[sheldaze]

Any updates on if you guys can make it to the show? They keep changing my travel schedule around too...I had to say "No" more than once already to keep myself grounded for this meet. Just saying that I think we'd have some interesting conversations at the show. If not this one, perhaps the next?

 

[Psalmanazar]

Audeze's problem was they could never make the LCD-2 and 3 drivers consistently. The lack of quality control elsewhere didn't help either. Customers were essentially play thousand dollar roulette hoping to get good drivers and hoping that the drivers wouldn't turn veiled, muddy, or die and if your good one died, your replacement might not be so great. The Fazors are slightly more consistent but are a huge downgrade from the best pre fazors, have an almost closed can timbre, and there are still fail Fazors out there.

Hifiman doesn't have driver problems but has treble spikes and major build issues. You shouldn't have buy new pads and attack them partially with electrical tape to get guarantee the 400S to seal. Even if they fixed that, the AKG K7XX has better bass extension and is 200 dollars shipped. A cheaper and better warm headphone with treble issues.

It's just so expensive to enter the market and develop new competitive drivers. Beyerdynamic didn't try to from 1985 to 2010 and the Tesla drivers have major flaws compared to the 770/880/990 add more wire to damp treble approach. The HD 800 ring driver is the best ever in some ways but Sennheiser definitely has big hurdles to overcome before making a pleasant sounding headphone out of it. That 6kHz spike in the FR is a driver resonance and never seems to go away when people post mods. Sennheiser designed a killer but flawed driver design decided it would be fine to stick in a diffuse field voiced housing and claim it's "diffuse field" neutral.

The problem with closed headphones is that they're mostly used for tracking or as portable monitors so you need something that seals and clamps with good isolation. They're not really meant for general listening. That's why you see so many HD 25, 280, DT 770, old AKG made AKGs, and Fostex tanks that can survive being thrown at a brick wall. The HD 25 clones that sound a little more pleasant but cost more aren't seen as they aren't as indestructible. You can't even convince some pros to shell out for anything more than HD 280s; I have a couple friends that just use the monitors in their semi-treated home studios for general listening. They know that all closed cans are compromised in fidelity, find something they think is good enough for tracking or on the go, distracted uncritical listening, and stick with it. The same is true for many audiophiles. If Focal makes something that sounds excellent for a closed headphone, doesn't break, and costs 500 bucks, they still wouldn't buy it. Only the upgrading from Apple and Beats crowd really craves closed cans but they don't buy them based on sound quality so manufacturers are in a catch 22.

 

[gandhisfist]

The K7XX does have good bass extension but I wouldn't put it on the same level as the higher end hifimans and it certainly isn't as clean, for $200 bucks though I still think it's a bargain.

 

[Psalmanazar]

The K7XX does have good bass extension but I wouldn't put it on the same level as the higher end hifimans and it certainly isn't as clean, for $200 bucks though I still think it's a bargain.

Well I meant the 400S and cheap warm cans.

 

[gandhisfist]

Well I meant the 400S and cheap warm cans.

Ah in that case, I agree. I am not sure why they didn't ship focuspads with the 400S.

 

[TimeLord]

I think all of the newer players have a lot of issues to deal with.  Planar driver makers really need to be able to nail down consistency in their diaphragms and cup assemblies for example.

I agree with you that closed headphones as a category have been moving even more slowly and I'm looking forward to seeing more innovation in that area.  I think the closed back audiophile market is tricky though, because we all know that a closed headphone is basically compromised by design and so its hard to want to spend a lot of money on something that just doesn't have the same level of acoustic performance, making it a less interesting investment for manufacturers. 

You make very good points. I'd add that the planar guys have processes to improve because they are doing something, even if it is revamping an old idea. I hope the LCD-4 blows everything else out of the water, just so it would motivate others to compete harder for our dollars (It may not have worked for economics, but I'm still holding out hope for the trickle down theory since we all can't drop $4k on cans).

Back to the closed headphones... I'd like to see a manufacturer seriously challenge the notion that a closed design is inherently inferior to an open design. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but when I was younger I was interested in car stereos. Building boxes for those car speakers, there were many designs; some open and others closed. If executed to specifications, each design could sound great. Why have we all resigned to the idea that closed means inferior when it comes to headphones?

Maybe it's what gandhisfist already eluded to: Follow the money. Manufacturers are going after a design that's already accepted and more sure to generate sales. It could be that simple I guess.

 

[money4me247]

Ah in that case, I agree. I am not sure why they didn't ship focuspads with the 400S.

Likely just due to encroachment into the HE-400i territory. The HE-400S is aimed as a budget-orientated low cost option. No additional frills.
 

Back to the closed headphones... I'd like to see a manufacturer seriously challenge the notion that a closed design is inherently inferior to an open design. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but when I was younger I was interested in car stereos. Building boxes for those car speakers, there were many designs; some open and others closed. If executed to specifications, each design could sound great. Why have we all resigned to the idea that closed means inferior when it comes to headphones?

Maybe it's what @gandhisfist already eluded to: Follow the money. Manufacturers are going after a design that's already accepted and more sure to generate sales. It could be that simple I guess.

 

From my experience there are a few closed headphones that do get into that area. However, I do think it is likely harder and more resource-intensive to tune a close-backed to achieve that same level of airiness and naturalism of an open.
 
From my experience, the TH900 does get extremely close with some of the strengths of open in terms of upper treble reproduction and spaciousness of its sound stage, but it does have a semi-open design and a strong treble emphasis (for an overall v-shaped sound signature). The other one is the Ether C. I do personally think the Ether still edges out in the upper treble reproduction in demo conditions and overall scope of its soundstage, but it closes the gap to an extent where I don't think it really matters anymore. The other closed option that gets compared to open options is the MPH1000 though I haven't had the pleasure to hear it myself.
 
