[Alfredo3001]

I now own T1 3rd gen, so I might be able to answer some of the question for you guys. Just do not expect me going into too much technical detail, I never wrote any audio equipment review before and English is also not my first language.

I currently own Audeze LCD 2 (Fazor), and using Meier Corda Jazz FF + Meier Corda Daccord FF, I have heard many of open back headphones below £1000 but if you will ask for some direct comparison it will be from memory only. I also owned original T1, T1 2nd gen, and DT 1990.

How does it comparte to the t1.2nd? Bass is tight? Soundstage? It sounds more open? Vocals?

 

[Omnax1]

How does it comparte to the t1.2nd? Bass is tight? Soundstage? It sounds more open? Vocals?

Bass: More bass than T1.2 for sure. Bass extends to about 25hz. Bass sounds tight and well controlled but it sounds elevated compared to rest of the frequencies. It is very visceral and has great impact, I would personally prefer slightly less and I do like bass.

Soundstage: T1.2 was semi open, 3rd gen is suppose to be open, going from memory I would say that sound stage width is either same as T1.2 or marginally better. However what has improved much more is depth of soundstage.

Vocals: There is dip in midrange, somewhere from 900 or 1000hz. Vocals do not sound very upfront, however they do fit very nicely into overall sound signature.

More open?: I would not say so, it feels like headphone is much better damped. Even though there are still some peaks somewhere about 7 to 9k, they do not sound sharp or annoying at all (DT1990 was much worse). Overall headphone has warm sound signature, it still has amazing detail and imaging, to be honest I am not sure how they did that.

 

[Alfredo3001]

Bass: More bass than T1.2 for sure. Bass extends to about 25hz. Bass sounds tight and well controlled but it sounds elevated compared to rest of the frequencies. It is very visceral and has great impact, I would personally prefer slightly less and I do like bass.

Soundstage: T1.2 was semi open, 3rd gen is suppose to be open, going from memory I would say that sound stage width is either same as T1.2 or marginally better. However what has improved much more is depth of soundstage.

Vocals: There is dip in midrange, somewhere from 900 or 1000hz. Vocals do not sound very upfront, however they do fit very nicely into overall sound signature.

More open?: I would not say so, it feels like headphone is much better damped. Even though there are still some peaks somewhere about 7 to 9k, they do not sound sharp or annoying at all (DT1990 was much worse). Overall headphone has warm sound signature, it still has amazing detail and imaging, to be honest I am not sure how they did that.

Thank you so much! Sounds like the tunning is kind of what they did with the tygr and the dt990 32ohm driver.

 

[kman1211]

Bass: More bass than T1.2 for sure. Bass extends to about 25hz. Bass sounds tight and well controlled but it sounds elevated compared to rest of the frequencies. It is very visceral and has great impact, I would personally prefer slightly less and I do like bass.

Soundstage: T1.2 was semi open, 3rd gen is suppose to be open, going from memory I would say that sound stage width is either same as T1.2 or marginally better. However what has improved much more is depth of soundstage.

Vocals: There is dip in midrange, somewhere from 900 or 1000hz. Vocals do not sound very upfront, however they do fit very nicely into overall sound signature.

More open?: I would not say so, it feels like headphone is much better damped. Even though there are still some peaks somewhere about 7 to 9k, they do not sound sharp or annoying at all (DT1990 was much worse). Overall headphone has warm sound signature, it still has amazing detail and imaging, to be honest I am not sure how they did that.

There is more bass it's also quite different and I agree much more visceral, more like what I got from the DT 1990 than the T1.2's or Amiron Home's bass.

The sound of the T1.3 is more direct and intimate than the T1.2 which I find slightly laid-back and more of a softer sweeter sound.

Soundstage is in fact slightly wider to my ears and I agree it has a lot more depth. Reminds me more of the depth I get from my DT 480.

Vocals do appear more present than the T1.2 in my direct comparison but there may be a dip like you said, I am using them on a Lyr 3 and I haven't tried different tubes or other amps yet so my perception of the mids may be altered some, I'll try them on the Schiit Heresy I have just to confirm if anything changes. There is some mild energy in the upper treble but notably less than the T1.2, DT 1990, and Amiron Home.

Openness feels about the same and I agree it's much better damped. It does have amazing detail and imaging, honestly I'd say they outshine the gen 2 here even.

