[yellowbirdfly]

Anybody else have impressions of the Teak?
If you've heard the thx00, could you compare them?

How does the treble compare to something like the th600 and 900? Those are way to hot for my ears, I prefer a smooth treble.

Yes I had owned the TH-X00.

The Fostex has near basshead level quantity of bass, so of course the Emu will have less bass compared to it as it's not tuned to be basshead. However, I do not feel the Emu lacks bass in any way, it has some tight and controlled bass that's in perfect quantity and slams when needed. For mids the Emu can't be beat, with a more forward, life-like and euphonic sound, unlike the Fostex which is slightly recessed. The Emu has a brighter treble, which makes the soundstage airier and more spacious, but it is still very smooth and never crosses the line of sibilance and harshness. It is definitely not the hot treble of the TH-900, so no worries there.

On the whole, the TH-X00 sounds intimate, thick and bold while the Teak sounds delicate, airy and light. Two completely different beasts, although Teak is a step higher in refinement and technical ability and is worth the price increase over the Fostex IMO.

Unfortunately, I have never heard the Denons so I do not know if it sounds exactly like them.

Hope this helps!

 

[fjrabon]

Yes I had owned the TH-X00.

The Fostex has near basshead level quantity of bass, so of course the Emu will have less bass compared to it as it's not tuned to be basshead. However, I do not feel the Emu lacks bass in any way, it has some tight and controlled bass that's in perfect quantity and slams when needed. For mids the Emu can't be beat, with a more forward, life-like and euphonic sound, unlike the Fostex which is slightly recessed. The Emu has a brighter treble, which makes the soundstage airier and more spacious, but it is still very smooth and never crosses the line of sibilance and harshness. It is definitely not the hot treble of the TH-900, so no worries there.

On the whole, the TH-X00 sounds intimate, thick and bold while the Teak sounds delicate, airy and light. Two completely different beasts, although Teak is a step higher in refinement and technical ability and is worth the price increase over the Fostex IMO.

Unfortunately, I have never heard the Denons so I do not know if it sounds exactly like them.

Hope this helps!

I A/B'd both as well (along with the TH900 and E-MU Walnut and Denon D1000) recently.
 
I 100% agree with your take on the treble.  Absolutely spot on there.  It's a lot of treble, but it is perfectly smooth.  Whether a listener thinks it is sibilant will come mostly down to how much treble they can tolerate.  I think it's technically not sibilant, but most people say sibilant when they really mean hot treble.  It isn't harsh and bright, which to me is what I think of sibilant.  It's smooth and bright int he treble, airy at times.
 
I disagree slightly in the mids, but I think that may be something of what we are calling mids and bass, rather than a difference in how we actually perceived their sound.  To me the Teak had sucked out lower mids, but the upper mids were forward like you described.  To me the Teak had more lower bass, but less mid bass than the Fostex.  The Teak, to me, was more focused around the edges of the frequency response, while the THX00 had a thickness in the lower middle.  
 
A lot of the difficulty in comparing them comes from precisely volume matching though.  It took me a while to get their volumes matched, due to the Teak being slightly more efficient than the THX00.  At first I preferred the Teak, but then I realized that was just because they were louder, when volume levels were matched, my preferences tipped a tiny amount the other way.  I slightly preferred the signature of the THX00, but I could certainly see where somebody would prefer the Teak.  I'd maybe say the Teak is a slightly better technical headphone, with better extension, soundstage and resolution.  But the THX00 is very close, and preferences will probably come down to subjectively what the listener wants signature wise rather than the relatively small technical advantages the Teak has.
 
My take was that the Teak essentially split the difference between the signature of the THX00 and TH900 signatures.  
 
All amping was done with my Grace m9XX or directly out of an iPhone (I have had my THX00 reterminated to be 3.5mm, so no usage of the crappy adapter, the Teak is already terminated in 3.5mm).
 
By the way, I have had it confirmed to me that the driver in the Teak is the same driver as in the TH900.  The differences in sound between the two are mostly due to differences in pads and a small difference in the cup shape (though not the type of wood, which I was told has no measurable effect between units).  There is a difference in stated efficiency, but that is apparently due to some tuning done on the cup shapes of the Teak.  Also, some people have said that the TH900 is really more like 103dB anyway.