Other impressive options include the K553 and Alpha Prime, but you can notice a pronounced difference in sound stage with a side-by-side comparison against a solid mid-tier open option.

 

[TimeLord]

I'll add my concurrence on the K7XX. It's the best bargain going right now, hands down. If there are would be new audiophiles looking for a recommendation that's reasonably priced, I can't think of another headphone competing with the K7XX on quality of sound to dollar ratio.

 

[Psalmanazar]

Ah in that case, I agree. I am not sure why they didn't ship focuspads with the 400S.

Can't cross the 300 dollar mark into HD 650 on sale, "If I just wait six months, I can get a headphone without an offensive treble for the same price" territory.

 

[coletrain104]

You make very good points. I'd add that the planar guys have processes to improve because they are doing something, even if it is revamping an old idea. I hope the LCD-4 blows everything else out of the water, just so it would motivate others to compete harder for our dollars (It may not have worked for economics, but I'm still holding out hope for the trickle down theory since we all can't drop $4k on cans).

Back to the closed headphones... I'd like to see a manufacturer seriously challenge the notion that a closed design is inherently inferior to an open design. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but when I was younger I was interested in car stereos. Building boxes for those car speakers, there were many designs; some open and others closed. If executed to specifications, each design could sound great. Why have we all resigned to the idea that closed means inferior when it comes to headphones?

Maybe it's what @gandhisfist already eluded to: Follow the money. Manufacturers are going after a design that's already accepted and more sure to generate sales. It could be that simple I guess.

For closed headphones, I think the PM-3, Blackwood, and Alpha Prime are good takes on a closed design. The only problem here is that the starting price is $400, increasing by $300 in the order I gave. Really, though I think the flaws of a closed headphone design can be mitigated, it is still closed, and it isn't cheap to make closed headphones top-tier. Open headphones are just inherently acoustically superior.

 

[coletrain104]

has anyone here heard the sennheiser amperiors? found a good deal on refurb, and wondering if it is something I'd like, though I have the momentum on-ear and they have too much bass. Tyll seems to find the amperior much more balanced though. anyone have any thoughts on it?

 

[TimeLord]

  For closed headphones, I think the PM-3, Blackwood, and Alpha Prime are good takes on a closed design. The only problem here is that the starting price is $400, increasing by $300 in the order I gave. Really, though I think the flaws of a closed headphone design can be mitigated, it is still closed, and it isn't cheap to make closed headphones top-tier. Open headphones are just inherently acoustically superior.

I think the PM-3 is lacking in the bass department and I found it uncomfortable to wear because the pads were too thin and my ears are practically making contact with the drivers. The Alpha Prime has a very nice sound to it, but as you said, it definitely has an "intimate" sound stage. I await to hear your Blackwoods.
 
Considering the cost of a great sounding pair of open headphones, I would be OK with a no compromise closed headphone that costs the same as its open counterparts.

 

[gandhisfist]

I think the PM-3 is lacking in the bass department...

Considering the cost of a great sounding pair of open headphones, I would be OK with a no compromise closed headphone that costs the same as its open counterparts.

Agreed my problem with the PM-3 is the bass, and its maybe a bit harsh up top.

I too would pay the premium for a no compromise closed back, I was hoping Ether-C would do the trick, but after hearing mixed things about the Ether and the Ether-C being the LCD-XC to the Ether's LCD-X makes me doubt it will.

 

[sheldaze]

Agreed my problem with the PM-3 is the bass, and its maybe a bit harsh up top.

I too would pay the premium for a no compromise closed back, I was hoping Ether-C would do the trick, but after hearing mixed things about the Ether and the Ether-C being the LCD-XC to the Ether's LCD-X makes me doubt it will.

I highly recommend you give the Ether-C an auditory trial. There were many people at the Nashville meet who bought it, that same day, after hearing it.
 
I was, that day, being particularly critical of anything I found to be hard-edged. I heard Barry's LCD-X at the Capital Audio Festival and loved them. But I heard a pair of LCD-X at the Nashville meet and found them hard-edged. Those LCD-X may have had a different sound, being the Vegan style - I do not know. But when I say that I did not care for the Ether-C, it was based on my looking for a very particular sound on that day. The Ether erred, to my ears that day, on the side of soft. The Ether-C erred on the side of hard, and probably more so than the LCD-X did that day.
 
Speaking with Mr. Speakers, he said that most consumers prefer one or the other. He also said that they had been voiced, which I interpreted as the Ether-C could sound more like the Ether. Continuing with my personal interpretation, it just makes sense to make two headphones with a slightly different sound. Otherwise how would you convince your existing customers to buy your second product? However I feel that the closed Ether-C 1) could be the sound you're looking for 2) could be tuned to sound differently and more like the Ether. I did not feel there was a huge engineering gap between the two, like one sounded superior to the other - only voiced differently.
 
Does that make sense? I still feel there is huge potential for a TOTL closed headphone. Only my ears weren't happy with the Ether-C, while many others were and rightly so!

 

[gandhisfist]

That makes sense. I still haven't heard either headphone and haven't made any final judgements, just going by what I've seen from the various sources of impressions I read. Certainly still looking forward to get a chance to check them out, I'm going to work hard to make sure we all get a chance to hear them at the next CAF. Also going to try my best to get the new Sennheiser and Hifimans stuff as well, super curious about all of them and would love to get some head time.

It's interesting to hear that the Ether and Ether C were voiced differently intentionally, I would have thought Dan would have tried to make them sound as similar as he could.