of mine, who teaches music at a university, played me a composition by one of his students. I listened to the recording using my Qualia 010 (which at the time was a brand new purchase for me). After a few minutes of listening , I asked him why it seemed that clarinetist had shifted their seat midstream. He told me that the recording was compiled from two takes, made on two different days. Apparently the clarinetist and bassoonist accidentally switched seats on the second day. According to my friend who was in the studio, their chairs were adjacent to one another out of a nine-piece ensemble. I am very impressed by the Qualia's ability to render the placement of instruments.
 
BASS: When I swapped out the "medium" headband with the smaller, tighter "small headband," I was immediately struck by how much more impactful the bass sounded. Not only did the bass sound noticeably fuller, but the headphone's tonality shifted slightly as a result, to a warmer flavor. Albeit, the Qualia is still not a warm sounding headphone.
 
COMFORT: Once you adjust the headband to properly fit your head, the Qualia happens to be extraordinarily comfortable. Unlike the norm, one needs a jeweler's screwdriver in order to adjust the headband. Like the SA5000's headband, the Qualia's exhibits a vented cloth fabric. The headphone is actually much lighter in person than it appears to be in photographs. The leather earpad design is very unique; the earpads are hollow, not padded.
 
STAND: Only four of the headphones included in this evaluation ship with their very own proprietary headphone stand. The Qualia 010 is one, while Ultrasone's Edition 10, Fostex's TH900 and Sony's own MDR-SA5000 are the other three. The stand that ships with the Qualia is made completely of metal. It is very similar to the stand that ships with the MDR-SA5000.
 
SERIALIZED: The Qualia 010 was a serialized limited-production headphone. Only a few hundred Qualia 010s were made. Sony continued to produce the Qualia for approximately two years (2004-2005). The leather earpads were offered in either red or blue, while the headband came in three sizes - small, medium, and large. The small headband has been found to be large enough for most users. However, the medium is probably the most common. I have never seen the large headband.
 
 
WEAKNESSES NOT TRANSPARENT: The Qualia 010 is not one of the most transparent headphones in this evaluation. In fact, there are several less expensive headphones which are considerably more transparent (the HD600 or DT 880 for instance). At such a high premium, the Qualia 010 fails to impress in this regard.
 
CONSTRUCTION: Perhaps I've yet to find the perfect way to wear the Qualia 010. I am open to suggestions. However, I don't think highly of a headphone design that requires the listener to use a jeweler's screwdriver in order to adjust its size. To make matters worse, these headphones are extremely sensitive to placement.
 
TREBLE: I find the Qualia's treble presentation to be abrasive and excessively grainy. As a result, cymbals have the tendency sounding piecing.
 
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE & OUT OF PRODUCTION: In the years since the Qualia 010 was discontinued, replacement parts have become more difficult to find.
 
FATIGUING: I noticed once, when using the Qualia 010 at a relatively normal volume level, that I actually experienced physical pain inside my ear due to the resonance of certain frequencies. As a result, I was forced to stop listening.
 
SIBILANT: I find the Qualia's treble presentation to be sibilant. I have managed to reduce the sibilance by repositioning the ear-cups. Unfortunately, I have often found that in repositioning the headphones to be less sibilant, the overall clarity is diminished
 
SA5000: The MDR-SA5000 was intended to be as sort of mainstream version of the Qualia. Although this headphone was discontinued in 2012, it has long been considered to be inferior to the Qualia. However, I'd like to challenge this view. To me, the Qualia and the SA5000 are practically equals in terms of sound quality. The Qualia has superior spatial qualities, while the SA5000 has a superior presentation.
 
STORAGE: I find that the Qualia's cardboard packaging is simply not all that impressive for a headphone of its price.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TONAL BALANCE: The Qualia exhibits some peakish qualities in the upper-mids and treble. It is brighter than neutral. While its tonality is certainly bright, it isn't that far away from neutral.
 
MIDS: The Qualia's lower-mids are very natural sounding. However, I find that the upper-midrange exhibits a tinny quality.
 
CABLE: The Qualia's stock cable is clearly of a mediocre quality for a headphone of its price-point. Fortunately, Sony made it possible for the cable to be easily removed/replaced. I have never bothered upgrading to an aftermarket cable because I simply did not like the sound of the headphone enough to justify spending any additional money on it.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

F

There are many headphone enthusiasts who truly enjoy the Qualia's sound signature. It is never my intent to offend, but I must be honest and say that, in my opinion, the Qualia 010 is just slightly better than the average $300 headphone. Its is impressive in several ways, but I find that its overall sonic presentation does not sound entirely natural.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 70 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Electronic / Well-Recorded Music
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $4000-$6000 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

#37 WESTONE: ES5​

*Back To The Index
 
The Elite Series 5 (or ES5 for short) is Westone's flagship custom-fit in-ear monitor. It features a three-way crossover design,exhibiting five balanced armature drivers inside each earpiece (one for bass, two for mids and two for highs). While it's not the highest-ranking, the ES5 is my favorite earphone in several ways. Firstly, it is the most comfortable custom-fit IEM that I have ever worn. Secondly, it offers the best noise isolation I have ever experienced from an earphone (tied with the Sensaphonics 2X-S). While the majority of the earpiece is made of a hard acrylic shell, the canal section is flexible and expands with the heat of your ear. In my opinion, this design is the best out there.
 
The ES5 offers an exceptionally mellow and smooth sound signature. While I take some issue with its rolled-off treble response, I feel that it has the most beautiful midrange of any IEM I have heard. When I am out and about, I usually have the ES5 with me. I use it on the go even more than my JH Audio customs because I am able to listen at exceptionally low volume levels and can still hear everything I need to! The reason for this is that the isolation ability of this headphone is so extreme, that I usually don't need to struggle to hear even the quietest sounds. In a city as noisy as New York, the ES5 protects my hearing, and for that it is probably one of my favorite headphones/earphones on the list. The reason I have it as far back in the ranking as I do is purely based on the fact that I feel that the JH13, JH16 and UE10 scale better with a high-end amplifier.
 
 
STRENGTHS DECAY: The ES5 offers the most natural decay of any IEM I have ever used. It is an extremely liquid-like decay which enhances the emotional impact of vocals.
 
MIDS: While the ES5 does not get everything “right," I am convinced it has the fullest and purest-sounding midrange presentation of any IEM I've tried. The mids are pushed forward and the smooth decay gives the sound a sense of roundness.
 
ISOLATION KING: The ES5 offers the most isolation of all the IEM's I have used. Actually, let me clarify - the ES5 and 2X-S have similar isolation capability; however the ES5 is a whole lot more comfortable. The ES5's soft flexible tip expands with the heat of your ear, providing an unbelievable seal. This amount of isolation allows me to listen at very low volumes.
 
ROCK MASTER: The ES5 is a fantastic choice for those who wish their brightly-mastered rock music could sound a bit warmer and less digitized. The ES5 offers a tubey sound, partially because of the fact that the highs are recessed.
 
CONSTRUCTION: The ES5 showcases the most impressive design of all the custom-fit IEMs that I've used.  While its shell is made of hard acrylic material, the canal section of the earpiece is flexible and “magically” expands to the shape of your ear. It is truly impressive!
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the ES5 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Due to their high sensitivity, most IEMs tend to be easy to drive. Of all the custom-fit IEMs on this list, the ES5 seems to be the one which benefits least from amplification. I know of a few owners who prefer to EQ the ES5 for more treble presence. However, for me the ES5 is my favorite IEM to use on the go because its sonic presentation is very much on point even when paired with an iPod.
 
CABLE: The ES5 comes with a fairly rugged cable, which is easily detachable at the base of the earpieces. Like all the other IEMs in this evaluation, the stock cable terminates to 3.5 mm plug intended for portable application. The cable also features plastic reinforcements which helps keep the cable wrapped behind the ear.
 
CUSTOM ARTWORK OPTION: One cool feature of custom IEMs is that many manufacturers offer the option to customize the faceplate with artwork. My ES5 features a translucent blue shell and a black faceplate with the Westone logo printed in blue and orange. Many other owners happen to be a whole lot more creative with regard to their customized artwork than I am.
 
SERIALIZED: As any custom-built in-ear should, the ES5 features a unique serial number right on the inner-side of the earpiece.
 
 
WEAKNESSES IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: In my experience, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. As I've stated prior, a lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
TREBLE: The ES5 exhibits an extremely rolled off treble presentation. In some ways this really bothers me. A lot of the upper-harmonics get smeared and/or lost because the treble region just doesn't have a lot of presence.
 
RESELL VALUE: When I first joined Head-Fi, I remember someone putting up a thread in the “For Sale” section in which they announced the sale of their custom-molded earphones. This thread turned out to be a joke. Reselling a custom-molded product was almost unheard of at the time. Today however, there are many companies which offer a refitting process that makes reselling custom-molded earphones an option. Still, be prepared to take a major hit, should you resell them.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TRANSPARENT?: I actually find that at lower volume levels, the ES5 can sound quite transparent. However, I do wish there was a little bit more treble sparkle. I think it is lacking this and ultimately I cannot quite call the ES5 transparent in all regards.
 
BASS: The ES5's bass presentation doesn't showcase tremendous slam, but it is extended fairly well. The bass extension is not quite as good as the JH13, JH16 and UE10. I would say the ES5 is dark sounding rather than bassy sounding.
 
IMAGING: I am very mixed with regard to how I feel about the ES5's imaging capability. The natural-sounding decay makes it possible to articulately place instruments while listening at lower volumes. However, as the volume is raised, the sound becomes more lush and bloomy. It is at louder volumes that I feel the ES5 loses some of its magic. The upper-harmonic content is not present enough to provide the listener with a fine-tuned sense of instrument placement.
 
COMFORT: To be honest, I have never found custom-molded IEMs to be as comfortable as universal fit IEMs with foam tips. But after many years of getting used to it, I've adapted to the feeling of custom-molded shells. I find that the hard acrylic is less comfortable than the soft material used in Westone's and Sensaphonic's designs. Nevertheless, wearing the hard acrylic pieces inside my ears has become more livable with time.
 
REFITS?: I did not need to get refitted for the ES5. However, I did need to get refitted for the UE10, JH13 and JH16. The reason for this may be simply due to the fact that the ES5 utilizes a flexible material that expands to your ear canal. However, it is still always possible that other customers will not be as lucky as I was with regard to their first fitting.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

When judging an IEM's price to performance ratio, I only compare its sound with that of other IEMs. The ES5 is my favorite IEM to use on the go. Part of this is definitely due to the fact that I love listening to rock music while in commute. The ES5 performs excellently with rock music, particularly at lower volume levels. The superior isolation helps preserve my hearing. However, when it comes to over-all transparency and tonality, the JH13, JH16 and UE10 Pro are probably a little higher up on the totem pole.

I have encountered quite a few audiophiles who prefer the sound of IEMs to full-size headphones. They find that the presentation (the inside-the-head sound) is more agreeable to their sensibilities. For these users, IEMs like the JH13, JH16 and ES5 constitute as top-tier choices.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 20 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: n/a (iPod without amp)
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Rock
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $950 + Audiologist

*Back To The Index​

#36 JH AUDIO: JH16​

*Back To The Index
 
Along with the JH13, the JH16 is JH Audio's flagship model in-ear-monitor. As far as I am aware, it currently holds the record for most balanced armature drivers per earpiece.It boasts a three-way crossover design, with double-dual lows, dual mids and dual highs in each earpiece. These double-dual lows (four drivers targeting bass frequencies) provide the JH16 more bottom than the JH13. Furthermore, JH Audio has released a DAC/Amp combo known as the JH-3A, specifically designed to be paired with the JH16. My assessment of the JH16 was made without the inclusion of the JH-3A.
 
More frequently than not, I find that I happen to prefer the sound of the JH13 over the that of the JH16. The two models showcase an identical sound signature, except in the bass region where the JH16 provides more impact. To my ears, this emphasis causes the midrange to sound recessed. I feel that, while the JH16 provides more bass, the JH13 sounds better balanced.
 
Even still, when I'm on the go, I often reach for the JH16 over the JH13 because I find that it makes up for in the extra bottom that the iPod lacks. However, if I am plugging into a high-end system, I would much rather use the JH13.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONAL BALANCE: As I have stated above, the JH16 and JH13 are nearly identical with regard to tonality. However, the JH16 offers more bass impact. I find that the JH13's bass is impactful enough when it is paired with most amplifiers. I prefer the JH13's tonal balance in this scenario. However, when I use my iPod's headphone output (which is notoriously rolled off in the bass), I prefer the JH16.
 
TRANSPARENT: The JH16 exhibits a highly transparent sound presentation. While the bottom end is just slightly excessive in my opinion, its transparency is no less impressive than the JH13's.
 
BASS: For those who prefer a controlled, yet robust and impactful bass, the JH16 will probably be your preference when it comes to the JH Audio line. I personally prefer the bass presentation of the JH13. However, I can see how some would prefer the JH16's more impactful bass, particularly if they intend to use it primarily with a portable device.
 
ROCK MASTER: The JH16 has a bit of a kick to it. This extra punch enhances the sound of rock music.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: With regard to portability, nothing even comes close to IEMs. You can fit the JH16 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an HD800.
 
DETAILED: The JH16 is almost as detailed sounding as the JH13. Due to the added bass emphasis, the JH16's midrange sounds comparatively recessed; this leads me to suggest that it is slightly less detailed.
 
AMAZING ISOLATION: The two indisputable benefits of IEMs are their portability and their ability to attenuate outside noise like nothing else. JH Audio claims that their IEMs attenuate up to 26 decibels of outside noise. While the ES5 clearly blocks out more sound for me, the JH16 does an amazing job as well.
 
IMAGING: Despite the fact that IEMs possess an inherently small soundstage, they still have ability to image very well. The JH16 images quite well, however, both the JH13 and UE10 Pro perform slightly better in this regard.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Due to their high sensitivity, most IEMs tend to be easy to drive. However, it seems to me that Jerry Harvey's in-ear designs benefit the most from amplification. I find that the JH16 may in fact outperform the JH13 in portable applications because of its added bass impact. However, I still enjoy using it with my home rig. I especially like the way the JH16 sounds with the SPL Phonitor.
 
CABLE: I actually prefer the cable design of the UE10 Pro (also designed by Jerry Harvey) to that of the JH16 because it is more resistant to tangling. However, I find that the plastic material used here for the ear-loop reinforcements is an improvement over the material used in the construction of my UE10 cable. Thankfully, the JH16's cable is easily detachable and replaceable.
 
CUSTOM ARTWORK OPTION: One cool feature of custom IEMs is that many manufacturers offer the option to customize the faceplate with artwork. My JH16 is pretty plain looking when compared with many others I've seen. My JH16 showcases a translucent blue shell with the words “JH Audio” in white lettering. I don't have much of an imagination when it comes to these things; my JH13's artwork is equally nondescript.
 
SERIALIZED: As any custom-built product should be, the JH16 is serialized. Like the JH13 and UE10, it showcases the owner's initials next to the serial number.
 
 
WEAKNESSES IEMS' INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.
 
IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray lacks realism. As I've stated prior, a lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.
 
JH13: The JH13 does not boast as many drivers per earpiece as the JH16. However, don't let this mislead you into thinking that the JH13 is an inferior model. JH Audio has expressed that the JH13 and JH16 are equals in spite of the fact that the JH16 is $50 more. In my experience, the JH13's sound signature fits a wider variety of genres and scales better in a high-end setup. However, should one intend to use the JH-3A as their source and amp, the JH16 is recommended due to its greater headroom.
 
SIBILANCE: At times, the JH16 can sound sibilant. In fact, I find that it is more sibilant than the JH13 because of the fact that the mids are more recessed.
 
