[Christer]

I found both headphones very amplification dependant. The Utopias are, to me, simply so brutally revealing of everything upstream that they could sound less than ideal even from excellent gear, making the HD800 seem highly forgiving in comparison. But they don't sound bad out of anything I used them with.

The HE1000 just seems to me only to wake up when using a serious tube amp, of the ones I tried at least.



See my review:





I did a "tape mod" covering the reflective surfaces with surgical tape, which reduce the internal reflections and improved things, though not as much the V2 did. I suspect that a certain type of acoustic foam that is used in another pair of headphones I have here, if applied in the gap between the ear pads and the driver housing, would increase the bass and stop the reflections, making for a kickass pair of headphones, but I never got around to trying it.

Interesting to read that I am not the only one who likes his HEKV2.
In comparison with HD 800 which I have owned since 2009 my HEKV2 sound clearly more resolving on complex large scale acoustic symphonic music.
I use mine mainly with my Benchmark DAC 2 HGC and HUGO for hi res downloads and with SACDs I use a Musical Fidelity HPA headphone amp.
And although I mostly listen to hi res pcm these days via headphones, but a lot of vinyl via large electrostatic speakers, I have to say that with some natively recorded DSD SACDs ,SACDs sound very nice indeed via HEKV2.
Well made DSD 64 sounds clearly better than 16/44.1.
Anybody stating that 16/44.1 sounds better than DSD 64 needs to have his or her ears cleaned and/or check their hearing imho.
With a simple switch on my SACD player I can go betwen the rbcd layer and the SACD layer . And it is almost immediately obvious that the DSD layers sound more realistic than the 16/44.1.
HEK V2 delivers very difficult instruments to reproduce like percussion and massed strings very well and does so with a realistic soundstage bigger than for example the Utopia and the equally large but less defined soundstage of the HD800.
Resolution and fine ultra low level detail is almost on par with the best of electrostats but without the dynamic and lack of really deep bass limitations of most electrostats.
The HEK V2 may no be the most suitable travelling headphones but that is how I have already used mine for two months and having become addicted to them that is how I will use them this coming winter again.

 

[Currawong]

Interesting to read that I am not the only one who likes his HEKV2.
In comparison with HD 800 which I have owned since 2009 my HEKV2 sound clearly more resolving on complex large scale acoustic symphonic music.
I use mine mainly with my Benchmark DAC 2 HGC and HUGO for hi res downloads and with SACDs I use a Musical Fidelity HPA headphone amp.
And although I mostly listen to hi res pcm these days via headphones, but a lot of vinyl via large electrostatic speakers, I have to say that with some natively recorded DSD SACDs ,SACDs sound very nice indeed via HEKV2.
Well made DSD 64 sounds clearly better than 16/44.1.
Anybody stating that 16/44.1 sounds better than DSD 64 needs to have his or her ears cleaned and/or check their hearing imho.
With a simple switch on my SACD player I can go betwen the rbcd layer and the SACD layer . And it is almost immediately obvious that the DSD layers sound more realistic than the 16/44.1.
HEK V2 delivers very difficult instruments to reproduce like percussion and massed strings very well and does so with a realistic soundstage bigger than for example the Utopia and the equally large but less defined soundstage of the HD800.
Resolution and fine ultra low level detail is almost on par with the best of electrostats but without the dynamic and lack of really deep bass limitations of most electrostats.
The HEK V2 may no be the most suitable travelling headphones but that is how I have already used mine for two months and having become addicted to them that is how I will use them this coming winter again.

I think that's a factor of your DAC, not simply because it is SACD. Some recent DACs that have been designed to get the most out of 16/44.1 might change your mind about that.

I think with the headphones such as these though one has to cater to their demands to get the best out of them, and I find the Utopias to be too revealing of upstream component quality.

 

[Whitigir]

I do agree with currawong that at this caliber, the Headphones is no longer your priority. It would rather be that your headphones is the final "revealer" that can tell you what is wrong with your system. You can start by fixing it pieces by pieces.

 

[Christer]

I think that's a factor of your DAC, not simply because it is SACD. Some recent DACs that have been designed to get the most out of 16/44.1 might change your mind about that.

