[Odin412]

   
My desktop rig is the Liquid Carbon and T1.2. I find the beyer balanced cable to be absolutely worth the cost. As JerseyD says, it's about the amp rather then the headphones. The Liquid Carbon is designed from the outset to be run balanced. It has a single-ended output as a convenience, but Cavalli themselves acknowledge that it's performance is far below that of the fully balanced configuration. 

 
Excellent - thanks for the info! I've noticed that the Liquid Carbon likes to drive other headphones in balanced mode, so it's good to hear that the same is true for the T1.2.

 

[WildStyle-R11]

Hmm I'm curious about the bass. Is it Textured? I like how textured HE400i bass is, but it lacks the punch. Soundstage comparisons? Probably someone has compared it to something, I just don't want to go trough pages of text.


P.S. What exactly Semi-open means?

 

[raypin]

  Hmm I'm curious about the bass. Is it Textured? I like how textured HE400i bass is, but it lacks the punch. Soundstage comparisons? Probably someone has compared it to something, I just don't want to go trough pages of text.


P.S. What exactly Semi-open means?

 
mmm.....for answers to your post script:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/439788/what-are-semi-open-headphones

 

[LeMat]

  Last week,I promised a comparison between the T1.2 and the HD800S…. here it is. 
Using the 2 outputs available on the Auralic Taurus made A/B ing between the 2 headphones really simple. 
 
First thing striking. They both have the same sound signature. They almost sound alike. Both are what I would call bright headphones. For those considering keeping both, I’m not sure it would be a wise choice. That being said, let’s focus on the details to tell them apart. 

1. Bass: The HD800S surprised me. Where the HD800 left me wanting wayyyyy more, the S version is certainly filling the bass spectrum. It’s punchy, it’s full, it’s clean. Nothing to say against it. T1.2 has a punchy and clean bass as well, it surprised me a couple of times with great bass extension and punch. Both are very good. T1.2 might sound a bit more bouncy, with a faster bass. HD800S bass appear a bit more distant, but I’m splitting hairs here. I couldn't try the T1.2 in balanced mode but the HD800S is indeed gaining some more punch this way. T1.2 wins here. I loved the LCD2 (pre-fazor) bass but the T1.2 is bringing something special to the table.
2. Medium: Now it’s different. HD800S has about +5db compared to the T1.2. HD800S is bringing you closer to the stage/singer. You can hear more details in the vocals but it’s also more in your face. T1.2 is presenting vocals in a more relaxed way. IMO mids are recessed on the T1.2 but it leaves you with a nice experience, closer to speakers than headphones. In terms of tonality, HD800S seems more accurate. For some reason, I feel the T1.2 has a pitch slightly skewed upward, giving a weird tonality to the music. Mids on the HD800s sound a bit drier too, but maybe because they are more forward. HD800S mids are not so different than the ones on the LCD2F. In both the upper mids are emphasized. For its accuracy and natural tones, HD800S wins here.
3. Highs. Huge difference here. T1.2 has a lot more presence in the highs. Both has a lot of finesse and nuance but with T1.2, you can’t miss it. It’s pushed way forward… creating some unbearable sibilance on some tracks (Depeche mode’s « in your room », terrible) . The peak is about +5db in the 8-10khz region. EQing it helps. Where the HD800S has a very uniform presentation across the spectrum. the T1.2 has as distinct signature in the highs. It’s more like a 3ways speakers than a headphone. Each range is presented in a different way whereas the HD800S is ruler flat, more cohesive. It’s up to you to decide if it's a pro or a cons. More accurate but less fun. Overall I would say the highs are more detailed with the T1.2 though. I'm torn here. Highs are so good but are so painful....
4. Soundstage. I  haven’t spent enough time with the HD800S but nothing striking. They are somewhat similar. The fact the mids are more forward on the HD800S might offset the fact they sound wider. In the end, soundstage is the roughly same. 
5. Versatility: I'll go against what I've read so far. T1.2 is not so versatile. It eats poor or average recordings for breakfast. It's mercyless. This thing is a scalpel. Feed it with something it likes and you're in for a treat. If you have some nostalgia and feel like listening for an old mp3 you have in stock, or this underground funk oldies from the 70's... it might hurt ! In that sense, HD800S seems more easy going.
6. Miscellaneous: Fit is different but both are comfy. HD800 is bigger with firmer pads. T1.2 is smaller and more padded. Quality wise, I'm a bit disappointed by the HD800s. Black looks nice in picture but in reality, it's just black plastic, and not the kind of one you can have on a Nikon reflex... not cheap but not great neither. Cables are more or less the same. Odd thing to note. You can really tweak the sound on the T1.2 by adjusting the placement over the ears... and it's not a subtle difference. HD800 are more or less immune to this trick.

