[grokit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DannyBuoy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not certain that is a fact since the EF2 can operate on 16 or 18 volts (it's on the website). I swapped out the enemic wall wart on my EF2 (16 v/500ma) for a 18v 800ma and the SQ is definitely better (mostly as I listen at loud volumes and this is where the benefit is noticed).

So the mystery continues... it sure would be nice if the HiFiMAN people would chime in on this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DannyBuoy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am thinking of getting an 18v/2500ma torrodial from manufacturer in Pennsyvania to replace the wall wart for $35 but I have switched my listening preferences over to my new Maverick D1 as of two weeks ago (with upgraded tubes) and I have not turned back to the EF2 in sometime now (FOTM issue). The Maverick is well suited for my D5000s.

Nice to see some Maverick D1 love here

 

[sampson_smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shahrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wetness refers to reverb/reflections in sound that are present in the recording. If a pair of headphones are sufficiently detailed and resolving, you'll hear this wetness and it is perceived (IMO) as a more natural and realistic sound. A dry sound would be lacking this reverb and "air" around notes. This would happen if headphones don't reproduce all the acoustic reflections and ambient details of the venue or if they truncate the natural decay of notes. This is what I've always thought dry/wet to mean in the scope of speakers/headphones. Some people simplify wetness to mean "echo" but it's more complex than that. Also, it has a slightly different meaning in recording/mixing, which isn't relevant here.

Thanks for the definition, Shahrose. I was trying to define what made the HF-2's better than the MS-2i's the other day and I had to simply use the adjective "tasty". My friend, who owns the cans, now apparently more appropriately than I, used the term "juicy". It's definitely this "wetness" or "airier" presentation that sets them way apart. Funny, though, that headphones that are drier/more arid, have less "air" around the notes. I suppose you would be remiss to call "wet" 'phones "cloudy", even though that helps with the metaphor a bit.

 

[mrarroyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DannyBuoy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not certain that is a fact since the EF2 can operate on 16 or 18 volts (it's on the website). I swapped out the enemic wall wart on my EF2 (16 v/500ma) for a 18v 800ma and the SQ is definitely better (mostly as I listen at loud volumes and this is where the benefit is noticed). I am thinking of getting an 18v/2500ma torrodial from manufacturer in Pennsyvania to replace the wall wart for $35 but I have switched my listening preferences over to my new Maverick D1 as of two weeks ago (with upgraded tubes) and I have not turned back to the EF2 in sometime now (FOTM issue). The Maverick is well suited for my D5000s.

I got my information from Fang of Head Direct. It is possible that w/ three different languages in the mix the information was transposed. You are welcome to send Fang a PM to see what is what.

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sampson_smith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the definition, Shahrose. I was trying to define what made the HF-2's better than the MS-2i's the other day and I had to simply use the adjective "tasty". My friend, who owns the cans, now apparently more appropriately than I, used the term "juicy". It's definitely this "wetness" or "airier" presentation that sets them way apart. Funny, though, that headphones that are drier/more arid, have less "air" around the notes. I suppose you would be remiss to call "wet" 'phones "cloudy", even though that helps with the metaphor a bit.

"Air" is a term I have seen used differently so I can understand your confusion. I actually don't know if there's a meaning for that term which is universally agreed upon. In my description, I used it to describe sound that you hear around notes that give them realism.

BTW, I can see where you're coming from with "cloudy". Wetness could be described as that, but without the underlying aspect of "muddy" that may be associated with the term "cloudy".

 

[Pyriel0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I and a couple of others talked them down from $999 to $599 at RMAF, and they decided to give everyone that price.

As much as I want to believe in this company and I was looking forward to the more power hungry version..... my faith has been completely shattered on reading this. 1) Why would a company charge $1K when they would make a profit charging $600?(I can see the point but not in light of #2) 2) Why would someone ever think of charging $1k for a headphone where the wood sometimes cracks(for no reason according to our members) and the hookups for the wires are loose when they should be fixed? If quality is going to be subpar in the lower end version(and they were going to charge a higher price), why should anyone ever consider anything else from them?

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As much as I want to believe in this company and I was looking forward to the more power hungry version..... my faith has been completely shattered on reading this. 1) Why would a company charge $1K when they would make a profit charging $600?(I can see the point but not in light of #2) 2) Why would someone ever think of charging $1k for a headphone where the wood sometimes cracks(for no reason according to our members) and the hookups for the wires are loose when they should be fixed? If quality is going to be subpar in the lower end version(and they were going to charge a higher price), why should anyone ever consider anything else from them?

I don't know Fang and his wife, but I think the reasoning was this:

1) The price of audiophile-quality headphones rarely has a rational relation to the cost of manufacturing. As such, a reasonable starting point for choosing a price was to compare the HE-5 to an existing product. $1000 might have seemed reasonable from that point of view.

2) I highly doubt that the makers of the HE-5 had plans to sell it while knowing all along that there was a problem with the wood. (BTW, they report that the manufacturing defect has been fixed.)

Oh, and I personally have had no issues with loose cables once I tightened the wire hookups.

