[JoshG1217]

Hello,

definitely not.
The Teak will be more on the fun side in terms of bass and again in mids then it stops. The treble range is always a bit of a problem with the Fostertreiber.
The Aeon R/T is on a similar level but tends to be lower in terms of bass, depending on what's in the back of the amp.
The Aeon R/T is clearly superior to the Teak in the mid and treble range as well as technically, where the Aeon is more delicate in its resolution, even the Lcd 2c has a hard time keeping up.
If I add the Lcd 2, the Lcd 2C is also inferior to the Teak in terms of bass, but of higher quality.
The Lcd 2 C is good if you want to get away from the Fostertreiber.
Because it somehow brings other qualities that the Fostertreiber can't play at this level.
If you buy the Aeon R/T or Lcd 2 C, you don't really need the Teak.

The balancing act between the Aeon R/T and the Lcd 2 are both very close, but somehow not.

So neither teak, nor lcd 2c are superior to aeon? Thats helpful. I have a 15 band hardware eq, so I get plenty of bass with the aeon

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

Has anyone tried the Dekoni th-900 / th-600 pads with the Teaks? Or any pad for that matter that has a circular opening, rather than oval? Curious how it changes the sound.

Lots of impressions on this thread with those pads and changing pads in general. They alter the sound quite significantly.

I use the leather dekoni th600 ones. All these impressions regarding bad mids and treble or congestions are gone when switching the pads to those. The mids and highs were so good that I sold the Focal Clear which I had on the side. No point in keeping them when this headphone with simple change of pads exceeds the performance of the clears. I listen almost exclusively to metal and rock and never found the Teaks to lack in speed.

The Aeons were quite bad IMO for the asking price. I have had them before but sold them after a few months. Tried filter rolling but nothing helped with the sound. They were comfy but the sound was nothing to be impressed about. There are better planars out there. With my current setup of the Teaks, the Aeons would be a down grade in everything when it comes to sound.

 

[Mhog55]

Lots of impressions on this thread with those pads and changing pads in general. They alter the sound quite significantly.

I use the leather dekoni th600 ones. All these impressions regarding bad mids and treble or congestions are gone when switching the pads to those. The mids and highs were so good that I sold the Focal Clear which I had on the side. No point in keeping them when this headphone with simple change of pads exceeds the performance of the clears. I listen almost exclusively to metal and rock and never found the Teaks to lack in speed.

The Aeons were quite bad IMO for the asking price. I have had them before but sold them after a few months. Tried filter rolling but nothing helped with the sound. They were comfy but the sound was nothing to be impressed about. There are better planars out there. With my current setup of the Teaks, the Aeons would be a down grade in everything when it comes to sound.

I like it. So you recommend the full sheepskin pads? Any chance you can provide a brief description on how they changed for the better? I'm at work atm, and can't skim through 118 pages unfortunately. I would certainly appreciate it.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

I like it. So you recommend the full sheepskin pads? Any chance you can provide a brief description on how they changed for the better? I'm at work atm, and can't skim through 118 pages unfortunately. I would certainly appreciate it.

Yes, I could recommend those.

I will quote my review from Drop:

"TH-900 Sheepskin + EMU Teak
Great earpads as usual from Dekoni. I have been using this combo ever since I got the pads a few weeks ago.

As a glass user, I was looking for a set of earpads that were more comfortable than the stock pads that came with the EMU Teak. I also wanted to tilt the sound to have a bit more treble presence and less mid bass hump. The bass is much too rumbly for me and I didn't like how I couldn't easily distinguish the bass guitar to the drum bass.

For reference the stock, EMU Teak has a lot of mid bass lots of rumble in the lows with no leak in the mids. The treble can only be describe as polite. As a metal listener, the highs could be better.

With the skeepskins, the mid-bass is lessened and much less rumble. Instead, the bass response is now flatter so bass slaps and the reverb from the cups can be felt. The bass sensation is a lot better. The mids aren't affected too much. The treble presence is a more present now but they are still smooth. Guitars in metal now have bite to them without being too strident.

The overall tonality is similar to the Focal Clear (my previous daily headphones). But of course, with a closed design, the bass to mid presentation is different. Surprisingly, the headphone remained open-sounding so long listening session is great, closed sounding headphones can be tiring for me.

As a tangent, the Focal Elegia was garbage to my ears. The tonality of the TH-900 Sheepskin + EMU Teak is what I expected a closed back version of a Focal Clear to be."

Hope this helps

 

[Mhog55]

Yes, I could recommend those.

I will quote my review from Drop:

"TH-900 Sheepskin + EMU Teak
Great earpads as usual from Dekoni. I have been using this combo ever since I got the pads a few weeks ago.

