Beyerdynamic T90 Discussion and Support Thread

[SRKRAM]

I've been listening to the T90s more, mostly through a mojo, and I must say that the sound has grown on me - My ears have burnt in. I'm sure that the sound changed in the first minutes or maybe hour but after that, as others have said, it was just my ears acclimatising. Maybe even the changes I noticed in the first minutes of listening were also me.
 
Now I'm used to the T90s I think they are amazing, and wouldn't want to part with them. My other phones (especially the X1s) feel muggy and veiled by comparison. I love how revealing and uncoloured they are, and the bass also has a good weight and very good extension. They can be unforgiving with the wrong material though - I was on a quest to get more detail, and that's certainly what I got. I also just bought a pair of ATH-R70Xs as well because I wanted to have a set of more forgiving 'reference' headphones. They are also very good headphones, but a totally different kettle of fish - Less detailed than the T90s, and more emphasis on the bass. I also ordered a set of X2s, just because I was curious - I probably got a bit carried away. Perhaps I could have just spent all of the money on one set of something like Audezes, but I just don't like the sound of them.
 
Thanks for all the input, and I'm glad I have the T90s. I would be interested to hear them with different amps, but maybe keeping the mojo for DAC duties. I'll try to listen before I buy this time though.
 
-Mark.

 

[JerseyD]

   But when you listen to a well mastered record, the T90 is a bliss!

So true.  I think the perceived "brightness" in the T90 is in some ways "accuracy."  With high res files and good source & amp, the T90 always sounds fantastic.  With low res files and crappy source & amp, the T90 can "accurately" sound crappy (garbage in - garbage out).  Capable of greatness, but unforgiving!

 

[r2muchstuff]

  So true.  I think the perceived "brightness" in the T90 is in some ways "accuracy."  With high res files and good source & amp, the T90 always sounds fantastic.  With low res files and crappy source & amp, the T90 can "accurately" sound crappy (garbage in - garbage out).  Capable of greatness, but unforgiving!

I have been listening to vintage 1950's & early 1960's rock/blues/jazz/rockabilly/R&B etc. and find that the T90 and my Schiit brings a lot to the table.
 
I find that older source material ( mid 1960's and back, which was recorded as quality for the time period ) is reproduced with accuracy.  A resolving system brings the same qualities to these old files as it does to well produced modern files.  Thus listening to these old files (original or remastered or whatever) provides soundstage, instrument separation, vocal clarity etc. at least up to the limits of the file and not just a muddy mess or wall of sound as lesser systems tend to do.  Yes, flaws in the source are there, but sort of like the pops and ticks of vinyl they may be ignored.   Mentally adjusting to "this is an old file" allows for a deeper involvement with the music than regulating these files to a system that "plays well with poor recordings" IMHO.
 
I am not saying that all files work this way.  Anything that was recorded/mastered as overdriven distortions is just garbage in garbage out.
 
The best chance this works is when the source was limited by technology of the time and not bad technique/decisions.
 
I know this goes against what most are saying, I have listened and thought about all of this lately, and feel that just saying that poor recordings do not sound good on this HP/Amp, or whatever does not work for these recordings is a misleading generalization.
 
YMMV & JMTC,
r2,

 

[Mad Max]

As an experiment I put some thin strips of dynamat inside the cups of the T90.

It dramatically improved the bass response. And focused the overall sound in a much tighter and controlled fashion. It also seemed to bring the nasty treble under control, allowing me to take in more of the details since its not stabbing my ears. Imaging is also slightly (but noticeably) better. I'm a huge fan of the change. Its taken them up a level IMO, almost like a super T90. It has slightly darkened the signature so they don't seem as bright.

My guess is there are a lot of unwanted resonances going on inside the big hollow cups. I did this mod after doing it to the HD650, which has the same very popular dynamat mod.

Now all I need is a balanced recable for these for my Jotunheim...

 
I tried it now, I put a 1cm wide ring of dynamat all along the wall perpendicular and adjacent to the baffle, and I'm getting much better bass as well.  Deeper, more analytical, better controlled.  I put a ring of dynamat on the back of each driver magnet and now the treble sounds more refined and a little less colored, and imaging has improved.  I'm loving the change while the overall sound is still the some ol' T90, just more controlled and bass much improved.
I remembered that I had done the same to my DT770pro-250ohm a long time ago.
 
