Happy Friday, Fostex Fam!
I’ve had a busy week since receiving my new 808s, but have managed to sneak in some serious ear time and also direct comparisons to Fostex “open” big sibling, the TH 909.
First, a little context about myself… I am a big fan of Fostex and particularly their high end Biodyna headphones (although I have a growing stable of RP variants too). I collect brands that I like, and Fostex has been one of those for many years now. I found very early on that I tend to prefer their stock tuning and have generally kept them stock as much as possible, so my impressions should be considered “stock” across the board (I even opt to use Fostex own DACs and Amps whenever possible to pair).
My impressions of new Fostex headphones very much come from this perspective of wanting to understand where new additions fit in their lineup and history… fortunately the TH 909 and 900 are well received headphones that have a lot of available impressions, reviews and measurements for the curious.
Packaging and Technology
(Fostex TH 616, comparison notes TBC…)
The TH 909 launched back in late 2018 as an “open back” sibling to the legendary TH 900. It features the same 1.5 Tesla Biodyna driver as the 900 and now the 808 as well. This was the first non closed back biodyna from Fostex (in fact, both 900 and 909 are varying degrees of semi open, but that’s getting into semantics). Since then, in addition to the new 808, Fostex have also released the TH 616 (which shares the 1 Tesla driver of the 610 and various Foster OEM variants). Generally, these open variants are not as v shaped as the 900 or similar closed variants, focusing on a more reference tuning.
The 808 uses much of the technology initially featured in the 909: the big boy 1.5 Tesla driver as well as the dual resonant grating structure. Here is Fostex own copy on the topic:
(Image and copy credit
https://www.fostexinternational.com/)
Essentially, each layer in the mesh stackup is etched to emphasis an independent frequency range, in function (but not implementation) relatively similar to the Helmholtz resonators used by Sennheiser in the 800s and beyond.
The 808 packages this tech in a more affordable, less luxury focussed packaging. The gorgeous Urushi lacquer of the 909 is replaced with a raw finish showing off the 808’s solid black Walnut cup body. The cable is apparently exclusive to the 808 and does in fact also feature Rhodium coating on the connector terminals. It seems likely from the spec listing that the copper purity is not as high as the stock 909/900 cable but in practice it’s highly similar to me (certainly more so than the 616 and the other 1 Tesla models I’ve tried). There’s also no headphone stand included, which was a nice perk for the 909/900 but is certainly not the end of the world given the savings on MSRP.
The 808 uses the same pads as the 909 (and 616), they are a little deeper and more angled than the stock 900 pads and are definitely my preferred option. Hopefully all these new models using them will make replacement more available.
Sound Off
From the moment I put the 808 on ear, I could tell that the strong similarity to the 909 went well beyond visual and implementation… so it will be the first and likely primary comparison point for my 808 impressions.
Soundwise, these are highly consistent with the 909 to my ears. I’d give the 909 a slight edge in sub bass level, but this may be a consequence of the fuller mid bass on the 808. Similarly, I’d guess the upper mids of the 808 are slightly more forward. This gives a natural timbre to vocals particularly, but removes some of the “sweetness” that is loved in the 900/909. Overall, the 808 ends sounding a bit warmer and fuller than the 909, perhaps at the expense of some of more evident detail and sub bass impact.
These differences are subtle and the technical performance of the 808 is the same. I would not be more surprised at all if pad rolling of either model produced more dramatic shifts in the resulting tuning than the difference in housing (and probably damping) between these models. I tried EQing the difference to clone them more closely, but found that even small EQ shifts were much more noticeable than the real differences, at least where I targeted in my initial time with them.
With this in mind, the 808 represents very exceptional value from Fostex, they’ve truly managed to strip out some of the luxury aspects of the TOTL models and deliver that technology at a more approachable cost. That said, those that didn’t like the sound of the 909 particularly or Fostex generally will be unlikely to be won over by the 808. As a collector and existing owner of the 909, I had hoped that the 808 might have a bolder departure in its tuning for the sake of variety, but Fostex are very cautious and meticulous.
Regardless, I appreciate firms like Fostex that look to make their technology
more accessible rather than less. This trend is more competitive and consumer friendly than the predatory ever increasing TOTL prices that are so common in this hobby. It will be interesting to see in the coming months and years what other 1.5 Tesla variants are made available. Certainly a TH 800 seems likely and desirable, but I also consider if they are opening the driver up to OEMs too (a TOTL EMu for instance?)...
It's a good time to be a Fostex fan, Friends
I hope you found my comparison ramblings useful and entertaining, I wish you all a most excellent Easter weekend!
was trying to resist but... new Fostex.
