[bcschmerker4]

Sounds as though McIntosh® has a potential Grand Slam in the MHP1000.  Anybody tested 'em out on a mixer (e.g., Allen & Heath® ZED428, Mackie®/LOUD Onyx® 1604, Ramsa®/Matsu****a WR-8816) yet; and if so, how close to the final mix in the speakers?

 

[4N6]

I do recall that.  

I opened up the MHP-1000 this evening (don't tell McIntosh).  It is NOT a Beyer I've seen or owned if it's a rebranded Beyer.  I'll post pics in my full review.

I asked McIntosh about the Beyerdynamic relationship (my question in bold, their answer in italics)... BTW, I am still loving them. A great set of cans that seems to be overlooked. Pity.

Is the driver the same as used in other Beyerdynamic headphones? If so, which one? Or is this driver unique to McIntosh and only utilizes the patented Tesla Technology? The motor is the patented Tesla; however, the driver is specific to McIntosh (1) with a 6 layer 200 ohms voice coil. The 200 ohms made this headphone compatible with older McIntosh headphone outputs. (2) The internal pad has been adjusted for a smoother the high end. (3) The port size was selected to enhance the low end.

What prompted the decision to utilize this driver? The advanced, elaborate, and unique motor design also allowed for an open center pole similar to our home midrange driver. Certain technical advantages include the reduction of early internal reflections and the ability to port the driver for an enhanced low end response.

Was Beyerdynamic consulted in the overall design of the headphone, or was this designed in-house? Yes, we worked with Beyerdyamic.

In the design, why was a closed-headphone chosen? Unlike an on-ear design, the closed headphone design more effectively couples to the ear thereby enhancing the low frequency response while putting less stress on driver excursion and unlike in-ear designs does not intrude into the ear canal.

 

[WraithApe]

In the design, why was a closed-headphone chosen? Unlike an on-ear design, the closed headphone design more effectively couples to the ear thereby enhancing the low frequency response while putting less stress on driver excursion and unlike in-ear designs does not intrude into the ear canal.

 
I feel like they missed your point here (or I did!) - weren't you asking why closed as opposed to open-back, rather than closed vs on-ear or in-ear?

 

[musicman59]

I asked McIntosh about the Beyerdynamic relationship (my question in bold, their answer in italics)... BTW, I am still loving them. A great set of cans that seems to be overlooked. Pity.

Is the driver the same as used in other Beyerdynamic headphones? If so, which one? Or is this driver unique to McIntosh and only utilizes the patented Tesla Technology? The motor is the patented Tesla; however, the driver is specific to McIntosh (1) with a 6 layer 200 ohms voice coil. The 200 ohms made this headphone compatible with older McIntosh headphone outputs. (2) The internal pad has been adjusted for a smoother the high end. (3) The port size was selected to enhance the low end.

What prompted the decision to utilize this driver? The advanced, elaborate, and unique motor design also allowed for an open center pole similar to our home midrange driver. Certain technical advantages include the reduction of early internal reflections and the ability to port the driver for an enhanced low end response.

Was Beyerdynamic consulted in the overall design of the headphone, or was this designed in-house? Yes, we worked with Beyerdyamic.

In the design, why was a closed-headphone chosen? Unlike an on-ear design, the closed headphone design more effectively couples to the ear thereby enhancing the low frequency response while putting less stress on driver excursion and unlike in-ear designs does not intrude into the ear canal.

Thanks for the information. This should put an end to many of those statements for other people saying it is a re-branded Beyer.
As I said since the beginning.. It has a Beyer resemblance but it doe snot sound like a Beyer that I have heard.

 

[HiFiGuy528]

  Thanks for the information. This should put an end to many of those statements for other people saying it is a re-branded Beyer.
As I said since the beginning.. It has a Beyer resemblance but it doe snot sound like a Beyer that I have heard.

 
+ 1 it's not any Beyer I've heard to-date.  
 
Thank you for sharing your communications with the mothership. 

 

[griff609]

I've had my MHA100 - MHP1000 combo for about 7 months now. It is my absolute favorite combo by far. I still can't believe there hasn't been a proper review of the 1000's.

I've run LCD-3's, LCD-XC's, HD800's, HD650's, and of course the MHP1000's through the MHA100. It runs the picky HD800's wonderfully, but of all the above I still prefer the MHP1000's. They seem to do well with the widest range of music to me on the MHA. They're also extremely comfortable.

 

[AppleheadMay]

You prefer these phones over the Audezes and Senns you have?
I heard them this week out of a Bryston amp and the MHA1000. I compared them to the LCD-XC and TH-900 and though they sounded better than some other cans I tried I found them not to be on the level of the Audeze and Fostex.
I wasn't to fond of their "feel" (percieved build quality) either, they felt far too light in my hands.
They were on my shortlist though, glad I could try them first.

 

[WraithApe]

  You prefer these phones over the Audezes and Senns you have?
I heard them this week out of a Bryston amp and the MHA1000. I compared them to the LCD-XC and TH-900 and though they sounded better than some other cans I tried I found them not to be on the level of the Audeze and Fostex.
I wasn't to fond of their "feel" (percieved build quality) either, they felt far too light in my hands.
They were on my shortlist though, glad I could try them first.

