[caprireds]

I don't have much to say over what I've already said here: Comparison with ISK HP2011
2011 is better than CAL!,
.

thanx for your confirmation ... if it is equal ,let alone better than CAL , and CAL is a clone of Denon .. then ISK is a huge bang for the bucks !!

can we call the ISK hp2011 V shaped signature?

 

[BenF]

thanx for your confirmation ... if it is equal ,let alone better than CAL , and CAL is a clone of Denon .. then ISK is a huge bang for the bucks !!

can we call the ISK hp2011 V shaped signature?

No, it's quite balanced sounding

 

[Markolav]

I havent really listened to Pro 82 lately, ive been jamming mainly with my new SHP9500... and of course N350. SHP9500 is probably my new favourite at the moment.

 

[Saus@ge]

I havent really listened to Pro 82 lately, ive been jamming mainly with my new SHP9500... and of course N350. SHP9500 is probably my new favourite at the moment.

If you have some spare time could you write up a comparison between the SHP9500 and the Pro 82?

Thanks

 

[Markolav]

If you have some spare time could you write up a comparison between the SHP9500 and the Pro 82?

Thanks

Ill put that on my list. Pro 82-review is under work as well.

I can also possibly write M50X-comparison as well after i have borrowed them from my friend.

 

[Saus@ge]

Ill put that on my list. Pro 82-review is under work as well.

I can also possibly write M50X-comparison as well after i have borrowed them from my friend.

That would be fantastic thank you!

 

[caprireds]

thanx BenF

dunno if you answered those questions:
1- which headphone most similar to takstar-pro-82,(sound quality-details) in your opinion?
2- which headphones would be steps up ,in sound quality ,from takstar-pro-82?

 

[caprireds]

3- Anyone compared them to thos popular HP

Sennheisers hd 598 , hd600
Beyerdynamic DT990 ,DT770
audio technica m50x ?

 

[Markolav]

Because i didnt have anything better to do for the afternoon i decided to compare them right away.

I took a few songs from several different genres that i would think to reveal differences in the whole frequency range. And these are for stock Pro 82 and SHP9500.

First overall sound signature: Pro 82 sounds more colored to me, there seem to be more spikes, humps and bumps. SHP9500 is very flat through the whole frequency range and sounds more "true to life". Pro 82 has livelier and "funnier" signature on it while SHP9500 is more refined and sterile. Clarity is about on the same level, SHP9500 might have a slight edge here in a sense, clarity on Pro 82 sounded sometimes a bit "artificial", not in its truest meaning but in comparison. Both are very detailed sounding headphones. Hard to say which one reveals more, every time i switched headphones i were able to hear something new.

Then the bass, i have to say that i dont really care much about bass and im not a huge basslover in general. Bass on Pro 82 is mellower and fuller, SHP9500 is much lighter on bass and sounds more neutral and tighter to me. Pro 82 has more defined, deeper and impactful bass which can be expected from a closed back headphone. Both remain good control and sound great to me in this region.

Lower mids on Pro 82 can sound a bit "sucked out" and get covered by upper mids and lower treble and there is also a dip in the upper midrange. This makes the entire midrange sound a bit thin or hollow, its quite noticeable in some tracks with lots of guitars and male vocals for example but its not always there. Female vocals sound amazing with both headphones but sometimes Pro 82 slightly lacks presence on male vocals. In top of that upper mids can sound a bit metallicly (is this even a real word? lol) sharp or harsh. SHP9500 sounds natural and even through the midrange and has smoothness on it that is sometimes missing from Pro 82. I prefer SHP9500 over Pro 82 here.

Both have kind of dark vibe on treble sounding still lively and sparkly. Slight harshness continues here with Pro 82 and treble sounds more "in your face" compared to more relaxed highs on SHP9500, i can live with it but it can be distracting in some songs. Both can sound sibilant, to my ears its more noticeable on Pro 82 (not sure about this but thats how it sounded to me). Some people have criticized SHP9500 for having very sharp/piercing/harsh/whatever treble but i cant simply hear that. Pro 82 has more overall energy on it that SHP9500 is kind of lacking. Hard to say which one i prefer here, maybe SHP9500 because its treble sounds less fatiguing to me which makes them a better choice for longer listening sessions.

Comparing their soundstage is not very fair because SHP9500 is an open back. Pro 82 sounds more compressed (aka. more closed) but i have to say that soundstage is not phenomenal in SHP9500 either, of course its better but not in a mind blowing way. Both have good sound separation.