STORAGE: I am underwhelmed by the plastic case than ships with JH Audio's IEMs. The soft microfiber carrying pouch is not secure enough for carrying the IEMs in my pocket. The aluminum tin which shipped with the Ultimate Ears UE10 Pro was much more effective. I bring this up because Jerry Harvey was also responsible for the designs of Ultimate Ears products, back when I purchased the UE10 in 2007. When commuting, I carry my JH16s in a hard-shell Westone pouch.
 
RESELL VALUE: At around the time that I first joined Head-Fi, I remember someone putting up a thread in the “For Sale” section in which they announced the sale of their custom-molded earphones. Alas, this advertisement turned out to be a joke. Reselling a custom-molded product was almost unheard of at the time. Today however, there are many companies which offer a refitting process that makes reselling custom-molded earphones an option. Still, be prepared to take a major hit, should you resell them.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
MIDS: Even though the JH13 and JH16 employ the same midrange drivers and are tuned identically, I prefer the JH13's midrange presentation. The reason is because of the midrange's relationship to the bass. The JH16 offers higher degree of bass impact; as such the mids feel recessed.
 
TREBLE: I think the treble presentation of the JH16 is nearly grain-free. However, I wouldn't mind a hair more extension and sparkle. The sound of the JH16 lacks just a pinch of airiness, but I'm really nitpicking here.
 
COMFORT: To be honest, I have never found custom-molded IEMs to be as comfortable as universal-fit IEMs using foam tips. But after many years of getting used to it, I've adapted to the feeling of custom-molded shells. I find that the JH16's hard acrylic is less comfortable than the soft material used in the construction of Westone's and Sensaphonic's in-ears. Nevertheless, wearing the hard acrylic pieces inside my ears has become more livable with time.
 
REFITS?: I found that I needed to get refitted for both the JH13 and JH16. This could be perhaps because the hard acrylic shells lack flexibility. If you're as unlucky as I was, this refitting process can become frustrating and (with added shipping costs) an even greater expense than you had initially anticipated.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

When judging an IEM's price-to-performance ratio, I only compare its sound with that of other IEMs. The JH16 is a wonderful in-ear-monitor. It offers exceptional bass impact. If the JH13 did not exist, I would probably be even more enthusiastic regarding its sound signature. The JH13 sounds more balanced to my ears.
 
I have encountered quite a few audiophiles who prefer the sound of IEMs to the sound of full-size headphones. These people express the opinion that the inside-the-head sound is very agreeable to their sensibilities. For these users, IEMs like the JH13, JH16 and ES5 constitute as top-tier choices.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 18 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Rock; Metal
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is (along with JH13)
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $1149 + Audiologist

*Back To The Index​

#35 ALESSANDRO: MS Pro​

*Back To The Index
 
Alessandro headphones look exactly like Grado headphones. This is because Alessandro headphones use Grado parts for their housing. Inside the ear-cups are drivers designed by George Alessandro. In totality, the sound is similar to Grado's, but not identical.
 
The Music Series Pro uses the same housing as Grado's RS1. This means it uses the same mahogany ear-cups, the same leather headband, the same adjustment polls, and the same cable. It is inside the ear-cup where differences lie.

I happen to prefer the sound of the MS Pro overall. It possesses a more neutral tonality. Because of this, I feel it suits a wider variety of genres. Out of all the Grado headphones that I've had the pleasure of hearing, the MS Pro's sound signature most closely resembles the HP1000. However, the MS Pro lacks some of the refinement which the HP1000 offers. Ultimately, the HP1000 is a superior sounding headphone, but at its price, the MS Pro is a better value.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: I don't want to say that the MS Pro is perfectly neutral because it isn't, but it manages to get close to the neutral mark.
 
MIDS: The midrange presentation of the MS Pro is really pure sounding to my ears. I actually prefer the midrange presentation here to any of Grado's current offerings. I particularly like the way female voices sound with the MS Pro.

TREBLE: The MS Pro offers tremendous extension and clarity. The treble seems slightly raised, but not aggressively so. I would say there is evidence of grain every so often, but nothing that should be cause for alarm.
 
GENRE MASTER: I enjoy the MS Pro's sound signature with a wide variety of music. I find that it fares particularly well with large-ensemble jazz and rock music.
 
EASY TO AMP: The MS Pro doesn't require all too much power to sound good. However, it really gains a fuller sound with tube amplification. I happen to really enjoy the way it sounds with the TTVJ Millett 307A, which is a fairly neutral sounding tube amplifier.
 
 
WEAKNESSES COMFORT: The MS Pro comes with the Grado “Bowl” earpads. I simply do not find these pads to be comfortable. Regardless of how loose I make the headband, the shape and fit of the bowl pads seem to irritate my ears like few other earpads can.
 
CONSTRUCTION: I'm not a fan of the Grado retro-design. As Alessandro headphones incorporate the same exact design as Grado headphones, I am afraid they fail to please me in this regard.
 
IMAGING: Like the RS1 and the RS2, the MS Pro is not particularly strong in the imaging department.
 
STORAGE: Unfortunately, the MS Pro ships with the same style packaging with which Grado headphones ship: a pizza-box-style cardboard exterior with an open-cell foam interior.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TRANSPARENCY: With the MS Pro, the level of transparency largely depends on the positioning of the ear-cups. I have noticed at times that sound can have a nasal quality to it. This is easily amendable by repositioning the ear-cups. However, even with the ear-cups in their most sonically-pleasing position, there is still an absence of complete and utterly brilliant transparency.
 
BASS: The bass here offers punchy mid-bass impact, but lacks extension. I enjoy the way that toms sound with the MS Pro.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: Just as with the Grado on-ear models, the Ms Pro's soundstage is neither wide nor tall, but it is round and well-defined.
 
CABLE: As with the RS1 and the RS2, the MS Pro's stock cable is hardwired and terminates to a quarter-inch plug. The cable's quality seems to be about average.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

If I had to choose between the RS1 and the MS Pro, I would choose the MS Pro. I prefer its more neutral tonality. Both happen to be excellent mid-priced high-end headphones. Of the headphones which I own, I find that the MS Pro is the best on-ear headphone currently in production alongside the Ultrasone Edition 8. While I have spent time evaluating the Grado PS500, I do not own it. When I've compared it against the MS Pro, I have found that I prefer the MS Pro.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: On-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 32 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Preferred
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: 699.99

*Back To The Index​

#34 ULTRASONE: Edition 8 Limited Edition​

*Back To The Index
 
I purchased the Edition 8 (ruthenium version) in 2009. At the time, it was the only version of the Edition 8 available. Soon after, Ultrasone released a palladium version of the model for $200 more. Then soon after that, Ultrasone followed with the Edition 8 Limited Edition model for $300 more than the Palladium version. This model featured brown leather instead of black, wooden ornamentation instead of plastic and an attractive leather case. In the end however, the limited edition version costs $500 more than the original incarnation. However, the sound quality remained unchanged. I personally never felt it was in good taste to release multiple cosmetic variations of the same headphone at different price points. However, this has become common practice in “Headphone Land." I wouldn't have purchased the Edition 8 LE myself, but I came upon this pair when Ultrasone replaced my malfunctioning pair of Edition 8s, with the more exclusive version as a courtesy for an extensive repair delay.
 
The Edition 8 is an anomaly in the headphone market. It is a travel-size, world-class headphone that is extremely expensive and probably too delicate for standard portable use. Ul­trasone describes the Edition 8's ear-cup design as over-ear, but in truth, I think it's more accurate to suggest that the ear-cup design is on-ear. Either way, I have always found that the Edition 8 was very comfortable. However, not everyone agrees with me on this.
 
I've used the Edition 8 several times with an iPod and I am always impressed by the sound quality. But perhaps the most significant feature of the Edition 8's design is that it offers significant noise reduction. It is not a noise cancelling headphone, but it probably is the best sounding headphone to offer substantial noise attenuation.
 
Please know that all three Edition 8 models use the same driver components. As such, there should be no distinct variations with regard to the sound quality between the different versions. All of the assessments of the Edition 8 (below) are not specifically regarding the Limited Edition version unless otherwise noted.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: The Edition 8's tonal balance is warm, with great impact. It possesses a distinctly fun tonality which sounds particularly good with percussion-heavy music.
 
BASS: Even should it not be “accurate” by definition, the bass presentation of the Edition 8 is extremely enjoyable. While it does lack quite a bit of extension, the bass presentation is quite forward, adding substantial weight to the sound. It is not the absolute tightest bass response, yet it is not boomy.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: The Edition 8 sounds great even without amplification. You can use it with an iPod or computer without substantially diminishing the sound quality.
 
JAZZ MASTER: I enjoy listening to jazz with the Edition 8, specifically smaller combos such as a piano trio. The Edition 8 has a wonderfully intimate sound signature which is very accommodative to this type of music.
 
ISOLATION: The Edition 8 offers an impressive amount of passive ambient noise reduction. Other than in-ear models, the Edition 8 offers the best passive isolation that I've ever experienced from a headphone.
 
ATTRACTIVE: In all its incarnations, the Edition 8 is a mightily impressive looking headphone. The Edition 8 Limited Edition is probably the most exclusive looking. However, all three versions feature very soft sheepskin leather material. All three versions feature a metal faceplate. The limited edition version features brown leather in place of black. It also features beautiful wood ornamentations, similar to that of the Edition 10.
 
COMFORT: I think the Edition 8 is very comfortable, but not everyone shares this opinion. My ears happen to be larger than average so I am surprised when people say that the padding shape is too small for their ear size. The headband clamp is not overly tight, but strong enough to provide a really good seal.
 
STORAGE*: I have starred this to specify that here I am commenting specifically on the Limited Edition 8's wonderfully posh hard leather case. It is one of the nicest looking cases I have seen. The Ruthenium and Palladium versions come with a soft leather bag which feels cheap by comparison. However, it would have been nice had the Limited Edition version included a leather bag as it is easier to travel with.
 
PORTABLE: While I can't imagine too many people would feel comfortable using the Edition 8 outside, you can if you don't mind the risk of damage or theft. Either way, the Edition 8 is compact enough that it is suited to travel with you from place to place. As I have previously specified, the headphone can be powered quite well even by an iPod, and it offers supreme isolation. In this way, it is an ideal travel companion, but I still wouldn't use it outside.
 
SERIALIZED: The Edition 8 Ruthenium, Palladium, and Limited Edition are all individually serialized. Only 888 units of the Limited Edition will be made. The other two versions are not limited production models.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: The Edition 8 is not entirely transparent sounding. Unfortunately, there is evidence of grain in the upper-mids and treble. Another issue I take with the Edition 8's sonic presentation is that it can occasionally sound congested during dense passages of music.
 
NOT NEUTRAL: While the Edition 8's tonal balance is an enjoyable one, it is far from neutral.
 
IMAGING: Here, there is a really well-defined center. However, I find that the sound does not permit the brain to easily lay out a map of the instruments.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The depth and height here is just okay; nothing to write home about, but passable. The Edition 8's sound signature is enormously impressive for a portable headphone, but when compared with several other top-level headphones, it is easy to observe how its average soundstage presentation hinders it.
 
SWIVEL NOISE: I have owned three pairs of the Edition 8. With each one, I have noticed that the ear-cups make an unpleasant squeak-like noise when they swivel. I have checked with other owners and it seems that most (if not all) experience this sound when moving the ear-cups.
 
 
ON THE FENCE MIDS: The Edition 8's lower midrange is brought forward, adding weight to vocals. The upper-mids are slightly recessed. As a whole, the midrange is very smoothly integrated, but my one significant qualm with it is that it lacks transparency in the upper-mids.
 
TREBLE: The treble presentation here is well balanced and extended. My one criticism of it is that it lacks some transparency at times. Compared against other top-level headphones' treble presentation, I have noticed that the Edition 8's sounds slightly grainy.
 
CABLE: Because the Edition 8 can be used on-the-go, Ultrasone designed the hardwired cable to be approximately four feet in length, while providing an extension for those who desire a longer cable. The cable quality itself seems about average.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

If one doesn't mind using an incredibly expensive (and somewhat fragile) headphone on-the-go, then the Edition 8 is likely going to please. It is the best sounding portable headphone I have ever used. However, when compared with the “big guns,” it falls a bit short in terms of overall fidelity. Because I find it hard to imagine a time and place where one would use the Edition 8 outside of their home, I feel that the Edition 8 fights a bit of a losing battle. At about $1500, the original ruthenium version is the best value. The Limited Edition version is nicer looking (I think), but no better sounding.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
2. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
3. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least three known to me
4. CABLES USED: Stock
5. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A / SPL Phonitor
7. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
8. ISOLATION: Good
9. IMPEDANCE: 25 Ohms
10. DRIVERS: Dynamic
11. DESIGN: On-Ear
12. COST: Ruthenium: $1499; Palladium: $1699; Limited: $1999

*Back To The Index​

 

 

THE BATTLE OF THE FLAGSHIPS continued...​

My quest to find the greatest headphone ever made!​

by David Solomon

#33 DENON: AH-D7000​

*Back To The Index
 
For nearly five years, the AH-D7000 held the title of heavyweight champion in Denon's headphone line until it was discontinued in 2012. The AH-D7100 is Denon's newest flagship. As is the case with all of Denon's current headphones, the drivers of the D7000 were designed by Foster Electric Company, Limited. Foster is, of course, better known in the headphone world as the founder of the manufacturer Fostex. Perhaps, this is why the TH900 is strikingly similar in appearance to the AH-D7000.
 
I owned the AH-D5000 for several years prior to purchasing the AH-D7000. At the time which I owned the D5000, it was the only closed-back headphone in my collection that I used frequently. I greatly admired its full tone, which oozed of rich impactful bass. However, I never found myself using this headphone all too much. Upon hearing the D7000, I parted with the D5000.
 
The D7000 is similar to the D5000 in several ways: the headband design; the incorporation of wood ear-cups; even the full tone. On the surface, the D7000 looks simply like a D5000 that went to a spa and walked out with a shiny complexion. However, in reality the sound signatures of the two models are quite different. The midrange presentation of the D7000 is much more forward than that of the D5000. The D7000 also has a slightly larger soundstage than the D5000.
 
When I compare the D7000 against other extreme high-end headphones such as the HD800, HE-6, LCD-3, T1 and SR-009, I feel it falls a bit short with regard to the naturalness of the sound. However, in its own way, the D7000 are no less enjoyable. I notice nothing in the AH-D7000's sound signature which could be described as abrasive or offensive to the ears.
 
It is worth mentioning that Denon's headphone line has become one of the most commonly modified in the land of “Do-It-Yourself” practitioners. One of these DIY-ers, Markl of head-fi fame, had such pleasing results when modifying the D5000 that he subsequently ended up starting a business which specialized in the customization and modification of pre-existing headphones. This business, known as Lawton Audio, offers several modifications to Denon's pre-existing headphone line. I have yet to hear these modified headphones, so I cannot comment from experience on their quality, but a lot of people do prefer the Denon headphones once modified by Lawton Audio.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: The D7000's frequency response is not flat by any means. However, the D7000 offers a tonal balance that is extremely compelling and quite musical. One word that comes to mind when I've attempted to summarize the D7000's tonality in a single word is “full-bodied." OK that's two words (hyphenated).
 
BASS: All of Denon's full-size headphones showcase a robust mid-bass response. The D7000's bass response lacks a bit of extension, but is highly impactful all the same. The bass here is significantly tighter than the D5000's, yet it features equally as much slam and superior damping.
 
ROCK MASTER: The D7000 is one of my favorite headphones for listening to rock music. Its tonality is both full-bodied and slightly laid back. Furthermore, the sound signature brings guitars and vocals forward in a pleasant, yet unaggressive manner.
 
