That was a deceptively simple write-up, but we can see that a lot of effort went into careful selection and matching of words.
I concur with many of Eric’s observations, specifically:
(1)That the HE90 portrays an immensely vivid sense of perspective. The word “perspective” was used a few times in Eric’s write-up—very appropriately so in the case of the HE90. I coined the term “perspectival air” precisely for the rare headphone like the Orpheus and Omega I (sic). “Perspectival air” is the sense of perspective (what is far and what is near) afforded by the depiction of a specific form of airiness.
“Airiness” typically means the sense of air enveloping the performers, or alternatively, the air that separates the performers. But “perspectival air” denotes a different form of airiness—one that affords a sense of comparative distance between performers and the illusory center-of-gravity of a microphone array (as opposed to the general sense of air enveloping the performers or the air that separates performers).
The HE90 and Omega I are perspectival air champions, but the Omega II is less vivid in the rendition of perspectival air. My finding has been that the HE90 errs slightly on the side of perspectival air overvividness, whilst the Omega II errs on the other side, i.e., slightly underportraying perspectival air. Omega II’s portrayal of perspectival air is source-dependent—some CD players (such as the Linns, maybe even the CD12 altho’ I’ve not auditioned the CD12 myself) tend to heighten the sense of perspectival air when heard over a pair of headphones. (Linn CD players tend to be binaural-like over a pair of headphones.) I have not experimented with differing sources with the Orpheus, so I cannot comment whether its rendition of perspectival air is source-dependent or not. But my hunch is that in trying out various source components, it will be difficult to get the Omega II to be overvivid in its rendition of airy perspective, just as it will be difficult to get the Orpheus to be undervivid in its rendition of perspectival air.
Nonetheless, the sense of air and perspective via the Orpheus is exhilarating, and any headphonephile who wishes to understand how a pair of headphones can vividly reconstruct the spatial characteristics of a recorded venue can do no wrong whatsoever in donning the HE90. If you forced me to describe the Orpheus in one descriptive phrase, it would be “stunning, airy perspectives”.
(2)That the Omega II doesn’t flaunt details. The details are delicate, woven into the fabric of the music, rather than standing out in contrast against the music. The HE90 portrays details, especially treble details, in a more forward manner (although I wouldn't describe it as being aggressively forward). Eric indirectly says that swapping of cables is more perceivable via HE90 than Omega II; this doesn’t surprise me.
My 3-hour audition of the Orpheus many years ago led me to a hunch that the Orpheus could be fatiguing, due to its tipped up tonal balance. I am now prepared to accept I have been wrong in this conclusion (that the Orpheus is fatiguing), seeing that Jatinder and Eric have a long-term love for this headphone--a love that has not been tarnished by listener fatigue. So while I think I am right in describing the Orpheus as being treble-bright, I may have been wrong to (prematurely) conclude that it is a fatiguing headphone.
(3)That the Omega II’s images are fullsome and three-dimensional. Eric hinted at the the relationship between three-dimensional image fullness and bass reproduction. He could go further to say that bass reproduction is crucial to proper imaging. A sonic image is not merely a single spherical object floating in space—a proper sonic image comprises of a few concentric spheres of differing sizes, all sharing a common center point, all of them changing size and shape and tone and colour and texture with the music. The smallest sphere is typically the high frequency texture, the middle-sized sphere is typically the main harmonic, and the largest sphere (that contains both the middle-sized sphere and the small sphere) is the airy, cushion-like low-frequency harmonic. Bass is not just a matter of solidity—bass is properly a matter of providing all sonic images with a warm, cozy airy bubble-like envelope that makes each sonic image a joy to behold. For me, the strength of the Omega II’s bass is not in the rendition of drums and pipe organs, but in the enveloping of images in airy low-frequency bubbles.
I like Eric’s description of Beethoven symphonies via the HE90s as being akin to “riding a canoe through a picturesque South American river with an occasional drop off Niagara Falls”. Don't know whether it is geographically accurate (wouldn't the drop off Niagara Falls occur only once, and not occasionally?), but the description is metaphorically rich and compelling nonetheless.
Minor nitptick: where I’m unsure about, is the link proposed between waveform impulse and reverberation. A fast transducer (with accurate waveform reproduction) need not necessarily sound tempo-fast nor does it mean that the transducer has a rapid reverberation decay rate. Waveform impulses occur in the timeframes of pico- and micro-seconds (too fast in fact for the human consciousness to follow as a sequential event), while reverberation occurs in the timeframes of miliseconds and seconds. You can’t delay the waveform (which would be a delay of only pico- or micro-seconds) in the hopes of delaying the reverb decay time (which would stretch out over a a great many miliseconds). A picosecond delay in the waveform cannot result in a half-second delay in the reverb time. There is no cause-and-effect link between waveform decay rate and reverberation decay rate.
