[dweaver]

For some the 100AAP will be more balanced and for other the 1A will be more balanced because balance is also a preference...

 

[goodyfresh]

  We indeed not like all the same. But it is not the sound signature only. It is balance. I think that where the 1 A is better. Nothing is put forward, it is not Boomy, not aggressive, and the voices are natural to my ears.

However, the 100AAP has less-recessed upper mids.  Therefore yes, from an objective purely-scientific standpoint it is more balanced for the average human's hearing.  Because the 1A has upper-mids which are measurably recessed by 5dB or more relative to an equal-loudness contour as well as most other compensation curves that are ever used.

 

[waynes world]

Ok I decided to tackle the wind noise today or try to. So I found some thin plastic type foam with very high air flow impedance and used some double sided sticky tape to hold it.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

The solution just fits inside the cup structure. Due to the high air flow obstruction I cut a hole in the foam on the opposite end of the bass port hole. I also cut a full length slot in the double sided tape before attaching to the foam so the tape was not affecting the breathability of the foam.

My first walk the wind was reduced but was still present so I took some other foam I had that allowed a lot more air flow and I stuffed a small piece in the holes I had cut. The next walk almost had zero wind noise that was drowned out easily when playing music.

The effect to the music is subtle. With the initial design the bass was essentially unaffected and the mids seemed to be a bit more forward. With the foam filled holes the bass is a bit more subdued and the mids are even a bit more present. I am thinking I will pull out the foam I used and reduce the quantity by half and see if it creates a nice balance between the two states.

This is an easy full reversible mid that might be fun for others to try. It also helps the isolation of the headphone too.

Here is a picture of the mod in place.

 
Good stuff! Looks easy enough - I may fool around with that as well. And maybe see how some sorb affects things.

 

[fiddler]

 
However, the 100AAP has less-recessed upper mids.  Therefore yes, from an objective purely-scientific standpoint it is more balanced for the average human's hearing.  Because the 1A has upper-mids which are measurably recessed by 5dB or more relative to an equal-loudness contour as well as most other compensation curves that are ever used.

Agree that the 100AAP, while still a ways off from neutral, is much closer than the 1A. Both sound intentionally EQ-ed, the 100AAP more subtly, and quite aggressively on the 1A.

 

[Kabonfaiba]

This balanced / coloured debate is always of interest to me. It's the yin and yang. Moving towards a more balanced sound should allow more details to be retrieved, improved soundstage, bass texture, etc. But something is obviously lost in the 100AAP which the 1A has, and it's not just this headphone design or this signature... It's about general headphone sound quality.
 
I believe during the years of headphones evolution, we are slowly moving towards the center ground. That means; ever so slowly, while driver technology develops, and while we all observe the obvious fluctuations in sound signature between headphones... the general sound quality has been improving, and evolution has always been about; increasing the clarity, maintaining maximum emotion, keeping the cost down.
 
So while the 100AAP may have flip-floped towards increased balanced, I believe at the same time, it's made a slow movement back inwards towards the euphoric qualities of the 1A, and slowly towards the "ideal middle ground" of consumer sound signatures.
 
Hopefully by this time 10 - 20 years later, after many flip-flops, we'll be even closer to an extremely natural, hugely transparent, basshead levels of impact, unbelievable clarity, all in a headphone worth 4x the price they are now. I think these are the sort of qualities everyone commonly defines as "progress" ? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[fiddler]

  This balanced / coloured debate is always of interest to me. It's the yin and yang. Moving towards a more balanced sound should allow more details to be retrieved, improved soundstage, bass texture, etc. But something is obviously lost in the 100AAP which the 1A has, and it's not just this headphone design or this signature... It's about general headphone sound quality.

I hear you. I would have to A/B them to really say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if for example the 1A was better at detail retrieval in certain parts of the spectrum. My suspicion is the earcups aren't damped all that well in the 100AAP, and this might contribute to some smeared details. The housing materials feel more hollow and cheap than the 1A, and I believe this may be a more significant factor than many think.

 

[goodyfresh]

  I hear you. I would have to A/B them to really say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if for example the 1A was better at detail retrieval in certain parts of the spectrum. My suspicion is the earcups aren't damped all that well in the 100AAP, and this might contribute to some smeared details. The housing materials feel more hollow and cheap than the 1A, and I believe this may be a more significant factor than many think.