COMFORT: The D7000 is a very comfortable headphone. The plush earpads feature a soft faux leather exterior. The headband adjusts lengthwise using indented notches. The pressure exerted by the headband is noticeably less than average. One of my friends complained that he would be concerned to make any significant head movements while wearing the D7000, in fear that the headphones may fall off his head. My head is larger than average in size and as a result I've never experienced this concern.
 
SOME ISOLATION: As a closed-back headphone, the Denon D7000 is able to block out more outside sound than an open-back headphone. However, the difference between the noise isolation properties of the D7000 and that of the standard open-back headphone is marginal.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: The D7000 sounds good with any amp I try them with. It even sounds decent when plugged directly into my computer's headphone out.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: I've gone back and forth on this issue - meaning that at times, I really felt as though the D7000 were a highly transparent headphone, but other times I found myself fully convinced that they lacked certain elements that make a headphone sound transparent. Ultimately, what I found is that the D7000 lacks a sense of openness.
 
NOT NEUTRAL: The D7000's tonal balance is not so far away from neutral, but it is certainly too far for me to be inclined to describe the headphone as neutral sounding.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The soundstage of the D7000 is not particularly wide or tall. At its price-point, it offers one of the less impressive soundstage presentations.
 
IMAGING: The earpads cause the drivers to be angled slightly; angling the drivers typically leads to improved imaging. Even still, the imaging here is just not that strong. There's a bit of congestion in the sound presentation which dilutes the headphone's ability to image as well as it should.
 
 
ON THE FENCE MIDS: At around the 1 KHz mark, the mids of the D7000 come forward, bringing vocals with them. Because of this, the D7000 is an exceptional choice for people who really enjoy added vocal presence. In my opinion, the midrange presentation of the D7000 is not faultless, but still very pleasant.
 
TREBLE: The D7000's treble presentation is very smooth. However, it is also slightly recessed, ultimately lacking in a hint of air and dynamics.
 
CABLE: The quality of the D7000's stock cable is decent. Unfortunately, it is not user-detachable. This makes installing an aftermarket cable an invasive process.
 
STORAGE: The Denon's hard faux-leather case features a satin interior. It is actually quite nice, even if it is not in the same playing field as other top-end models' storage cases. At its price, it ships with one of the best storage boxes I've seen.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

Since the AH-D7000 model was literally just discontinued, I am not sure as to what its asking price will eventually equate to on the used market. At its retail asking price of $999.99, the D7000 was a good, if not great value. During its five year existence, the D7000 was among the best closed-back headphones on the market (in my opinion, it was the best closed-back model during the course of its run). Yet Denon's AH-D2000 and AH-D5000 (both of which were also recently discontinued) were very similar to the AH-D7000 and were a lot less expensive.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 25 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Preferred
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A / SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Rock; Jazz
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $999.99

*Back To The Index​

#32 AUDIO-TECHNICA: ATH-AD900​

*Back To The Index
 
The ATH-AD900 was not a headphone that I ever anticipated purchasing. However, we had a demo model laying around at headphones.com and I absolutely loved the way it sounded. I find that it is voiced similarly to Shure's SRH1840. At around one third the cost of the SRH1840, I consider the AD900 to be a true bargain.
 
While I find that the SRH1840 is ultimately more refined sounding, the differences are not all that extreme. The AD900's sound signature offers a slightly colder sound than the SRH1840. However, both headphones excel with classical music. At its price-point, I can think of no finer headphone choice for the classical music fan. It eclipses the DT 660 with regard to sheer openness of sound. However, unlike the DT 660, it does not possess the added benefit of a closed-back design.
 
 
 
 
STRENGTHS TONALITY: The tonal balance here is just slightly colder than neutral. While it exhibits a lack of bottom and warmth, it does showcase a fairly balanced midrange as well as decent treble extension.
 
MIDS: For the most part, the midrange presentation here is really quite flat. The upper-mids exhibit some slightly odd peaks and dips, but nothing all too alarming. I would even suggest that the upper-mids here add a bit of color to violins and violas; a coloration that I happen to enjoy.
 
CLASSICAL MASTER: For under $300, I cannot think of a headphone which is truer to the sound of a real concert-hall than that of the AD900. It may not look like much, but the AD900 is a classical music wizard.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The AD900 exhibits a very open sound. The soundstage is not exceptionally well-defined, but it is really quite large and more than adequate for dense orchestral passages.

COMFORT: I feel that the AD900 is the most comfortable Audio-Technica model that I have ever used. It is a fairly light headphone and the velour earpads are extremely plush. The ear-cups are around the same size as the W5000 and W3000ANV. However leather earpads (such as those used in the W5000 and W3000ANV) are more conducive to heating up the head than velour earpads.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: At its price, the AD900 is a front-runner with regard to transparency. However, when one takes a step back and compares it against all of the major players, it comes up short. The sound is not entirely smooth across the entire frequency spectrum.
 
BASS: Perhaps one of the unfortunate trademarks of several classical-oriented headphones is the absence of bass impact. With regard to the bass region, the AD900 comes up short in terms of impact as well as extension.
 
CONSTRUCTION: The AD900 has a very plain appearance. In fact, in some ways I feel that it almost resembles a toy headphone. The headband looks cheaply made; of course it incorporates the signature auto-adjust Audio-Technica headband design, which I happen to feel is really quite fragile. The earpads, as comfortable as they are, collect dust like few other headphones do. The headphone employs a one-sided cable design; some may prefer this for comfort reasons, although I always prefer a Y-split cable design because it ensures that the signal path has fewer obstacles.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: The AD900 exhibits a decently-extended treble. I find that there is some awkwardness in the area where the upper-mids transitions to treble. Ultimately however, the AD900 provides a wonderfully breathy sound. This is largely due to its treble presentation.
 
IMAGING: The AD900 is not the last word in instrument placement, but it is one of the best in its price bracket. I feel there's only so much one should expect from a headphone of this price. The AD900 consistently blows away my expectations.

AMPING: The first time I used the AD900, I listened to Metallica's Black Album using my iPod alone. To my ears, the sound was all wrong and I was very disappointed. However, a few days later, I took the headphones home for a listen and I found that the midrange really bloomed when I used tubes to power the headphone. I still do not recommend these headphones for the metal-head.
 
DETAILED: Because of the fact that the treble presentation is quite airy, these headphones offer a fair amount of detail. However, the decay here is not supremely fast and this ultimately compromises the amount of detail which can be retrieved.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A+

If you have been reading this review from beginning to end, you may notice that the ATH-AD900 is the first headphone for which I've awarded an A+ value rating. To my ears it sounds a thousand times better than their ATH-W5000 (a headphone which sells for a whole lot more). I have already reviewed two other headphones within a similar price-range, which share the ability to perform exceptionally well with classical music - the DT 660 and the K501. The DT 660 will be the one to go with if you are looking to have quite a bit of isolation; the K501 will be the one to go with if you can find it at around $200 or less. If priced the same as the AD900, I wholeheartedly recommend choosing the AD900 as it is a better-sounding headphone.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 35 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $270 (estimated)

*Back To The Index​

#31 SENNHEISER: HD700​

*Back To The Index
 
As it is my newest purchase, the HD700 is the headphone for which I have spent the least amount of time evaluating. While I do enjoy it's sound very much, I have some issues with it. In terms of detail retrieval, it is an improvement over the HD650. This is largely due to a raised treble response. However, its overall presentation is less natural than either the HD650 or the HD800. In this sense, I feel that the HD700 is not a success, although I still enjoy the headphone immensely. I should also mention that it was released three years following the debut of the HD800, making it the only full-size Sennheiser model in this evaluation to never have been given a flagship status.
 
Upon its unveiling, fellow Head-Fier Nick01 remarked that the HD700 looked like the HD800's evil twin. I haven't been able to let go of this image. In a vague sense, it manages to perfectly describe the HD700's appearance. The HD700 is smaller and more angular while maintaining much of the HD800's likeness.
 
From a sonic perspective, the HD700 tends to be warmer than the HD800 (something which many will appreciate), but it has a more problematic top end. The HD700's tonal balance dances around the line of neutrality, even if it is not quite as neutral as the HD800. While I personally am skeptical of the benefits of burn-in, I do want to mention that my HD700 has been used for less than 100 hours at the time which I am evaluating them.
 
 
STRENGTHS NEUTRAL: Since the HD700's tonal balance manages to get very close to neutral, I would surmise that Sennheiser was attempting to produce a neutral sounding headphone when it created the HD700. Short of a few peakish qualities in the top end, the HD700 is a neutral headphone.
 
MIDS: I really enjoy the core of the midrange presentation here; it seems relatively flat to my ears. Where the upper-mids transition into the treble region, I begin to take issue with its forwardness, but overall, the mids here are classic Sennheiser exquisiteness.
 
BASS: The HD700's bass presentation is just a bit heftier than the HD800's. However it is not quite as tight or extended. Ultimately, I prefer the HD800's bass presentation, but the HD700's bass presentation has its merits.
 
ACOUSTIC MASTER: The HD700 is extraordinary in its rendering of acoustic guitar. The sound is crisp and clean; the upper harmonics of the strings are brought forward. With regard to acoustic guitar, the treble response is rarely problematic. However, in some rare instances where the fingers slide up and down the fret-board aggressively, the slide of the fingers may be sharper than optimal.
 
DECAY: The HD700 offers a very fast decay. To my ears, the decay sounds even quicker than the HD800. However, the HD800's decay sounds more natural.
 
IMAGING: One thing the HD700 does exceptionally well is imaging. It far surpasses the HD650's ability in this regard.
 
COMFORT: With regard to their high-end headphones, Sennheiser always seems to get it right with regard to comfort. The HD700's velour earpads are quite similar in feel to that of the HD800. Due to its smaller size, the HD700 does not offer quite as much ear room as the HD800, yet it is nearly as comfortable.
 
CONSTRUCTION: I happen to like the look and feel of the HD700 very much. It really does look like the HD800's younger brother. I still prefer the design of the HD800 quite a bit more. However, for those that find the size of the HD800 to be cumbersome and unflattering, the HD700 may be preferable.
 
CABLE: The HD700's cable may very well be an improvement over the HD800. Like the HD600, HD650 and HD800 before it, the HD700 employs a user-detachable stock cable. I appreciate this feature not only for durability reasons, but also because it makes for a noninvasive aftermarket cable installation. I prefer the mono-plug connectors of the HD700 over the customized connectors of the HD800's. The quarter-inch plug here is very uniquely executed. I have noticed that the HD700's cable is slightly stiffer than the HD800's cable.
 
 
WEAKNESSES TREBLE: The treble presentation here is awkward. In the opinion of many, the HD700 is warmer than the HD800 (the HD800 has been criticized by some for being too bright). Well, to my ears, the HD700 is even brighter and sharper. With the HD700, cymbals tend to sound a bit strident and untamed. However, as I greatly enjoy several other aspects of the HD700's sound, the treble response doesn't ruin the headphone for me. That said, I am convinced that the HD600's and HD650's treble presentation is more natural.
 
SIBILANT: Harsh treble is typically accompanied by sibilance, so this particular commentary is kind of redundant. The HD700's sound signature happens to be noticeably sibilant.
 
STORAGE: The HD700 does not come with one of the more impressive cases at its price-point. Cardboard again?
 
NOISY EARPADS: I have found that odd click-like noises emanate from the HD700's earpads from time to time. While it's not terribly distracting, I do find it rather peculiar.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
LACKS ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY: Unfortunately, the HD700 is not one of the most transparent of the bunch. I expected more from Sennheiser in this regard. The HD600, HD650 and HD800 are all of a higher degree transparency to my ears than the HD700. However, due to what I see as a superior decay, the HD700 is more transparent than average. For instance, despite its more problematic treble, I find the HD700 to be more transparent in certain ways than the SRH1840.
 
TRANSIENT RESPONSE: The HD700's decay is on point. While it's not quite as fast as the HD800's decay, it is much faster than the HD600's and HD650's decay. The transient response itself is quite good, yet the abrasive quality of transients is brought forward because of the peakish treble.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: Medium-sized is how I would describe the height and width of the HD700's soundstage. However, the soundstage is quite three-dimensional. I happen to really enjoy its presentation.
 
AMPING: Supposedly, the HD700 is much easier to drive than the HD800. This may be true in some ways, but I personally would probably rather listen to a poorly powered HD800 over a well-powered HD700.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C+

I find it funny that the HD650 has long been criticized by some for being veiled sounding, while the HD800 has been criticized for being too bright and aggressive. For the first hour or two that I spent listening to the HD700, I was convinced that Sennheiser had nailed the act of merging the two sound signatures. Yet as I listened more and more, I began to feel that the sound was lacking the naturalness of both the HD650 and HD800. For this reason, I consider the HD700 a weaker offering despite its many merits.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 150 Ohms
4. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
5. ISOLATION: Little to None
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Manley Labs Neo Classic 300B / TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Acoustic
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Not Applicable
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $999.95

*Back To The Index​

#30 GRADO LABS: PS1000​

*Back To The Index
 
Grado Labs introduced the PS1000 in 2009 alongside Beyerdynamic's T1 and Sennheiser's HD800. Of these three flagship headphones, the PS1000 received most varied reviews. This may be due to the fact that sonically, the PS1000 deviates furthest from the norm.
 
In the mid 2000's, Grado Labs released a highly distinctive pair of headphones known as the GS1000. In many ways, this headphone was a significant departure from Grado's established template. All the way up the Grado headphone chain from the SR-60 to the RS1, the models all seem to be aimed at the same sound target. Well, the GS1000 appears to be aiming at an entirely different dartboard. I admired Grado's desire to change things up quite a bit, but I was never the GS1000's biggest fan. To me, the GS1000 lacks mids and it is simply too bright for extended use.
 
Turn the clock a few years forward and enter the PS1000. The PS1000 incorporates much of the GS1000's design although the PS1000 ups the ante a bit. The most notable difference between the two models (at least to the eye) is that the PS1000 features a metal exterior versus the GS1000's wood. Underneath that metal however is a wooden housing, much like the GS1000's. The PS1000 also employs the GS1000's larger cushion earpads. While the PS1000's sound signature bares more than just a resemblance to the GS1000's, it is a clear improvement in my opinion. Still demonstrating a highly U-shaped frequency response curve, the mids of the PS1000 are brought forward in comparison to the GS1000. This makes for a better sound signature in my opinion, as for me, the GS1000's mids were too recessed.
 
The PS1000 has slowly become one of my go-to headphones for casual listening. I especially enjoy the way it sounds with acoustic jazz. Coincidentally, the PS1000 was one of the most difficult headphones to review. Before publishing this evaluation, I went back and reread every review, in order to ensure that I remained in agreement with what I had written. My current opinion of the PS1000 is ever so slightly more positive than what my initial review seemed to reflect. As a result, it is the only review that I ended up revising.
 
 
STRENGTHS SOUNDSTAGE: The soundstage of the PS1000 is the best I've ever heard from Grado's line and one of the best I've heard all-round. It is pretty wide with a highly-focused center.
 
EXCITING TONE: My perception of ­ideal tone is not in total agreement with the PS1000's tonal balance. But I consider the PS1000's tonal balance to be among the most fun in the industry. In comparison to the more accurate HE-6, HD800 and SR-009, the PS1000 offers a more characterized depiction of the sound. While I find reason to criticize the PS1000's bass, mids and treble presentations, the overall tone is much greater than the sum of its parts. There is something awesomely compelling about the tone of the PS1000. I don't crave the sound all too often because I find quite a bit of fault with it, but there are times when I reach for the PS1000 over all other headphones, conceivably because it is so different sounding.
 
DETAILED: The PS1000 offers exceptional detail due to its openness and tilted treble. It is one of the few highly-detailed headphones I've heard that never falls into the analytical category. For people who seek a highly-colored sound, but also want detail, the PS1000 should be a definite contender.
 