 
 
 

  I've taken a shot with this thing, Part of a repair operation i had to to take after i knocked my pair on the floor and the driver popped rtight off it's assembly (fortunately no wire issues... phew) and i had to reglue it back in. So this is my take:
 


 
I have prior experience modding headphones with dynamat, starting from the famous "markl world's best headphone" (Denon D5000) to CAL! to Ultrasone PRO900. You might notice a common denominator with all these cans: A fat bottom! (CAL less so). Well that's why it worked to various degrees, It deadned bass response to increase overall clarity. And it is exactly what it does in the T90, It simply decreases bass heft and that nice body the T90 possess in the mids thus making the sound harder and 'flatter', although might be the treble indeed loses a couple of db's, no sure. There's an increases sense of clarity but paradoxically it is less refined and lacking in body.
 
So heartily NOT recommended, I'm sorry to rain on the parade, I just don't think dynamat is the right tool for the job in this case.

 
Dynamat must never face the driver, you've gone and added the aluminum lining's "flavor" to the back waves.  Dynamat should only be added in areas that are not facing the rear of driver directly.  People need to parrot this along with "try dynamat".  It's not a material you can just stick wherever you want and however you want.

 

[SRKRAM]

I'm tempted to try this. Thanks for the additional info Mad Max.
 
I stumbled across this modded version of the T90 from Italy. I hope I'm not supposed to link to this here (I have nothing to do with Spirit Labs):
https://www.etsy.com/listing/475532315/beyerdynamic-t90-spirit-labs-edition
 
I wondered if there's anything there worth trying.
 
-Mark.

 

[ColtMrFire]

 
 
Quote:

 
I tried it now, I put a 1cm wide ring of dynamat all along the wall perpendicular and adjacent to the baffle, and I'm getting much better bass as well.  Deeper, more analytical, better controlled.  I put a ring of dynamat on the back of each driver magnet and now the treble sounds more refined and a little less colored, and imaging has improved.  I'm loving the change while the overall sound is still the some ol' T90, just more controlled and bass much improved.
I remembered that I had done the same to my DT770pro-250ohm a long time ago.

 
Glad to hear it.
 
I sent in my T90 to recabled to balanced by @PETEREK, and he did some amazing work:
 
 

 

 

[Mad Max]

  I'm tempted to try this. Thanks for the additional info Mad Max.
 
I stumbled across this modded version of the T90 from Italy. I'm not if I'm allowed to post this here - I hope so (I have nothing to do with Spirit Labs):
https://www.etsy.com/listing/475532315/beyerdynamic-t90-spirit-labs-edition
 
I wondered if there's anything there worth trying.
 
-Mark.

 
Whoa, that's a little more drastic.
 
He dual-chambered the cups (which seems like a bad idea, in my experience, regarding semi-open Beyers, but is good for closed headphones in general) and added Dynamat as I did, but added some on the depths of the cups as Amarphael did as well and added acoustic foam on top of the Dynamat in the cups.
 
You can play around with foam, but just make sure it is open-cell type.  Closed cell will end up hurting the sound.

 

[Amarphael]

 
Dynamat must never face the driver, you've gone and added the aluminum lining's "flavor" to the back waves.  Dynamat should only be added in areas that are not facing the rear of driver directly.  People need to parrot this along with "try dynamat".  It's not a material you can just stick wherever you want and however you want.

 
Please explain how i did it any different tham ColtMrFire did originally.... Oh, and that supposed "aluminum flavor" of the backwave, Well isn't that exactly what dynamat application is supposed to prevent in the first place?
 
I'm curious to see how you applied it within so it doesn't face the driver.

 

[biosailor]

Glad to hear it.

I sent in my T90 to recabled to balanced by @PETEREK
, and he did some amazing work:

Your re-cabled T90s look snappy, very nice job indeed! Still waiting for mine to arrive. I'll post pictures and impressions as soon as they're here!

 

[biosailor]

  I have been listening to vintage 1950's & early 1960's rock/blues/jazz/rockabilly/R&B etc. and find that the T90 and my Schiit brings a lot to the table.
 
I find that older source material ( mid 1960's and back, which was recorded as quality for the time period ) is reproduced with accuracy.  A resolving system brings the same qualities to these old files as it does to well produced modern files.  Thus listening to these old files (original or remastered or whatever) provides soundstage, instrument separation, vocal clarity etc. at least up to the limits of the file and not just a muddy mess or wall of sound as lesser systems tend to do.  Yes, flaws in the source are there, but sort of like the pops and ticks of vinyl they may be ignored.   Mentally adjusting to "this is an old file" allows for a deeper involvement with the music than regulating these files to a system that "plays well with poor recordings" IMHO.
 
I am not saying that all files work this way.  Anything that was recorded/mastered as overdriven distortions is just garbage in garbage out.
 
The best chance this works is when the source was limited by technology of the time and not bad technique/decisions.
 
I know this goes against what most are saying, I have listened and thought about all of this lately, and feel that just saying that poor recordings do not sound good on this HP/Amp, or whatever does not work for these recordings is a misleading generalization.
 