I definitely feel for people who got the defective batch. That's the risk you take with a brand new product in the market. Defects and recalls are a fact of life for cars, laptops (exploring batteries!), and pretty much anything out there.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As much as I want to believe in this company and I was looking forward to the more power hungry version..... my faith has been completely shattered on reading this. 1) Why would a company charge $1K when they would make a profit charging $600?(I can see the point but not in light of #2) 2) Why would someone ever think of charging $1k for a headphone where the wood sometimes cracks(for no reason according to our members) and the hookups for the wires are loose when they should be fixed? If quality is going to be subpar in the lower end version(and they were going to charge a higher price), why should anyone ever consider anything else from them?

Wow, if that's all it takes to shatter your faith, I don't know what to say.

They weren't really sure how much they wanted to sell them for when we talked about it at RMAF. I told them their target audience were the peeps buying Grado RS-1 for $600 (I had a pair of APureSound re-cabled RS-1 at RMAF with me, and the HE-5 sounded better).

At some point they decided they could go for a mass production and lower the price to make a profit by selling more at a lower price, in order to get this great sound into the hands of more and more people. Economics 101. If you don't expect to sell a lot in this economy, sell them at a price that doesn't exceed the performance, and hope you can make a fair profit. They now say they could make 1,000/month if needed.

At the time they were trying to determine a price, they didn't have wood cracking or loose wire hookups (and neither does my pair). But Fang at Head-Direct is a great guy, and making good products is VERY important to him (and his wife). It seems to me that they had a few complaints of cracking and they quickly found a way to prevent it in the future, by the time only 5 out of 100 sold had cracked. I think they are able to respond to issues MUCH faster than most companies, and I will continue to buy their products for a long time to come. They sell some of the best bang for the buck products I have heard in a long time (as does Nuforce).

 

[champ]

The loose wire hookup thing is not a manufacturing defect. The nut to fasten the wires are teeny, but if you take the time to make sure you turn them all the way up and give it an extra nudge at the end, they will stay on perfectly. It took me two tries to get one side aligned well enough so I could tighten the nut all the way. Before I was able to get it right, it seemed flimsy and loose, but after I got them fastened everything was solid and fine.

 

[Landis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As much as I want to believe in this company and I was looking forward to the more power hungry version..... my faith has been completely shattered on reading this. 1) Why would a company charge $1K when they would make a profit charging $600?(I can see the point but not in light of #2) 2) Why would someone ever think of charging $1k for a headphone where the wood sometimes cracks(for no reason according to our members) and the hookups for the wires are loose when they should be fixed? If quality is going to be subpar in the lower end version(and they were going to charge a higher price), why should anyone ever consider anything else from them?

...This is the audio world? Nothing can be made perfect and everything has large margins. The average speaker and headphone has a mark up value of 100%+ and you're complaining about a small manufacturer, who probably didn't foresee himself selling as many items as he already has, marking up like the big boys at Sennheiser, Shure, UE, Klipsch and pals? Hell, don't get me wrong, I'd love for my HE-5s to be made out of an indestructible light-weight stylishly polished metal with cables that could be used for hoisting steel support beams, but you have to think realistically!

 

[Skylab]

I suggest to Google: price elasticity of demand

 

[PaulyT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulyT /img/forum/go_quote.gif But the initial issue - the l/r imbalance - was clearly the RCA tube that came with it, because that went away with the second tube I tried (a Sylvania), but then that introduced distorted sounds that were not present with the RCA. I'm not yet ready to attribute it to the amp as a whole, I am getting yet more tubes to try out. But obviously, if the problem persists with all of them then I will talk to Fang and replace the amp. I just don't think it's worth the time and trouble to deal with a $15 tube coming from China, especially as I want to do some rolling anyway.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere! I got some new - to me - tubes today (actually 6 of them... when I do something, I do it all the way

), plugged one in, and for the first time in my personal experience, the sound of the HE5/EF5 combo doesn't suck! So, it seems my initial record on tubes was 0-for-2. A little extra QC there might be in order... (though of course only one came with the amp)

I see what some of you mean by these things being a bit bright (shrill on the high end) at first... but now I can finally begin the burn-in process, and see if/how things change. Then it'll be time for some rolling in earnest.

 

[sampson_smith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shahrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Air" is a term I have seen used differently so I can understand your confusion. I actually don't know if there's a meaning for that term which is universally agreed upon. In my description, I used it to describe sound that you hear around notes that give them realism. BTW, I can see where you're coming from with "cloudy". Wetness could be described as that, but without the underlying aspect of "muddy" that may be associated with the term "cloudy".

Yes, I completely agree with you there. We will eventually need some disambiguation in the site glossary.

 

[MikePio]

Shipped my HE-5's to get them replaced, now I just really hope the previous issues are fixed and I can have a peace of mind. Now I am back to using the K701's and DT 150's and man can I really see the faults now. My music sounds so "ordinary", I am not sure how to put this, but I don't bother listening to any of my albums... I have never thought the difference would be that dramatic, its not even close, maybe I love the sound signature of the HE-5's, but man does it best these headphones effortlessly, which is even more evident now since I don't have them! Regardless, if there are no more issues with QC, these headphones are forever staying with me, as I cannot express how much these cans changed the way I listen to music... (I know its sound fanboyish!) but its straight from the heart!

Cheers!

 

[mrarroyo]

Not only has Fang indicated it is 18V for the EF5 but if you look at the back of the amp by the plug you will see it states 18V. Pretty clear to me!

 

[immtbiker]

Clear as a marshmallow