[ThanatosVI]

50 hours in and I'm really starting to love the Expanse.
Would even rank it #2 behind my Elite.

Not only sound but also comfort, build, earpads, cable. The whole package is great.

On top the Club DCA is really something I wish others would immitate as well.

Curious if they still improve (they really needed burn in and were muffled at first) and looking forward to what DCA brings next.

Personally I hope for an estat with similar traits.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

50 hours in and I'm really starting to love the Expanse.
Would even rank it #2 behind my Elite.

Not only sound but also comfort, build, earpads, cable. The whole package is great.

On top the Club DCA is really something I wish others would immitate as well.

Curious if they still improve (they really needed burn in and were muffled at first) and looking forward to what DCA brings next.

Personally I hope for an estat with similar traits.

Doesn’t that already exist in the Vocé?

 

[strojo]

Anyone with a large head using the Expanse? I wear an XL/XXL ball cap, so I generally need a pretty good bit of adjustment to get ear cups down low enough to cover my ears. As a point of reference, the Focal Utopias fit me well.

 

[Terco]

If that's really the case with the Expanse, the potential buyer needs to consider that the total cost is $4000 + the $3500-$10,000 cost of a very good high-power dedicated headphone amp, that is, it is a $7500-$14000 headphone. A deal-breaker for many, I think. Please tell me I'm being too pessimistic.

I enjoy it with just my phone and the mojo 2

 

[ra990]

The Expanse remind me more of the Ether 2 than the Stealth. I can see these being the Ether 3. They're both darker presentations but have a lot of texture in the mids and bass which makes them enjoyable, but with genres that tend to sound better with a darker presentation. For me, that's like EDM, hip/hop, or anything that might have a digital glare on it. But with music that is warmer already, like classic Pink Floyd albums (a lot of classic/prog rock comes to mind), they can sound a bit congested and too boomy/bassy for me. I like a slightly brighter/airier presentation for warmer music and a warmer presentation for brighter music. Or a neutral signature, like I considered Stealth to have, which works for both.

 

[Tachyon88]

So the HD6xx is the most closed sounding open back I have heard. @ra990 How would you compare that to the Expanse ?

Yet, I think the stealth sounds much more open than the HD6xx.

 

[ra990]

So the HD6xx is the most closed sounding open back I have heard. @ra990 How would you compare that to the Expanse ?

Yet, I think the stealth sounds much more open than the HD6xx.

I've heard the HD6xx open up nicely with some sources and not sound closed in. With the Expanse, it seems to have a wide stage but most of it plays out very close to center. It doesn't highlight width until some element in the mix calls for it. So, they end up sounding narrow but once in a while, they'll flex their stage width and be impressive in that regard. With the Elites, and even with the HD6XX on a good amp, the center image itself is a little bigger and not constricted to the dead center of my brain, so it sounds relatively more open across a wider variety of content.

 

[BassicScience]

I've heard the HD6xx open up nicely with some sources and not sound closed in. With the Expanse, it seems to have a wide stage but most of it plays out very close to center. It doesn't highlight width until some element in the mix calls for it. So, they end up sounding narrow but once in a while, they'll flex their stage width and be impressive in that regard. With the Elites, and even with the HD6XX on a good amp, the center image itself is a little bigger and not constricted to the dead center of my brain, so it sounds relatively more open across a wider variety of content.

You couldn't have plugged the cables in incorrectly channel-wise, could you? Just asking because your impressions seem to be notably divergent from most others.

 

[ra990]

You couldn't have plugged the cables in incorrectly channel-wise, could you? Just asking because your impressions seem to be notably divergent from most others.

I tried two different cables after having that thought. Keep in mind that my comparisons are mostly with the Elites, which are notoriously one of the more open and spacious sounding headphones.

Some more notes -

Bass quality and quantity on the Expanse is first rate (and even a bit much for me). On that, I agree with most others.

Soundstage not being instruments/pins in space, but instead represented by their physical presence? Yes, I agree - it's not the size of the stage that is highlighted by the Expanse, it's the weight of instruments (mostly bass and low mids) that is highlighted.

They are very smooth up top, but also a bit dark - more like the Ether 2 than the Stealth from memory. AMTS is doing it's trick and the treble is never harsh.