YMMV & JMTC,
r2,

To support this: I'm just listening to Thelonious Monk's 'Monk Big Band and Quartet in Concert' (Columbia Jazz Master Pieces). The concert had been recorded in 1963 (!) and even though digitally re-mastered, the sound is a blast! The recording so fantastically captures the live concert that it is just floating in an incredibly this way into my ears. Nothing of the glare live recording often have. And most of all, the recording captures the space of a vast concert hall. Just a joy to listen!

 

[SRKRAM]

Your re-cabled T90s look snappy, very nice job indeed! Still waiting for mine to arrive. I'll post pictures and impressions as soon as they're here!

They do look very good. I just ordered a Pioneer U-05 DAC/amp which has balanced outputs, so I'm also interested to know how they sound.

 

[Charliemotta]

 

Glad to hear it.

I sent in my T90 to recabled to balanced by @PETEREK
, and he did some amazing work:

Your re-cabled T90s look snappy, very nice job indeed! Still waiting for mine to arrive. I'll post pictures and impressions as soon as they're here!

 
 
 
Here are mine that PETEREK did for me...
 

 

[biosailor]

   
 
 
Here are mine that PETEREK did for me...
 

The mods look superb! I like the mini XLR connection! Again, I am anxiously waiting for mine to arrive. I am about to make some serious changes in my system. This maybe doesn't belong to this forum, so apologies if this is out of place, but since every modification made in the audio chain will have an effect on the performance of the headphones, why not? I just borrowed an Auralic Aries from a local dealer for a quick trial. The Auralic considerably improved the overall soundstage of my DAC, so I am pretty pleased with the Aries. And on top of that I am very curious to see how the re-cabled T90 will sound. Very excited, indeed!

 

[ColtMrFire]

@Allanmarcus was gracious enough to loan me his Beyer T1 for a couple weeks.  I was considering buying it, but overall didn't like them.  They had a strangely recessed tone and were a bit boring.  They sounded a bit more refined than the T90, a bit better soundstage, but T90s have a fun factor that is extremely addicting, and the T1 seemed like more of a sidegrade than an upgrade. 
 
He also just stopped by and let me listen to a Focal Utopia he had with him (while picking up the T1).  I've never heard a $4,000 headphone until now.  It's very simple.  Best headphone I've ever heard by a fairly large margin.  It was definitely a revelation.  The more I listened, the better they sounded.  I didn't want to take them off.  The sense of coherency was incredible.  Every note was perfectly presented.  Bass was full and tight at the same time.  Midrange was silky smooth and highs were very extended without a hint of harshness.  But this does not really do them justice...words are not really enough to describe how well they presented the music.  Are they worth $4,000?  Absolutely not.  They were amazing, but they were not $2,500 better than the HD800.  But if one had $4,000 to blow, you'd owe it to yourself to own what has to be the Rolls Royce of headphones.

 

[JerseyD]

  I have been listening to vintage 1950's & early 1960's rock/blues/jazz/rockabilly/R&B etc. and find that the T90 and my Schiit brings a lot to the table.
 
I find that older source material ( mid 1960's and back, which was recorded as quality for the time period ) is reproduced with accuracy.  A resolving system brings the same qualities to these old files as it does to well produced modern files.  Thus listening to these old files (original or remastered or whatever) provides soundstage, instrument separation, vocal clarity etc. at least up to the limits of the file and not just a muddy mess or wall of sound as lesser systems tend to do.  Yes, flaws in the source are there, but sort of like the pops and ticks of vinyl they may be ignored.   Mentally adjusting to "this is an old file" allows for a deeper involvement with the music than regulating these files to a system that "plays well with poor recordings" IMHO.
 
I am not saying that all files work this way.  Anything that was recorded/mastered as overdriven distortions is just garbage in garbage out.
 
The best chance this works is when the source was limited by technology of the time and not bad technique/decisions.
 
I know this goes against what most are saying, I have listened and thought about all of this lately, and feel that just saying that poor recordings do not sound good on this HP/Amp, or whatever does not work for these recordings is a misleading generalization.

 
My comments had nothing whatsoever to do with "older recordings" not sounding good on the T90.  Some of the finest recordings ever made were in the 1950's and '60s.  I was referring only to listening to low-resolution digital files like a 44.1/128 MP3 or AAC files as compared to high sample rate/high bit rate lossless files (of the same song from the same recording).
 
Some headphones are more forgiving of low-res digital files because they do not convey quite as much information and detail, thus the harsh low-res files sound subjectively less harsh than on a ruthlessly accurate headphone like the T90.  Conversely, those more forgiving headphones do not have the ability to sound as crisp and detailed when listening to high-res digital files.  It's a trade-off every purchaser must decide about when choosing gear.  System synergy, listening preferences and content resolution all come into play.