 
Different strokes I guess - I also tried both the LCD-XC and TH-900 with the MHA100 before buying and found the 1000s to be superior to either. For my money, the 1000s had a more refined sound than the XC with better detail retrieval and the TH-900s I found to have a slightly hot treble. All good headphones though; didn't think the differences were night and day with any of them.

 

[AppleheadMay]

   
Different strokes I guess - I also tried both the LCD-XC and TH-900 with the MHA100 before buying and found the 1000s to be superior to either. For my money, the 1000s had a more refined sound than the XC with better detail retrieval and the TH-900s I found to have a slightly hot treble. All good headphones though; didn't think the differences were night and day with any of them.

 
Yep, different preferences indeed. It took me some listening time to discard these while with quite a few other cans it was decided pretty quickly.
Also differet preferences regarding the weight I guess. Audezes and my Lawtons are pretty heavy phones, I do like that.
One pair of phones I heard that was absolutely crap was that new AudioQuest Nighthawk.

 

[WraithApe]

   
Yep, different preferences indeed. It took me some listening time to discard these while with quite a few other cans it was decided pretty quickly.
Also differet preferences regarding the weight I guess. Audezes and my Lawtons are pretty heavy phones, I do like that.
One pair of phones I heard that was absolutely crap was that new AudioQuest Nighthawk.

 
I would just add that I think the 1000s are a little bit of a grower - they don't necessarily have the instant wow factor of some other headphones, especially if you only give them a quick listen. I had three lengthy demo sessions purchasing. The first time I demoed them, rapidly switching between the 1000s and a bunch of other phones, I was impressed immediately by their transparency, balance and detail, but I wasn't quite smitten. It was only on subsequent demos that they started to get under my skin and their quality really started to shine through. Also, the heaviness of the LCD-X was indeed off-putting for me - you say you like the weight, but that's actually been a big factor in my never purchasing any Audeze to date.
 
As for the Nighthawk - your feedback doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't even consider a pair of headphones from a company that specializes in snake oil. 

 

 

[AppleheadMay]

   
I would just add that I think the 1000s are a little bit of a grower - they don't necessarily have the instant wow factor of some other headphones, especially if you only give them a quick listen. I had three lengthy demo sessions purchasing. The first time I demoed them, rapidly switching between the 1000s and a bunch of other phones, I was impressed immediately by their transparency, balance and detail, but I wasn't quite smitten. It was only on subsequent demos that they started to get under my skin and their quality really started to shine through. Also, the heaviness of the LCD-X was indeed off-putting for me - you say you like the weight, but that's actually been a big factor in my never purchasing any Audeze to date.
 
As for the Nighthawk - your feedback doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't even consider a pair of headphones from a company that specializes in snake oil. 

 

 
Indeed, wow-factor phones can reveal to be less than expected after a while. I had that with the K1000 and JVC. I still consider them good phones but they don't beat the cans I thought they did at first anymore.
 
Hehe, AQ is indeed a bit of a snakeoil company although not all cable makers are IMO.

 

[griff609]

It took a couple demo sessions as well before I purchased the 1000's you really need some time with them to really hear them open up. The LCD-XC's sound great but they're just nowhere near as comfortable for longer periods of listening compare to the 1000's. The 1000's are closest in sound to the HD800's to me, just like a closed version of the 800's.
 
I almost purchased the Fostex TH900's sight unseen a few times but I've always held off. There were too many mixed reviews on sound so I needed to hear them first. I finally got a chance to demo them recently and I just wasn't impressed with the sound, the XC's and 1000's are in another league to my ears. This was all off an MHA100 and Cavalli Liquid Fire though so the Fostex may sound better from another amp, they're beautiful in person, really solid build, just didn't do it for me.

 

[vnmslsrbms]

These phones are amazing.  So easy to listen to.  I have HD800's, and the highs often fatigue me without knowing.  I didn't get that feeling at all with the 1000's.  Plus they have a very nice soundstage.  I checked a couple of times to see if they are really closed.  At the show Ron Cornelius said they designed this to be a neutral phone, and while they didn't wow me with some tricks, their clarity, soundstage, bass reach, comfort all impressed me.  Driven from the MHA-100 they are a great match.  I think the MHA is close to a dream desktop setup since it can even drive speakers.  

 

[HiFiGuy528]

  These phones are amazing.  So easy to listen to.  I have HD800's, and the highs often fatigue me without knowing.  I didn't get that feeling at all with the 1000's.  Plus they have a very nice soundstage.  I checked a couple of times to see if they are really closed.  At the show Ron Cornelius said they designed this to be a neutral phone, and while they didn't wow me with some tricks, their clarity, soundstage, bass reach, comfort all impressed me.  Driven from the MHA-100 they are a great match.  I think the MHA is close to a dream desktop setup since it can even drive speakers.  

 
I'm loving it as well.  

 

 

[Mortalcoil]

 
I'm loving it as well.  

 

 
I assume you are digging the Heimdall 2 cable Mike .... the warmth of the 1000 combined with that Nordost accuracy and attack.. 
 
Probably a winning combo.