DECAY: As with most Grado headphones that I've heard, the PS1000 offers a fairly natural-sounding decay, which adds to the dimensionality of the sound.
 
JAZZ MASTER: I love listening to jazz with the PS1000. Its tonality makes the music filled with emotion and expression that I don't find when using many other headphones. The sound comes alive as the cymbal is ridden against the thump of the upright bass.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Grado headphones tend to be easy to drive. The PS1000 is no exception.
 
EARPADS: The large Grado earpads are without a doubt the most comfortable pads Grado has ever designed. Despite the fact that the PS1000 is, by far, the heaviest Grado's I have ever owned, it is the most comfortable because of the earpads. Of course, as with all Grado headphones, the earpads are extremely easy to remove and replace.
 
SERIALIZED: The PS1000 is one of Grado's many serialized headphones. I actually appreciate that the box itself displays the handwritten the serial number. There's something very simple and authentic about that.
 
 
WEAKNESSES FAR FROM NEUTRAL: The U-Shaped frequency response curve (accentuated bass and treble) makes the PS1000 about as far from tonally neutral as any headphone listed.
 
SIBILANCE: Yes the tone of the PS1000 is exciting in many ways, but the tilted treble happens to accentuate the sibilance of this headphone. It is hard to take sometimes, particularly on brighter recordings.
 
MIDS: I just can't agree with those mids. Despite an enormous mid-bass hump, the upper-mids of the PS1000 are recessed, lacking bloom and presence. However, the mids here are not as recessed as the GS1000's mids.
 
STORAGE: I cannot understand why Grado can't offer something better than their standard, non-descript cardboard box for such an expensive headphone. For their next flagship, I implore Grado to consider designing more unique and protective packaging.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
BASS: Impact without deep extension is how I would describe the PS1000's bass in a nutshell. The bass has tremendous impact but rolls off before reaching the bottom. However, I enjoy the bass tone. It's one of the aspects which make the PS1000's sound as exciting as it is.
 
TREBLE: The treble presentation is on the bright side. Initially this really bothered me, especially since it is adjacent to a recessed midrange response. However, I actually enjoy its character quite a bit. I still find it problematic at times, but nevertheless, I find it intriguing.
 
IMAGING: The PS1000 offers an exceptional soundstage. However, its imaging capability is not quite as impressive.
 
TRANSPARENT?: The PS1000 is not a transparent headphone per se. Its frequency response is far enough from flat that I cannot commend it for being a transparent headphone. However, I don't find the sound to be particularly grainy.
 
CABLE: While I always prefer a user-detachable cable design, I find that Grado's stock cables tend to be durable. The PS1000 ships with an extension cable and mini-plug adaptor.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE
C
I think the PS1000 is an acquired taste. I can actually picture someone auditioning the PS1000 only to prefer it far more to several other headphones which I feel outperform it. But for me, the PS1000's extremely colored tonality makes me use the word "flagship" with caution. That is not to say that a flagship headphone can't possess a fun-sounding tonality, but I think it limits the headphone as to which music it can excel with. While I find that both the PS500 and RS1i are a better value than the PS1000, the PS1000 is my favorite of Grado's in-production headphone line.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 32 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Preferred
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor / Manley Labs Neo Classic 300B
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: Only cosmetic variations known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $1695

*Back To The Index​

#29 SHURE: SRH1840​

*Back To The Index
 
I remember the day when Shure announced that they were joining the full-size headphone market. The first three full-size models released were the SRH240, SRH440 and SRH840. A short time later, a new flagship model followed - the SRH940. These four headphones were all closed-back in design and ultimately best suited for professional application. I must admit, I wasn't smitten with any of these models.
 
In 2012, Shure released two new models - the SRH1440 and SRH1840. Unlike the Shure headphones mentioned above, these two are open-back in design. Both the SRH1440 and SRH1840 exhibit a neutral-ish tonality. For me however, the SRH1840 is clearly superior to the SRH1440, as should be the case granted the price difference. The SRH1840 has a smoother / more natural tone with finer bass extension. I have heard the entire line of Shure full-size headphones and the only one that I chose to purchase for my very own is the SRH1840.
 
I have read several reviews which attempt to compare the SRH1840 with Sennheiser's much more expensive HD800 (sometimes favorably). I must say, I cannot quite get on board with this comparison. Yes they both lean toward tonally neutral, but the HD800 is far more transparent, showcases a superior transient response, and (when paired with a synergetic amplifier) is far more engaging. The bass quality of the HD800 is more impressive as well. Conversely, if you are looking to save some money, the SRH1840 is less than half the price of the HD800 and is much easier to drive. I find that the SRH1840 is sonically much closer to Audio-Technica's ATH-AD900 than it is to the HD800.
 
 
STRENGTHS NEUTRAL: Simply put, the SRH1840 is one of the most neutral-sounding headphones in this whole evaluation. If you are reading this evaluation from beginning to end, then let me say that the SRH1840 is the most neutral headphone reviewed thus far.
 
MIDS: "Almost flat as a board" is how I would describe the midrange presentation of the SRH1840. This makes it a wonderful headphone for editing and mastering.
 
CLASSICAL & JAZZ MASTER: The SRH1840 excels with classical music. It actually sounds fantastic with most well-recorded music, especially modern-day jazz recordings.
 
COMFORT: The SRH1840 is a headphone I can wear for hours without discomfort. The headphone itself is fairly light for its size and the clamping pressure of headband is just right. The velour earpads do not overheat my head even after extensive use.
 
CABLE: While the cable is easily detachable, it stays locked in the headphone without the worry of it becoming easily undone. The quality of the stock cable appears to be about average, but on the plus side, Shure generously includes a spare cable!
 
EARPADS: The comfy and easily removable earpads are reminiscent of Sennheiser's HD600 & HD650 earpads. What perhaps is most significant is that Shure supplies spare earpads!
 
STORAGE: Considering its similarly-priced competition, the SRH1840 generously packaged. In my opinion, the cardboard design is superior to any of Sennheiser's current offerings. Furthermore, the SRH1840 comes with a very nice hard-shell zippered carrying case.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: In my opinion, the SRH1840 lacks quite a bit of transparency. Unfortunately, its sound is not free of grain in the treble.
 
BASS SHY: The SRH1840's bass presentation lacks both impact and extension. I feel that a bit more extension and impact would make the SRH1840's sound even more compelling. No matter which amplifier I use, I come away with this same impression regarding the bass.
 
LACKS DETAIL: For all its neutrality and treble extension, I can't help but feel the SRH1840 lacks a bit of clarity and detail.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The SRH1840 has a fairly narrow and somewhat laid-back soundstage. Based on its size, I honestly anticipated that it would have a larger soundstage.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: The extension here is very good. Unlike Shure's in-ear models which all seem to suffer from rolled-off high frequencies, the treble here is not rolled-off in any way. However, the treble is not absolutely free of grain.
 
IMAGING: The SRH1840 has decent imaging ability. While the drivers are not angled, I am still able to detect the placement of instruments with more vividness than is average.
 
AMPING: The SRH1840 is not so picky with regards to amplification - it sounds good with all the amps I've paired it. However, with a warm tube amp, the treble sounds quite a bit rounder and the bass is lifted a bit. I recommend tubes for this one.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B

The SRH1840 is a fine headphone for its price. In a way, I view its sound signature as a colder variation of the Sennheiser HD600. It may be better suited for professional work than the HD600 due to its more revealing treble presentation. Without consideration of the price difference, I prefer the HD600 over the SRH1840 for every genre except classical music. If Shure prices their next flagship similarly to the Beyerdynamic T1 and the Sennheiser HD800, I feel that they will need to refine the sound a bit for it to be competitive.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 65 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Woo Audio 5 / Manley Neo Classic 300B
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Well-Recorded Music / Jazz / Classical
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $699.99

*Back To The Index​

#28 BEYERDYNAMIC: DT 880 (600 Ohm)​

*Back To The Index
 
Prior to the introduction of Beyerdynamic's innovative Tesla Driver design, the DT 990 was Beyerdynamic's self-declared flagship headphone. However, within the headphone community itself, the DT 880 received even more acclaim than the DT 990 because of its more neutral sound signature. Initially, the DT 880 was only offered by the manufacturer with an impedance rating of 250 ohms. Today however, it is offered in three different impedance configurations (32 ohms; 250 ohms; 600 ohms). The 32 ohms model is designed with portable (amp-less) use in mind, while 250 ohms and 600 ohms models are designed to be paired with an amplifier. In particular, the 600 ohms version really needs an amp in order to be brought up to an optimal volume level. When properly powered, the 600 ohms version is the best sounding of the three.
 
The DT 880 is one of only five headphones on my list that I have awarded an A+ value rating (the other four being the Audio-Technica ATH-AD900, the Sennheiser HD600, and HifiMan HE-500 & HE-400). Some have described the DT 880's sound as being a notch brighter than neutral. Perhaps this is the case, but at the same time, the DT 880 offers a wide-open sound which I find extremely compelling. Since the headphone is offered with three different impedance ratings, it is easily among the most recommendable headphones that I know of.
 
 
STRENGTHS NEUTRAL: The DT 880 is a very neutral sounding headphone with a bit of extra sparkle in the treble. In my opinion, the tonal balance of the DT 880 is actually flatter than that of Beyerdynamic's current flagship, the T1.
 
MIDS: The DT 880 has a very pure sounding midrange. To my ears, it is neither forward nor recessed. The mid presentation here is able to complement just about any genre.
 
BASS: The DT880's bass is wonderfully extended. It is able to dig down deep into the lowest notes of a pipe organ.Several headphones which sound bassier than the DT 880 have what is called a mid-bass hump (an emphasis in the upper bass and lower-mids), but sometimes lack deep extension. The DT 880 is quite capable of deep robust bass because of its extension.
 
GENRE MASTER: The DT 880 is not a bass-head can, but when paired with a warm amp, they certainly can deliver big bass. Conversely, when paired with a bright amp, the DT 880's treble can sound accentuated. Over time, I've come to see the DT 880 as a fine all-rounder. I feel as though it complements every genre of music that I know of.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: The DT 880 offers a fairly wide sound view. It is not as impressive as the T1 in this regard however. Unlike the T1, the drivers of the DT 880 are not angled. The DT 880's soundstage is spacious without being as well defined as the T1's or the HD800's.
 
COMFORT: The DT 880 is a wonderfully light full-size headphone. It feels especially light on the head - lighter than the T1 by a significant margin. The round velour earpads never seem to overheat my head. They are one of the most comfortable headphones that I've ever worn; top ten in this regard.
 
CHOOSE YOUR IMPEDANCE: I appreciate that Beyerdynamic offers this headphone with three different impedance ratings. They offer these three impedance ratings with the DT 990 as well (and did so with the DT 770 until they discontinued the model in 2012). I have owned the 250 Ohms version in the past, but in this review, I evaluated the 600 ohms version specifically.
 
SOME ISOLATION: The DT 880 features a semi-open design which blocks out a bit of outside ambient noise, but not as much as a closed-back design is typically able.
 
EARPADS The DT 880's stock earpads are made of extremely comfortable velour material. Furthermore, they are very easy to remove and replace. Beyerdynamic offers replacement earpads in the form of the original stock velour as well as leather. I prefer the feel of the velour and I also favor the sound of the headphone when using the velour earpads.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS TRANSPARENCY: For all its neutrality, the DT 880's ability to serve as an ultra-transparent window to the music is surely surpassed by many other offerings. It does not offer an entirely grain-free sound and it does not possess quite the speed of many flagship headphones which are capable of providing extreme detail retrieval.
 
LACKS DETAIL: The DT 880 has extra sparkle in the treble which brings out much of the upper harmonics. I appreciate this. However, when compared against other headphones which offer a superior transient response and quicker decay, it becomes apparent that even the extra treble sparkle does not compensate for the slight lack of detail.
 
IMAGING: While the DT 880 offers a wide soundstage, its ability to image is lacking in some ways. In this case, the soundstage is wider than it is ultra-defined. The overall presentation of the DT 880 lacks some of the precision which higher-end headphones have.
 
CABLE: The DT 880 has the distinction of being the highest ranking headphone on my list with a one-sided cable design. I don't particularly like this cable design as I feel there is a high likelihood of sonic degradation in this configuration. On the other hand, many may find a single-sided cable design to be more comfortable than a Y-split cable design.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: I happen to like the treble presentation of the DT 880. It is just a hair forward. It doesn't resemble the rather subdued treble presentations of the HD600 or the HD650 (two headphones with which it is often contrasted). Consequently, it is less veiled sounding than either of those two headphones. Many users will love the DT 880's treble, although others will prefer the more rolled-off treble presentation of the HD6xx for the simple fact that it is less fatiguing. I prefer the treble presentation of the DT 880 over the HD600's and HD650's. However, I find the overall sound of the DT 880 to be less engaging.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A+

It is probable that the DT 880 was never intended to be considered a flagship by its manufacturer. But that is precisely the reputation it took on for several years until the T1 was introduced in 2009. The DT 880 is a phenomenal choice for editing and mixing, yet no less wonderful for just plain ol' listening. The HD600, ATH-AD900 and HE-500 are the only other headphones to which I have awarded an A+ price-to-performance rating.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 600 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Manley Labs Neo Classic 300B / TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: Several
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Not Applicable
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $349

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#27 AUDIO-TECHNICA: ATH-W3000ANV​

*Back To The Index
 
The first Audio-Technica headphone that I ever heard was the ATH-W5000. I'm sure you can imagine after reading my review of that headphone that my enthusiasm for exploring the Audio-Technica line further was diminished. It wasn't until I came to work for Headphones.com that I had the opportunity to hear several Audio-Technica models that I found favorable.
 
In 2012, Audio Technica celebrated their 50th Anniversary by releasing a variety of limited-edition products, one of which was the ATH-W3000ANV. Like the ATH-W5000, the ATH-W3000ANV features wooden ear-cups, leather earpads, and the signature Audio-Technica self-adjusting headband. Other than this, the two headphones are practically nothing alike. Whereas I found the tone of the ATH-W5000 to be insufferably nasal, the ATH-W3000ANV is one of the most euphonic headphones that I have had the pleasure hearing. It is a joy to listen to ATH-W3000ANV even should it not offer a neutral sound. The ATH-W3000ANV happens to be my second favorite closed-back headphone currently in production, just behind the Fostex TH900.
 
 
STRENGTHS EUPHONIC: The ATH-W3000ANV offers a uniquely euphonic sound. There's no other headphone that I've heard which sounds similar to it. The sound possesses a soulfulness that is very difficult to convey with words. Music feels rather personal when listening to the ATH-W3000ANV. The sound here is colored in a way that is very agreeable to my ears.
 
MIDS: The mids here are where the magic happens. The mids are smooth, rounded, and put a smile on my face every time. They are not entirely free of a slight nasal quality, but it's quite a difference from the ATH-W5000's Pinocchio-size nasal sound.
 
BASS: The bass of the ATH-W3000ANV is of a very distinct quality. It doesn't quite extend down to ground, but its impact is robust and well-suited for a number of music genres.
 
TREBLE: I find that the treble here has naturalness about it, even though it isn't quite perfect. The treble is nicely extended without demonstrating any strange peaks. It is just slightly rolled off here, but shows no signs of being veiled.
 
JAZZ MASTER: I find that the mids of the ATH-W3000ANV enhances the sound of horns. The treble allows for cymbals to ring without the sense of harshness or unpleasantness. The bass presentation is capable of providing tremendous weight to drums and bass guitar without the feeling of intrusive sub-bass. Ultimately, I found that the W3000ANV's concoction of sound proved to be fantastic for listening to jazz music.
 