Here is some pictures of some of the changes to the damping. Inside there is foam behind the grill. Whereas it’s a metal mesh on the T1.2.

 

[SSL443]

Here is some pictures of some of the changes to the damping. Inside there is foam behind the grill. Whereas it’s a metal mesh on the T1.2.

Great stuff. If it isn't too much trouble, a shot of the back of one of the pads would be great as well. I'm curious if they changed the hole pattern from the T1.2 or if all the sonic changes are from what you've pictured so far.

Might also be interesting to see how they sound without the foam in front of the drivers.

 

[yeboyi]

more like what I got from the DT 1990 than the T1.2's or Amiron Home's bass.

So my guesstimation were true. I write it couple of days ago

I now own T1 3rd gen, so I might be able to answer some of the question for you guys. Just do not expect me going into too much technical detail, I never wrote any audio equipment review before and English is also not my first language.

I currently own Audeze LCD 2 (Fazor), and using Meier Corda Jazz FF + Meier Corda Daccord FF, I have heard many of open back headphones below £1000 but if you will ask for some direct comparison it will be from memory only. I also owned original T1, T1 2nd gen, and DT 1990.

Can you compare it to LCD 2F, DT1990 and Ananda if you heard it ?

 

[donthuang]

Seems another long time to burn-in.

But i can imaging after 300~400hrs actually using, this would be the most transparent dynamic headphone ever in 1000 dollors range .

 

[kman1211]

Great stuff. If it isn't too much trouble, a shot of the back of one of the pads would be great as well. I'm curious if they changed the hole pattern from the T1.2 or if all the sonic changes are from what you've pictured so far.

Might also be interesting to see how they sound without the foam in front of the drivers.

I’ll try the foam on the T1.2 as well but a bit later when I delve into more amps and the like. The pads are similar but the T1.3 pads are stuffed more than the T1.2 pads so not quite the same but similar. T1.3 pads on left, notice they are quite stuffed and T1.2 pads on right. I also notice a small recess square patch on the outer rims of the T1.3 pads you can feel, since it’s on both pads I assume it’s intentional, I’m going to use it has a marker for when I tinker with pad swaps so the wear will stay even.

 

[Omnax1]

So my guesstimation were true. I write it couple of days ago

Can you compare it to LCD 2F, DT1990 and Ananda if you heard it ?

I have LCD 2F now, before I owned Ananda, DT 1990 few years back so I will try my best but I will be brief.

LCD 2F:

Bass: Goes slightly lower, Bass is very clean on LCD 2F, I normally use slight bass boost on it about +3db from 100hz down. When there is bass or rumble, it sounds extremely clean and it sound like it is everywhere, but to me it lacks impact. There is more bass on T1 than LCD, but bass sounds different its easier to pinpoint, it also hits harder.

Mids: Sounds very similar both headphones have recessed mid range from about 1khz, LCD slightly more than T1.

Highs: I do not like highs on LCD, they sound thin and slightly metalic. It is my least favorite part of the headphone, you can hear them but I do not consider them being of a good quality. I was forced t use equalizer to be able enjoy this headphone, 6k peak for me was too much for me. Highs on T1 are more detailed but at the same time much easier to listen, they have certain body to them and they sound right without any brightness.

Soundstage: About same

Detail: T1 all the way, more precise much more exciting.

Overall, without equaliser T1 for sure. After equalizing LCD it gets much closer and LCD holds its own. But they both have very different sound signature. LCD is very relaxing where T1 is like party animal

Ananda:

I have to say I really like this headphone, but I did like HEX v2 more. Due to comfort and better bass.

Overall I do like Ananda a lot,I think it is great headphone which sounds very clean, it has great vocals and very good highs as well. Out of those three this would be the one I would pick if I had to take only one. In general I was pretty happy with Ananda. The only thing I did not like was imaging, ananda has very good soundstage but I always had trouble to pinpoint certain instruments and I would prefer slightly more bass again about 3db, and I did like HEX v2 headband more than Ananda but I feel Ananda was better build.

Compared to T1 they do not share much. T1 is more intimate experience, more bass, more details, very precise. Ananda on the other hand is really well balanced, it sounds great but it lack certain excitement. Ananda sounds much more open, where T1 sounds much more precise and focused.