 

[svmusa]

 
I A/B'd both as well (along with the TH900 and E-MU Walnut and Denon D1000) recently.
 
I 100% agree with your take on the treble.  Absolutely spot on there.  It's a lot of treble, but it is perfectly smooth.  Whether a listener thinks it is sibilant will come mostly down to how much treble they can tolerate.  I think it's technically not sibilant, but most people say sibilant when they really mean hot treble.  It isn't harsh and bright, which to me is what I think of sibilant.  It's smooth and bright int he treble, airy at times.
 
I disagree slightly in the mids, but I think that may be something of what we are calling mids and bass, rather than a difference in how we actually perceived their sound.  To me the Teak had sucked out lower mids, but the upper mids were forward like you described.  To me the Teak had more lower bass, but less mid bass than the Fostex.  The Teak, to me, was more focused around the edges of the frequency response, while the THX00 had a thickness in the lower middle.  
 
A lot of the difficulty in comparing them comes from precisely volume matching though.  It took me a while to get their volumes matched, due to the Teak being slightly more efficient than the THX00.  At first I preferred the Teak, but then I realized that was just because they were louder, when volume levels were matched, my preferences tipped a tiny amount the other way.  I slightly preferred the signature of the THX00, but I could certainly see where somebody would prefer the Teak.  I'd maybe say the Teak is a slightly better technical headphone, with better extension, soundstage and resolution.  But the THX00 is very close, and preferences will probably come down to subjectively what the listener wants signature wise rather than the relatively small technical advantages the Teak has.
 
My take was that the Teak essentially split the difference between the signature of the THX00 and TH900 signatures.  
 
All amping was done with my Grace m9XX or directly out of an iPhone (I have had my THX00 reterminated to be 3.5mm, so no usage of the crappy adapter, the Teak is already terminated in 3.5mm).
 
By the way, I have had it confirmed to me that the driver in the Teak is the same driver as in the TH900.  The differences in sound between the two are mostly due to differences in pads and a small difference in the cup shape (though not the type of wood, which I was told has no measurable effect between units).  There is a difference in stated efficiency, but that is apparently due to some tuning done on the cup shapes of the Teak.  Also, some people have said that the TH900 is really more like 103dB anyway.

Thx, I am guessing TH900 still has more bass overall than the Teak?

 

[luvmusik]

Joined drop for the Rosewood version.

 

[Whitigir]

I A/B'd both as well (along with the TH900 and E-MU Walnut and Denon D1000) recently.

I 100% agree with your take on the treble.  Absolutely spot on there.  It's a lot of treble, but it is perfectly smooth.  Whether a listener thinks it is sibilant will come mostly down to how much treble they can tolerate.  I think it's technically not sibilant, but most people say sibilant when they really mean hot treble.  It isn't harsh and bright, which to me is what I think of sibilant.  It's smooth and bright int he treble, airy at times.

I disagree slightly in the mids, but I think that may be something of what we are calling mids and bass, rather than a difference in how we actually perceived their sound.  To me the Teak had sucked out lower mids, but the upper mids were forward like you described.  To me the Teak had more lower bass, but less mid bass than the Fostex.  The Teak, to me, was more focused around the edges of the frequency response, while the THX00 had a thickness in the lower middle.  

A lot of the difficulty in comparing them comes from precisely volume matching though.  It took me a while to get their volumes matched, due to the Teak being slightly more efficient than the THX00.  At first I preferred the Teak, but then I realized that was just because they were louder, when volume levels were matched, my preferences tipped a tiny amount the other way.  I slightly preferred the signature of the THX00, but I could certainly see where somebody would prefer the Teak.  I'd maybe say the Teak is a slightly better technical headphone, with better extension, soundstage and resolution.  But the THX00 is very close, and preferences will probably come down to subjectively what the listener wants signature wise rather than the relatively small technical advantages the Teak has.

My take was that the Teak essentially split the difference between the signature of the THX00 and TH900 signatures.  