ATTRACTIVE: The ATH-W3000ANV is an attractive headphone. It features wooden ear-cups made from Japanese Asada cherry trees. To my eye, it is slightly less appealing than the ATH-W5000 which, in my opinion, has a more exceptional wood finish. However, there is no doubt that both headphones are candy for the eyes.
 
ISOLATION: The ATH-W3000ANV is one of a rather small handful of full-size closed-back headphones on my list. Because of its closed-back design, it offers some attenuation of outside ambient noise.
 
SERIALIZED: As any flagship should be, the ATH-W3000ANV is individually serialized. Only 2000 units of the ATH-W3000ANV will be made.
 
 
WEAKNESSES NOT NEUTRAL: If you are seeking out a neutral sounding headphone, look elsewhere since the ATH-W3000ANV is one of the more colored sounding options in this review.
 
LACKS TRANSPARENCY: If a headphone possesses a colored tonality, this does not automatically imply to me that the headphone lacks transparency. In this case however, I find that the ATH-W3000ANV is not as transparent as I would like. It dances around the fence of transparency, but there is just some colorations that are too extreme for me to be convinced that this headphone offers top-level transparency.
 
NARROW SOUNDSTAGE: The soundstage of the ATH-W3000ANV is rather narrow, demonstrating a hard separation between the left and right channels. Furthermore, it lacks a sense of openness that I associate with great soundstaging properties.
 
IMAGING: In some ways, the ATH-W3000ANV has a cluttered aura about its sound. It's ability to image with accuracy is not nearly as impressive as several other headphones.
 
HEADBAND CONSTRUCTION: I'm not a fan of Audio-Technica's self-adjusting headband design. I think it is flimsy and easily breakable. While many of their full-size flagships incorporate this headband type, I surely wish it was a design the manufacturer would abandon.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
DETAILED: The ATH-W3000ANV is not as detailed sounding as many other offerings. At the same time, it is certainly not unimpressive with regard to its rendering of detail. While the ATH-W3000ANV is ultimately not an ultra-revealing headphone, it is in no way muffled.
 
POWERING: The ATH-W3000ANV is nowhere near the most difficult headphone to drive. However, I do find that it excels when paired with some amplifiers, yet sounds especially dull when paired with others.
 
STORAGE: The packaging of the ATH-W3000ANV is better than average, but strangely it is somewhat appealing (in my opinion) to the less expensive ATH-W5000's packaging. The ATH-W3000ANV ships in a fancy cardboard package, while the ATH-W5000 ships with a miniature headphone suitcase.
 
COMFORT: While the W3000ANV and the W5000 incorporate essentially the same headband design, the W5000 actually feels more comfortable to me. This may be a simple matter of physical break-in. The auto-adjust headband design, which Audio-Technica uses on many of their full-size models, somehow feels awkward on my head. I wouldn't call it uncomfortable as much as I would call it unusual. The leather earpads can sometimes be a bit conducive to heating up the head. All in all, the ATH-W3000ANV is a fairly comfortable headphone.
 
CABLE: The ATH-W3000ANV's stock cable has a really fancy-looking plug. The cable itself appears to be above average in quality. However, I personally prefer when the stock cable is user-detachable, both for durability and modifiability purposes.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B-

The ATH-W3000ANV is an expensive headphone which is out-performed in many ways by competitively-priced models. However, it offers a wonderfully unique sound signature that may complement someone's headphone collection very well. Only 2000 units of the ATH-ANV3000 are available, which means that its value may in fact rise in the coming years.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 40 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Woo Audio 5 / SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz / Blues / Acoustic
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $1549.99

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#26 HIFIMAN: HE-400​

*Back To The Index
 
For readers who have been following this review since its “original edition,” I will mention here that the HifiMan HE-400 was the first headphone to be added to my initial post. No, the HE-400 is not a flagship headphone and was not intended as such. However, I received a large amount of requests to have this headphone added to the evaluation.
 
Currently, the HE-400 is at a similar price point as the Sennheiser’s HD600 (a long-time favorite of the audio community). While I would not say the HE-400 sounds anything like the HD600, I would say that its performance-level manages to be on the same plane. For this reason, the HE-400 is a welcome edition to my collection.
 
Whereas the HD600 succeeds in being slightly lush, romantic, and a hint slow without veering too far from the line of neutral or transparent, the HE-400 is noticeably more colored, but with a wonderfully-layered and detailed sound that, with time, may find as many champions.
 
It is important to mention here that since its debut (not even a year ago) the HE-400 has undergone at least one significant sonic revision (and as many as five from some sources). According to the manufacturer, the version which I own (acquired in November of 2012) is the stable version.
 
It is also worth mentioning that HifiMan ships the HE-400 with faux-leather earpads pre-installed. Whereas the HE-500 and HE-6 ship with both the faux-leather earpads and velour earpads (my preference for both models), the HE-400 unfortunately does not. However, one can acquire the velour earpads directly from the manufacturer or through one of their authorized dealers. Switching the earpads is not a very difficult process, but it does require that the user be meticulous, as the flaps which connect the earpads to the ear-cup are rather delicate.
 
 
 
STRENGTHS BASS: Very few headphones possess as deeply textured, well-extended, and impactful bass as the HE-400. I must stress that the bass in particular is drastically improved when switching from the stock faux-leather earpads to the HifiMan velour earpads (which one must purchase separately). When listening for the fullness of sub-bass and bass frequencies, the HE-400 performs with flying colors.
 
DETAIL: The HE-400 offers a fast yet natural-sounding attack and a smooth decay, which brings forth a great amount of detail. In my experience, most headphones which produce as weighty-a-sound as the HE-400 do not simultaneously manage to be as resolving. The HE-400 is very impressive for being able to accomplish both feats.
 
JAZZ & ELECTRONIC MASTER: In response to its deep, impactful bass, I initially wanted to suggest that the HE-400 was a top choice for rock music, but after several hours of listening, I began to feel that its sound-signature was better-suited for jazz music. The reason is that there is a dip in the upper mids which slightly reduces the presence of vocals and accentuates the forwardness of metallic instruments. For me, this sound presentation is not problematic, but rather a fantastic seasoning for jazz music (particularly well-recorded jazz music) and electronic music. If you're a jazz-head, break out your ECM recordings. If you're a fan of electronic, consider that the HE-400 exhibits the necessary bottom end for a visceral experience, and the often-lacking quickness for ultimate detail retrieval. 
 
UNIQUE TONALITY: The HE-400's tonality is not "fun" in the sense that it is totally un-neutral - It is fun because it has a very specific upper-mid dip that allows the listener to home-in on specific instruments. The HE-400's tonal balance is not the definition of neutral, but it is also not the complete antithesis either. It manages to find a unique equilibrium between "colored" and "neutral." 
 
TRANSPARENCY: Despite certain obvious colorations in the mids, I find that the HE-400 fares pretty well with regard to transparency. It is not quite on equal footing with HifiMan's own HE-6 or even the HE-500, but it isn't too far off the mark regardless. I am certain that the exceptional transient response and decay properties offered here help offset the slightly awkward midrange presentation; this ultimately finds the headphone to still be fairly transparent without being entirely neutral.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: The HE-400 sounds significantly improved when paired with a headphone amp, but it still sounds impressive when plugged directly into a computer headphone output and even an iPhone. It definitely trumps most of its similarly-priced competition in this regard.
 
IMAGING: I'm tempted to suggest that at its pricepoint, the HE-400 is the best at imaging of all the headphones I've heard. It's not quite as good in this regard as the HE-500. However, with regard to imaging (and perhaps soundstage as well) it is a definitive step above Sennheiser's HD600 and HD650.
 
TREBLE: When contrasted with the upper-mids, the treble sounds a bit forward. However, it is neither harsh nor abrasive. The treble may benefit from being a tad more extended, but either way, the treble sounds rather natural to my ears.
 
DETACHABLE PARTS: As with all the HifiMan headphones I've come across thus far, both the cable and the earpads are removable. I'm not particularly fond of how the cable disconnects/installs from the ear-cups, but nevertheless, having this detachable capability preserves the headphone long-term. The HE-400 stock cable seems sturdily built. The earpads also detach/attach in a slightly haphazard manner, but again, detachable parts are my preference.
 
 
WEAKNESSES DESIGN: During the course of writing this review, I found that my third-party HifiMan cable shorted, presumably because of the fact that in order to lock the cable into place, one needs to screw it in; if you do this a lot you may also run into a short in your cable. In my case I was flipping between the HE-400, HE-500 and HE-6 for review purposes. Even before this happened, I detested the screw-in HifiMan cable design because it frequently unscrews. As previously mentioned, the HE-400 ships with faux-leather earpads. The faux-leather earpads do not allow the headphone to sound as good (to my ears), as the HifiMan velour earpads. One can acquire the velour earpads and carefully swap them with the faux-leather pads. Unfortunately, the velour earpads attract dust, lint and hair unlike any other earpad I've seen.   
 
STORAGE: In its current revision, the HE-400 ships in a very basic cardboard box. The box itself is rather fragile and unimpressive.
 
REVISIONS?: At the time which I write this review, the HE-400 is not even a year old and it has already undergone at least one significant sonic revision (some sources say four or five). According to many, the first incarnation of the HE-400 was darker and duller sounding. If in fact there have been as many as four revisions in such a short time span, it may be difficult to know what you're getting should you buy a used HE-400.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
SOUNDSTAGE: The HE-400's soundstage is more impressive than most of its similarly-priced competitors. While it is not the widest, it exhibits significant depth and height. It is a fairly natural sound presentation.
 
MIDS: The mids here are interesting. The lower-mids are significantly forward while the upper-mids are significantly recessed. However, this is not as problematic as it sounds. The mids are recessed in the region where many odd nasal characteristics typically emanate. Here there is none of that. Of course, the recessed upper midrange will find detractors. It prevents this headphone from being "neutral." But I must counter this by suggesting that this coloration is not offensive to my ears, and I think many people may ultimately be won over by the headphone's ability to render detail without sounding shouty or nasal.
 
COMFORT: The HE-400 is not one of the most supremely comfortable headphones I've ever worn; the headband's grip is slightly tighter than optimal, but I don't find them to be uncomfortable by any means.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A+

The HE-400 has a rather unique sound-signature that many will find appealing. The HE-400 is simultaneously a fun-sounding headphone and an articulate-sounding headphone. It assumes a fun character because of its thickly layered bass response and recessed upper-mids; it exhibits an articulate sound-signature because it is fast and detailed, much like the other HifiMan headphones in this evaluation. The HE-400 is one of only five headphones in my evaluation for which I have awarded an A+ value rating. The other four include HifiMan's own HE-500, Sennheiser's HD600, Beyerdynamic's DT880, Audio-Technica's ATH-AD900
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Planar Magnetic
3. IMPEDANCE: 35 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Woo Audio 5 / TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz / Electronic
8. CABLES USED: Stock / A Pure Sound V3 balanced
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least one known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Never was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $399.00

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#25 ULTIMATE EARS: UERM​

*Back To The Index
 
Since publishing the initial review here on Head-Fi back at the end of October 2012, I frequently get messaged regarding Ultimate Ears UE10 Pro. It is an important in-ear with regard to my personal history as a headphone enthusiast. It is also the headphone/earphone which spurred my curiosity enough to prompt me to join this community officially back in 2007. However, unlike every other headphone in this evaluation, it is nearly impossible to acquire for oneself; one because Ultimate Ears no longer makes the UE10 and hasn't for some years now, and two it is a custom-molded design. The concept of including the UE10 in this review, initially seemed as though it served a purpose back when I began writing it over two years ago. At that time, the UE10 was only recently discontinued, but today it seems to be almost a tease to include it.
 
Therefore, I took it upon myself to find its most obvious replacement, Ultimate Ears' Custom In-Ear Reference (known as the UERM), which like the UE10 before it, also employs a triple driver design. However, whereas the UE10 employed a 2-way passive crossover design, the UERM employs a 3-way passive crossover design. I hope that this specific review will answer some questions for those who have always wondered (as I always have) what the differences are with regard to the UE10 and UERM. I would like to comment on the fact that I have removed the UE10 Pro from this evaluation and have moved the UERM up two spots from where the UE10 was. While the UERM is not better in every regard, I have found it to offer an even-more satisfying listening experience overall than that of the UE10.
 
Every UERM ships with a clear shell/black faceplate design (unless one specifies otherwise). On one faceplate you find the UE logo in white, while on the other faceplate you find Capitol Records' long distinguished logo. According to Mike Dias of Ultimate Ears, the UERM was collaborative effort between Ultimate Ears and Capitol Studios. The engineers at Capitol Stuidos and the technicians at Ultimate Ears worked side by side to bring the UERM to fruition. As a result, the UERM can be seen as a tool developed by and for sound engineers. For me, the UERM is most useful in professional application. I have found that I use it even more for this purpose than I do for pure listening enjoyment.
 
I should also mention here that the Ultimate Ears Custom In-Ear Reference should not be confused with another model which Ultimate Ears offers, the Personal In-Ear Reference. The latter model is far more expensive and is the first (to my knowledge) in-ear monitor to be designed for total sonic customization - a very cool feature, especially if you suffer from a hearing imbalance or if you prefer having total control over your desired sound signature.
 
STRENGTHS
IMAGING: One of the things which floored me most about the UERM was its refined precision with regard to imaging. In this way, the UERM surpasses every other IEM I've ever come across. More specifically, listening to binaural recordings, I felt it surpassed any expectation I ever had regarding IEM imaging. The UE10 Pro also excelled with imaging, but this was a whole new ballgame.
 
TRANSPARENT: The UERM is among the most transparent sounding IEMs I've ever heard, eclipsed maybe by the JH13, but not by much. I should add here that when listening to orchestral music specifically, the UERM sounded even more transparent to me than the JH13.
 
NEUTRALITY KING (IEM): Jude Mansilla(founder of head-fi.org) has referred to the UERM as a pallet cleanser. In other words, he finds the UERM to be so neutral, that he is able to cleanse his auditory pallet when using them. I can honestly say that I agree wholeheartedly with Jude here. The UERM is extremely uncolored, perhaps even more than the HD800 which I find to be among the most neutral headphones I've heard. By comparison, the UE10 Pro presented a weightier sound (one which I like better in some rare cases) but not as free of colorations.
 
GREAT ENGINEER TOOL: Having a background in sound engineering, I know what industry professionals look for (or should look for) when mixing and mastering sound. Let me say here that if you are an industry professional looking for an in-ear to monitor live mixes / and have an in-ear reference in the studio, then there is nothing else in the market that I've heard as of yet which comes across as unflavored as the UERM. As a matter of fact, the UERM sounds as though it were designed for professional application. And of course, this is precisely the case. For listening purposes only, I feel the UERM has some serious competition in the in-ear market. However, from the perspective of being behind the console, I have no higher recommendation. The UE10 would have likely been my highest recommendation for this purpose prior to hearing the UERM. However, the UE10 was more forgiving and ultimately falls short when compared against the UERM.
 
CLASSICAL MASTER: I'm hesitant to call the UERM a jack-of-all-trades. While it's certainly a transparent sounding earphone, I do find that that its sound signature lacks a bit of weight for most popular music. However, with classical music, it excels more than any IEM I've heard. If you are a classical enthusiast, I believe the UERM would quickly become a daily companion. When I compare the UE10 against the UERM, I feel like the UE10 actually is better at rock and pop because it is a touch warmer. However, I personally find that the UERM excels with classical music more than the UE10 excelled with any one specific genre. For me, it was certainly worth the tradeoff. However, some may find that the UE10 leaned more to their preference.
 
MIDS: Without having the equipment to measure each and every headphone reviewed here, I am reasonably certain that the UERM's midrange is the flattest listed. This adds significantly to its value for professional use. However, some may find it to be a slightly sterile/boring midrange. I lean a little bit both ways, but I applaud Ultimate Ears for accomplishing such a task.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: Nothing even comes close to IEMs in terms of portability. You can fit the UERM inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an HD800.
 
