Review of Austrian Audio Hi-X65 Headphones (translate)
At one time I was genuinely shocked after the information that AKG closed its factory in Austria and moved its production to a modern factory in Hungary (where also selected JBL and Soundcraft products are made) and to other Harman factories around the world. I was even more shocked when it turned out that the engineers of this company decided to start their own company called Austrian Audio. The result of their work was professional headphones and microphones. In addition to the Hi-X65, Austrian Audio offers other interesting headphone models such as the Hi-X50, Hi-X55 and the budget Bluetooth headphones Hi-X15 and Hi-X25BT. I would like to thank ESS Audio, Austrian Audio's distributor in Poland, for giving me the opportunity to write about them.
Technical specifications
Construction: Dynamic, round ear, open headphones
Frequency response: 5 Hz - 28 kHz
Efficiency: 110 dB SPL/V
Impedance: 25 Ω
Nominal power: 150 mW
Dimensions: 200 x 170 x 85 mm
Weight: 310 g (without cable)
Build quality and construction
When it comes to materials and manufacturing precision, these headphones are genuinely worth the money, and even more. It's been a long time since I've seen so well-fitted plastics, such nice materials to the touch, everything brilliantly painted, not a single flaw, not a single scratch, no protruding parts, inaccuracies, looseness, gaps, crevices. Simply the headphones! And so well made! Terrible. What kind of times do we live in, when nothing falls off the headphones. But yes, Austrian Audio are really well made, they impress with their meticulous finish. And it seems to be only plastic, a little bit of aluminum, but the whole thing screams quality and I'm afraid even my HD 800s could be put to shame.
On the whole, Austrian Audio here offers us full-size, half-open headphones, with a mixed-material, foldable design and a single-sided cable with a 2.5mm locking plug. The styling is very much reminiscent of two models - the AKG K550 and the old K500. The color scheme, some elements, the headband, in a word everything here has references to the mentioned models, and topped off with a bit of influence from e.g. Yamaha but also other headphone manufacturers, ultimately being something like a project not so much consumer, but more aimed at the semi-professional market.
Comfort is good. These may not be the most comfortable headphones under the sun, because due to the pressure and weight you can feel that you have them on your head, but in no way is it a drama and you can consider them as a model of those, which initially stick to your head, to "unbend" over time and grow to the appropriate level, determined mainly by the size of their user's skull.
As you may have already sensed in my last reviews, or maybe in most of them in general, that I devote relatively little text to the build quality and construction. I'm assuming that it's enough to say if it's good, if there is something wrong with the headphones, what are the general feelings about the quality, but in the end it's the sound that counts.
Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize, because it comes back to me every time I glance at the X65 or have them on my head, that these headphones really scream to me with the quality of materials and already at this stage cause an unequivocally positive relationship with them. I take my HD 580s and turn my nose up - they're not that level, taking into account condition and age of course. But I also take the HD 800 and see that the cheaper Austrians are at least at a similar level, and I still have the impression that it would be an underestimation in relation to the X65.
The earcups are made of eco leather, strongly imitating the one used by AKG K550. The same goes for the padding of the headband, which this time is not glued, so there is no issue of greasy glue, but attached with Velcro. In this way you can - at least the padding - replace it if it gets worn out, or even try to "sew" something of your own. The earcups themselves, however, have not been treated this way. They are held in place by clasps and I'm afraid that removing them without leaving marks on the plastics may be a very difficult art. Maybe there won't even be such a need, but the fact is that this mechanism is not as convenient and user-friendly as velcro padding of the headband. On the other hand, the use of Velcro could cause unpleasant sounds, plus potential problems with the tightness of the shell between the pads and themselves.
It rarely happens, but I have no clear-cut way to complain about the X65, and aside from the aforementioned pads, these headphones don't have a single flaw. Everything else is within tolerance and I didn't have any problems with them ergonomically, nor with longer listening sessions, nor with driving, nor with output. Nothing was damaged during testing and nothing seemed to be damaged. Thus, we can move on to testing the sound quality.
Sound quality
There will also be something to describe here. The headphones are extremely interesting, but at the same time "difficult" in its own way. This is due to the pads, which in order to remain comfortable must show some resistance to pressure on your head, and this in turn determines the final distance of the drivers from your head. If we add to this the drivers placed asymmetrically, according to the shape of the ear, it turns out that Hi-X65 are completely unsuitable for a quick assessment and 5-minute putting on the head.
The X65 review will also be interesting in that I decided to show, for better orientation of the readers, which range of the frequency response corresponds to which component of the sound. This way maybe more people will be able to read something more from the charts than if we just operate on the bare line. Of course, it should be remembered that the graphs are created on a simulator of the human ear, and because of the implementation on specific measurement equipment, the graphs will be able to differ from those published elsewhere, if only due to the fact of existence of the auricle mentioned here with a specific shape. At the same time, continuing after the CZ-1 review, the graphs are supplemented with impulse response as well.