I think with the headphones such as these though one has to cater to their demands to get the best out of them, and I find the Utopias to be too revealing of upstream component quality.

I suppose that is what many here would say as well. But allow me to differ a bit. 16/44.1 is since many years only a delivery format NO ONE absolutely no one really interested in ultimate SQ records at 16/44.1. But some labels which really care about SQ ,especially those recording acoustic music , by the way the only music where any meaningful advantages of one over the other would manifest themselves anyway, record in DSD 64 or higher rates both pcm and DSD.
Imho and to my ears and quite a few times having had the opportunity to compare live versus recorded, DSD64 sounds better and more realistic than both 24/44.1 and 24/48 and in most cases about as good as 24/88.2 and 24/96.
But not quite as good as 24/176.4 and 24/192 or DXD.
Many labels aiming for the highest possible SQ at least in theory are now recording natively from 24/96 and mor and more often even DXD or DSD 256.
And 16/44.1 while at least clearly better than other low rez formats is clearly audibly behind DSD64 and hi res pcm.
Although I am also aware that Rob is doing his very best squeeze as much as possible out of 16/44.1 he recently stated that with new recordings he always buys the higher native 24/96 or whatever over 16/44.1 and he too hears a difference and advantage of hi res with everything else being equal.
I am still puzzled that with his DACs, DSD does not quite compete with some others contenders.
I am all ears to hear if HUGO2 actually delivers DSD natively.
As far as I know none of his earlier DACs do.
PS What do you actually mean by saying "I find the Utopias to be too revealing of upstream component quality."

Isn't that the whole purpose of HIGHEND headphones or any other highend contender or SOTA product to challenge and be good enough to reveal limitations both upstream and downstream?
PS I watched your HEK V2 review with interest but as usual I would have liked more really demanding ACOUSTIC MUSIC HI RES Material included in it.
And less turning and twisting the headphones in your hands and more actual facts relating to its SQ.
Massed strings so common in a lot of symphonic music is one of the best ways to sort the wheat from the chaff imho.
If a headphone or DAC or amp or speaker can't reproduce strings reasonably well there is something seriously wrong with it imho.
All those vibrating strings are a really tough job for digital which chops up time into "minced meat", to handle and if DSD 64 really has a clear advantage it is because it does not chop things up as crudely as low res pcm like 16/44.1 does
Therefore symphonic music with strings and all the other demanding instruments, difficult to reproduce realistically, are absolutely essential for a reviewer to include in his reviews if he or she wants to be taken seriously by me at least.
As far as DSD 64 goes, a friend of mine uses the Grimm DSD 64 ADC on an almost daily basis for his large scale symphonic recording projects. Would you suggest that he abandons it and starts recording in pcm 16/44.1 instead?

 

[Whitigir]

Nope! There are differences from Native DSD vs CD quality, as I speak in simpler terms. Ofcourse DSD is superior, but we are talking about high-end Headphones performances in comparison, and the pairing/synergies of the Headphones.

 

[Currawong]

It's OT to this thread, but all but a very tiny handful of recordings made in DSD are mastered in PCM, as DSD can't be used for mastering, so it's a completely redundant point.

Many labels aiming for the highest possible SQ at least in theory are now recording natively from 24/96 and mor and more often even DXD or DSD 256.

Recordings have always been made in higher than CD-quality, usually at least at 24/96 to allow plenty of headroom for mastering edits. I suspect most of the problems with CD quality material last century have been the result of the software used to down-sample from the master.

Isn't that the whole purpose of HIGHEND headphones or any other highend contender or SOTA product to challenge and be good enough to reveal limitations both upstream and downstream?

Yup, and finally I feel I've found a pair of headphones that genuinely do that, to the point I can clearly make out even where parts of electronic music have been mixed in and out.

I agree about strings though. My own test is piano, as that is where I am most familiar. I have a Decca violin recording -- Julia Fisher playing Sarasate -- which I use to evaluate violin. That's the best recording I have of that type.

 

[Christer]

Nope! There are differences from Native DSD vs CD quality, as I speak in simpler terms. Ofcourse DSD is superior, but we are talking about high-end Headphones performances in comparison, and the pairing/synergies of the Headphones.