 
So close but so different….that’s my conclusion. EQ’ed, they might sound the same, almost. Value wise, T1.2 is killing it. At half the price for 95% of the SQ, T1.2 is a no brainer….if you can live with its overly aggressive, or should I say forward, highs. I can't but I have no shame in using an EQ !
I will spend some more time with the HD800S but I think I'll keep the T1.2.... or listen to the Elear and maybe sell both

EDIT:
 
I've now spent more time listening to the HD800S. They are indeed a different beast. I like how natural and balanced they sound, blending all frequencies altogether. They are not as WOW as the T1.2 but they sound closer to reality (what you hear without your headphone ! we tend to forget that). They're at ease with pretty much anything I've thrown at it. It's though to compare these with the T1.2. T1.2 has outstanding bass and trebles, but for some reason, it goes beyond reality. For sure it makes things exciting! It appeals to the analytical people out there. I've been able to listen to my records in new ways, like under a microscope. Sometime for the best, sometimes for the worse. But again, it's not the real life. It doesn't sound like a concert nor like a $300k hifi system.
The HD800S are somehow frustrating in the sense that I can't pinpoint something really good, neither something really bad. Ok the mids are pretty near perfect. The T1.2 are the kind of things you love to hate. The highs are damn good but damn annoying. The mids are recessed, lack details. but make the listening session enjoyable. The bass is so fast and punchy, it's like have a massage on your ears! And this is where the HD800S falls short. The bass is powerful but a bit bloated, hazy. The analogy that came to my mind is like listening to high end speakers in a room with poor acoustic, with gypsum walls for example. It vibrates. It's not bad at all but compared to the T1.2 or a planar magnetic, it's not as clean. The HD800S are also very slightly veiled and I feel the cable is not as good as the one on the T1.2. 
 
I now leave the conclusion up to you. You have all the pros and cons for 2 very good headphones !

 

[thatonenoob]

EDIT:

I've now spent more time listening to the HD800S. They are indeed a different beast. I like how natural and balanced they sound, blending all frequencies altogether. They are not as WOW as the T1.2 but they sound closer to reality (what you hear without your headphone ! we tend to forget that). They're at ease with pretty much anything I've thrown at it. It's though to compare these with the T1.2...

Very nice impressions. I wonder how you would enjoy the T1.1.

 

[rnros]

Well done. Thanks for the follow-up!

 

[thatonenoob]

Kind of a followup to the question I had on the 400i thread...but I have used a camera blower to push off dust particles near/ on the driver area of my T1.  Now I'm wondering (perhaps it is a bit OCD) if the drivers have somehow been damaged.  All signs are telling me the T1 is still in good shape...but there is that nagging thought at the back of my mind*.  Any way to test this.

 

[DogMeat]

Been wanting to try the t1.2 for some while, having had the t1.1 for my "good" BDs.
I finally acquired a t1.2 with just the right amount of run-in mileage...
 
Have been doing a side-by-side,(stop the music, switch, restart and listen over the same 20 seconds), so that I can evaluate the differences fairly precisely.
 
I am listening to Anders Miolin performances of Villa-Lobos solo guitar works, so it's all classical acoustic guitar, where one can hear the finger squeaks on the strings and have a range of lows and highs to listen to, including resounding chords and rapid finger arpeggios...
 