As a glass user, I was looking for a set of earpads that were more comfortable than the stock pads that came with the EMU Teak. I also wanted to tilt the sound to have a bit more treble presence and less mid bass hump. The bass is much too rumbly for me and I didn't like how I couldn't easily distinguish the bass guitar to the drum bass.

For reference the stock, EMU Teak has a lot of mid bass lots of rumble in the lows with no leak in the mids. The treble can only be describe as polite. As a metal listener, the highs could be better.

With the skeepskins, the mid-bass is lessened and much less rumble. Instead, the bass response is now flatter so bass slaps and the reverb from the cups can be felt. The bass sensation is a lot better. The mids aren't affected too much. The treble presence is a more present now but they are still smooth. Guitars in metal now have bite to them without being too strident.

The overall tonality is similar to the Focal Clear (my previous daily headphones). But of course, with a closed design, the bass to mid presentation is different. Surprisingly, the headphone remained open-sounding so long listening session is great, closed sounding headphones can be tiring for me.

As a tangent, the Focal Elegia was garbage to my ears. The tonality of the TH-900 Sheepskin + EMU Teak is what I expected a closed back version of a Focal Clear to be."

Hope this helps

Excellent. Much appreciated

 

[JoshG1217]

Is anyone interested in trading their Teaks for a hifiman XS? 5 kids are not conducive to open backs

 

[Deleeh]

So neither teak, nor lcd 2c are superior to aeon? Thats helpful. I have a 15 band hardware eq, so I get plenty of bass with the aeon

The Aeon is more of a technical revelation when the amplifier is right.
It must also be said that its 14 ohms are not easy to drive.
It needs enough power and also good technical amplifiers to exploit it.
I listen to it with the Hip Dac 2 for on the road and am very happy with it than with a dongel.
At home, I have a hybrid amplifier for it where it takes it up another notch.
The quality of the bass depends on the amplifier.
Personally, an Eq is suboptimal for planar headphones.
Certain areas are quickly ruined if you overdo it.

The Teak is even better in terms of power and good depth, but technically it is rather average.
And it also has a good slam.

It's true that the Teak is more for fun, the Aeon more analytical but still musical, it's rarely too much or too little.
The Lcd 2C is more an invitation to relax, which is not wrong.
It certainly has more slam on the bass than the Aeon.
The Lcd 2C can be analytical but doesn't come close to the level of the Aeon.
But it has completely different qualities, more relaxed, more accurate and more musical than the Aeon.
But even there, the amplifier is a bit important.
But not as important as with the Aeon.

The Aeon needs an amplifier that can handle low-ohm headphones.
The Lcd 2 eats up everything, with the Teak it's similar to the Aeon, but not quite as blatant.
It is more forgiving.
You can't get rid of that with EQ, it's simply an amplifier thing, if it's good enough, you don't even need EQ most of the time.

 

[JoshG1217]

The Aeon is more of a technical revelation when the amplifier is right.
It must also be said that its 14 ohms are not easy to drive.
It needs enough power and also good technical amplifiers to exploit it.
I listen to it with the Hip Dac 2 for on the road and am very happy with it than with a dongel.
At home, I have a hybrid amplifier for it where it takes it up another notch.
The quality of the bass depends on the amplifier.
Personally, an Eq is suboptimal for planar headphones.
Certain areas are quickly ruined if you overdo it.

The Teak is even better in terms of power and good depth, but technically it is rather average.
And it also has a good slam.

It's true that the Teak is more for fun, the Aeon more analytical but still musical, it's rarely too much or too little.
The Lcd 2C is more an invitation to relax, which is not wrong.
It certainly has more slam on the bass than the Aeon.
The Lcd 2C can be analytical but doesn't come close to the level of the Aeon.
But it has completely different qualities, more relaxed, more accurate and more musical than the Aeon.
But even there, the amplifier is a bit important.
But not as important as with the Aeon.

The Aeon needs an amplifier that can handle low-ohm headphones.
The Lcd 2 eats up everything, with the Teak it's similar to the Aeon, but not quite as blatant.
It is more forgiving.
You can't get rid of that with EQ, it's simply an amplifier thing, if it's good enough, you don't even need EQ most of the time.

Interesting. Lots of different takes. I have an SMSL HO 200 with an Su-9 DAC. It sounds pretty amazing. I have a hardware EQ that works pretty well, but adds a hiss, so I am trying out a Behringer to see if that is less noisy. Amp puts out 7 watts. Plenty of power. The Aeon's do sound really good. I am more curious with the Teaks at this point.

