[c61746961]

If people are still somehow wondering, these are worth much more than the asking price for those looking for a balanced presentation, good enough technicalities, and the least amount of flaws for a closed can, especially modded. The bass hits hard and digs deep when the music calls for it, which is a fun bonus too.

 

[bhazard]

If people are still somehow wondering, these are worth much more than the asking price for those looking for a balanced presentation, good enough technicalities, and the least amount of flaws for a closed can, especially modded. The bass hits hard and digs deep when the music calls for it, which is a fun bonus too.

I agree. Once I was able to find out where that peak was (10khz), I can now listen without the piercing fatigue.
 
I'm even more interested now in the MX2 I have on order.

 

[Jay_WJ]

Toilet paper mod? Note I already mentioned in one of my posts:
 
Quote:

   
... You could tone down the treble and thus the tonal balance by inserting, say, some acoustic screen between ear and driver, but the dip and peak will still be there.

 
The toilet paper will provide acoustic filtering, BUT it will NOT work as a filter with small Q (i.e., narrow band notch filter), which is desired for these headphones. Most likely it will kill response in a wider frequency range than desirable. Yes, you may be able to tame the 10 kHz peak somewhat, but at the same time you will lose another kind of balance in return (e.g., subdued higher frequency response). Again, this kind of modification without supporting measurement is not worth your precious time. EQ is your friend in this case. I believe that, with no crossovers and filter circuits built in, MOst, if not all, headphones (even many high-end ones) need EQ'ing to some degree if one pursues smooth-responding, reference tonality.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

I just got the Tascam TH-02 headphone and unboxed and started demoing it.
 
Sadly, my impressions are quite negative. It has a lot more actual perceived resonance than I had led myself to believe, even more than a ATH-m50, perhaps a less pleasing resonance or something. When it comes down to it, it is also too dark in the upper mids and lower to middle treble for my listening habits. On the bright side, the bass to middle midrange is quite linear and driver response is quite fast. Is it a game changer and giant killer for me? Well, honestly, no--bass is nice, but detail is pushed back in favor of it though the detail is certainly there.
 
For a quick comparison, I already would rate the Tascam TH-02 well below any run-of-the-mill Grado and Sennheiser headphone and many times below my Superlux HD681. I will probably be posting these very soon for sale. It is just not good enough for my purposes and it will collect too much dust between my SRH-940 and my Superlux HD681.

 

[bhazard]

  I just got the Tascam TH-02 headphone and unboxed and started demoing it.
 
Sadly, my impressions are quite negative. It has a lot more actual perceived resonance than I had led myself to believe, even more than a ATH-m50, perhaps a less pleasing resonance or something. When it comes down to it, it is also too dark in the upper mids and lower to middle treble for my listening habits. On the bright side, the bass to middle midrange is quite linear and driver response is quite fast. Is it a game changer and giant killer for me? Well, honestly, no--bass is nice, but detail is pushed back in favor of it though the detail is certainly there.
 
For a quick comparison, I already would rate the Tascam TH-02 well below any run-of-the-mill Grado and Sennheiser headphone and many times below my Superlux HD681. I will probably be posting these very soon for sale. It is just not good enough for my purposes and it will collect too much dust between my SRH-940 and my Superlux HD681.

My initial impressions were the same. Give it time and EQ it based on the Innerfidelity chart.

 

[Hawaiiancerveza]

 

I just got the MX2.  I haven't burned them in but straight out of the box there is a little more warmth than the TH02.  The TH02 sounds more flat.  The MX2 is nice and clear also but it has better sealing (for me) and the bass hits hard when called for it.  For the price both are good buys.  So if you're looking for a flatter sound go for the TH02 and mod it to take away the treble spike.  If you'd like a little more bass go for the MX2.  I think I would use the TH02 at home since it doesn't really seal the best for me.  The MX2 does, my entire ear is covered by the ear pads and I'd rather use this one out in public.  The pads already got my ears a little sweaty.  It is a hot day atm.  I'll let them burn in and come back.  So far I'm enjoying both!

 

[Hifihedgehog]

  My initial impressions were the same. Give it time and EQ it based on the Innerfidelity chart.