What I am finding after doing so, is this:
The T1.1's are very slightly more "crisp and detailed sounding" in the treble. Good mids and bass, but a little clinical/analytical sounding, perhaps. An apt phrase for the way these sound might be to describe it as being "pleasantly tart".
The T1.2's are very slightly more lush/deep, with just slightly less detail in the trebles. Very pleasing...if we employ a similarly apt phrase as before, I might go with, "mildly sweetened but with the same tart flavour". They are NOT bass-heavy. I am really sensitive to, and against, "bass-heavy", so I would really notice it instantly if it were the case....
 
Neither have any lag or slowness in response with fast fingerings.
 
The fingering sounds seem a bit more present and "live" with the T1.1's. But not much. I think that persons who find string squeaks annoying/harsh might prefer the version 2's, although one does hear the "live" details with them, just not as forwardly, IMO.
Both present the mid and lower ranges very accurately, but, as mentioned, I believe that the version 1's seem a slight amount more clinical/analytical, to my ear. It's not about accuracy...they both present everything that is there in the performance, but things like the treble squeaks and rubs of finger on string seem a bit recessed in the v2's when compared instantly against the v1's performance of the same several bars of music.
 
I have compared the 2 'phones on 2 amps:
The JDS Labs Element
The Woo WA6.
 
Thus, we hear them on both solid state and tube. The differences mentioned above remain rather constant, although the version 1 sense of "harshness",(with the organic squeaks and rubs of strings), is nicely lessened by the tube amp, and, of course, they become a little less clinical sounding. But so does the v2...WITHOUT any mushyness or lessening of detail becoming apparent in the v2 at the same time.
 
I can say this about that;
I think that both phones just sound better,with classical music, on the WA6....which makes sonic sense when listening to any acoustic  music. I believe that the WA6 is a better pairing with both versions than the JDS Element for classical music. But I am, at first listen, enjoying electronically produced music better on the Element than with the WA6, with both versions, for rather obvious reasons. Clearly, here's a case of the right amp for the job. 
 
I chose the classical guitar music as my comparison material simply because it's quite detailed and easy for sorting the analytical sounding from the lush, I am familiar with classical music and what it shows me, and I think that these selections are very good for exposing weakness and strength in a set of high-end headphones.
 
I am sure that, over time, I will see myself using each version for different musics. Neither version would fail to do justice to a certain selection, but the nuance differences are JUST ENOUGH that, since I can keep both in my inventory, I will find myself employing each a bit differently.  Like, the v1s might be best used with electronically produced music,and solo performance,(and where the recording itself is flawless because any sibilances or hisses will be presented sans mercí), while the v2's will be WONDERFUL with group performances, vocal music,(we don't really need to hear just EVERYTHING a throat does too forwardly, so we?), and in cases where a SLIGHT forgiveness for media is needed. But it can't be much, as the v2's are still quite transparent, absolutely!
 
So, there's my take, my personal appreciation of how these two versions of the T1 sound.
I hope it helps people who are on the fence, about which version, to make up their mind. Might not be a big enough difference to matter, for a several-hundred dollar difference in price tag, for some/most folks. The best of BD T1's is present in BOTH sets of cans.
I, myself, like transparent, accurate,  and rather clarifying headphones, so I have always liked the T1's, and I like these both, albeit, slightly differently.
 
The differences are subtle... and neither choice is a mistake. If you've a WA6,(or beyond, but I LOVE my WA6's!)..... any flaws you believe the version 1 to have will be defeated by the more organic sound and somewhat mellowing influence that the correct tube combo offers.
But then...there's THAT. That TUBE thing.....

 

[whill]

Been wanting to try the t1.2 for some while, having had the t1.1 for my "good" BDs.
I finally acquired a t1.2 with just the right amount of run-in mileage...
 
Have been doing a side-by-side,(stop the music, switch, restart and listen over the same 20 seconds), so that I can evaluate the differences fairly precisely.
 
