[Philimon]

Sigh of relief, bass is back. Sounds good. I didnt place any wool within cups. Thought I would test like this first. Maybe some reflection issues now with the metal skinned damplifier - cymbals sound unclear. Will have to add some wool in cups.

 

[Philimon]

The wool wasnt potent enough.

 

[Philimon]

Reducing air flow or front/rear wave cancellation.

 

[bigjako]

Are these the steps as per Lawton’s instructions or are you going off script? It seems so involved and taking time to hear how they sound and then going back to correct for any undesirable changes seems like a time suck. Kudos to you but this is not some afternoon mod.

 

[Philimon]

Are these the steps as per Lawton’s instructions or are you going off script? It seems so involved and taking time to hear how they sound and then going back to correct for any undesirable changes seems like a time suck. Kudos to you but this is not some afternoon mod.

Not Lawton mod. Credit goes to E_Schaaf.

I am choosing to go slow in steps so I can note differences. I will be getting to the hard part soon, minor tweaks to account for my larger Lawton cups and sound preference.

Edit: The ES mod uses cotton. Wool I used was an ineffective substitute so went back and re-did with cotton.

 

[Philimon]

previous of lining baffle outer circle was a mistake. Not recommended.

Here is correct mod, lining interior cup lip with felt.

 

[Philimon]

Previous mod flattened frequency response more but still a little push at 1-2k followed by little dip at 3-4k. Needs more warmth. Not sure if the mod above addresses warmth, I think its more for 1-4kHz. We’ll see what E_Schaaf recommends based on results.

 

[The Third]

This post will be about four matters. First and foremost...
After all the cup swapping, I am thoroughly enjoying the EMU Teak with the original Teak cups again, alongside my HE-500. I feel the Teak cups create a better synergy alongside the HE-500. The Teak being the more relaxed and natural sounding dynamic while having a bigger soundstage, and the HE-500 the more neutral and analytical in your face planar side kick. The Zebra's, while more detailed sounding, are a bit too analytical and closer sounding to have that synergy with the HE-500 I want it to have. On the second side note, when it comes to fun or coloured headphones, I guess I will end my TOTL headphone journey with the second round of E-MU's cups I will review. These E-MU's provide me enough and I feel any other fun headphone above the price of these are just going to be different, not better. For example I read plenty of anecdotal reports of people who owned both the EMU's and either the ZMF Eikon or Atticus, but ultimate conclusions remained very vague. Seems like the tuning of the EMU's are just that good, and I'd agree. I would maybe start getting less expensive fun headphones and review those, such as relatively inexpensive headphones like the Grado SR80e. But when it comes to analytical pair of headphones, I will settle down with an original HD800 and call it a game. On the third side note, after reading on many anecdotal reports on headphone reviews, I find a key missing ingredient in the mention of the reviews which is bothering me more and more. People have to start including which Digital Filter settings they put while reviewing a headphone. Yes, your DAC will most likely have more of these and yes, one always has to be enabled thus you can not turn off a digital filter: it's inherent in DAC processing. For example, the Linear phase Sharp Roll-off filter plays very well with the E-MU Teak when it comes to it rendering music a tad bit more analytical, but the Linear phase Slow Roll-off filter makes it also sound amazing because the mids start to feel a bit closer and less distant. I am not splitting hairs here, these digital filter differences are important when reviewing a headphone as they do affect the sound presentation. On the last side note, it seems my teak cups are showing signs of wear around the screw areas: one of the screws could not be properly seated until I started forcing it a bit. It feels like I can only perform the surgery once more on these teak cups before they can not be screwed properly anymore. Mind you, this is after around 7 times dismantling and arming them. I would call this the safe upper limit for the amount of times you can unscrew them which in normal use case scenario's is quite a lot. Remember, never force the screws in completely or all the way, and watch the pressure. Cheers.

 

[Deleeh]

@Philimon i hope you do this with old driver or you have a pair in Stock.
All what you do is wasting Time and a little bit riddiculus.
The simple and best way where really the Lawton damping mod and all you problems are resolvet.

This can not be ending good what you do.
Have restored a Denon D2000 with new Headband,Lawton damping,Emu Rosewood Cups,new Cable,new Pads and all are be fine.

 

[Philimon]

@Philimon i hope you do this with old driver or you have a pair in Stock.
All what you do is wasting Time and a little bit riddiculus.
The simple and best way where really the Lawton damping mod and all you problems are resolvet.

This can not be ending good what you do.
Have restored a Denon D2000 with new Headband,Lawton damping,Emu Rosewood Cups,new Cable,new Pads and all are be fine.