Removed original response. It's kind of funny, but the mids and bass are starting to grow on me. In a noisier environment where the upper definition and clarity don't matter, these sound great! I may seem like a flip-flop in this way, but they really do sound quite good. I will not do eq-ing because I do not like its effects compared to a good, level response. Maybe I will buy some Dynamat or other material to cut down on the resonance. I just don't want to ruin the pristine frequency spot, because, as we all know, one small change can become like a crowbar being thrown into the works. It is still up in the air if I will keep them or not. I still feel the deficit of clarity and definition compared to my favorite headphones.

 

[Jay_WJ]

  it is also too dark in the upper mids and lower to middle treble for my listening habits. On the bright side, the bass to middle midrange is quite linear and driver response is quite fast.

 
Very accurate description of their sound. The selling point of these headphones is value, not being a giant killer. I think you misinterpreted people's reviews, including mine. For instance, in one of my posts, I clearly indicated that these cannot compete with good closed phones selling above $60-70, noting the dip in lower treble and the peak around 10 kHz. Superlux's are not technically closed cans and have their own problem in treble. With some EQ'ing (complicated EQ settings are not necessary), the Tascam works really well. The strong point, IMO, is that they are suitable for high output/dynamic application (like digital piano) as they output clean sound even at very high SPL.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

I actually am on a crusade of trying to learn to competently use Tyll's graphs. The graphs certainly look awesome enough, but I am a bit skeptical of how they work. With normal purchases above $50, it is my personal rule to always try before buying. In a cheap way, this headphone was a quick reminder to me of why I made that rule.

 

[Jay_WJ]

  I will not do eq-ing because I do not like its effects compared to a good, level response.

 
I want to politely say, "this is a myth." Use well-engineered EQ like Electri-Q or EQ in Rockbox. You will not hear sound degradation DUE TO EQ, both in theory and in reality.

 

[Jay_WJ]

  The graphs certainly look awesome enough, but I am a bit skeptical of how they work.

 
The FR graph 100% reflects my own impression, which concurs with yours. I do not understand what you mean here. Do you have experience in acoustic measurement? Please forgive me if this sounds condescending, which I do NOT mean. To interpret FR measurements properly, one needs to have a good amount of experience in which mapping FR results and real perception was done many times. Also, Tyll uses his own correction file for HRTF, which runs consistent in all his FR measurements and needs to be taken into account when interpreting.

 

[Jay_WJ]

  I think I would use the TH02 at home since it doesn't really seal the best for me.

 
Not a good seal means that you don't hear the TH02's bass as it is supposed to sound. Would you compare these two headphones with proper seals (e.g., by slightly pressing the TH02's ear cups)? I think that will give us a better comparison result.

 

[vwinter]

I want to politely say, "this is a myth." Use well-engineered EQ like Electri-Q or EQ in Rockbox. You will not hear sound degradation DUE TO EQ, both in theory and in reality.

You're altering digital information. This will only be as good as the algorithm it's based on. While I have no problem with digital EQ, I won't pretend it's this infallible miracle. And how do you know sound isn't being degraded if output inherently doesn't equal input? You just seem very sure of this is all.

 

[xnor]

You're altering digital information. This will only be as good as the algorithm it's based on.

Minimum phase filters found in EQs are trivial. (So are linear phase filters, but they can be problematic if used in an EQ.)
 

 While I have no problem with digital EQ, I won't pretend it's this infallible miracle. And how do you know sound isn't being degraded if output inherently doesn't equal input? You just seem very sure of this is all.

Math; analyzing the filter. Or if you want it simpler: filter the input with a boost, followed by a cut with same gain and Q => the output equals the original input.
Since those filters usually operate with at least 32-bit floating point they can be considered lossless.

 

[Jay_WJ]

You're altering digital information. ... how do you know sound isn't being degraded if output inherently doesn't equal input?

 
Your argument basically applies to any digital audio engineering. I would not listen to any CDs if I did not trust the technology and algorithms it employs. Digital recording and signal processing is a mature field and all basic algorithms are already mapped out. Minimum phase filtering such as peak, low/high shelf ones that are commonly used in EQ is very basic. As long as it is properly implemented, it is not something you can rebut with your thought process. One thing you may want to look at is measurements of digital EQ performance. Dig up. You will find some over the internet. I remember I saw measurements of Eletri-Q's performance. It turned out very good.