But, they're not open sounding to me, and not just because they're the typical semi-open DCA headphones that attenuate both ways. Unlike the Stealth, there's this air region that seems to be subdued in the treble that is giving me an incomplete L/C/R image in front of me. I'm hearing almost a deadspace in the front center, but massively tall walls kind of concaving in / \ on the left and right. For the soundstage, I preferred the Stealth, it had an amazingly complete and detailed stage.

I don't know if I'm diverging anywhere else really?

 

[Currawong]

Expanse has higher impedance (thus less current) in the bass region. Maybe this makes it slightly different from Stealth.

That wont have any effect with most amps. It'll only affect amps such as the Enleum and Bakoon amps that have a very high impedance current output mode.

 

[DarginMahkum]

That wont have any effect with most amps. It'll only affect amps such as the Enleum and Bakoon amps that have a very high impedance current output mode.

That is true that the higher the output impedance is, the more the impedance characteristics will act like an EQ. What I meant is the higher impedance in that region reduce the current demand for low frequencies, especially considering Expanse and Stealth are quite low impedance HPs. But its effect is probably not that important considering we don't have pure low frequency audio. But there is something going on there when we consider the massive bass Expanse delivers compared to Stealth. Either as a result or a reason.

 

[801evan]

That is true that the higher the output impedance is, the more the impedance characteristics will act like an EQ. What I meant is the higher impedance in that region reduce the current demand for low frequencies, especially considering Expanse and Stealth are quite low impedance HPs. But its effect is probably not that important considering we don't have pure low frequency audio. But there is something going on there when we consider the massive bass Expanse delivers compared to Stealth. Either as a result or a reason.

I've had a bakoon and it helps with seemingly what are linearity issues. But when you improve the chain, the blacks are too lifted and overall presentation isn't as deep potentially.

 

[dmagnan]

They are very smooth up top, but also a bit dark - more like the Ether 2 than the Stealth from memory. AMTS is doing it's trick and the treble is never harsh.

But, they're not open sounding to me, and not just because they're the typical semi-open DCA headphones that attenuate both ways. Unlike the Stealth, there's this air region that seems to be subdued in the treble that is giving me an incomplete L/C/R image in front of me. I'm hearing almost a deadspace in the front center, but massively tall walls kind of concaving in / \ on the left and right. For the soundstage, I preferred the Stealth, it had an amazingly complete and detailed stage.

I don't know if I'm diverging anywhere else really?

Another comment from ra990 (@723):

"The Expanse remind me more of the Ether 2 than the Stealth. I can see these being the Ether 3. They're both darker presentations but have a lot of texture in the mids and bass which makes them enjoyable, but with genres that tend to sound better with a darker presentation. For me, that's like EDM, hip/hop, or anything that might have a digital glare on it. But with music that is warmer already, like classic Pink Floyd albums (a lot of classic/prog rock comes to mind), they can sound a bit congested and too boomy/bassy for me. I like a slightly brighter/airier presentation for warmer music and a warmer presentation for brighter music. Or a neutral signature, like I considered Stealth to have, which works for both."

Given what you've said about just the treble region flaws in the Expanse, I wonder what the various rave professional reviewers were smoking when they wrote their high praises of the headphones' upper-mid and treble response. Take for example the glowing Major HiFi review, at https://majorhifi.com/dan-clark-audio-expanse-review/ :

"Highs:

Though everything about the Expanse that I’ve discussed thus far is near flawless, there’s something about a headphone that brings the same level of balance, accuracy and smoothness deep into its highs that ends up stealing the show. The razor sharp high frequency representation works with the Expanse’s big imaging to add a whole lot of space to drum kits, letting cymbals ring out to their highest frequencies in a space way up above your head. Sawtooth synths and heavily distorted guitars come with a full set of teeth that buzz all the way up the spectrum, while strummy acoustic guitars have an extra sandy washboard-quality brought out of their transients. What’s truly respectable about the highs is that they aren’t exaggerated, or harsh, or really bright, even; quite simply, they can actually be heard without some sort of artificial overcompensation, and sit naturally in the mix without any undesired exaggeration, saturation or resonance. Clearly, the aforementioned engineer elements go quite a long way for the high end which at least presents itself as being devoid of any sharp EQ interventions."

