[chimney189]

*cough* SR-009, Utopia, Susvara *cough*

Those are overpriced headphones. I don't deal with that bs.

 

[dontfeedphils]

Those are overpriced headphones. I don't deal with that bs.

lol, ok.

 

[Roscoeiii]

Those are overpriced headphones. I don't deal with that bs.

Or not yet...

 

[chimney189]

Or not yet...

Seriously...

 

[Midgetguy]

Seriously...

I'll happily try them, but I'm not paying that much for any of those headphones. For the cost of each of those, I could buy a used car and that would be a lot more useful for me. Or make 2 mortgage payments.
Also, I've listened to the SR-009 and the Utopia, neither of them have a sound signature I like. Treble reproduction was sharp on the Utopia and the SR-009, while super clear, felt somewhat unnatural.

 

[dontfeedphils]

I'll happily try them, but I'm not paying that much for any of those headphones. For the cost of each of those, I could buy a used car and that would be a lot more useful for me. Or make 2 mortgage payments.
Also, I've listened to the SR-009 and the Utopia, neither of them have a sound signature I like. Treble reproduction was sharp on the Utopia and the SR-009, while super clear, felt somewhat unnatural.

It's all relative. What's expensive to you is probably a bump in the road to others, and a drop in the bucket compared to even wealthier people.

Just because someone thinks they're too expensive doesn't mean that they aren't "technically better" than the HD800.

 

[Midgetguy]

It's all relative. What's expensive to you is probably a bump in the road to others, and a drop in the bucket compared to even wealthier people.

Just because someone thinks they're too expensive doesn't mean that they aren't "technically better" than the HD800.

Naturally, there will be variation of opinion when it comes to a subjective thing such as sound, but price is not tied to quality. Technically better is in itself, also more than just the sort of immediate characteristics such as bass/treble extension and clarity. I could declare the HD600 to be a technically better headphone than the HD800/Utopia/SR-009 based on "technically better" being defined by how good of a job it does with the overall quality and dynamics of music across multiple genres and how much it makes me enjoy music rather than the outright extension/clarity/definition of any particular characteristic. At the same time, we could subdivide to say that the HD800 excels over many other headphones in the classical and orchestral genres, but it's far more limited and not "technically better" in other genres compared to a lot of headphones that cost much less. It becomes a much more niche product in a niche hobby, though that's not necessarily a bad thing; products live on die on that concept across just about everything we interact with. A lot of what I think makes the CA products very good is that they don't really just specialize in a single genre (or at least not the ones I've heard); they play well across most music.

BTW, if it seems like I'm butting heads with anyone, I'm really not trying to....this is just a bunch of rambling commentary, akin to me talking to myself IRL, but maybe I look a bit less stupid typing it in a forum compared to a table in a restaurant

 

[dontfeedphils]

Naturally, there will be variation of opinion when it comes to a subjective thing such as sound, but price is not tied to quality. Technically better is in itself, also more than just the sort of immediate characteristics such as bass/treble extension and clarity. I could declare the HD600 to be a technically better headphone than the HD800/Utopia/SR-009 based on "technically better" being defined by how good of a job it does with the overall quality and dynamics of music across multiple genres and how much it makes me enjoy music rather than the outright extension/clarity/definition of any particular characteristic. At the same time, we could subdivide to say that the HD800 excels over many other headphones in the classical and orchestral genres, but it's far more limited and not "technically better" in other genres compared to a lot of headphones that cost much less. It becomes a much more niche product in a niche hobby, though that's not necessarily a bad thing; products live on die on that concept across just about everything we interact with. A lot of what I think makes the CA products very good is that they don't really just specialize in a single genre (or at least not the ones I've heard); they play well across most music.

BTW, if it seems like I'm butting heads with anyone, I'm really not trying to....this is just a bunch of rambling commentary, akin to me talking to myself IRL, but maybe I look a bit less stupid typing it in a forum compared to a table in a restaurant

When I see it posed as "technically better" I read that as it handles the technicalities better, which I see used most often when comparing how resolving the headphones are. That's what I was driving at, price aside, of course there are headphones that can handle detail retrieval and "technicalities" better than the HD800.

