I recently purchased a pair of Fostex TH610’s because I was looking for a closed backed headphone to complement my AKG Q701’s. I looked at a number of options, including the Beyerdynamic DT 1770’s, which I almost purchased instead. But given the leaner more analytical sound of the Q701’s, I wanted something that would distinguish itself more clearly. Since most discussions regarding the DT1770’s indicate that they are a professional mixing headphone, i.e., a more analytical headphone, I felt the TH610’s would be a better option for me. So it was not really a question of better as much as better for my use case, which was a headphone more geared toward listening than analytics.
I am not a long-time audiophile in the strictest sense of the word, but I have been around music my whole life and feel confident in my ability to assess the characteristics of a sound signature. I also play guitar and have done my share of tone chasing and tube rolling with various amplifiers.
I currently own a ONKYO DP-X1, SONY MDR-EX1000 (Japanese) earbuds, Q701’s, and a Bellari HA 540 Class A headphone amplifier. I have also built my own gaming PC’s and have hung onto a ASUS Essence STX amp/dac soundcard, which generally finds its way into the mix. So my stuff is not top shelf, but I have some fairly good equipment. I wouldn’t mind trying a solid state amp/dac combo that people feel would be an improvement over the ASUS– I guess that can be my next purchase.
The Bellari is an excellent amplifier that has a 12AX7 tube providing the mojo. I have a 5751 I may try at some point, but since the Bellari already imparts just a hair of warmth compared to the ASUS, the 12AX7 is probably a better match if clarity is your goal. Of course, you can tube roll some NOS variants, but, having done that in the past with guitar amps, I don’t feel compelled to go there in this use case.
So, all this background is intended to put my comments in context. And to the point – the TH610’s are wonderful headphones, just wonderful. However, they do need to be EQ’d to realize their full potential. Oddly, I actually found that the less than complimentary review by “What Hi Fi”, despite being quite negative, did provide a reasonably accurate assessment - up to a point. The point I think they nail is that the TH610’s “need more clarity across the range”. I also think the treble can be a bit bright, however, I would not describe it as “brittle” as that review did. The treble does stand out a bit (from the mids), but the degree to which is it does so is quite dependent on the recordings.
So than why would I say they are wonderful? Because the headphones sound extraordinary if you apply an EQ adjustment. I suppose there are some who might say that it should not be necessary, personally, I think that is naive. Some of the most well-regarded headphones in the world are aided by a bit of an EQ tweak. Furthermore, the quality of recordings, equipment in the sound-chain, your ears, and your preferences all mean that assuming there is a single sound signature that works for everyone in all situations is just silly.
What I found when I initially listened to the TH610’s was that they sounded crowded to me. The overall sound signature was congested and tended toward the darker side of the frequency spectrum, apart from a little bit of “sibilance” in the treble. It is the mids that create the lack of clarity discussed in the “What Hi Fi” article and the sense of crowding that I am describing.
However, if one uses the Harmon Target Curve as a basis of understanding why (and Innerfidelity’s frequency response curve for the TH610), you can see that the headphone sound signature tends to hang on to the bass frequencies a bit too long, with the mid range showing a dip that exacerbates the veiled congestion the head phone seems to have. Also, there are some spikes in the upper treble that explain why there is some sibilance in the sound signature.
I set about, using Excel, to map the headphone, and the Harmon curve to see what a compensation curve might look like. Using that as basis for setting up a custom EQ, along with a couple of tweaks to taste, I was amazed at how good these headphones sounded. Quite frankly, the difference was night and day. With a custom EQ in place these headphones sound incredible. They open up amazingly well with a noticeable increase in clarity, very noticeable. It’s almost as if you were taking a stack of cards and spreading them out on a table with some space in between. The sound signature just comes alive with improved sound stage and imaging. And despite the openness and breadth they never lose the richness and cohesiveness of the sound signature. Just a wonderfully musical experience. Amazing for a closed backed headphone.
And this exercise was not just a “make a curve, oh it sounds better” one off. I have been experimenting with these headphones for about two weeks now. Creating curves, deleting curves, applying subtle changes and flipping between them. I also listened to a wide variety of music, which was very helpful in making adjustments. As I stated earlier, not all recordings are equal and different recordings have a flavor or character all their own. So, for example, listening to In Your Eyes by Peter Gabriel is a very different experience then listening to Unstoppable Momentum by Joe Satriani – regardless of what headphone you are using. The former is an inherently bright, prone to sibilance recording, while Satriani’s material comes off as much more mid-centric and relatively flat in its delivery. In each case the song chosen accentuated and drew attention to different aspects of the sound signature, really aiding in the development of the “final” curve. Likewise, a song like Cannonball by Supertramp is a very well recorded and complex song that pretty much covers the entire musical sound spectrum – a spectacular listen with these headphones by the way.
Ironically the “What Hi-Fi” review speaks to the headphones looking much better than they sound. Ironic because, with a custom curve in place, they sound exactly the way they look. Deep and rich, and very far from brittle. I would not describe them as fun either, because that moniker often indicates a “U” shaped sound signature. As adjusted they sound full without sounding bloated. The highs provide a spritely ring without being sharp, thin or piercing. Quite frankly, they are exactly what I was hoping for; a nicely balanced, non-analytical sound signature that remains richly detailed and inviting. Quite simply they make listening to music what it is intended to be – a very visceral enjoyable experience. If a well-made firm leather chair was a set of headphones, it would be a pair TH610’s.
This is the first time I have ever tried to systematically adjust the sound signature of a headphone. Having now tried it, I don’t know how anyone would not seek to pursue the optimum setting for a given set of headphones – the results have been a revelation for me. And when one considers that people physically alter their top of the line HD 800’s to combat the shortcomings of their sound signature, why would anyone not consider an EQ adjustment equally valid.
I will not recommend the TH610’s to anyone since I really cannot say what you will or will not like. But I will say that all headphones have their shortcomings as do recordings, equipment, and an individual’s ability to hear sound. But I am very pleased with the TH610’s, both in build quality and sound – I would not have kept them otherwise. They are a wonderful musical experience.