Absolutely, and in that respect I found Currawong's statement regarding both the Utopias and 16/44.1 puzzling indeed. In my world if a headphone is revealing of limitations upstream and you can clearly identify the limitation as such, that is a sign of its high quality ,and not the opposite!
Currawong seems to like tube rollling and such subjective ways of changing the sound of the headphones he tests.
I am much more interested in real SQ advancing choices.
Better amps better DACs capable of delivering the goods without resorting to spicing things one way or the other.
If anything I would say that my HEKV 2 has made me appreciate the strengths of my humble headphone amps Benchmark HGC DAC2 and also to a lesser extent, even HUGO and most my more powerful Musical Fidelity pure class A headphone amp none of which use tubes.
When I chose the HEK V2 over the Utopias it was because I needed a pair of headphones that could be driven well with a portable amp/Dac combo like my current HUGO or Benchmark DAC2 and hopefully HUGO 2.
But I have also heard the Utopias via a heavyweight stationary DAC amp combo where it too sounded clearly better than via HUGO.
With advances in Headphones like the ones from HEKV2 and Utopia it seems that one limiting factor is amping them correctly.

 

[Christer]

It's OT to this thread, but all but a very tiny handful of recordings made in DSD are mastered in PCM, as DSD can't be used for mastering, so it's a completely redundant point.

Recordings have always been made in higher than CD-quality, usually at least at 24/96 to allow plenty of headroom for mastering edits. I suspect most of the problems with CD quality material last century have been the result of the software used to down-sample from the master.


Yup, and finally I feel I've found a pair of headphones that genuinely do that, to the point I can clearly make out even where parts of electronic music have been mixed in and out.

I agree about strings though. My own test is piano, as that is where I am most familiar. I have a Decca violin recording -- Julia Fisher playing Sarasate -- which I use to evaluate violin. That's the best recording I have of that type.

1:While partly true, there are exceptions to that and that is where DSD 64 shines most clearly over pcm 16/44.1. Take basically any of the old analogue DSD transfers from Living Stereo for example and any decent SACD player will easily show the superiority of DSD over 16/44.1. Moreover the friend I mentioned mostly balances in analogue at sessions and the only pcm with many of his recordings is at edits points , the rest is DSD. And in some cases no edits where done at all. Almost as pure DSD 64 as possible in fact.
But to my ears real hi res PCM from 24/176.4 and upwards or DSD 128 or256 sounds even better still.

2: Wrong in the early days of digital a lot was done even at 14 bits and many rbcds where in fact done in 16/44.1 even within the field of classical.
music.
I have quoted him before elsewhere here, but FYI, here we go again:"We immediately heard something was wrong with 16/44.1 and it was not until DSD 64 and now also 24/96 that things started to sound right again. " As told to me by one well known record producer during a sessions break.
Let me tell you he is far from the only one who has told me basically the same thing.
I know several recording engineers in the classical field who not only work on an almost daily basis actually recording acoustic music who swear by DSD and others who swear by hi res PCM but none of them will have anything to do with 16/44.1. And it is not just because of headroom/mastering and such which the pop rock guys have possibly told you. It is because they and I hear that both sound better and more realistic than 16/44.1, period.
And luckily for the wast majority of recordings I don't have to listen to inferior downsampling methods any longer. I can and do just as Rob Watts according to a recent post by him also does, buy or get directly from the label sometimes, in my case, the native masterfiles.


3: May I humbly advice you to get more demanding strings and symphonic recordings than the DECCA RBCD 16/44.1 with Julia Fischer which seems to be the only one you have?
If you want to lend your reviews more credibility?
Julia Fischer is a fantastic violinist and she made quite a few very good DSD 64 recordings for Pentatone, before Universal/DECCA lured her over a few years ago.
Her DSD 64 recordings for Pentatone are SQ wise clearly better than any of her 16/44.1 rbcd downsampled violin recordings on CD.
Another violinist who got a lucky break maybe partly because Julia left Pentatone who I have had the opportunity to hear both live and at close range in her rehearsal room and as recorded by Pentatone in DSD 64 is Arabella Steinbacher to mention just one more artist whose recordings should belong in the collection of any serious reviewer.
In your video you had a very challenging genre Japanese Kudo drummers. But not in hi res right?
If you limit your reviewing material to rbcd quality you will not put whatever you are testing to the test it may deserve.
Your choice of music and resolutions can lead to misleading results in the absolute pecking order of things.
Both the HEK V2 and the Utopias are very capable of revealing the superiority of both DSD and PCM hi res over 16/44.1.
This is after all the HIGHEND FORUM here and 16/44.1 is not SOTA HIGHEND.
Cheers Chris