I'm not out here trying to say definitely that any one headphone is [overall] better than another. This hobby is way too subjective for that.

 

[Midgetguy]

When I see it posed as "technically better" I read that as it handles the technicalities better, which I see used most often when comparing how resolving the headphones are. That's what I was driving at, price aside, of course there are headphones that can handle detail retrieval and "technicalities" better than the HD800.

I'm not out here trying to say definitely that any one headphone is [overall] better than another. This hobby is way too subjective for that.

I didn't get that impression from your post either (about the any headphone being definitively better). But yes, the definition of technically better does matter. SR-009 was better than the HD800 in that respect for treble resolution and detail retrieval and ability to separate everything appropriately. If you can afford it, then that's great, but for the people that need to factor cost in as well, I think think the comparatively negligible difference is worth the money.

 

[harishmirror]

A dumb question folks...

Just got a pair of Andromedas.. , they sound amazing, but I find a huge bass deficiency, I am coming from the Sony 16mm's.

Should I burn them in for a few hours?

 

[Hanesu]

A dumb question folks...

Just got a pair of Andromedas.. , they sound amazing, but I find a huge bass deficiency, I am coming from the Sony 16mm's.

Should I burn them in for a few hours?

My first impression of my Andromedas was similar to yours!
I don’t think it s burn in (because even if this phenenomen exists, differences should not be “huge”!)
For me, it was a combination of two reasons:
1. Tips: Andromeda is extremly tip dependent bacause the nozzles are so short! I assume that you, like me, did not have a proper seal. After experimenting a bit with third party tips, bass completely changed!
2. Getting used to BA-driver bass: Me, too, I used a lot of dynamic driver and hybrid earphones before the Andromeda. The type of bass of the Andromeda is very different to these! A lot shorter decay, so it does not give you the same feeling of rumble. Give your brain some time to get adjusted. Then you might realize that bass is actually not lacking, just it sounds and feels different than what you are used to! I really more and more appreciated the tighter type of bass after a while!

There might be a third reason:
What is your source? The Andromada, as many have written before, also is extremly sensitive with the impedance of the sources output! Depending on the impedance, the sound signature completely changes (and this can be supported by measurements)! The higher the sources‘ impedance, the brighter (less bass!) the sound!

 

[harishmirror]

What is your source?

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I use Sony WM1Z.

What are considered the best dac/dap/amp for the Andromedas typically?

 

[Hanesu]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I use Sony WM1Z.

What are considered the best dac/dap/amp for the Andromedas typically?

Well, if you want more bass with the Andromeda, the impedance of your source should be less than 1 and close to zero. From what I quickly googled, the WM1Z has an impedance arround 2 ( I might be wrong, though). However, if you use an iFi impedance adapter, you should not have any problems with any source with the Andromeda!
Then, of course you can always EQ the Andromeda a bit - it reacts very well without any distortion from my experience!

But honestly, I think the biggest factor is getting used to BA bass, if you come from a dynamic driver earphone!

 

[TwiceTzuyu]

PMR measured this "...output impedances for the WM1Z and the WM1A are 0.94 ohms and 0.92 ohms respectively..." and "...high gain mode, the player output close to 1.926 V into 15 ohms per channel via its balanced output..."

 

[Hanesu]

PMR measured this "...output impedances for the WM1Z and the WM1A are 0.94 ohms and 0.92 ohms respectively..." and "...high gain mode, the player output close to 1.926 V into 15 ohms per channel via its balanced output..."

Ok, cool, then there actually should not be too many problems from this side! Still think it‘s the „brain burn in“! Last week, I heard the Atlas besides the Andromeda and definitely prefered the amount of bass of the Andromeda. Though I used to be a big fan of huge dynamic driver bass! So many things in this hobby are about getting used to something....