First of all, the 65s are a model of the kind that matures on the head, growing with every minute of listening, every album, song, even a single note. At first they will seem "etymotic", that is even, brighter, linear, with light bass. Only with the K240, when the pads give up, seal from the natural properties of sweat, do the headphones get their proper sound. Only then they can be evaluated and possibly praised or criticized.
Bass
Starting with the bass line, it is on the more economical side. It's nice to see headphones on the market that still focus on precision and accuracy rather than the popular "umca umca". Funny enough, while writing this paragraph I had Beyerdynamic T5p v2 on hand. And I was about to write that they play more engaging than the Hi-X65 through stronger bass and greater momentum, but while that's the case, on film and classical music they tired me out mercilessly and I started to get a headache. With the AA this has never happened to me, and yet I have headphones that are "on" with bass, and not a small one. So not necessarily something that seems to be a flaw at first, has to be it in reality. The HD 800 presented itself best in terms of bass, because the amount of bass was, ironically, exactly between the power of the T5p and the faster beats of the X65, hitting the preferred spot.
The Hi-X65's bass level can be modified with a track, for example (the Bass Booster in the Zen DAC immediately comes to mind), but you don't really need to do anything but stop whining, put the headphones on and... wait. X65s if at the beginning are indeed light in bass, but it's enough that the pads will melt into your head, and our own sweat will act as a sealant (the same situation as with K240 and K550), to magically restore the bass, especially the lower one. That's why these headphones should never be judged in the proverbial 5 minutes. They need to sit on your head for a while, just like Audeze and their thermally responsive pads, which are hard at the beginning (and when it's cold they are like pebbles), and under the influence of warmth they become soft and plush. These pads are not used here, but the principle is exactly the same: gravity + pressure + time + tightness + distance between ear and driver = success.
Headphones are not subjected to the process of warming up, but at most to the process of whipping up, although each time the pads will return to their original position and it may be annoying at the beginning when taking the headphones off and on, but you can get used to it. If a lousy person like me can do it, anyone will be able to (I think).
Diameter
Neutral in tone, but close in position. The headphones very well present the gradation of sound planes, preferring to show the sound in a more intimate, atmospheric way, building the message a bit like my old Lambdas. They do not negate the distance of apparent sources from the listener, while serving vocals and key sounds close, legible, fresh and open. This generates a tremendous sense of involvement that is especially evident in slower music that relies on ambience, slowly emerging sound in all its ornamentation, shape, form, and detail. The X65 can play vocal tracks brilliantly, and then move on to classical and film music as if nothing had happened, playing it with equal coherence and competence, never in a bizarre or random way.
They are highly predictable in this regard, but in the sense that we have the conviction to rely on what we hear in them. Truly, I did not catch them in any error, it's just that to be able to appreciate their artistry, you have to listen to them longer. This was not the case with the Crosszone CZ-1, which, despite spending many hours on my head, were not able to convince me. Neither did they play better with time, nor did my acoustic adaptation work. The brain simply could not accept such a strange sound, assimilate it, make it a point of reference. And even a million hours of warming up would not have helped. X65, on the other hand, is maybe not the immediate adaptation, but somewhere around 20-30 minutes and we are at home, in the headphones, in their sound, singing along with the vocalists, enjoying the detail, nuances with which we are surprised despite the mentioned predictability. This is what decent headphones look like, this is how all headphones aspiring to be called next to the supposed studio sound should sound.
You can agree or disagree with that, of course, but the fact is that after the CZ-1, putting on the HD 580 first was a musical escape to the front, while the X65 is their sonic opposite in a straight line. Interestingly, the 580's vocal proximity is just a bit more than the X65's. The Austrians seem to leave this delicate margin of safety, a kind of airbag around the vocalists, allowing them to breathe while providing a buffer that allows for almost-near contact. I like this kind of presentation very much, while for the HD 580 I have to get used to it a bit at the beginning, because I have the impression that there is a "buffer" in the middle. But this is also due to the fact that both pairs are written for completely different tracks and as much as they can be tested and compared on a reasonably neutral track, in the end it's worth giving one of them something brighter and the other warmer for best possible results.
Top
Brightened and with color shift because of that. The X65s have a slightly glassy character in the treble because of that, but you can hear it mainly in the treble-heavy tracks, synths, and so on. In others you don't feel it so much, especially those with slower parts.
