[Ichos]

@ezduzit2500

Yes I find the OG Ananda more sibilant and piercing than the BT version.
But I wouldn't classify this two headphones as annoying.
They are very listenable.

 

[alexlevn0791]

I tested the Ananda with my Kann Cube today and immediately fell in love. At first I thought it would be too bright for such a transparent DAP. I also tested the Sundara and noticed better detail retrievals and soundstage on the Ananda, but am I crazy to hear that the Sundara bass slams harder? Both are on sale where I am at right now and I still can't make up my mind. Do you guys think the Ananda is worth it more compares to the Sundara? Any inputs will be appreciated

 

[yeboyi]

That makes sense to me...and I'll re-read your reviews also. I am listening to the BT Anandas as I write this and I hear a sharpness/siblance on some songs. Do the wired versions have this also? The Sundara had that also fresh out of the box, settled in after a few days burn in/play in and proper amping.

Yes graphs shows higher peak with the BT version. Wired version should have less peak. To my ears Ananda definitely not sharp, aggressive or DEFINITELY not sibilant. However they really burn in a lot. Don't know if it's mental or real driver burn in.

http://down.hifiman.com/manual/ANANDA-manual.pdf Page 21 they are insisting on planar burn in.

 

[yeboyi]

I tested the Ananda with my Kann Cube today and immediately fell in love. At first I thought it would be too bright for such a transparent DAP. I also tested the Sundara and noticed better detail retrievals and soundstage on the Ananda, but am I crazy to hear that the Sundara bass slams harder? Both are on sale where I am at right now and I still can't make up my mind. Do you guys think the Ananda is worth it more compares to the Sundara? Any inputs will be appreciated

Yes Sundara slams harder but with Ananda there are a lot of slam on the table just make sure you have tight fit. Keep the headband adjustment thingy low, if you feel pressure under and back of your ear you have seal problem. Pressure should be evenly distributed, front and thinner side of the pads should be tight.

If you think you can upgrade to something like Arya later Sundara is ok otherwise i would buy the Ananda. I think both have amazing value and fair price.

 

[ezduzit2500]

@ezduzit2500

Yes I find the OG Ananda more sibilant and piercing than the BT version.
But I wouldn't classify this two headphones as annoying.
They are very listenable.

 

[ezduzit2500]

Much thanks. I played the Ananda BT overnight and it seems like quite a bit of the sibilance has gone. Treble seems tamer and doesn't sss or tttt as much. Still has a little though depending on the song. Much more listenable overall. Bass has more slam and depth too. +1 for burn in, either physical or psychoacoustic. I lean on the side of physical as the drivers loosen and settle in. Wish I could connect it to my real amp for some real signal, this BT is limited. I applaud the idea tho, if not the application.

 

[ezduzit2500]

Ooops. Meant to respond to Ichos @ post 2,141.

 

[ezduzit2500]

I tested the Ananda with my Kann Cube today and immediately fell in love. At first I thought it would be too bright for such a transparent DAP. I also tested the Sundara and noticed better detail retrievals and soundstage on the Ananda, but am I crazy to hear that the Sundara bass slams harder? Both are on sale where I am at right now and I still can't make up my mind. Do you guys think the Ananda is worth it more compares to the Sundara? Any inputs will be appreciated

I'm getting decent slam with the BT version. IDK if it's tuned differently from the OG version or not but I suspect that it's starting to loosen up a little after playing for a few days, it was closed in sounding and really bright and tight out of the box. I had the Sundara and I liked it but I'm upgrading because I had several problems with Sundara driver matching, or rather mis-matching. I'm hoping that Hifiman does better QC on it's pricier models. keep hope alive...

 

[ezduzit2500]

Yes graphs shows higher peak with the BT version. Wired version should have less peak. To my ears Ananda definitely not sharp, aggressive or DEFINITELY not sibilant. However they really burn in a lot. Don't know if it's mental or real driver burn in.

http://down.hifiman.com/manual/ANANDA-manual.pdf Page 21 they are insisting on planar burn in.