DETAILED: Between the JH13, UE10 and UERM, the latter is, for me,the most analytical. As such, the UERM often comes across as the most detailed. However, the JH13 and UE10 still manage to wow me with the amount of detail they boast.
 
TREBLE: Out of the iPod alone, the UERM sounds a bit harsh - moreso than the ES5, JH16, JH13 and UE10. One of the reasons for this is that the treble response here is relatively flat, and the iPod/iPhone is a bit colored in the treble region. However, when I use the UERM in my home setup, the treble is smooth and wonderfully extended.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: Due to their high sensitivity, most IEMs tend to be easy to drive. However, I notice that the UERM scales better in a dedicated headphone setup with a higher quality DAC. With regard to amplification, my prefered choice is the TTVJ Millett 307A.
 
DESIGN: Despite the fact that JH Audio and Ultimate Ears both utilize a hard acrylic shell, I found that the UERM's fit was more intuitive and ergonomic. While this is really a matter of personal preference, I preferred that the Ultimate Ears canal tip was longer on both sides, and that the faceplate offered slightly more to grab onto when removing the earpiece. I also found that the UERM offers marginally better isolation than the JH Audio IEMs. The UERM's cable is a detachable, braided design which is quite tangle resistant. It is also worth mentioning that of the lot of IEMs in my possession, I am the most impressed with the UERM's packaging and travel case. It is designed so that the IEMs do not move while in transport, using a flexible rubber-like material inside the case. The hard case closes with a slide-&-lock mechanism, which is quite a bit sleeker than cases I am used to. Lastly, one of the most unique aspects of Ultimate Ears' packaging is a tracker ID which Ultimate Ears imprints inside the case so that if the earphones are misplaced and someone finds them, they can be returned to Ultimate Ears for a cash reward.
 
SERIALIZED: As any custom-molded product should be, the UERM is serialized. Like most of the other custom-molded IEMs that I own, the UERM showcases the owner's initials next to the serial number.
 
 
WEAKNESSES
IEM'S INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.

IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. As I've stated prior, a lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.

BORING?: With its extremely flat frequency response, the UERM may actually underwhelm listeners looking for a bit more personality and/or weight. I could certainly understand someone finding the UERM to be a marvel of sound science rather than a marvel of sound quality. For me, it is precisely this attribute which makes it the perfect tool for audio engineers - the fact that it has almost no personality whatsover.

RESELL VALUE: When I first joined Head-Fi, I remember someone putting up a thread in the “For Sale” section in which they announced the sale of their custom-molded earphones. This thread turned out to be a joke. Reselling a custom-molded product was almost unheard of at the time. Today however, there are many companies which offer a refitting process that makes reselling custom-molded earphones an option. Still, be prepared to take a major hit, should you resell them.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
BASS: The bass extension here is excellent. However, if you desire a sense of weight and impact in your sound, the UERM will probably fall short for you. It is quite reserved with regard to bass. For most listening, I actually prefered the UE10's bass presentation. It is really the only area which I find in favor of the UE10. However, having the bass tuned the way it is makes it a very solid choice for professional application.
 
COMFORT: To be honest, I have never found custom-molded IEMs to be as comfortable as universal fit IEMs with foam tips. But after many years of getting used to it, I've adapted to the feeling of custom-molded shells. I find that the hard acrylic is less comfortable than the soft material used in Westone's and Sensaphonic's designs. Nevertheless, wearing the hard acrylic pieces inside my ears has become more livable with time.
 
REFITS?: Unlike with JH Audio and my UE10, I did not need to get the UERM refitted. However, in the case of acrylic-shell custom-fitted IEMs, some users may find the need to be refitted. This could be perhaps because the hard acrylic shell lacks flexibility.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B+

When judging an IEM's price-to-performance ratio, I only compare its sound to that of other IEMs. In my opinion, the UERM is the top choice in this evaluation if you are an audio engineer looking for something to bring from gig to gig. Its tonality is noticeably uncolored, and its ability to image with precision is top-of-the-class. However, when it comes to sheer music listening, some may find its sound signature to be a bit reserved or too polite. I think the word "reference" is very fitting for the UERM, because I view it as such.
 
If I was in the market for a custom IEM for rocking out, I would opt for the ES5 or JH16. If I wanted a custom IEM that was a "genre master" (jack of all trades), I would probably opt for the JH13. However, if I spent the majority of my time listening to classical music, I would opt for the UERM. Furthermore,if I were looking to complement any of the other custom in-ears with a second pair, I would want that pair to be the UERM because they are the least affected/most neutral.
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 21 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical & Professional monitoring
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $999 + Audiologist

*Back To The Index​

#24 FOSTEX: TH900​

*Back To The Index
 
Fostex has long been an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) for other manufacturers. The list of manufacturers for which they have designed headphones is rather extensive and includes Denon, Creative Labs, and most notably Apple (the earbuds that ship with the iPhone and iPod are made by Fostex). As its own brand, Fostex had rarely (if ever) released a headphone exceeding the $150 price-point. Therefore, I was a bit surprised to learn of TH900 and its tremendous asking price of $2000.
 
Even just on paper, the TH900 is quite an impressive product. The ear-cups of the TH900 exhibit a unique looking Japanese lacquered “Urushi” finish. The earpads exhibit protein leather made from eggshell membranes. The Neodymium magnet possess a magnetic flux density that measures 1.5 tesla (which exceeds the T1's by 25%). The driver incorporates Fostex's bio-cellulose “Biodyna” diaphragm. And finally, the TH900 ships with its own proprietary headphone stand made of metal wire material. I have no reservation in proclaiming that the TH900 is one of the best closed-back headphones ever made. Today, it ranks alongside the ATH-W3000ANV as the finest closed-back headphone in production. I prefer the TH900's tonality for most listening, but I find the W3000's tonality to be more unique with a greater sense of euphony.
 
I would say that the sound quality of the TH900 is similar to Denon's AH-D7000 (a headphone designed by Fostex). However, the TH900's sonic presentation is slightly improved, both in terms of tonality and transparency. The D7000 sold for $1000 less than the TH900 sells for. In my view, the D7000 was a far better value.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONAL BALANCE: The TH900's tonal balance leans toward the warmer side of neutral, but its treble extension is superb. The sound signature here is quite full, but the decay of notes is fast enough that there is minimal muddiness.
 
EUPHONIC: The TH900 offers a very pleasant colored sound which I can only describe as euphonic. The sound here is not void of colorations, but it is not nearly as colored as the ATH-W3000ANV's sound. I prefer the ATH-W3000ANV's unique euphonic flavor in some ways.
 
BASS: In my experience, Fostex's drivers typically produce deep, impactful bass. The TH900 exhibits the most well-defined bass I have ever heard from a Fostex headphone (OEM or otherwise).
 
IMAGING: The TH900 is able to image very well. After the MDR-R10, it is the best closed-back headphone that I have used with regard to precise instrument placement.
 
GENRE MASTER: While this headphone's frequency response is a bit on the warmer side, it actually succeeds at being graceful with every genre I've tried it with; this includes, but is not limited to rock, jazz, classical, hip hop, r&b, pop, electronic, and metal.
 
DECAY: The decay here is similar to that of the R10. Perhaps this is due to the fact that both models utilize bio-cellulose material in their transducer construction.
 
COMFORT: The TH900's ear-cups were designed to provide ample room for the ear to sit inside. I happen to adore the texture of the leather used throughout the TH900. The actual headband design is extremely similar to the AH-D7000. However, the actual feel of the TH900 is markedly more impressive than that of the D7000.
 
ISOLATION: The most obvious benefit of closed-back headphones is that the design provides isolation for the listener and the listener's surrounding neighbors. The TH900 offers an average amount of ambient noise isolation for a closed-back headphone.
 
STAND: The TH900 is one of four headphones in this evaluation that ships with its own headphone stand; the other three being the Ultrasone Edition 10, and two Sony models - the Qualia 010 and MDR-SA5000. The TH900's headphone stand looks as if it was molded from a very expensive hanger. It's my least favorite of the four headphone stands, but it's still a thoughtful inclusion nonetheless.
 
EASY TO DRIVE: The TH900 is one of the easiest full-size headphones to drive. It even sounds very good directly out of an iPod.
 
SERIALIZED: Each TH900 is individually serialized. I am not certain as to how many will be made.
 
 
WEAKNESSES NOT NEUTRAL: The TH900's sound signature shows hints of neutrality, but all in all, it is not neutral. I wouldn't use the TH900 for professional monitoring.
 
MIDS: The midrange is more recessed than I would prefer. To my ears, it is actually more recessed and colored than the AH-D7000's midrange.
 
DESIGN FLAW: Multiple pairs of the TH900 (including my own) have shipped with an ear-cup-swivel defect. In defective pairs, the ear-cups do not swivel evenly. Some pairs exhibit this issue more noticeably than others, while some pairs do not show any signs of this defect. This defect does not appear to affect the way this headphone sits on the user's head.
 
VERY SENSITIVE: The TH900 is one of the most sensitive full-size headphones I've ever used. This makes it a wonderful choice for those who would like to use them out a standard computer headphone output. However, unless your amplifier has a low gain setting, you may have a little bit of trouble finding an optimal volume level (especially when adjusting with a stepped attenuator).
 
 
ON THE FENCE
LACKS ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY: The TH900 has a fairly transparent sound signature. I find its decay to be breathtakingly smooth. If I were nitpicking I would say that there is just a hair of treble and midrange unnaturalness. Fellow Head-Fier Axaxilus described the TH900's sound signature as “something of a R10 and D7000 having a baby.” I think this is an interesting view. In a way, it does share many characteristics of both headphones.
 
TREBLE: The treble presentation of the TH900 is a clear improvement over the AH-D7000; it is not nearly as recessed. That said, I find that there are some slightly abrasive moments with regard to the treble that detract from the overall transparency of the sound.
 
SOUNDSTAGE: Aside from the MDR-R10, the TH900's soundstage presentation is probably the most impressive of all the closed-back headphones that I've tried. It possesses a clear sense of space and dimension. However, it does have a closed-in feeling that takes away a little bit from the overall depth.
 
CONSTRUCTION: I like the TH900's construction; the feel of the leather, the cherry wood cups featuring an Urushi finish, etc. My one complaint is that its construction immediately makes one think of the AH-D7000. For the simple fact that Denon's D7000 was the last expensive flagship to be designed by Fostex, the TH900 was going to inevitably draw comparisons with it. The fact that the TH900 headband looks like a modified D7000 headband is a bit of a letdown for me.
 
CABLE: The cable here is of a fairly high quality. I only wish that the cable had been designed to be detachable.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C+

The Fostex TH900 is one of the most expensive headphones on the market today, eclipsed only by the Edition 10, the SR-007 Mk2, and the enormously expensive SR-009. Of the four, the TH900 is the easiest to drive and the only one to offer any degree of noise isolation. The TH900 is a very versatile headphone, capable of sounding good with every genre. My main criticism of the TH900 is that it is not worth the price based on the fact that Denon's AH-D7000 was nearly as good at half the price.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 25 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Some
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: SPL Phonitor; Woo Audio 5
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None Known to Me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $1999.99

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#23 JH AUDIO: JH13​

*Back To The Index
 
The JH13 is the highest ranking of the thirteen in-ear-monitors on my list. Initially, I was persuaded to not include IEMs in the ranking at all. The reason I didn't want to include IEMs is largely because I feel they handle sound reproduction in an enormously different manner from headphones. I thought by including IEMs in the ranking, I would actually be shortchanging them. This is largely because they inherently lack the ability to utilize the outer-ear in order to create a more natural sound presentation. It is not the fault of the IEM that it cannot do this. It would be similar for me to criticize an open-back headphone for being unable to block out outside noise. All in all however, when I compare the inherent sonic character of open-back design against that of In-ear design, I end up with the conclusion that IEMs are inferior more often than not. It is no small feat for JH Audio that I've placed the JH13 at #22 in the context of my entire collection. I've placed the JH13 in front of some major full-size headphones.
 
The JH13 is a custom-molded in-ear-monitor. The shell is made of hard acrylic material. Like all other custom-molded IEMs, you must have ear impressions made prior to ordering them. The JH13 employs 6 balanced armature drivers (2 bass, 2 mids, 2 treble - integrated into a 3-way passive crossover) in each earpiece.
 
I owned the JH16 prior to ordering the JH13. My initial impression of the JH16 was that it was too bassy for its own good. It's an impression I maintain to this day in most ways. I think the JH13 offers a superior tonal balance for most listening preferences.
 
A little side-story: In November 2011, while on Jury Duty, I was waiting outside the courthouse when I was tapped on the shoulder by a security guard. I had the JH13s in my ear and could not immediately hear what he was saying. I thought I was going to be asked to move for loitering. When I took my JH13s out of my ears to hear what the security guard was saying, he turned to me and said "sorry to bother you man, I saw you had the Jerry Harvey logo on your earphones and I wanted to know if those were the JH13 or JH16?" I was so surprised. It's not every day that people come up to me with questions like that. I smiled and told him that they were in fact the 13s. We then talked about music for the remainder of my break. I thought that was pretty awesome.
 
 
STRENGTHS TONAL BALANCE: No one else in the in-ear-market that I've come across gets tone quite like Jerry Harvey. The tone of the JH13 is very neutral with just a little added bass impact. The tone is just so natural-sounding and uncolored, yet not analytical at all. In consideration of tone alone, the JH13 is no less impressive than the HD800 and HE-6.
 
TRANSPARENT: The JH13 is as transparent as I feel an IEM is able to be. This is to say, I still feel a full-size headphone has the ability to exceed the JH13's transparency level.
 
MIDS: Out of a portable device such as an iPod, the mids of the JH13 sound a bit recessed. But when I use a tube amplifier, the mids gain presence and even sound just a notch forward. The resulting tone is wonderfully smooth.
 
BASS: With excellent extension and just a little more impact than neutral, the JH13 should offer enough bass to satisfy most listening preferences.
 
GENRE MASTER: The JH13 sounds good with anything - rock, jazz, classical, electronic, r&b, hip hop. It doesn't matter what you throw at it - it's going to sound good.
 
SUPER PORTABLE: Nothing even comes close to IEMs in terms of portability. You can fit the JH13 inside a small shirt pocket. Try doing that with an MDR-R10.
 
DETAILED: Considering that there is not much air for the sound to travel through, the JH13 are phenomenally detailed. They are the most detailed sounding IEM that I have heard.

AMAZING ISOLATION: The two indisputable benefits of IEMs are their portability and their ability to attenuate outside noise like nothing else. JH Audio claims that their IEMs attenuate up to 26 decibels of outside noise. While the ES5 clearly blocks out more sound for me, the JH13 does a phenomenal job as well.

IMAGING: Despite their inherently small soundstage, IEMs have the ability to image very well. The JH13 has very fine imaging abilities. However, I find that the UE10's imaging ability bests the JH13's with regard to precision.

EASY TO DRIVE: Due to their high sensitivity, most IEMs tend to be easy to drive. However, it seems to me that Jerry Harvey's in-ear designs benefit the more from amplification than many other manufacturers' do. While I can easily get rewarding results from plugging the JH13 directly into a portable player, I also like to use it with my home rig. I especially enjoy the way that the JH13 sounds when paired with the TTVJ Millett 307A.

CABLE: I actually prefer the cable design of the UE10 Pro to that of the JH13 because it is more resistant to tangling. However, I find that the plastic material JH Audio uses for the ear-loop reinforcement is an improvement over the material used for my UE10 cable (however, I happen to prefer the UERM's cable). The JH13 cable is easily detachable and replaceable.