Please google E_Schaaf and TH900 mod extravaganza for more details.

 

[Hallibart Aery]

Emu Ebony VS Teak review

Quick recap: I started my journey with a used pair of Th-X00 Mahogany together with Emu's Ebony cups, but after ~half a year I decided to replace them with a brand new Emu Teak, however, my curiosity quickly got the better of me, and I reordered another pair of Ebony cups just to write this review.

Disclaimer: I'm not the most experienced when it comes to putting these differences into words, but I'm fairly confident in my hearing and analysis. If anyone points out a mistake in my review, I'll come back and edit it as many times as necessary. Also I don't tend to like vague reviews, so I'm going to try my best to be as direct as possible.

I was very surprised to note that there's a very noticeable difference in detail depending on listening volumes which none of the reviews I've read pointed out before. The Teak can retain resolution and separation much better at lower volumes than the Ebony, but this gap diminishes considerably the higher you go, with the Teak still winning in the end, but not by enough to ignore the other factors at play here. That being said, if you tend to listen to your music at lower volumes, I would hands down pick up the Teak instead.
-On the other hand, I would definitely consider low-end bass resolution better on the Ebony which I think is the main reason why anyone should pick it over the Teak. It provides better slam overall, but the Teak's not far behind.
-Vocals are way more recessed on the Ebony, even completely overshadowed by the instruments at times which never happens on the Teak. A lot of people don't like this, I, personally think that this distance between you and the singer can feel very refreshing because it creates the illusion of being in a vastly different venue, but if the music is unusually badly mixed, then you might not even hear certain words of the singer clearly. The Teak can sometimes give this directly whispering into your ear experience, which some like, some don't.
-Both variants feel a little lacking in the highs but for different reasons, the Ebony is much harsher which ends up being detrimental to the resolution, while the Teak feels cut-off over a certain point compared to other well-performing headphones in this region.

Conclusion:
The Teak seems like the best attempt at making an open-back sounding headphone out of a semi-open-back, however, this is achieved by trading in too many things that closed-backs are generally good at just to somewhat improve what they tend to be bad at. The tradeoff just doesn't seem justified to me if I'm also taking into account how open-backs perform at this price point, or even at lower price points. I also have to mention that both the Ebony and Teak are semi-open and the jump from a completely closed headphone to a semi-open is much greater than from the Ebony to the Teak. If the only thing you're looking at is resolution, then sure, the Teak will definitely seem like a way better choice than the Ebony, but if your only goal is to have an open-back sounding headphone with great bass, just look at a planar and EQ it. I just don't see why someone would pick the Teak over an actual open-back.
The performance of the Ebony - while being extremely rough around the edges - does seem outstanding in certain areas which the Teak never achieves despite having more balanced features (and I'm not talking about the frequency response here).
I enjoy electronic music/pop with a lot of beat, and rock/metal that has a special focus on the drums way more on the Ebony, but everything else sounds slightly underwhelming, those play better on the teak, just nothing sounds as special on it as the aforementioned genres on the Ebony. The harshness of the Ebony's highs also play into its advantages in electronic music because a little pain can spice up the music in these genres.

 

[bcaulf17]

Emu Ebony VS Teak review

Quick recap: I started my journey with a used pair of Th-X00 Mahogany together with Emu's Ebony cups, but after ~half a year I decided to replace them with a brand new Emu Teak, however, my curiosity quickly got the better of me, and I reordered another pair of Ebony cups just to write this review.

Disclaimer: I'm not the most experienced when it comes to putting these differences into words, but I'm fairly confident in my hearing and analysis. If anyone points out a mistake in my review, I'll come back and edit it as many times as necessary. Also I don't tend to like vague reviews, so I'm going to try my best to be as direct as possible.

I was very surprised to note that there's a very noticeable difference in detail depending on listening volumes which none of the reviews I've read pointed out before. The Teak can retain resolution and separation much better at lower volumes than the Ebony, but this gap diminishes considerably the higher you go, with the Teak still winning in the end, but not by enough to ignore the other factors at play here. That being said, if you tend to listen to your music at lower volumes, I would hands down pick up the Teak instead.
-On the other hand, I would definitely consider low-end bass resolution better on the Ebony which I think is the main reason why anyone should pick it over the Teak. It provides better slam overall, but the Teak's not far behind.
-Vocals are way more recessed on the Ebony, even completely overshadowed by the instruments at times which never happens on the Teak. A lot of people don't like this, I, personally think that this distance between you and the singer can feel very refreshing because it creates the illusion of being in a vastly different venue, but if the music is unusually badly mixed, then you might not even hear certain words of the singer clearly. The Teak can sometimes give this directly whispering into your ear experience, which some like, some don't.
-Both variants feel a little lacking in the highs but for different reasons, the Ebony is much harsher which ends up being detrimental to the resolution, while the Teak feels cut-off over a certain point compared to other well-performing headphones in this region.