 

[phthora]

So neither teak, nor lcd 2c are superior to aeon? Thats helpful. I have a 15 band hardware eq, so I get plenty of bass with the aeon

IMO the reasons to get the Teak are primarily the bass and the overall balance of the sound signature. In those two areas, the Teak outperforms both the Aeon and the 2C. What you get with the Teak is very rich, powerful, heavy-hitting bass, with a natural bloom to it. Its bass warms the signature a bit, but it doesn't muddy the mids or become too boomy. With the 2C, you get some of the visceral impact to the sound, but because of the speed of the driver you don't get that natural decay to the bass. On the other hand, you get much better resolution and detail in the low-end. The Aeon takes this a step further coming off of fairly light in bass impact, but with even greater detail down-low. For tracking bass lines or monitoring/mixing, this is ideal, but for listening the Teak has a very engaging sound. The other advantage it has is that the rest of the spectrum doesn't get washed out by an overabundance of bass. That is something that is shared by those planars, but not something you can easily find in bass-heavy dynamics. On things like overall resolution, imaging, instrument separation, and so on, the two planars outperform the Teak decidedly, but no level of EQ will get them to sound or feel like that Teak bass. It's hard to recommend the Teak as a primary headphone, unless you have pretty narrow musical tastes, but it is an outstanding take on the L-shaped sound signature.

 

[bigjako]

^ above is the best description of the Teak sound, and its performance relative to the LCD2s, that I've ever read.

 

[JoshG1217]

IMO the reasons to get the Teak are primarily the bass and the overall balance of the sound signature. In those two areas, the Teak outperforms both the Aeon and the 2C. What you get with the Teak is very rich, powerful, heavy-hitting bass, with a natural bloom to it. Its bass warms the signature a bit, but it doesn't muddy the mids or become too boomy. With the 2C, you get some of the visceral impact to the sound, but because of the speed of the driver you don't get that natural decay to the bass. On the other hand, you get much better resolution and detail in the low-end. The Aeon takes this a step further coming off of fairly light in bass impact, but with even greater detail down-low. For tracking bass lines or monitoring/mixing, this is ideal, but for listening the Teak has a very engaging sound. The other advantage it has is that the rest of the spectrum doesn't get washed out by an overabundance of bass. That is something that is shared by those planars, but not something you can easily find in bass-heavy dynamics. On things like overall resolution, imaging, instrument separation, and so on, the two planars outperform the Teak decidedly, but no level of EQ will get them to sound or feel like that Teak bass. It's hard to recommend the Teak as a primary headphone, unless you have pretty narrow musical tastes, but it is an outstanding take on the L-shaped sound signature.

I do have pretty narrow tastes. I listen primarily to heavy music in its various sub genres

 

[dstarr3]

IMO the reasons to get the Teak are primarily the bass and the overall balance of the sound signature. In those two areas, the Teak outperforms both the Aeon and the 2C. What you get with the Teak is very rich, powerful, heavy-hitting bass, with a natural bloom to it. Its bass warms the signature a bit, but it doesn't muddy the mids or become too boomy. With the 2C, you get some of the visceral impact to the sound, but because of the speed of the driver you don't get that natural decay to the bass. On the other hand, you get much better resolution and detail in the low-end. The Aeon takes this a step further coming off of fairly light in bass impact, but with even greater detail down-low. For tracking bass lines or monitoring/mixing, this is ideal, but for listening the Teak has a very engaging sound. The other advantage it has is that the rest of the spectrum doesn't get washed out by an overabundance of bass. That is something that is shared by those planars, but not something you can easily find in bass-heavy dynamics. On things like overall resolution, imaging, instrument separation, and so on, the two planars outperform the Teak decidedly, but no level of EQ will get them to sound or feel like that Teak bass. It's hard to recommend the Teak as a primary headphone, unless you have pretty narrow musical tastes, but it is an outstanding take on the L-shaped sound signature.

Great, I read one Head-Fi post and now I want three new headphones

 

[DenverW]

Great, I read one Head-Fi post and now I want three new headphones

Avoid those "TOTL Comparison" threads .

 

[Tetonpowskier]

I’m going to get some EMU Teaks or the Bamboo cups. I had some TH X00 Purplehearts a few years ago, and loved the sound signature.

I like a bit more “fun” or v-shaped sound signature, I listen to a lot of electronic music.

Should I go Bamboo or Teak? I probably would like either set of cups, but wondering which would sound closer to Purpleheart?

 

[DenverW]

I’m going to get some EMU Teaks or the Bamboo cups. I had some TH X00 Purplehearts a few years ago, and loved the sound signature.

I like a bit more “fun” or v-shaped sound signature, I listen to a lot of electronic music.

Should I go Bamboo or Teak? I probably would like either set of cups, but wondering which would sound closer to Purpleheart?

Teak for sure, they outperform the bamboo quite well.