CUSTOM ARTWORK OPTION: One cool feature of custom IEMs is that many manufacturers offer the option to customize the faceplate with artwork. My JH13 is pretty plain looking when compared with many others I've seen. My JH13 showcases a translucent purple shell with the words “JH Audio” in white lettering; I know it's “Zzzzz," but I think it looks nice.

SERIALIZED: As any custom-molded product should be, the JH13 is serialized. Like most of the other custom-molded IEMs that I own, the JH13 showcases the owner's initials next to the serial number.
 
 
WEAKNESSES IEM'S INHERENT SHORTCOMINGS: In my opinion, full-size headphones possess the ability to sound more natural than in-ear headphones.  The reason I feel this way is that much like natural acoustic sound, sound waves that emanate from a full-size headphone travel through the entirety of the ear, rather than just the canal. To me, this sense of space makes for a more natural auditory experience. Not everyone agrees with me on this matter, but I stand by my assertion.

IEM SOUNDSTAGE: To my ears, the soundstage presentation that IEMs portray is lacking in realism. As I've stated prior, a lot of people happen to like it, but for me, it is not competitive with a full-size headphone's soundstaging ability.

SIBILANCE: The JH13 can sometimes sound sibilant, but when paired with a tube amp, this sibilance is diminished quite a bit.

STORAGE: I am underwhelmed by the plastic case than ships with JH Audio's IEMs. The soft microfiber carrying pouch is not secure enough for carrying the IEMs in my pocket. The Ultimate Ears aluminum tin is much more effective for instance. When commuting, I carry my JH13s in a hard-shell Westone pouch or the Ultimate Ears tin.

RESELL VALUE: When I first joined Head-Fi, I remember someone putting up a thread in the “For Sale” section in which they announced the sale of their custom-molded earphones. This thread turned out to be a joke. Reselling a custom-molded product was almost unheard of at the time. Today however, there are many companies which offer a refitting process that makes reselling custom-molded earphones an option. Still, be prepared to take a major hit, should you resell them.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: I find that the treble presentation of the JH13 is nearly grain-free. However, I wouldn't mind a hair more extension and sparkle. The sound of the JH13 lacks just a pinch of airiness, but I'm really nitpicking here.
 
COMFORT: To be honest, I have never found custom-molded IEMs to be as comfortable as universal fit IEMs with foam tips. But after many years of getting used to it, I've adapted to the feeling of custom-molded shells. I find that the hard acrylic is less comfortable than the soft material used in Westone's and Sensaphonic's designs. Nevertheless, wearing the hard acrylic pieces inside my ears has become more livable with time.
 
REFITS?: I found that I needed to get refitted for both the JH13 and JH16. This could be perhaps because the hard acrylic shell lacks flexibility. If you're as unlucky as I was, this refitting process can become frustrating and (with added shipping costs) more of an expense than you had anticipated.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

B+

When judging an IEM's price-to-performance ratio, I only compare its sound to that of other IEMs. Overall, the JH13 offers the best sound quality of all the IEMs that I've tried. If you primarily listen to music out of a portable device or are simply looking for a top-tier travel companion, then the JH13 is surely one of the best options for you. If you are simply looking for the best sound quality money can buy, then I feel that there are options in the full-size headphone market that exceed the performance of any IEM.

I have encountered quite a few audiophiles who prefer the sound of IEMs to the sound of full-size headphones. These people express the opinion that the inside-the-head sound is very agreeable to their sensibilities. For these users, IEMs like the JH13, JH16 and ES5 constitute as top-tier choices.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: In-Ear
2. DRIVERS: Balanced Armature
3. IMPEDANCE: 28 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Extreme
5. AMPLIFICATION: Not Necessary but Worth Considering
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is (along with JH16)
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $1099 + Audiologist

*Back To The Index​

#22 SENNHEISER: HD600​

*Back To The Index
 

The HD600 has long been one of the best values in the headphone market. It represents one of those rare instances where the performance level is so high for the price that one may feel compelled to use it as the gold standard in terms of value; I certainly do. When I grade all other headphones' price-to-performance ratios, I consider the HD600 and how close it gets to perfection for around 400 dollars.
 
The HD600 is an evolution of the HD580, which debuted nearly 20 years ago. The HD600 has been in production for well over a decade and it has remained among the most recommendable headphones at its price for its entire production run. It may not compete with extreme-high-end models for the title of "best headphone"; It may not exhibit the transparency-level nor clarity-level of high-end Stax models; it may not be as emotive sounding as the R10s; it may not offer the impressive soundstage capabilities of the K1000, SR-Sigma, HD800 and T1; it may not offer quite the impact of the flagship orthodynamic models by Audez'e and HifiMan - but in its class, I know of no other headphone that is deserving of more acclaim.
 
 
STRENGTHS
EXCELLENT TONE: I adore the tone of the HD600. The bass, mids and treble are beautifully integrated. The tone is very close to neutral, featuring a pinch of extra warmth and body.

MIDS: The HD600 has a slightly forward midrange that adds weight to vocals. There are no odd peaks or dips here. Simply put, the HD600 possesses a very natural midrange.

GENRE MASTER: The HD600 is ready to serve its listener. Whether you like pop, classical, rock, hip hop, r&b, jazz, funk, blues, country, electronic, dance, world, etc. it will be a worthy purchase for you.

TRANSPARENT: While the HD600 lacks the speed and agility of electrostatic headphones, and although the HD600 doesn't offer quite the depth of several top-flight dynamic headphones, the HD600 is still a highly transparent headphone.

BASS: Some people will ultimately prefer the bass response of the HD600 to its younger sibling, the HD650. The HD600 has a leaner, yet more neutral bass response when compared with the HD650. The two headphones are largely similar, but it is in the bass presentation as well as the lower-mids where the two Sennheiser models reveal their most obvious differences.

NOT TOO AMP PICKY: With a nominal impedance rating of 300 ohms, the HD600 really does benefit from amplification. However, I have found that this headphone is not particularly amp picky. It sounds fantastic When paired with most of the amps with which I've used it. Furthermore, it sounds particularly good when connected in balanced mode.

COMFORT: The oval-shaped earpads are made of generously plush velour material. This helps make the HD600 a very comfortable headphone to wear. I prefer an oval shape to a round shape because an oval is more form-fitted to the human ear. I have used the HD600 for several hours without break. I have not a single complaint with regard to its comfort-level.

EASILY REMOVABLE PARTS: Many of the parts used in the HD600's construction, including the earpads, cable and grills are user replaceable. Parts are still easily obtainable from Sennheiser. This ensures that your headphone can look and function as new for a very long time.
 
 
WEAKNESSES LACKS DETAIL: The HD600 has a very smooth sound that can sometimes feel slow and slightly blurred. The HD600 is not the last word in terms of detail retrieval.

TREBLE: For as long as I've been a member of the Head-Fi community, the HD600 and HD650 have been criticized by some for having what many refer to as a veiled sound; a sound lacking in both air and harmonic content. I can understand this criticism. Conversely, the HD800 has been criticized for having the treble tilted too far forward. I don't agree with this criticism as the HD800 changes drastically from amp to amp (it can sound quite warm in some setups). The HD600's sonic presentation ultimately lacks some upper harmonics regardless of with which amp it is paired. The good news is, the treble is almost complete void of grain and is not at all harsh or sibilant.
 
 
ON THE FENCE SOUNDSTAGE: The HD600 has an open sound, yet its soundstage is not particularly wide. In my opinion, the soundstage presentation here is best suited for smaller ensembles. In particular, I really enjoy the way jazz music sounds with the HD600. But realistically, just about everything sounds good with the HD600.

IMAGING: The HD600 has the ability to image decently. However, it does not quite offer the pinpoint accuracy which some higher-end headphones are capable of offering.

DECAY: The HD600's decay is slightly slow, but at the same time is very smooth and natural. This makes for a rather engaging (and somewhat romantic) sonic experience.

CABLE: The quality of the HD600's stock cable is not too bad considering the price of the headphone. However, Sennheiser makes the cable easily removable. This makes it very easy to install an aftermarket cable replacement. I use the Moon Audio Silver Dragon when in balanced mode. I think the HD600 scales nicely in balanced mode. In the picture shown above, the HD600 is photographed with the HD650's stock cable.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A+

The HD600 is one of only five headphones that I have awarded an A+ value rating in this entire evaluation (the other four are Beyerdynamic's DT 880, Audio-Technica's ATH-AD900, and HifiMan's HE-400 & HE-500). Dollar for dollar, the HD600 is among the best sounding headphones I have ever heard. Therefore, I feel it deserves a place in every serious headphone collection.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 300 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A / SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Everything & Anything
8. CABLES USED: Moon Audio Silver Dragon Balanced / Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $399.95 (without aftermarket cable) $699.95 (with aftermarket cable)

*Back To The Index​

#21 SENNHEISER: HD650​

*Back To The Index
 
The HD650 is an extension of the HD600, which as I mentioned above was an evolution of the HD580. The HD650 and HD600 are both still being manufactured today whereas the HD580 has long been discontinued. There's never been unanimity within the audio community with regard to which of these three headphones is the best. The HD650 is the warmest and most-colored sounding of the trilogy. Simultaneously, the HD650 is the most euphonic sounding of the three.
 
I have often thought of the HD650 as a sepia-hued lens for music. Its sound has a quiet and calming charm about it. I can listen to HD650 for hours and hours because of the sheer beauty of its sound. Yes, the HD650 is not neutral; yes, the HD650 lacks some overall clarity, but even with its faults, the HD650 is an extremely involving headphone which, in my opinion, slightly eclipses its more neutral siblings - the HD580 and HD600.
 
I should mention that the sonic differences between the HD650 and HD600 are minimal. They are virtually as close to one another, sonically, as the SR-007 MkI and SR-007 MkII are. The cosmetic design of the HD650 and HD600 appears to be derived from Sennheiser's own out-of-production flagship, the HE90 (Orpheus). The dimensions of the HD600 and the HD650 are nearly identical and, as a result, many of the parts are interchangeable. The most noticeable cosmetic difference between the two models is the HD650's solid-color finish versus the HD600's marble finish. The two models also feature a different headband padding design.
 
One final thing I will say about the HD650 is that when I joined head-fi in 2007, the HD650 had a reputation within the community for being one of the most prestigious headphones in production. Today, it has taken a back seat to several recent flagships, including Sennheiser's own HD800. I must say however, the HD650 remains one of the most talked about headphones in the community, and for good reason.
 
 
STRENGTHS BEAUTIFUL TONE: Such body, such warmth, such smoothness! The HD650's tone encapsulates what a beautiful laid-back sound signature is. The HD650 takes the sound of the HD600 and tints it to a warmer color by just pinch or two.

MIDS: The HD650 showcases a forward midrange which adds weight to vocals. In particular, I really like the way this forwardness affects the presentation of the male voice.

TRANSPARENT: While the HD650 lacks the speed and agility of electrostatic headphones, and although the HD650 doesn't quite offer the depth which several top-flight dynamic headphones do, the HD650 is a highly transparent headphone.

BASS: HD650 showcases a slightly more impactful bass than the HD600. This causes the HD650 to sound weightier. Some people may ultimately prefer the bass response of the HD600 because it is more neutral. The two headphones are largely similar, but it is in the bass presentation as well as lower-mids where the two Sennheiser models reveal their most obvious differences.

NOT TOO AMP PICKY: With a nominal impedance rating of 300 ohms, the HD650 really does benefit from a headphone amplifier. However, I have found that this headphone is not particularly amp picky. It sounds fantastic out of most amps with which I've paired it. Like the HD600, it sounds particularly good when in balanced mode.

EXCELS WITH MOST GENRES: The HD650 sounds fantastic with rock music. Its warmish tone makes bright recordings more livable. One of my best friends actually refers to the HD650 as "the rock headphones." After years of using the HD650, I've concluded that it is not quite airy enough to excel with classical music. Other than this, I believe it can satisfy pretty much any musical appetite.

COMFORT: The oval-shaped earpads are made of generously plush velour material. This helps make the HD650 a very comfortable headphone to wear. I prefer an oval shape to a circular shape because an oval is more form-fitted to the human ear. I have used the HD650 for several hours without break. I have not a single complaint with regard to its comfort-level.

EASILY REMOVABLE PARTS: Many of the parts used in the HD650's construction, including the earpads, cable and grills are user replaceable. Parts are still easily obtainable from Sennheiser. This ensures that your headphone can look and function as new for a very long time.
 
 
WEAKNESSES TOO SMOOTH: The HD650 can sometimes sound suffocated in its own warmth. It can sometimes sound as though it is attempting to lull you to sleep.

TREBLE: For as long as I've been a member of the Head-Fi community, the HD600 and HD650 have been criticized by some for having what many refer to as a veiled sound; a sound lacking in both air and harmonic content. I can understand this criticism. Conversely, the HD800 has been criticized for having the treble tilted too far forward. I don't agree with this criticism as the HD800 changes drastically from amp to amp (it can sound quite warm in some setups). The HD650's sonic presentation ultimately lacks some upper harmonics regardless of with which amp it is paired. It may in fact be more "veiled" than the HD600. The good news is, the treble is almost complete void of grain and is not at all harsh or sibilant.

HD600: Not only do the HD600 and HD650 sound very much alike, but many actually prefer the HD600's more neutral tone to the more laid-back tone of the HD650. Considering that the HD600 sells for 100 dollars less, the HD600 is clearly a better value.
 
 
ON THE FENCE SOUNDSTAGE: The HD650 exhibits an open sound. Yet its soundstage is not particularly wide. When comparing the soundstaging abilities of the HD600 and HD650, I find that the HD650's soundstage is, perhaps just a notch wider. In my opinion, the soundstage here is best suited for smaller ensembles, in my opinion.

IMAGING: The HD650 has the ability to image fairly well. However, it doesn't offer quite the pinpoint accuracy that some higher-end headphones are capable of.

DECAY:  The HD650's decay is slightly slow, but at the same time is very smooth and natural. This makes for a rather engaging (and somewhat romantic) sonic experience.

CABLE: The quality of the HD650's stock cable is not too bad considering the price of the headphone. Some have remarked that its internal design is a downgrade from the HD600's stock cable. However, Sennheiser makes the cable easily removable. This makes it easy to install an aftermarket cable replacement. I use the Moon Audio Silver Dragon when in balanced mode. I think the HD650 scales especially well in balanced mode; it opens up the soundstage a bit.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

A

The HD650 is one of the most beautiful sounding headphones that I've ever heard. It seduces you with its sultry tone. It always brings a smile to my face when I use them. At about a hundred dollars more than the HD600, I feel that the HD650 is less impressive. But at the same time, I prefer the HD650's sound signature overall.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 300 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Highly Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A / SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Jazz, Rock, Metal, Blues, Reggae, R&B, Hip Hop, Pop, Electronic
8. CABLES USED: Moon Audio Silver Dragon Balanced / Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least 1 Known to me (unconfirmed sonic differences)
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $499.95 (without aftermarket cable) $799.95 (with aftermarket cable)

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#20 AKG: K1000​

*Back To The Index
 
The K1000 is one of the most unique headphones ever created. The transducers are enclosed, not in a stationary ear-cup, but in a housing that is able to swivel. This design allows for the user to customize the width of their desired soundstage. When the housings are moved to their widest point, the K1000's soundstage can sound quite speaker-like. It is truly impressive - something every headphone collector should hear at some point. However, do not purchase the K1000 without knowing precisely what you're getting into. The K1000 is no ordinary headphone. It requires a lot of power and was, in fact, designed to be powered by a speaker amp, not a headphone amp. In today's expansive and accommodative market, several manufacturers have specifically designed amps in order to power the K1000 and other similarly power-hungry headphones.
 