I am listening to Anders Miolin performances of Villa-Lobos solo guitar works, so it's all classical acoustic guitar, where one can hear the finger squeaks on the strings and have a range of lows and highs to listen to, including resounding chords and rapid finger arpeggios...
 
What I am finding after doing so, is this:
The T1.1's are very slightly more "crisp and detailed sounding" in the treble. Good mids and bass, but a little clinical/analytical sounding, perhaps. An apt phrase for the way these sound might be to describe it as being "pleasantly tart".
The T1.2's are very slightly more lush/deep, with just slightly less detail in the trebles. Very pleasing...if we employ a similarly apt phrase as before, I might go with, "mildly sweetened but with the same tart flavour". They are NOT bass-heavy. I am really sensitive to, and against, "bass-heavy", so I would really notice it instantly if it were the case....
 
Neither have any lag or slowness in response with fast fingerings.
 
The fingering sounds seem a bit more present and "live" with the T1.1's. But not much. I think that persons who find string squeaks annoying/harsh might prefer the version 2's, although one does hear the "live" details with them, just not as forwardly, IMO.
Both present the mid and lower ranges very accurately, but, as mentioned, I believe that the version 1's seem a slight amount more clinical/analytical, to my ear. It's not about accuracy...they both present everything that is there in the performance, but things like the treble squeaks and rubs of finger on string seem a bit recessed in the v2's when compared instantly against the v1's performance of the same several bars of music.
 
I have compared the 2 'phones on 2 amps:
The JDS Labs Element
The Woo WA6.
 
Thus, we hear them on both solid state and tube. The differences mentioned above remain rather constant, although the version 1 sense of "harshness",(with the organic squeaks and rubs of strings), is nicely lessened by the tube amp, and, of course, they become a little less clinical sounding. But so does the v2...WITHOUT any mushyness or lessening of detail becoming apparent in the v2 at the same time.
 
I can say this about that;
I think that both phones just sound better,with classical music, on the WA6....which makes sonic sense when listening to any acoustic  music. I believe that the WA6 is a better pairing with both versions than the JDS Element for classical music. But I am, at first listen, enjoying electronically produced music better on the Element than with the WA6, with both versions, for rather obvious reasons. Clearly, here's a case of the right amp for the job. 
 
I chose the classical guitar music as my comparison material simply because it's quite detailed and easy for sorting the analytical sounding from the lush, I am familiar with classical music and what it shows me, and I think that these selections are very good for exposing weakness and strength in a set of high-end headphones.
 
I am sure that, over time, I will see myself using each version for different musics. Neither version would fail to do justice to a certain selection, but the nuance differences are JUST ENOUGH that, since I can keep both in my inventory, I will find myself employing each a bit differently.  Like, the v1s might be best used with electronically produced music,and solo performance,(and where the recording itself is flawless because any sibilances or hisses will be presented sans mercí), while the v2's will be WONDERFUL with group performances, vocal music,(we don't really need to hear just EVERYTHING a throat does too forwardly, so we?), and in cases where a SLIGHT forgiveness for media is needed. But it can't be much, as the v2's are still quite transparent, absolutely!
 
So, there's my take, my personal appreciation of how these two versions of the T1 sound.
I hope it helps people who are on the fence, about which version, to make up their mind. Might not be a big enough difference to matter, for a several-hundred dollar difference in price tag, for some/most folks. The best of BD T1's is present in BOTH sets of cans.
I, myself, like transparent, accurate,  and rather clarifying headphones, so I have always liked the T1's, and I like these both, albeit, slightly differently.
 
The differences are subtle... and neither choice is a mistake. If you've a WA6,(or beyond, but I LOVE my WA6's!)..... any flaws you believe the version 1 to have will be defeated by the more organic sound and somewhat mellowing influence that the correct tube combo offers.
But then...there's THAT. That TUBE thing.....

Thank you for this one.