The BT version have a siblance and brightness that's starting to smooth out after playing for a couple of days. They were bright and tight fresh out of the box. I'm a believer in burn in especially for planars. It's been my experience with Sundara, Ananda BT, and to a lesser degree t50rp mk3.

 

[SilverEars]

Yes Sundara slams harder but with Ananda there are a lot of slam on the table just make sure you have tight fit. Keep the headband adjustment thingy low, if you feel pressure under and back of your ear you have seal problem. Pressure should be evenly distributed, front and thinner side of the pads should be tight.

If you think you can upgrade to something like Arya later Sundara is ok otherwise i would buy the Ananda. I think both have amazing value and fair price.

I really don't know why Fang went with the new designs besides more natural shape for ears, larger space, and shedding weight of the overall headphone.

The difference the round shaped drivers had was better slam. Why did the rounded drivers perform better in this respect? Anybody know details on the configuration? Was it being double sided magnets, and caused too much weight? I know new ones are light in comparison, and does it have only one sided magnet structure?

We are commonly reading about lack of slams with today's Hifiman models. Isn't this a sign for Fang to look into the next evolution in his drivers (maybe he already is)? Light, comfortable shape, and slams?

 

[omniweltall]

I really don't know why Fang went with the new designs besides more natural shape for ears, larger space, and shedding weight of the overall headphone.

The difference the round shaped drivers had was better slam. Why did the rounded drivers perform better in this respect? Anybody know details on the configuration? Was it being double sided magnets, and caused too much weight? I know new ones are light in comparison, and does it have only one sided magnet structure?

We are commonly reading about lack of slams with today's Hifiman models. Isn't this a sign for Fang to look into the next evolution in his drivers (maybe he already is)? Light, comfortable shape, and slams?

I believe this is a compromise of thinner diaphragm.

 

[SilverEars]

I believe this is a compromise of thinner diaphragm.

And is thinner means requiring less magnetic field? Means one sided magnets? Lighter designs?

Is the thinner diaphragm means more fragile? Means limit the amount of slam/impact to reduce driver failure rate?

 

[omniweltall]

And is thinner means requiring less magnetic field? Means one sided magnets? Lighter designs?

Is the thinner diaphragm means more fragile? Means limit the amount of slam/impact to reduce driver failure rate?

In general, thinner diaphragm can extract more details, but sacrifice timbre and slam, and more prone to failure.

Not sure how it relates to the magnets being single or double sided.

 

[yeboyi]

I really don't know why Fang went with the new designs besides more natural shape for ears, larger space, and shedding weight of the overall headphone.

The difference the round shaped drivers had was better slam. Why did the rounded drivers perform better in this respect? Anybody know details on the configuration? Was it being double sided magnets, and caused too much weight? I know new ones are light in comparison, and does it have only one sided magnet structure?

We are commonly reading about lack of slams with today's Hifiman models. Isn't this a sign for Fang to look into the next evolution in his drivers (maybe he already is)? Light, comfortable shape, and slams?

I think the reason is earcup shape. It's very big and open. Different earpad with smaller opening might sound more meaty. For example DT 1990 loses a lot of slam with analytical pads. Even with EQ you can't get the balanced pad slam. Softer earpads with big openings will sound like this no matter what you do.

LCD 2C for example have less bass than Ananda according to measurements but it's earpad directing and pressurizing sound to the ears.

 

[SilverEars]

I think the reason is earcup shape. It's very big and open. Different earpad with smaller opening might sound more meaty. For example DT 1990 loses a lot of slam with analytical pads. Even with EQ you can't get the balanced pad slam. Softer earpads with big openings will sound like this no matter what you do.

LCD 2C for example have less bass than Ananda according to measurements but it's earpad directing and pressurizing sound to the ears.

Yes, when you reduce the earpad room size, you get more focused and impactful bass.

Dynamic drivers can't get aways with large pad room, only planar can due to the the diaphragm I believe. I think most planars are somewhat closed compared to Hifimans.

Hifimans are distinct due to how open they are yet produces linear bass.