Conclusion:
The Teak seems like the best attempt at making an open-back sounding headphone out of a semi-open-back, however, this is achieved by trading in too many things that closed-backs are generally good at just to somewhat improve what they tend to be bad at. The tradeoff just doesn't seem justified to me if I'm also taking into account how open-backs perform at this price point, or even at lower price points. I also have to mention that both the Ebony and Teak are semi-open and the jump from a completely closed headphone to a semi-open is much greater than from the Ebony to the Teak. If the only thing you're looking at is resolution, then sure, the Teak will definitely seem like a way better headphone than the Ebony, but if your only goal is to have an open-back sounding headphone with great bass, just look at a planar and EQ it. I just don't see why someone would pick the Teak over an actual open-back.
The performance of the Ebony - while being extremely rough around the edges - does seem outstanding in certain areas which the Teak never achieves despite having more balanced features (and I'm not talking about the frequency response here).
I enjoy electronic music/pop with a lot of beat, and rock/metal that has a special focus on the drums way more on the Ebony, but everything else sounds slightly underwhelming, those play better on the teak, just nothing sounds as special on it as the aforementioned genres on the Ebony. The harshness of the Ebony's highs also play into its advantages in electronic music because a little pain can spice up the music in these genres.

Nice to see another comparison between the two as there aren't many. I have the ebony version and in terms of just enjoying music without getting too technical they might be my favorite. I have however seen some say that the Drop x Fostex TH-X00 ebony variant is the best out of the three, but the Teak is better than the Ebony, and seeing that the EMU Ebony should be near identical to the Fostex Ebony, then this comparison makes a lot of sense and the characteristics described of the Fostex match closely to what I hear. Very smooth, full and articulate bass with a lot of punch, slightly recessed mids. I actually love these mids as I like the upper mids a little pulled back. Agree about the treble though somewhat, it sounds a little dry but I don't hear them as sharp or fatiguing with most of my music.

I'm planning on going full-hog and selling all my other current headphones (AKG K371, HD6XX and Sundara) to get a Focal Clear and Celeste, but the only thing I plan to keep are these. They're very special and provide a nice alternative to listening as they can be relaxing at normal volumes but when you crank em, a lot of fun

 

[The Third]

Emu Ebony VS Teak review

Quick recap: I started my journey with a used pair of Th-X00 Mahogany together with Emu's Ebony cups, but after ~half a year I decided to replace them with a brand new Emu Teak, however, my curiosity quickly got the better of me, and I reordered another pair of Ebony cups just to write this review.

Disclaimer: I'm not the most experienced when it comes to putting these differences into words, but I'm fairly confident in my hearing and analysis. If anyone points out a mistake in my review, I'll come back and edit it as many times as necessary. Also I don't tend to like vague reviews, so I'm going to try my best to be as direct as possible.

I was very surprised to note that there's a very noticeable difference in detail depending on listening volumes which none of the reviews I've read pointed out before. The Teak can retain resolution and separation much better at lower volumes than the Ebony, but this gap diminishes considerably the higher you go, with the Teak still winning in the end, but not by enough to ignore the other factors at play here. That being said, if you tend to listen to your music at lower volumes, I would hands down pick up the Teak instead.
-On the other hand, I would definitely consider low-end bass resolution better on the Ebony which I think is the main reason why anyone should pick it over the Teak. It provides better slam overall, but the Teak's not far behind.
-Vocals are way more recessed on the Ebony, even completely overshadowed by the instruments at times which never happens on the Teak. A lot of people don't like this, I, personally think that this distance between you and the singer can feel very refreshing because it creates the illusion of being in a vastly different venue, but if the music is unusually badly mixed, then you might not even hear certain words of the singer clearly. The Teak can sometimes give this directly whispering into your ear experience, which some like, some don't.
-Both variants feel a little lacking in the highs but for different reasons, the Ebony is much harsher which ends up being detrimental to the resolution, while the Teak feels cut-off over a certain point compared to other well-performing headphones in this region.