My personal experience with the K1000 has been one of frustration and mystification. I've had the opportunity to hear several pairs of K1000s, and I presently own two pairs. Ultimately, I come away each time with the realization that the K1000 has a significant design flaw - Rattle. With every pair that I've listened to, I have noticed that the grills make a rattling sound every once in a while. This rattle occurs regardless of the output volume level. I have discussed this issue with many owners. Most have told me that they have never noticed this rattle-like sound with their pair. However, of the seven pairs I've tried, I have noticed it on each and every one. I' managed to significantly reduce the frequency of this rattle with one of my pairs by putting electric tape around the perimeter of the grills on both sides. It doesn't look so sharp, but it reduces the rattle by roughly 75%.
 
One day at a Head-Fi meet, I came upon a K1000 that appeared to be in excellent condition. After listening to it for about 10 minutes, I noticed that I was not hearing any rattle from this pair. I inquired with the owner about purchasing the headphone from him; sure enough this K1000 was soon my pair. Well, about two days after I purchased it, I started to notice rattling sounds emanating from this new pair. I contacted the seller to ask if he'd ever experienced such a sound. He told me that he did in fact occasionally notice the rattle sound and that it bothered him somewhat. He then told me that several other K1000 owners admitted to hearing the same sound with their respective pairs. In a strange way I was relieved to hear that I wasn't alone in spotting such an obvious issue. I decided to keep this K1000 because it was in such fine condition. Over time, I've noticed that the rattle issue frequently dissuades me from using the K1000.
 
The soundstage which the K1000 offers is, perhaps, the best in the industry. Had AKG addressed and rectified the rattling issue, the K1000 would most definitely be found in the top 15 on this list. In a sense, the rattling issue bothers me so much, that I considered disqualifying the K1000 from the top 20. Ultimately however, it seems that several owners do not hear/experience this issue. I have had several respected audiophiles and industry professionals listen to my pairs of K1000s; many of them do not hear the rattle whatsoever.
 
It is also worth mentioning that the K1000 was produced for approximately 15 years. In this time, it underwent at least one design alteration. It is believed that this production change led to the existence of two variations of the K1000. At approximately the #4000 serial number mark, it is believed by many that AKG started using an altered driver which featured a leaner bass response. Both of the K1000s that I own precede this serial number and therefore I cannot confirm this theory. I have never had the opportunity to do an A/B comparison with an earlier and later pair.
 
 
STRENGTHS SOUNDSTAGE KING: The K1000's soundstage is not only the widest that I've heard, but it's also the most customizable. When the K1000's left and right housings are swiveled to their widest point, the resulting soundstage width is ideally-suited for orchestral music and opera. When the housings are swiveled to a narrower position, the soundstage achieved is better-suited for smaller combos. With regard to soundstage customization, the K1000 is probably the most impressive headphone ever made.

NEUTRAL: It seems to me that the K1000 aims to be tonally neutral; it does not miss the mark. It is one of the more neutral headphones I have heard.

IMAGING: The K1000's imaging ability is superb. The angled drivers allow for a finely-contoured listening experience. In order to achieve the most accurate imaging presentation possible, it is crucial that one matches up the angles of the driver housings.

MIDS: While I would not say that the K1000 is at the front rank of the “best mids competition," it does succeed in being relatively uncolored without demonstrating any bothersome peaks or dips. Sometimes however, the K1000 renders vocals with a bit more leanness than I'd prefer.

NATURAL CROSSFEED: Loudspeaker devotees will typically criticize a headphones' performance for the inherent absence of crossfeed between channels. What this criticism refers to is how headphones encompass the ears, leaving each ear without the ability to hea the opposite channel. With nautral acoustic sound , the brain analyzes the location of a single sound source by using both ears. When listening to sound with headphones, the brain's ability to analyze the sound's location and dimension is limited. Some dedicated headphone amplifiers feature a built-in simulated crossfeed option, intended to add a realistic quality to the headphone's soundstage presentation. However, because of the fact that the K1000's transducers are placed a considerable distance from the ears, natural crossfeed occurs when listening to them.  As a result, for some the K1000 may sound more natural than other headphones.

CLASSICAL MUSIC: Very few headphones can compete with the K1000 with regard to classical music, particularly with large ensemble works.

TREBLE: The K1000's treble is well-extended and nearly free of grain. The treble response of this headphone provides a great sense of air around the instruments.

SERIALIZED: Each K1000 is assigned its own individual serial number. I have heard from several sources that, beginning at approximately serial #4000, the manufacturer began to use an altered transducer, which resulted in a leaner bass response. I have not been able to confirm this from firsthand experience. However, this specific serial number mark would probably coincide with Harman International Industries' acquisition of AKG Acoustics in 1994. Maybe this trivial factoid is significant to understanding the sound change / maybe not.
 
 
WEAKNESSES RATTLE: The worst thing about the K1000, by far, is that there are occasions when the metal grills create a rattle-like sound. This rattle sound resembles the unpleasant muffled vibration achieved by placing an object on resonating piano strings. Considering that this headphone is, all-round, one of the best ever made, it is highly unfortunate that this rattle issue exists. While the rattle is not particularly loud, if you are listening with full attention, you may find it disturbing. The rattle doesn't occur all the time; I can sometimes listen for a while and not hear any rattle. But the fact that it will eventually occur is somewhat distracting. Because of this distraction, I do not use the K1000 all that much.

COMFORT: Unlike most full-size headphones, the K1000 does not feature ear-cups that encompass the ears. Instead, the K1000 features pads that rest near the temples of the skull, while the transducer housings sit adjacent to the ears. Although the K1000's headband is made of a supple material, its elasticity doesn't quite weaken the pressure exerted by temple pads. Due to its heavier than average weight as well as its unusual design, the K1000 is not the last word in comfort. While it may not be quite as uncomfortable as I've made it sound, I do know quite a few ex-owners who sold their K1000 because of comfort issues.

LACKS TRANSPARENCY: Despite its amazing soundstage presentation, the K1000 is not the most transparent headphone I have ever heard. Its overall tonality lacks a sense of naturalness at times.

DIFFICULT TO POWER: The K1000 is a power hungry beast. It was designed by AKG to be connected to a speaker amp! Being as such, you can't use just any old amp to power them. Of the amps which I own, I feel that the Woo Audio 5 drives the K1000 best. The Woo Audio 5 features an output specifically designed to power the K1000; it offers 8 watts per channel at 140 ohms output impedance.

OUT OF PRODUCTION: The K1000 has been long out of production. Despite its popularity and legendary status among audiophiles, Harman Industries (owner of AKG) does not appear to be interested in bringing the K1000 back. However, the good news is that many of the parts are still available for repair/refurbishing purposes.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
BASS: The bass quality of the K1000 is very good. However, it does lack extension. Bass-heads will not be pleased with the K1000.

DETAILED: The K1000 offers a uniquely detailed sonic presentation due to its large and tailorable soundstage properties. However, I have noticed that some nuances and intricacies seem to get smeared at times.

STORAGE: The K1000's wood case was offered in a black finish or plain wood finish. Inside the case was a foam interlay, specifically designed to fit and protect the headphone. It's a rugged, but ultimately plain-looking, storage design.

CABLE: Both of my K1000s have aftermarket cables installed. I certainly wish, however, that the K1000 was designed with a user-removable cable design.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C+

The K1000 is one of those headphones that you either love or hate. Either way, the headphone is known to leave an impression on each and ever person who hears it. The rattling issue (discussed in detail above) disturbs me. If it were not for this issue, I would have awarded the K1000 no less than a grade of  B in terms of value. For those who appreciate a large soundstage and are prepared to meet the necessary power requirements, the K1000 is worth considering.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 120 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Absolutely Requires Amp
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: Woo Audio 5
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical / Acoustic
8. CABLES USED: Stefan Audio Art Equinox on 1 Pair / DIY cable on other pair
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: At least one known to me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Once Was
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: Out Of Production
12. COST: $900-$1500 (estimated)

 ​

*Back To The Index
 

#19 ULTRASONE: Edition 10​

*Back To The Index
 
In all the time that I've been a member of the Head-Fi community, I have never seen a flagship headphone released to as unfavorable a reception as the Edition 10. Several knowledgeable members of the community detested this headphone. Many of these unfavorable reviews came from people who purchased the headphone (ultimately to sell it on the used market) while other unfavorable reviews came from people who auditioned the headphone (but passed on purchasing it). The reputation of the Edition 10 seemed to hit rock bottom when Tyll of innerfidelity.com (a man whose opinion I have much respect for) did an extensive review of this headphone and produced what appeared to be unfavorable measurements of its technical performance. And of course there's a video that Tyll made which makes me laugh every time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L34S4Tt1EuQ
 
I waited a long time before purchasing the Edition 10 because I was hardly enthusiastic about the concept that I'd be blowing money on such a highly-criticized pair of headphones. When I finally decided to take the plunge, I did so for review purposes only. However, I am truly glad that I purchased them.
 
While I can clearly understand the criticisms which have plagued this headphone's reputation, I have to trust my ears - my ears say wow! There are certain things which the Edition 10 does so well - so astonishingly well - that I am able to forgive it for its shortcomings. In my mind, the Edition 10's most obvious shortcoming is its price.
 
When Ultrasone released the Edition 10 in 2010, they priced it as the most expensive dynamic transducer headphone on the market. At $2750, it is more than double the price of the HE-6 and LCD-2; it is nearly double the price of the T1, HD800 and PS1000; it is ­even more expensive than Stax's well-established Omega 2 MkII. It seems to me that the Edition 10 was unable to live up to expectations, primarily because of its asking price. In a market where headphone veterans such as Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic price their flagship models at around half that of Ultrasone, the Edition 10 may have been doomed for criticism.
 
Following the Edition 10's initial sour reception, Ultrasone attempted to relieve the public by announcing that there was a quality control issue regarding the Edition 10's earpads. According to the manufacturer, some earpads were improperly padded. Supposedly, the defect caused the headphone to sound poor. This revelation led to a mixed uproar of disappointment, confusion, disbelief, and relief among those who had already purchased the headphones. Ultimately however, the general opinion regarding the Edition 10 remains one of polarization. I have confirmed that the earpads on my pair are not defective.
 
I hope that the Edition 10's story will be considered by manufacturers going forward - that pricing can have tremendous negative consequences. Had the Edition 10 been given a price tag that was more in line with the competition, I believe its overall reception would have been warmer.
 
 
STRENGTHS AMAZING SOUNDSTAGE: The Edition 10 offers one of the most unique soundstage representations that I've ever heard in a headphone. With this headphone, the soundstage totally encompasses your head, causing almost a surround-like effect. If this is evidence of Ultrasone's S-Logic design, then the Edition 10 is the first headphone I've used to actually demonstrate the effects of this design to a very noticeable degree. While the K1000 and Sigma showcase a speaker-like sound presentation, the Edition 10 conveys the feeling of surround-sound unlike I've ever experienced from a headphone. The K1000 is my choice for "soundstage king" because of its customizable nature, but for me, the Edition 10's soundstage is hardly less impressive.
 
DETAILED: The Edition 10 is wonderfully detailed. It may, in fact, be the most detailed dynamic transducer headphone I have heard. Occasionally this detailed sound can feel over-emphasized, but it is quite impressive nonetheless.

EXCITING: What is an exciting sound signature? For me, it is a sound signature that keeps me coming back to it, not because of its technical perfection, but because it is very unique in the way that it conveys the music.

BASS: The Edition 10 has a robust bass response. It lacks a little extension, but it is of a very enjoyable quality.

AMAZING LOOKS: Alright Ultrasone, you got me here. The Edition 10 is my pick for the best looking headphone. It's a pleasure just for the eyes to behold. Unfortunately, when the Edition 10 was released to poor reviews, its aesthetic appeal was sort of stigmatized by references to the headphone's high price being a reflection of a skin-deep design.

COMFORT: I've heard the Edition 10 referred to as the most comfortable headphone ever, but for me, that award goes to the HD800. Nevertheless, the Edition 10 is a very comfortable headphone. The leather ear-cups are patterned with tiny ventilation holes; this resolves most of the issues that result from leather's thermal qualities.

EASY TO DRIVE: The Edition 10 is not particularly difficult to drive. However, I have been told by someone whose opinion I trust that it happens to be very revealing of its source. I have only evaluated the Edition 10 using a single source - the MSB Diamond DAC.

STAND: The Edition 10 is one of only four headphones in this whole evaluation that ships with its own proprietary stand. The other three are the Fostex TH900 and two Sony models, the  Qualia 010 and MDR-SA5000. In my opinion, the Edition 10 comes with the most impressive stand of the four.

STORAGE: The wood case that ships with the Edition 10 is among the more attractive headphone cases I've seen. In terms of grandiosity, I would say that the Edition 10's storage case comes in 4th behind the MD-R10, SR-009 and HE90.

SERIALIZED: The Edition 10 is serialized. According to Ultrasone, there will only be 2010 units made of the Edition 10.
 
 
WEAKNESSES NOT TRANSPARENT: It really is a shame that the Edition 10 lacks transparency. If it were more transparent, I would be inclined to place it in my top 12 headphones. Unfortunately, the Edition 10's sound is blemished by a slight metallic hue. There are moments where the Edition 10 sounds shrill and unpleasant. For this reason, I prefer to listen to the Edition 10 at lower volume levels.

NOT NEUTRAL: The mids of the Edition 10 are noticeably recessed. The Edition 10 is clearly not a neutral sounding headphone.

MIDS: The midrange presentation of the Edition 10 lacks both presence and naturalness.

EARPAD DEFECTS?: According to Ultrasone, many early pairs were shipped with defective earpads. If you are in possession of a pair with an early serial number (under #400), then it may be worth sending to Ultrasone for evaluation.
 
 
ON THE FENCE
TREBLE: The Edition 10's sound signature is a bright one. The treble is truly forward. This persuades me to suggest that it may be worth hearing the Edition 10 before purchasing it. Its treble presentation forces me to listen at a lower volume than I would normally. However for the detail it provides, I think the treble presentation here is very interesting. Yet there are times when I've noticed the treble as sounding strident and metallic. As such, the Edition 10's treble presentation has sometimes prevented me from using the headphone for extended listening sessions. I can understand how the Edtion 10's treble presentation would be a deal-breaker for some.

IMAGING: Despite offering a highly unique sound presentation, the Edition 10 lacks some of the pinpoint accuracy which some other high-end headphones have.

CABLE: Not everyone sees it my way - not everyone thinks that a user replaceable cable is preferable. However, I don't like re-wiring expensive headphones. I prefer when a headphone features the option to easily detach the stock cable for replacement. The Edition 10 seems to come with a decent cable; it comes with an extension cable as well. However, because it is hardwired, I will probably never opt to hear my pair re-terminated with a different cable.
 
 
FOR THE PRICE

C

The Edition 10 is an overpriced headphone. There's no way around it. It is priced too high based on how it performs against other manufacturers' less expensive offerings. However, I still consider the Edition 10 to be an excellent and undervalued headphone within the community. It offers one of the most unique sonic presentations that I have ever come across; it is a presentation that I enjoy immensely. And as I said before, it's a strikingly attractive headphone.
 
 
QUICK CHECK

1. DESIGN: Full-Size
2. DRIVERS: Dynamic
3. IMPEDANCE: 40 Ohms
4. ISOLATION: Little to None
5. AMPLIFICATION: Recommended
6. MY PREFERRED AMP: TTVJ Millett 307A / Woo Audio 5 / SPL Phonitor
7. SOUNDS BEST WITH: Classical / Jazz / Well-Recorded Music
8. CABLES USED: Stock
9. REVISIONS KNOWN: None Known to Me
10. FLAGSHIP STATUS: Currently Is
11. PRODUCTION STATUS AS OF 2012: In Production
12. COST: $2749

 ​

*Back To The Index