What's more, the headphones have a certain quality that I remember from the K270 Playback: returning a lot of micro-details, details, nuances, perfectly finished sounds with high accuracy and crisp edges. On well and cleanly recorded tracks, this makes a really good impression, while also blending with the impression of a multi-planar soundstage.
In fact, I have to thank here the Crosszone CZ-1, because it was their sonic incompetence that forced me to buy new albums and go beyond my comfort zone, so the Hi-X65 had to prove itself in completely new genres. And they performed noticeably better, and after all the CZ-1 are 14 thousand zlotys headphones. So again, as you can see (and in my case hear) the price is not an issue. And so, for example, Austin Wintory - Fjordsplitters and Kegcrushers and Hammerhead Shark Head Hammer is a demonstration of great stereophony and great sound effects, as well as plenty of detail, with the only potential "mistake" being the return of the all too prominent treble in the latter track towards the very end. Especially at late hours it can get a bit tiring, as our brains are not able to process such a large amount of microdetails and details. Nevertheless, the headphones handle it well, in many situations keeping control over the situation and showing predisposition to play even better with warmer equipment, such as Pathos Aurium.
Scene
Surprisingly, it is very well created, not only in width, which is really big, but also in depth, which I was a bit afraid of after the midrange and vocal tests. Although it is still an elliptical stage, its extension and structure are at a high level. Theoretically playing on a smaller overall plane than, for example, the K702, which not long ago in a modified form I had the privilege to visit, the stage here is much more mature, professional, competent. Authentically, I feel in them as in high-end control, monitor headphones, which are supposed to show the most important components of a song. There is no room for coquetry and pinching. Such a thing as happened with the CZ-1 would not have the right to exist, because it would ruin literally everything and so distorted the image of the track, that it would be impossible to work on it. Besides, many headphones would not be suitable for this task. The HD 580, which just a moment ago won with the CZ-1 despite 31-times lower price, this time must remain suspended on the stand, because switching to them completely ruins this fantastic show, which is a mixture of scenic, analytical and depiction of sound in the form of first parts.
To dot the proverbial i's I missed at most a little bit of holography, but this remark is due to the fact of recent review of the Sundar, which presented such features at exactly the same price. Nevertheless, in the X65 this topic really stands up very well, and it is just harder for them to have such a strong "wow" effect right out of the box. I think it will be more a result of a good track and properly recorded tracks.
Overall
I have to admit I have a big dilemma whether to advise the typical user against using Austrian Audio, but I think it's enough to let the headphones rest peacefully on your head, and instead of fiddling around, picking up details, just listen to music. They will by themselves begin to get along with our hearing, without hundreds of hours of "warming up" and combining with the track, which will be at most more musical and bass, if someone finds their monitor character disturbing. After that short moment spent on my head it didn't bother me at all, and not only that I am considered to be a pickpocket (and very well), but also listening to these headphones took place on neutral gear that didn't add anything to them from the bottom, nor did it subtract anything from the top.
In fact, the only thing that bothers me about the Austrian's is that they do not offer such a sound from the start and require a bit of patience from the user each time (basically the same as with the K550), and that for the same price you can buy the HiFiMAN Sundar. But if you like too much bass, too much treble, then the X65 will be an excellent alternative. Although more dynamic, although not as holographic and punchy from below, they are more even and make a better impression in terms of materials and workmanship. I did not complain about it in the Sundars, but in the X65 I have no point of complaint. None. Everything is right in them, every aspect in turn designed with head, consistently. So is the sound, which de gustibus could be for me more bass from the start, yes, but I spent a lot of time in these headphones and gained a lot of respect towards their way of playing.
This is the kind of headphones that you either pass by because you listened for a few minutes and didn't find what you were looking for, or you keep them on your head and listen to what happens. And a lot will happen. The sound will mature, gaining momentum and format. The X65s play everything, and although they are not quite correct for me in terms of timbre due to the treble raised a bit more towards nasality, it's been a long time since I listened to such great monitor headphones. And after a while, even leaving them on for a while without any music, the bass level grows audibly and stops being missing. It is palpable throughout the spectrum, accurate, begging to be listened to louder, not dominating and not spoiling the perception of anything in the other band components. In this respect it reminds me strongly of the first K550, but because of the extended soundstage the nod to the K500 also exists.