Conclusion:
The Teak seems like the best attempt at making an open-back sounding headphone out of a semi-open-back, however, this is achieved by trading in too many things that closed-backs are generally good at just to somewhat improve what they tend to be bad at. The tradeoff just doesn't seem justified to me if I'm also taking into account how open-backs perform at this price point, or even at lower price points. I also have to mention that both the Ebony and Teak are semi-open and the jump from a completely closed headphone to a semi-open is much greater than from the Ebony to the Teak. If the only thing you're looking at is resolution, then sure, the Teak will definitely seem like a way better choice than the Ebony, but if your only goal is to have an open-back sounding headphone with great bass, just look at a planar and EQ it. I just don't see why someone would pick the Teak over an actual open-back.
The performance of the Ebony - while being extremely rough around the edges - does seem outstanding in certain areas which the Teak never achieves despite having more balanced features (and I'm not talking about the frequency response here).
I enjoy electronic music/pop with a lot of beat, and rock/metal that has a special focus on the drums way more on the Ebony, but everything else sounds slightly underwhelming, those play better on the teak, just nothing sounds as special on it as the aforementioned genres on the Ebony. The harshness of the Ebony's highs also play into its advantages in electronic music because a little pain can spice up the music in these genres.

I get what you're trying to say about the Teak, the spaciousness and soundstage do trade in some aspects of close engagement to the sound. Though, 'in your face' sound wooden cups (such as Purpleheart, or Rosewood and the Ebony like you describe) do tend to blur the image to a degree where the Teak doesn't. Also, just because a sound seems further away, doesn't mean it's less detailed. I have found that detail is easier to perceive with smaller soundstages, but headphones with a big soundstage generally also image better and so allow for more detail. Lastly, 'in your face' presentation tires quickly and generally is not as analytical.

And sure, I get where you come from with the Planar comparison. Planars do bass more linearly, and the old school HE-400 and HE-500 double sided magnet planars might even match the Teak in bass impact, but what planars in that price range or above won't achieve that the Teak does do is it's such effortless tuning. The Teak cups on these 50mm biodyna drivers and housing perform miraculously without any burn in necessary. There is no 'head burn-in' or time needed to adjust to the tuning of these: they sound just that engaging and natural. This is coming from someone who loves those aformentioned planars to death, and who has tried many wooden cups on the EMU's.

The Zebra cups might actually be an alternative for you, they can seem more detailed than the Teak as they are more dry/analytical and digg further into a recording's faults, and have a more upfront sound that resembles that of a closed headphone. Still though, there is this strangely addictive flavour the Teak cups offer on these drivers that make me gravitate towards them, no other of the cups I tried (Rosewood, Bamboo, Mahogany, Purpleheart, Teak) do it in the same way, just the Zebra does but that tuning is fastly different and has worse synnergy with my HE-500.

If I could own one headphone, it would be the EMU Zebra. Thankfully, I approach headphones with the fun factor in mind as well, and the Teak's never ever dissapoint me there, while the Zebra does. When I tire of the Teak's spacious dynamic sound, the HE-500 is there to back me up. Sounds contradicting right? Fun factor headphones never serve all purposes. And that's just the thing, are you chasing for that ultimate single headphone? Then I'd consider selling everything in your gear and ordering either the original HD-800 or the Hifiman Ananda/Arya. BUT you will generally miss the slam, which the Teak's personally speaking do have or even the old school HE-400/500 will have better. There's always a sacrifice in sound quality somewhere.

It's really a puzzle this headphone game, but finding the right exact synnergy with your amp/dac/digital filter/headphone rotation is total jigsaw puzzle and entirely subjective. Synnergy is really the word to remember here. But conclusively, I can vouch for the E-MU Teak being an al time classic, just for it's tuning and enjoyability. I take it for what it is, not what it isn't, and try to fill in the gaps with another pair of headphones which in my case is the HE-500. In yours? Maybe the DT-1770/1990, heard great things about those... Maybe a simple Grado headphone, they are super engaging apparently. Hifiman Sundara seems to be so well regarded but is a bit lean. Or the oldschool HD-600 or DT-880 legendary neutral cans, the former bring warm and latter bright. As you can see, each headphone has it's advantages, and disavantages. There are hundreds, if not a thousand of good ones by now, which makes choosing a fun headphone that fits your exact needs a journey. Good luck.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Are these still being sold new? Or has it been a long time?

I have a D7000 itch that just never goes away, and my last pair seemed to be pre-2012 and didn't satisfy me like my first two D7000s which were 2012 and on. I hear the Emu Teak is the closest to the D7000, and I wanna try them.

 

[Philimon]

Are these still being sold new? Or has it been a long time?

https://emu.com/order.html