I am quite hesitant to try tube amps for 2 reasons: 1. Have not heard one in terms of headphone / desktop audio 2. I have heard tube amps for home audio but i have noticed is that there is less PRaT compared to solid states - will this be true for the WA6?

Thank you for the response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DogMeat]

Well.... I guess it depends on how you mean the use of the term "PRaT" here.
I mean; I have yet to notice, either on my room-sized audio tube amp vs. my room sized audio ss amp, any miss-matches of pace and timing and rhythm, or a failure to "flow" within a specific piece of music that I am listening to, or a loss of pace/time/rhythm, or, a better sense of it, from a specific amp.
Like, the voice never fails in pace or rhythm or time with the guitar. Never fails to seem vital and alive.
Perhaps my amps,(tube or ss), don't lack PRaT...because I have gone with nice gear that does a good job at feeling lively, toe-tappable, flowing along well....and reproducing music to sound ALIVE.
But, if you are saying that a tubie might not sound as crisp as a ss....perhaps that can be said.
The other side of that is that a ss will never sound as "liquid" as a tubie.
We like our tube amps because there's a certain "organicity" to the sound, perhaps it seems less dry.
It's about what happens with the electrons.
And there's a LOT about which tubes you use, in which combo, that MATTERS.
 
Now, if you are talking about how responsively an amp follows on-screen movie action in your home theatre....bet it's a different thing entirely, and I'd bet my money on a ss amp doing a better job with Pace,rhythm,timing matching up better. 
Probably.
But I don't know that much about it, I'm just using an old radio shack deck with my tv for my movie watching, as I prefer to spend my money on amps for MUSIC.
 
anyway.
This thread is about Beyerdynamic T1 v.2's.  You can sure find majillions of better threads about tube amps, and, specifically WA6's, like CRAZY on this Glory that is the headfi forum machine! 

 
 
 
p.s.
you really can't go wrong trying a wa6. it's a really good way to try a tube amp that can do tasty tubie justice to MOST of the high-end cans out there.
plus....you can spend ENDLESS amounts of money and ENDLESS amounts of time reaching for the perfect tube set up and chatting on this forum about same.
 
 
 
 
 
edited for crappy typos and an edification of something I said.

 

[whill]

Thank you for the response Sir. I really appreciated it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whill]

Hi Guys!
 
Please kindly click on the link for the song that i would like to be the "reference material"
 
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArCEweUqCf9W6jkpGs_j_THzYQMv
 
This song is from Sara Bareilles (Love on the rocks/Bennie and the Jets) this is a pop song recorded live with piano and vocals only.
 
I will post my post findings a little bit later so that we can avoid a "pre conditioned" conclusion for the song.
 
I am currently using the following gears:
 
macbook pro > vlink II > vpsu> vdacII > Burson Soloist SL MKI(using high gain for T1.2) and using Chord Crimson Interconnect and Audioquest Evergreen USB Cable.
 
Thank you.

 

[vlach]

Hi Guys!

Please kindly click on the link for the song that i would like to be the "reference material"

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArCEweUqCf9W6jkpGs_j_THzYQMv

This song is from Sara Bareilles (Love on the rocks/Bennie and the Jets) this is a pop song recorded live with piano and vocals only.

I will post my post findings a little bit later so that we can avoid a "pre conditioned" conclusion for the song.

I am currently using the following gears:

macbook pro > vlink II > vpsu> vdacII > Burson Soloist SL MKI(using high gain for T1.2) and using Chord Crimson Interconnect and Audioquest Evergreen USB Cable.

Thank you.

Excellent recording, thanks for sharing!

 

[whill]

Excellent recording, thanks for sharing!

 
 
How did this sound on your set up Sir?

 

[thatonenoob]

Fresh out of the box, the Feliks Audio Espressivo is already doing good things. Early impressions - it's certainly a musical amp that can drive a very big sound on the T1.  Perhaps lacking a bit of bite in the highs.  I haven't heard the legendary Elise, but compared to the flagship iCan Pro it holds its own surprisingly well.