As I wrote, I spent a lot of time in them and my hand was eagerly grabbing for them. Not after the Beyerdynamic T5p v2, which played more pleasantly and came to my door as a guest. Not the LCD-XC, which played more reliably and better than many closed-back models I know. Not even after the HD 800s, unless they were plugged into a very carefully matched setup. Would it reach for the Sundars? Not necessarily, either, because while the Sundars are absolutely great for their price, making a clear "wow" effect from the start, there is something about the X65 that makes you trust what you hear. Authentic confidence. These are very good headphones for monitoring, listening to albums in longer cycles, long listening sessions without taking the headphones off your head, and playing a wide variety of genres on them with usually at least good results. Even if the X65s give something away that is not quite what we would prefer, they try to balance it with some other feature. And so, for example, I wrote about the bass. It is on the more thrifty side, giving in return an impression of brilliant control over what is happening in the song, which I verified on a regular basis in this respect with the HD 800, which are famous for their accuracy. The same goes for treble, which is a bit on the brighter side, but not only behaving culturally all the time, but also serving in return a considerable amount of scenic experience. Here the HD 800s were, of course, the treble, because that's what they were designed for, but I didn't find the X65 lacking at all in terms of soundstaging. In fact, I enjoyed listening to spacious electronics, electroacoustics, classical, even jazz, which I don't usually listen to. Classics and soul music were great, as well as film music, which theoretically loves bass.
What's more, the headphones are not that picky about the drive. With a good sound card, you can enjoy loud listening, because the headphones do not need much energy to play loud.
It depends on how you look at it, but it can be both a disadvantage and an advantage that the X65 are so sensitive to stage conditions. On the one hand, from the point of view of a listener, an ordinary consumer, as much as possible of everything is a favorable situation. On the other hand, it is not everything that is "the best" that determines true quality but rather a skillful blending of as many things as possible, often extreme and mutually exclusive. From the very beginning, audio has always been the same Hz and dB. The same measurements of the same physical phenomena. And yet it is difficult to find products that are either unique or capable of keeping up with the changing industry in any way. Where do the X65s come in? It seems to me that for a consumer who is either already slowly thinking about some more professional sound processing, or for one who prefers a pure and accurate insight into a track, perhaps somewhat similar in direction to the LCD-XC, maybe to the AP2000Ti, maybe to some other pair that I have not yet had the pleasure to listen to.
Summary
Austrian Audio's premiere audition turned out to be very interesting, although the headphones from the very beginning had to fight with the excellent impression left by the Sundars at virtually the same price as them. "Only" dynamics, to that of a more widely unknown company? And this is where the old adage about not judging a book by its cover applies, because in these headphones you can feel the hand of real AKG engineers. Austrian years of experience have not been wasted, but resulted in something you want to listen to.
Maybe it is not immediately audible, but in X65 you can feel true craftsmanship and engineering knowledge, you can feel elements of both the team working on famous K550, as well as see elements of the legendary K500. Above all, the monitor sound, which is very close to the reference one, which I would subjectively consider in my doubles as something that has every right to exist in my headphone collection. Contrary to appearances, because the headphones absolutely have to spend some time on the head to be able to adjust to it, every element of Hi-X65 is thoroughly thought out and polished, every screw, every sliding of the headphones out of the headband, everything here screams with quality and precision of workmanship, the right kind of material, and also - or maybe above all - the sense of existence. There is no kitsch here, no attempt at coquetry or sham. And although this is not quite the audiophile level, which is not at all the substitute of the closest competitors, the Sundars have nothing to be ashamed of, for example with the DT1990, or even the T5p v2.
Despite some flaws, as headphones they seem very well prepared. You can see and hear that the designers of the X65 had a specific goal, which they carried out with iron consistency, creating headphones that are professional on the one hand, and still useful for a wide audience on the other, doing everything at least well, and in some aspects even very well. Even if we focus on the mentioned drawbacks of these headphones: the need to spend some time on the head in order to adjust to the head, as for me a bit sparser bass and maybe unnecessarily emphasized in the upper parts of the treble, they are still as good to listen to as the mentioned ones, and in most songs appreciate what I highly valued the K270 Playback for, namely the ability to quickly see the microdetails. If you're looking for headphones that behave reliably, linearly, with relatively little coloration, then the Hi-X65 could be a very interesting, and above all well-made, product worth listing to.
Pros:
-very good build quality
-decent materials used for construction
-well thought out dimensions and design
-plenty of space for ears
-removable (velcro) padding of the headband
-one-sided replaceable cable with a locking mechanism
-clear, fast and accurate sound on the ascending plane
-ability to accurately locate apparent sources
-very good level of micro-details
-spacious soundstage, especially in width suitable for semi-professional as well as for home use
Disadvantages:
-bass could be a little stronger
-a slight shift of the timbre to nasality
-instead of padding on the headband with two pressure points I would prefer one wide
-I would not dislike a little less pressure on the head
-each time you put them on, it takes some time for the pads to give in and the headphones to reach the correct distance of the drivers from your ears
source:
https://www.audiofanatyk.pl/recenzja-sluchawek-austrian-audio-hi-x65/
Still a bright HP.