All amping was done with my Grace m9XX or directly out of an iPhone (I have had my THX00 reterminated to be 3.5mm, so no usage of the crappy adapter, the Teak is already terminated in 3.5mm).

By the way, I have had it confirmed to me that the driver in the Teak is the same driver as in the TH900.  The differences in sound between the two are mostly due to differences in pads and a small difference in the cup shape (though not the type of wood, which I was told has no measurable effect between units).  There is a difference in stated efficiency, but that is apparently due to some tuning done on the cup shapes of the Teak.  Also, some people have said that the TH900 is really more like 103dB anyway.

You are absolutely sure about this Teak using TH900 drivers ? Because TH900 is 100db at 1800mW. Teak is 106 db at 1800 MW ? Newer th900 drivers ?

 

[batmanwcm]

The Rosewood looks absolutely beautiful.  Is it a "Fun" headphone like others have described about the TH-X00's?  I have a pair coming in in May but love the look of this as well.  You guys are going to get many questions in comparison to both since they are very similarly priced and are available on Massdrop.

 

[fjrabon]

  Thx, I am guessing TH900 still has more bass overall than the Teak?

yeah, maybe a touch more.  I wouldn't say it was night and day difference.  TH900 has more deep sub bass, otherwise I'd say they were similar.

 

[mysticstryk]

Would anyone be able to comment on vocal performance of both male and female?

I'm still seriously considering this, although I love a good midrange and smooth treble. This would compliment my hd650 very well though I imagine.

 

[fjrabon]

Would anyone be able to comment on vocal performance of both male and female?

I'm still seriously considering this, although I love a good midrange and smooth treble. This would compliment my hd650 very well though I imagine.

I liked them a lot with male vocals.  They sounded crisp, present and powerful.  Female vocals could be a bit shouty, but at times could also be airy, so was more hit or miss; sometimes outstanding, sometimes a bit grating.

 

[cashdrainkitty]

Just got the E MU walnut from Massdrop.  With the light weight and 4 foot cord, these are designed for one thing... to make you the sexiest looking person on the bus to work as you listen to the tunes on your smartphone.  I find nothing to complain about.  The low end isn't overpowering, but if solid bass is on the recording, it makes it to your ears, smooth transition to the mids and very delightful high end without sibilance.  I never heard the previous Denon product that has been commented on, but these are definitely worth $100 if you understand what they are designed for.  Hope that helps you out.

 

[mysticstryk]

I liked them a lot with male vocals.  They sounded crisp, present and powerful.  Female vocals could be a bit shouty, but at times could also be airy, so was more hit or miss; sometimes outstanding, sometimes a bit grating.

Thanks fjrabon. Probably 60% of my music with vocals is female lead. Would the thx00 perform better in that regard?

 

[fjrabon]

Thanks fjrabon. Probably 60% of my music with vocals is female lead. Would the thx00 perform better in that regard?

hmm, tough call.  also depends a lot on what type of female vocals.  Very shouty female vocals (think like Grace Potter) probably THX00.  Sultry or airy female vocals (Fiona Apple sultry or Joanna Newsom airy), then probably Teak.  Though the differences aren't all that large.  By and large these headphones sound similar.  Like I said in another place, the Teak, to me, kind of split the difference between the THX00 and the TH900 signature wise.  

 

[mysticstryk]

hmm, tough call.  also depends a lot on what type of female vocals.  Very shouty female vocals (think like Grace Potter) probably THX00.  Sultry or airy female vocals (Fiona Apple sultry or Joanna Newsom airy), then probably Teak.  Though the differences aren't all that large.  By and large these headphones sound similar.  Like I said in another place, the Teak, to me, kind of split the difference between the THX00 and the TH900 signature wise.  

Thanks, I'll look those singers up to get an idea of what I would need. Most of the female fronted stuff I listen too is metal, stuff like Nightwish, Epica and Delain.

 

[Shazb0t]

Does anyone know definitively which driver, TH600 or TH900, is used on these?

 

[Whitigir]

Does anyone know definitively which driver, TH600 or TH900, is used on these?

Neither ? It uses it own