 

[Maxx134]

Alotta bits going on..


Never heard more resolving mids than Utopia,
With exception probably the old
Sony MDR-R10 & Qualia.

HekV2 can match Utopia in midrange at times, but the different Soundstage presentation makes them too different.

HEKV2 edges out Utopia in trebles due to its depth layering at top end.

Utopia has the cleaner, faster more defined bass,
but HEKV2 goes lower in registers and weight with good clarity.

Pick your poison and burn your wallet..
Its that simple hehe

 

[MacedonianHero]

Alotta bits going on..


Never heard more resolving mids than Utopia,
With exception probably the old
Sony MDR-R10 & Qualia.

HekV2 can match Utopia in midrange at times, but the different Soundstage presentation makes them too different.

HEKV2 edges out Utopia in trebles due to its depth layering at top end.

Utopia has the cleaner, faster more defined bass,
but HEKV2 goes lower in registers and weight with good clarity.

Pick your poison and burn your wallet..
Its that simple hehe

Personally I wasn't a fan of the Qualia, I think the HD800/800S just does everything better and the R10s always left me thinking: "I just don't get it".

 

[Maxx134]

Personally I wasn't a fan of the Qualia, I think the HD800/800S just does everything better and the R10s always left me thinking: "I just don't get it".

Qualia wasn't good design on head fitment so lost bass,
and R10 didn't have much bass at all for the size,
But both excelled greatly in clarity,
and Qualia was a tiny bit faster and cleaner headphone over HD800 .

A modded HD800 is really, really hard to beat, especially for the price.
Yet on comparison to the HEKV2, you realize that no version of the HD800 is as neutral and balanced in presentation of Soundstage as the HEKV2.
I still have my HD800 but it comes across as agressive in detail layering,
Throwing it in your face so as to be distracted from the actual performance.
Utopia also does not escape this either, as you can get entranced by its detailing , finesse, and supppleness at times over the performance..
(But less so because of great realism)

 

[npdang]

Completely agree. The Utopias are quite clearly more dynamic, faster, and "alive." The HEK to my ears, have far greater tonal density, richness, and front row presence.

I think this is one of those cases in which "to each his own (ears)" is very true..... I own Utopia, and both HEK v1 and v2.... well, to my ears, Utopia is a league ahead of HEK (no matter v1 or v2) for my liking... much more vivid and "alive", much more dynamic, much more controlled and at the same time punchy.

the only area where HEK is a little bit ahead is the soundstage, more open and spacious. but since I tipically listen to jazz/funky/rock that's not a point for me.

since I got Utopia, both HEKs are taking dust on the stands......

of course, the above is only IMHO.

I tipically listen with an Analog + custom 300B SE , but the same (if not even more) result is with my secondary Vega+Taurus chain

PS I have been a great fan of HiFiman cans, I currently own HE500 - HE6 - HEK v1 and v2, and have owned HE560 and others. but my ears are telling me that Utopia is way ahead. hopefully HiFiman will return first with the next can

 

[eee1111]

they are both great for what they do

the hekv2 is a different beast....I got the tubes that make it insanely good

the lcd-4 belongs in this convo
they have a bit of an open and punchy sound at the same time

 

[Gibson59]

If I had the dough I would absolutely own both. Both amazing, but different beasts for sure. Hard to find real fault with either. For my tastes the HEKv2 was my first purchase and I'm very content. Hopefully I'll add a Utopia to the stable one day.

 

[tunes]

Have there been any comparisons between upgrade cables for the Utopias and the HEK V2 in the $300-400 price range??