[sunneebear]

Well, Elears have somewhat narrow soundstage, I was thinking that AEONs are better in that regard.
Bass slam is great on Focals and for me the high freq are little shy and they are not fatiguing at all for me because of mid-high freq dip.

How about warmth in those two, vocals?

If treble on the Aeon will disappoint if you think the Elear is lacking. Do you want more shimmer or more forward treble?

 

[karmazynowy]

No, they are shy in a good way. If AEONs have similar treble quantity then fine. I would love to have some of that bass from Elears but with bigger soundstage.

I like a little relaxed, creamy sound as well, like let's say HE1000.

 

[Porkyan]

No, they are shy in a good way. If AEONs have similar treble quantity then fine. I would love to have some of that bass from Elears but with bigger soundstage.

I like a little relaxed, creamy sound as well, like let's say HE1000.

As an owner of the T70, I can assure you the Aeons have ZERO sibilance with crappy mastered songs but still sounds amazeballs in the treble

Try out "Get Lucky" and listen to those hi hats :>

 

[IamMathew]

oh boy oh boy oh boy!

Mine just arrived at my work! Unfortunately, I won't be able to do any listening until I get home since my cubicle doesn't really block any sound...
In my opinion, they look awesome. Just so happens the AFC is my daily that I bring to work so here's some preliminary thoughts, comparisons, and pictures:

First off, the entire photo album.

AFO and the AFC next to each other. I really love the "ÆON" logo on the cups:

There are a couple differences I noticed pretty quickly:

1. The AFO come with 3 different pairs of tuning inserts, whereas the AFC only had one. It says the pair with one notch is pre-installed but mine were not. I wonder if that was either supposed to be deleted or the filters were actually supposed to be pre-installed. Regardless, it doesn't really matter:

2. I can't tell if the cable is different or not. I have an Impact Audio Cables cable I use with my closed model so I can't compare both stock cables here at work. My impression is that the cloth sheathing is softer than on the once I got with the AFC. The cable also seems to retain bends more but feels less likely to want to return to its coiled shaped. Overall, it seems more supple. I could be wrong since they look the same, but that's just what it seems like based off my memory of the AFC's stock cable. The connectors are the same:

3. The mesh inside the earcups is thinner on the AFO vs the AFC. On the AFO, the driver is visible through the mesh. Not that this really changes anything from a visual or design standpoint, but I do think seeing the driver is pretty cool:

That's all I have for now. Sound impressions will come soon!

I love how that driver peeks through that pad. Reminds me of a.....see through lingerie!

 

[IamMathew]

Do the production units also come with the bass port? Is it needed in open headphone? Why? :-o

 

[mrspeakers]

The port does nothing on the open, its simple a shared part.

 

[sunneebear]

The port does nothing on the open, its simple a shared part.

Oh come on Dan! It's a $800 headphone, you've could have thrown some spackle on.

 

[TMRaven]

I find the Aeon Open to have a good amount of treble around 8khz and above, actually a little too much for my liking. The 1-notch felt settles it down to become balanced though.

The soundstage of the Aeon Open surprised me. The Aeon Open feels like a closed back, sort of isolates like a very poor isolating closed-back, and has a smallish soundstage like a closed back.

 

[Schwibbles]

I find the Aeon Open to have a good amount of treble around 8khz and above, actually a little too much for my liking. The 1-notch felt settles it down to become balanced though.

The soundstage of the Aeon Open surprised me. The Aeon Open feels like a closed back, sort of isolates like a very poor isolating closed-back, and has a smallish soundstage like a closed back.

I agree the soundstage of the AFO sounds like that of a closed back. I was surprised by this when I got them because the soundstage is good on the AFC for a closed can.

The isolation reminds me a lot of the Nighthawk, which is semi-open. I still think the Nighthawk has a bit more isolation though.

 

[tuby sound]

I agree the soundstage of the AFO sounds like that of a closed back. I was surprised by this when I got them because the soundstage is good on the AFC.

The isolation reminds me a lot of the Nighthawk, which is semi-open. I still think the Nighthawk has a bit more isolation though.

Bummer... I was hoping those would have a larger soundstage than the AFC.

Never owned a high-end headphone set and wanted to try a plannar one with a big soundstage.

Kelvin

 

[mrspeakers]

The soundstage on AFO is different from the closed in two ways, so the conversation is probably a bit complex.

