OK, I have had my XTC-C ^2.5 Euphoric Xtreme Trip phones, the ones pictured in a recent post with the gorgeous African Blackwood Burl earcups, for about 2 weeks now and I have approximately 10 hours on them. I thought I would post my impressions about their sound.
As I own a pair of XTC-C 1.0 phones (currently for sale in the classifieds), perhaps this is the most appropriate phone for comparison, partly because many of you on this thread have heard these, partly due to similar pricing, and partly because my other phones employ a completely different driver that makes sonic comparisons difficult if not irrelevant. I also tend to listen to different phones with different types of music, most often reaching for dynamic driver phones for music that requires a bass and dynamics underpinning to make it optimally impressive. A prime example is Thin Lizzy's Renegade, one of the best rock recordings I know of.
To cut to the chase, the 1.0 and 2.5 phones have a sound cut from the same cloth, perhaps not surprising since they both use a beryllium driver with similar electrical impedance and sensitivity, 64 ohms/113.5 dB for the 1.0 and 32 ohms/114 dB for the 2.5 (I think those are correct). The 1.0 uses nearly scalpel tuning while the 2.5 employs Wolf Hawk tuning (maybe JM can editorialize on what these two tunings mean). Both have a prominent but not overbearing bass presentation, good midrange body, sweet highs, a good soundstage for a closed-back phone, and good dynamic range. That being said, the 2.5 is better in all regards than the 1.0 but I would also posit that if you have heard the 1.0 you have heard the 2.5. The more expensive 2.5 just extrapolates on all that the 1.0 does and improves everything, including a more extended and faster bass, a more vivid midrange, a more elevated and detailed treble, and a bigger soundstage that extends more around your head. You can just hear more into the musical details and how instruments are played and voices sung. Everything is just more tactile if I can use that term, which makes recordings, especially classic and progressive rock recordings, more detailed. Even traditional and fusion jazz recordings are improved, but here along with classical and male and female vocal recordings I might choose my other phones that employ planar magnetic or ribbon drivers for their elevated detail at the expense of bass and dynamics. The 2.5 is certainly not deficient on these types of music but different drivers all have their strengths and weaknesses.
As I get more time with the 2.5 I will post my impressions including some experimentation with closing the little ports in the earcups--I just have left them all open as I don't feel the need so far to reduce bass or elevate midrange and treble. I know some of you will want more bass so perhaps you would prefer the more bass-prominent tunings than the Wolf Hawk flavor but I don't feel the need for a more elevated bass.
As I own a pair of XTC-C 1.0 phones (currently for sale in the classifieds), perhaps this is the most appropriate phone for comparison, partly because many of you on this thread have heard these, partly due to similar pricing, and partly because my other phones employ a completely different driver that makes sonic comparisons difficult if not irrelevant. I also tend to listen to different phones with different types of music, most often reaching for dynamic driver phones for music that requires a bass and dynamics underpinning to make it optimally impressive. A prime example is Thin Lizzy's Renegade, one of the best rock recordings I know of.
To cut to the chase, the 1.0 and 2.5 phones have a sound cut from the same cloth, perhaps not surprising since they both use a beryllium driver with similar electrical impedance and sensitivity, 64 ohms/113.5 dB for the 1.0 and 32 ohms/114 dB for the 2.5 (I think those are correct). The 1.0 uses nearly scalpel tuning while the 2.5 employs Wolf Hawk tuning (maybe JM can editorialize on what these two tunings mean). Both have a prominent but not overbearing bass presentation, good midrange body, sweet highs, a good soundstage for a closed-back phone, and good dynamic range. That being said, the 2.5 is better in all regards than the 1.0 but I would also posit that if you have heard the 1.0 you have heard the 2.5. The more expensive 2.5 just extrapolates on all that the 1.0 does and improves everything, including a more extended and faster bass, a more vivid midrange, a more elevated and detailed treble, and a bigger soundstage that extends more around your head. You can just hear more into the musical details and how instruments are played and voices sung. Everything is just more tactile if I can use that term, which makes recordings, especially classic and progressive rock recordings, more detailed. Even traditional and fusion jazz recordings are improved, but here along with classical and male and female vocal recordings I might choose my other phones that employ planar magnetic or ribbon drivers for their elevated detail at the expense of bass and dynamics. The 2.5 is certainly not deficient on these types of music but different drivers all have their strengths and weaknesses.
As I get more time with the 2.5 I will post my impressions including some experimentation with closing the little ports in the earcups--I just have left them all open as I don't feel the need so far to reduce bass or elevate midrange and treble. I know some of you will want more bass so perhaps you would prefer the more bass-prominent tunings than the Wolf Hawk flavor but I don't feel the need for a more elevated bass.
.