What do you make of these flat-out contradictions? It's like the pro reviewer has an entirely different ear design than us users. Barely a peep out of him about any of the various flaws found by Head-fi members. To look at the various reviews, professional and user; there are such radical differences it doesn't look like the reader can easily come to any conclusions at all about the product (without personally trying them out), from the pro reviews. That is, the professional reviews are probably worse than nothing as far as solving the audiophiles' need for unbiased professional evaluation of the products. Because these pro reviews tend more to mislead than to elucidate the truth about the product and its usefulness to the potential user. They tend to be very business-biased distorted glimpses of the products' pros and cons, rather than the good source of guidance hoped for by the audiophile.

Of course, in terms of the socioeconomic causes of this, in many cases (not all) the cause presumably is mostly the very old one of honesty being bad for business. Any other suggestions, than just more cynicism?

 

[ra990]

Another comment from ra990 (@723):



Given what you've said about just the treble region flaws in the Expanse, I wonder what the various rave reviewers were smoking when they wrote their high praises of the headphones' upper-mid and treble response. Take for example the glowing Major HiFi review, at https://majorhifi.com/dan-clark-audio-expanse-review/ :




What do you make of these flat-out contradictions? It's like the pro reviewer has an entirely different ear design than us users. Barely a peep out of him about any of the various flaws found by Head-fi members. To look at the various reviews, professional and user; there are such radical differences it doesn't look like the reader can easily come to any conclusions at all about the product (without personally trying them out), from the pro reviews. That is, the professional reviews are probably worse than nothing as far as solving the audiophiles' need for unbiased professional evaluation of the products. Because these pro reviews tend more to mislead than to elucidate the truth about the product and its usefulness to the potential user. They tend to be very business-biased distorted glimpses of the products' pros and cons, rather than the good source of guidance hoped for by the audiophile.

Of course, in terms of the socioeconomic causes of this, in many cases (not all) the cause presumably is mostly the very old one of honesty being bad for business. Any other suggestions, than just more cynicism?

Based on what I've heard so far, especially in comparison with Stealth and others I love, I am let down by the hype as well. Judging by the reviews, I expected to hear a big open soundstage and I'm not hearing that at all. If these were called Ether 3, implying that these were going to be darker/warmer/thicker headphones, then I would have been more prepared for this signature, but to call them Expanse and reviews rave about their soundstage being big, spacious, or open, that certainly seems contradictory to my listening experience.

Pros for me are definitely the bass (if you like a lot of it), the warmth, the smooth treble - but not the soundstage. That, imo, would be a weakness of these compared to other top tier headphones that I've personally heard.

I've owned every generation of Mr. Speakers/DCA headphones, open and closed, since the OG Aeon. I know DCA headphones' closed headphones tend to sound more open than their open counterparts, but I was hoping that would change with this one. IMO, this keeps following that DCA tradition. The Stealth sounded more open than the Expanse to me, from memory.

I think if you are looking for a more neutral signature that keeps everything in perfect balance, including soundstage, then I would recommend the Stealth. If you want a darker, warmer, thicker presentation that brings a bit more life-like impact to the bottom end, then consider the Expanse. That's my thinking right now.

 

[dmagnan]

Based on what I've heard so far, especially in comparison with Stealth and others I love, I am let down by the hype as well. Judging by the reviews, I expected to hear a big open soundstage and I'm not hearing that at all. If these were called Ether 3, implying that these were going to be darker/warmer/thicker headphones, then I would have been more prepared for this signature, but to call them Expanse and reviews rave about their soundstage being big, spacious, or open, that certainly seems contradictory to my listening experience.

Pros for me are definitely the bass (if you like a lot of it), the warmth, the smooth treble - but not the the soundstage. That, imo, would be a weakness of these compared to other top tier headphones that I've personally heard.

Do you think that EQing the treble region would help? Perhaps a broad bell filter 2-3dB boost centered on 8-9kHz, Q of 0.8, for instance. Perhaps that sort of measure would solve the "muffled" problem while retaining all the other positive features of the sound design of the Expanse?

Most important for this would of course be getting an accurate response plot to base the EQ on. Have you found a measured frequency response curve for the Expanse?