DT 1990:

I think T1 has about same amount of bass as DT 1990 with balanced pads. I did prefer to use DT 1990 with analytical pads, as I found bass and mids to be extremely well balanced. Where it did not work for me were highs, they were of better quality than LCD but they were just too sharp for me, I could not stand them.I do not remember exactly where there was peak but in general I am very sensitive between 5 to 7k and much less in 8 to 10k.

T1 has slightly more fun signature, and it feels like it is technically better than DT 1990. It has more and better detail than DT 1990, but difference is where DT 1990 was harsh and sibilant, T1 is sweet and enjoyable. I also prefer comfort of T1 because in DT 1990 there was thick foam which was touching my ears, that did annoy me alot . In T1 damping is much thinner and due to angled driver there is more space.

DT 1990 with analytical pads more balanced sound signature up to about 4k. From there I would give it to T1.

However there is one big difference between two. T1 portrait soundstage differently. its much more in front and deep than DT1990. They also sound different overall, it is hard to explain for me, but T1 sounds really well damped, at first it might feel like its not very open, but its not the case, it has amazing detail, imaging and precision everything feels very cohesive and has its place. DT1990 due to treble peaks sound airier but also drier.


Hope this helps, also please note I have got T1 today so I had limited experience so far and I have to admit it is hard for me to remember every detail from every headphone in the past. I do remember well their biggest strengths and weaknesses but it is hard for me to go into every aspect without knowing that I might not be 100% sure.

 

[CTR640]

How come the DT1990 is so damn populair while it's very bright and painfull? DT770 has wonderfull bass slam but this type of treble... My least favorite HP.
My T5p.2 has a very pleasantly treble. T1.3 has elevated bass? I think that will be nice for me.

 

[rasmushorn]

There is more bass it's also quite different and I agree much more visceral, more like what I got from the DT 1990 than the T1.2's or Amiron Home's bass.

The sound of the T1.3 is more direct and intimate than the T1.2 which I find slightly laid-back and more of a softer sweeter sound.

Soundstage is in fact slightly wider to my ears and I agree it has a lot more depth. Reminds me more of the depth I get from my DT 480.

Vocals do appear more present than the T1.2 in my direct comparison but there may be a dip like you said, I am using them on a Lyr 3 and I haven't tried different tubes or other

How you describe this reminds me of the difference between the original T1 and T5p, which made me prefer the T5p. I think my ears will like the new T1.3.

 

[Omnax1]

How come the DT1990 is so damn populair while it's very bright and painfull? DT770 has wonderfull bass slam but this type of treble... My least favorite HP.
My T5p.2 has a very pleasantly treble. T1.3 has elevated bass? I think that will be nice for me.

Well, some people tolerate certain high frequencies better than others and we all have different hearing. Also for me it was easy to get DT 1990 to where I like by very simple EQ tuning. However I do prefer to avoid EQ at all if possible. I think it is very good headphone for the price.

 

[kman1211]

How come the DT1990 is so damn populair while it's very bright and painfull? DT770 has wonderfull bass slam but this type of treble... My least favorite HP.
My T5p.2 has a very pleasantly treble. T1.3 has elevated bass? I think that will be nice for me.

Honestly probably because it’s an engaging headphone to listen to. I personally got a lot of enjoyment out of the DT 1990, but it’s treble is what led me to sell it over time. Was a bit above my threshold. I found the HD 660 S similar in engagement but it’s treble was a bit too blunted even compared to a HD 650, it lacked some bass depth, and it fatigued me in an odd way so was a no go. But the T1.3 doesn’t have either of these issues and is more resolving and has better transients than either, that means it’s T1.3 has my favored sound signature as I generally prefer an engaging and intimate sound but with the right type of transients to keep me engaged and not having too much or too little treble. The good transients also make the headphone pleasant to my ears, something about Beyers causes my ears very little to no fatigue and sound quite “right” especially if they aren’t too bright. I believe it’s their transients.

Basically the T1.3 seems to be exactly what I’ve been looking for in a headphone.

 

[yeboyi]

I have LCD 2F now, before I owned Ananda, DT 1990 few years back so I will try my best but I will be brief.

LCD 2F:

Bass: Goes slightly lower, Bass is very clean on LCD 2F, I normally use slight bass boost on it about +3db from 100hz down. When there is bass or rumble, it sounds extremely clean and it sound like it is everywhere, but to me it lacks impact. There is more bass on T1 than LCD, but bass sounds different its easier to pinpoint, it also hits harder.