First, vocals should be a bit closer which gives a more intimate presentation for the "forward" content in a recording. However, if you listen to far-field sounds like reverb, hall space, etc I think most people will perceive the outer limit of the soundstage should be further out. In other words vocals are closer but the outer boundary of the sound field is further out. You can really hear the larger soundstage on the open when you listen to a binaural recording like Scribbled Folk Symphonies. If you use the test of "reaching out to grab" an object, you should have to reach further with the open.

Second, the headphones do more isolation than most open headphones. This is a working theory I have, which I came up with after talking to Jude a few years ago about how to compare open and closed headphones for soundstage. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so please understand I'm paraphrasing, and also that his views may have changed.

At the time when we discussed it he suggested that an ideal way to compare open and closed headphones for soundstage would be to do so in a very quiet room. The reason, I believe, is that most open headphones have little or no isolation so external ambience blends with the recorded ambience. My theory is that your brain can't really decouple these two sets of ambient cues so the room sounds become an extension of the recorded sound field. Since AFO significantly reduces higher frequency ambient cues if you listen in a noisier space it may sound less "open" but that is really because your brain isn't hearing the usual room cues it is used to. A bit paradoxically, in a really noisy space ambient noise may begin to overwhelm the more subtle ambient cues, causing the soundstage of the music to collapse. So if the room is kind of home or quiet office normal noise, e.g. ventilators, fans, appliances, some talking in another room, the sound fields can merge, but if its too noisy the ambient noise overwhelms the ambient cues.

Anyhow, the latter points are just a theory and are not validated, so I'd be curious to hear people's experiences with this.

 

[Schwibbles]

Bummer... I was hoping those would have a larger soundstage than the AFC.

Never owned a high-end headphone set and wanted to try a plannar one with a big soundstage.

Kelvin

The soundstage on AFO is different from the closed in two ways, so the conversation is probably a bit complex.

First, vocals should be a bit closer which gives a more intimate presentation for the "forward" content in a recording. However, if you listen to far-field sounds like reverb, hall space, etc I think most people will perceive the outer limit of the soundstage should be further out. In other words vocals are closer but the outer boundary of the sound field is further out. You can really hear the larger soundstage on the open when you listen to a binaural recording like Scribbled Folk Symphonies. If you use the test of "reaching out to grab" an object, you should have to reach further with the open.

Second, the headphones do more isolation than most open headphones. This is a working theory I have, which I came up with after talking to Jude a few years ago about how to compare open and closed headphones for soundstage. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so please understand I'm paraphrasing, and also that his views may have changed.

At the time when we discussed it he suggested that an ideal way to compare open and closed headphones for soundstage would be to do so in a very quiet room. The reason, I believe, is that most open headphones have little or no isolation so external ambience blends with the recorded ambience. My theory is that your brain can't really decouple these two sets of ambient cues so the room sounds become an extension of the recorded sound field. Since AFO significantly reduces higher frequency ambient cues if you listen in a noisier space it may sound less "open" but that is really because your brain isn't hearing the usual room cues it is used to. A bit paradoxically, in a really noisy space ambient noise may begin to overwhelm the more subtle ambient cues, causing the soundstage of the music to collapse. So if the room is kind of home or quiet office normal noise, e.g. ventilators, fans, appliances, some talking in another room, the sound fields can merge, but if its too noisy the ambient noise overwhelms the ambient cues.

Anyhow, the latter points are just a theory and are not validated, so I'd be curious to hear people's experiences with this.

I agree with Dan's response to the soundstage. The vocals sound very intimate on the AFO. My main headphone for home listening is the HD800S which has a very wide/large soundstage (almost artificially wide). Going back and forth between the AFO and that, the AFO sounds tiny. I also usually listen in a room with other stuff going on; tv on or a couple people talking, etc. I'll have to listen to them in a quieter environment to test that theory.
That being said, the soundstage of the AFO sounds rather small when compared to other open headphones.

 

[mrspeakers]

Hey, a question for owners; are you using the tuning kits, and if so how and which are you preferring?

 

[MattTCG]

My humble review.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aeon-flow-open-a-soulful-classic.863983/

 

[Schwibbles]

Hey, a question for owners; are you using the tuning kits, and if so how and which are you preferring?

99% of the time I do not use the tuning filters in the AFC. I never use them in the AFO.

That being said, I do really enjoy the 1 notch filters that I got with the AFO in the AFC. The reason I don't use them more is that both my ears touch the pads when they are installed in the AFC. Without the tuning pads, only my left ear touches the inside. I like the added room without the pads installed. I found I can pair the AFC with a warmer source like the iDSD BL or a (hybrid) tube amp and get all the benefits of the filters and then some, without the drawback of the reduced space.