This is where i came to after promptly comparing them to each other. And remember, this is all imo. SHP9500 sounds better to me overall but Pro 82 is just few steps behind and i can enjoy both. Pro 82 = better for enjoyment and "fun"-listening, SHP9500 = more refined audiophile-style headphones for reference. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

 

[caprireds]

according to your description ,the takstar would be the better choice for enjoying music listening,for people like me:

1- fuller bass , Pro 82 has livelier and "funnier" signature.

2-It is closed design ,and closed design is a plus for me,cause I can use it anywhere,any time.

3-it is even somehow cheaper price .

4- it has better build design ,quality ,compared to the philips cheap ,Non-replaceable earpads.

 

[Markolav]

according to your description ,the takstar would be the better choice for enjoying music listening,for people like me:

1- fuller bass , Pro 82 has livelier and "funnier" signature.

2-It is closed design ,and closed design is a plus for me,cause I can use it anywhere,any time.

3-it is even somehow cheaper price .

4- it has better build design ,quality ,compared to the philips cheap ,Non-replaceable earpads.

Philips is more "audiophile-friendly". They sound very lively as well but more in a restrained and matured way compared to Pro 82. Some people might find them downright boring sounding.

1- which headphone most similar to takstar-pro-82,(sound quality-details) in your opinion?

I would look for something like M40X, they have somewhat similar sound signature.

 

[caprireds]

Philips is more "audiophile-friendly". Some people might find them downright boring sounding.

If the philips has sharp treble ,then ,it won't be boring for me ,but from the day I began listening to my bassy JVC HAM55X ,I realized that profound bass really makes huge diffrence (though ,I have to equalize to boost the treble and the mids ! ) ...
the only headphone I would call ,flat dull and boring out of the box, is the AKG k92 .. treble and bass must be equalized ,boosted,in order to be lively, as well

I would look for something like M40X, they have somewhat similar sound signature.

M40X or M50X ?
I know it is the Audio techinca eternal debate !

 

[Markolav]

If the philips has sharp treble ,then ,it won't be boring for me ,but from the day I began listening to my bassy JVC HAM55X ,I realized that profound bass really makes huge diffrence (though ,I have to equalize to boost the treble and the mids ! ) ...
the only headphone I would call ,flat dull and boring out of the box, is the AKG k92 .. treble and bass must be equalized ,boosted,in order to be lively, as well




M40X or M50X ?
I know it is the Audio techinca eternal debate !

If you prefer more bassy headphones then SHP9500 might not be the best choice for you because they are very bass light. Its clean and tight but its not going to give you a tons of impact. Of course you can try to eq the bass up a bit. Their bass response pretty well to equalization.

I have tried M40X and i owned M50 (non-X version) years ago. 40X is more balanced and "flatter" while 50X sounds more colored and bass heavy but difference is not night and day. They both have the same V-shaped signature, 50X just slightly more so.

 

[Humblepie]

If you prefer more bassy headphones then SHP9500 might not be the best choice for you because they are very bass light. Its clean and tight but its not going to give you a tons of impact. Of course you can try to eq the bass up a bit. Their bass response pretty well to equalization.

I have tried M40X and i owned M50 (non-X version) years ago. 40X is more balanced and "flatter" while 50X sounds more colored and bass heavy but difference is not night and day. They both have the same V-shaped signature, 50X just slightly more so.

As noted above there are ways to bring up the bass of the SHP9500 though. They are still one of my favorites. Using HM5 extra large pleather pads helps a bunch as well as making a hole in the tuning paper next to the driver. Just becareful doing the later because it is really easy hit the exposed driver diaphragm right under that tuning paper.

 

[nraymond]

This is what i think about after promptly comparing them to each other. SHP9500 sounds better to me overall but Pro 82 is not bad by any means and i can enjoy both.

Thanks for your impressions. Did you test the SHP9500 or SHP9500S? My understanding is they are basically the same, but I've heard some people claim some differences... perhaps due to the Philips WOOX to Gibson Innovations division transfer? Many consider the SHP9500 to be a cousin of the Philips Fidelio X2 (which went through it's own WOOX to Gibson Innovations production shift). I have the Onkyo A800 (open back) and H900M (closed) headphones by Gibson Innovations. The A800 is considered by some to to be the big brother of the Fidelio X2... I prefer both it and the H900M to the Takstar Pro 82 acoustically (the Pro 82 is more comfortable than both). Unfortunately with the recent bankruptcy of Gibson, there might be some supply issues with some of these Philips/Onkyo headphones in the future...