Mids: Sounds very similar both headphones have recessed mid range from about 1khz, LCD slightly more than T1.

Highs: I do not like highs on LCD, they sound thin and slightly metalic. It is my least favorite part of the headphone, you can hear them but I do not consider them being of a good quality. I was forced t use equalizer to be able enjoy this headphone, 6k peak for me was too much for me. Highs on T1 are more detailed but at the same time much easier to listen, they have certain body to them and they sound right without any brightness.

Soundstage: About same

Detail: T1 all the way, more precise much more exciting.

Overall, without equaliser T1 for sure. After equalizing LCD it gets much closer and LCD holds its own. But they both have very different sound signature. LCD is very relaxing where T1 is like party animal

Ananda:

I have to say I really like this headphone, but I did like HEX v2 more. Due to comfort and better bass.

Overall I do like Ananda a lot,I think it is great headphone which sounds very clean, it has great vocals and very good highs as well. Out of those three this would be the one I would pick if I had to take only one. In general I was pretty happy with Ananda. The only thing I did not like was imaging, ananda has very good soundstage but I always had trouble to pinpoint certain instruments and I would prefer slightly more bass again about 3db, and I did like HEX v2 headband more than Ananda but I feel Ananda was better build.

Compared to T1 they do not share much. T1 is more intimate experience, more bass, more details, very precise. Ananda on the other hand is really well balanced, it sounds great but it lack certain excitement. Ananda sounds much more open, where T1 sounds much more precise and focused.

DT 1990:

I think T1 has about same amount of bass as DT 1990 with balanced pads. I did prefer to use DT 1990 with analytical pads, as I found bass and mids to be extremely well balanced. Where it did not work for me were highs, they were of better quality than LCD but they were just too sharp for me, I could not stand them.I do not remember exactly where there was peak but in general I am very sensitive between 5 to 7k and much less in 8 to 10k.

T1 has slightly more fun signature, and it feels like it is technically better than DT 1990. It has more and better detail than DT 1990, but difference is where DT 1990 was harsh and sibilant, T1 is sweet and enjoyable. I also prefer comfort of T1 because in DT 1990 there was thick foam which was touching my ears, that did annoy me alot . In T1 damping is much thinner and due to angled driver there is more space.

DT 1990 with analytical pads more balanced sound signature up to about 4k. From there I would give it to T1.

However there is one big difference between two. T1 portrait soundstage differently. its much more in front and deep than DT1990. They also sound different overall, it is hard to explain for me, but T1 sounds really well damped, at first it might feel like its not very open, but its not the case, it has amazing detail, imaging and precision everything feels very cohesive and has its place. DT1990 due to treble peaks sound airier but also drier.


Hope this helps, also please note I have got T1 today so I had limited experience so far and I have to admit it is hard for me to remember every detail from every headphone in the past. I do remember well their biggest strengths and weaknesses but it is hard for me to go into every aspect without knowing that I might not be 100% sure.

Thank you very much. It's surprising how new T1 bass similiar to balanced pad 1990. That thing was almost like basshead type of headphone.
Same here sensitive to lower treble and i love higher treble. Feels like new T1 is fixed and better version of 1990 which is what i want. Ananda is really different beast... well not beast it's a beauty

Bass is similiar to 1990, 1-4k should be lower, higher treble should be more refined. 1990 was extremely aggressive, focused and precise. How much party animal is new T1 ? 1990 was a bit too much to me. I prefer slightly bigger soundstage, more field of view. I assume angled drivers will help with that. DT 770 soundstage and presentation better than 1990 to me.

Currently price is a bit too much. More than twice of Amiron Home. I can pay 50% more than Amiron so i will look for price drops or sales. For comparison Ananda $700, T1 €860.

Did you listen Focal's dynamic cans Elex and Clear ?

 

[yeboyi]

How come the DT1990 is so damn populair while it's very bright and painfull? DT770 has wonderfull bass slam but this type of treble... My least favorite HP.
My T5p.2 has a very pleasantly treble. T1.3 has elevated bass? I think that will be nice for me.

1990 treble is way more aggressive and earraping than 770. 770 treble is diffused and distant. 1990 treble is right in your head and it's shiny. But bass slam is much better on 1990. It punches like Mike Tyson. 770 edges it out with sub bass.