Personally I hear more clarity/transparency from the 100AAP than I did from the 1A.

 

[fiddler]

 
Personally I hear more clarity/transparency from the 100AAP than I did from the 1A.

Very possible. Microdetail was clearer on the M1 in my comparison to the 100AAP, for example the grit of string instruments. That sort of detail I found to be smeary/oversmooth on the Sony. Is the 1A even more smeary than that? I guess possible, as I said I would have to compare again. 100AAP better all round IMO anyway.
 
If I understood Kabonfaiba correctly, I was concurring with the notion that detail retrieval isn't necessarily tied to frequency response. Other factors like driver ringing, housing resonance, harmonic distortion etc seem to start playing a huge role for detail resolution. Whether that's actually the case here vs the 1A I was merely speculating.

 

[goodyfresh]

  Very possible. Microdetail was clearer on the M1 in my comparison to the 100AAP, for example the grit of string instruments. That sort of detail I found to be smeary/oversmooth on the Sony. Is the 1A even more smeary than that? I guess possible, as I said I would have to compare again. 100AAP better all round IMO anyway.
 
If I understood Kabonfaiba correctly, I was concurring with the notion that detail retrieval isn't necessarily tied to frequency response. Other factors like driver ringing, housing resonance, harmonic distortion etc seem to start playing a huge role for detail resolution. Whether that's actually the case here vs the 1A I was merely speculating.

Honestly man I don't think the materials (like for the driver-housing and stuff) of the 100AAP are actually inferior to those of the 1A like others seem to be hypothesizing here.
 
Why?  I think the main difference in price was achieved by Sony by giving the 100AAP a far crappier stock cable, of which there is only one, than either of the two cables that came stock with the 1A.  Let's not forget that the 1A comes with remarkably fancy stock cables for a headphone in its price-range. . .in fact, it's a model of cable that sells separately from Sony for 60 dollars on its own.

I am also basing this on the fact that I own both headphones and while the 100AAP does LOOK flimsier, it actually FEELS far sturdier in the hand and can clearly withstand a good deal more abuse than the 1A.  Moreover, I've taken off the pads and looked at the enclosures/housings in both, and the materials in the enclosures seem pretty much the same, TBH.

 

[fiddler]

 
Honestly man I don't think the materials (like for the driver-housing and stuff) of the 100AAP are actually inferior to those of the 1A like others seem to be hypothesizing here.
 
Why?  I think the main difference in price was achieved by Sony by giving the 100AAP a far crappier stock cable, of which there is only one, than either of the two cables that came stock with the 1A.  Let's not forget that the 1A comes with remarkably fancy stock cables for a headphone in its price-range. . .in fact, it's a model of cable that sells separately from Sony for 60 dollars on its own.

I am also basing this on the fact that I own both headphones and while the 100AAP does LOOK flimsier, it actually FEELS far sturdier in the hand and can clearly withstand a good deal more abuse than the 1A.  Moreover, I've taken off the pads and looked at the enclosures/housings in both, and the materials in the enclosures seem pretty much the same, TBH.

I think you greatly underestimate the markup on a stock headphone cable.

 

[Mickice]

The 100AAP's are cheaper but every bit the same quality or better than the 1A.

 

[fiddler]

They sure felt cheaper to me, but haptics, like sonics, are also subjective.

 

[goodyfresh]

  I think you greatly underestimate the markup on a stock headphone cable.

Oh I know darn well the cable does not actually cost 60 dollars to produce.  Haha.

But keep in mind that in the case of the 1A, the "stock cable" actually is of higher quality than many quite nice cables from third parties.

 

[goodyfresh]

  They sure felt cheaper to me, but haptics, like sonics, is also subjective.

Trust me when I tell you they can withstand more punishment.  A good example is teh headband.  You can bend the headband of the 100AAP completely flat and every which way without causing damage.  One was not able to do that with the 1A.

 

[Mickice]

The headband is flexy, but inside the cup you'll find more sound tuning materials than you do in the 1A.

Even a rubber seal under the pads to help isolation.

It's cheaper and better, nothing much more to add.