[Bonddam]

Rognir is one expensive closed back wonder what to the Abyss closed will clock in at. Not too sure about planar closed backs as LCD xc sounds totally different from the open back. You loose some of the fullness in the lower end becomes too tight. Doesn't sound bad just loose what the X is. If your thinking about the XC better to buy the X and try to get the XC caps like I did. $40 bucks for two headphones in one.

 

[AudioDuck]

Given that you have some Focals, how to the Shures compare? Does the 1540s sub go as low and detailed? Are they 'boring' compared to the Focals and lacking in dynamic punch in comparison or anything? Or is it fairly close but just more neutral?

As far as looks and video calls go, I do think the Shure's would be fine but they certainly aren't that nice or my cup of tea. I prefer Beyers, maybe its just that I'd prefer all black rather than the silver arms (like the Shure 1840 which is also blacked-out I prefer that look for pro purposes). Another reason I'm ruling out the Neumanns haha (but mostly the clamp and comfort issues many people talk about)

I also think the Adam SP-5s might be a good way to go.. I know that I find this style of Ultrasones comfortable despite the clamp, and they seal/isolate really well. I'm surprised more people haven't talked about these headphones on headfi (I think the official thread had only 2 pages). Adam are a fantastic pro audio company. I'm a little worried they might be too bright/fatiguing for music listening daily drivers. But for professional work the detail would be welcome.

OK, did some head-to-head (no pun intended) comparisons of the 1540s and the Radiances. I left the Elear out since it’s an open-back and it would be a bit apples-to-oranges, but can do that too if you like: The 1540s actually emphasize sub-bass more, and seem to go deeper more comfortably. That said, they are definitely more bass-heavy than the Radiances. They are also less clear in the midrange and treble, and less dynamic. However, the Focals are extremely good at dynamics- that is their greatest strength (most dynamic non-planars?). That said, I most definitely do not see the 1540s as “boring” or “bland”. They are fun to listen to, just smoother/more forgiving than other headphones.

 

[designbykai]

OK, did some head-to-head (no pun intended) comparisons of the 1540s and the Radiances. I left the Elear out since it’s an open-back and it would be a bit apples-to-oranges, but can do that too if you like: The 1540s actually emphasize sub-bass more, and seem to go deeper more comfortably. That said, they are definitely more bass-heavy than the Radiances. They are also less clear in the midrange and treble, and less dynamic. However, the Focals are extremely good at dynamics- that is their greatest strength (most dynamic non-planars?). That said, I most definitely do not see the 1540s as “boring” or “bland”. They are fun to listen to, just smoother/more forgiving than other headphones.

Thanks! Interesting.. I didn't expect that the 1540s would be deeper or more bassheavy than radiance! I thought the radiance were more bassy/warm than Elegia and Celestee etc. (maybe it's midbass)

All the other characteristics of the Focals you mention are something I'd value and like to experience though.. clarity/detail and dynamics.. seems like the 1540s would be a more sensible choice for 'studio' use/applications though. I suppose less detail and dynamics probably means less fatiguing for long listening sessions. They are lighter too.

I'm still so tempted to try the elegias out.. arghh

 

[AudioDuck]

Thanks! Interesting.. I didn't expect that the 1540s would be deeper or more bassheavy than radiance! I thought the radiance were more bassy/warm than Elegia and Celestee etc. (maybe it's midbass)

All the other characteristics of the Focals you mention are something I'd value and like to experience though.. clarity/detail and dynamics.. seems like the 1540s would be a more sensible choice for 'studio' use/applications though. I suppose less detail and dynamics probably means less fatiguing for long listening sessions. They are lighter too.

I'm still so tempted to try the elegias out.. arghh

Yes, I was surprised as well about the sub-bass.

Mind you, the Radiances do have a warm midrange- no doubt about that.

I also don’t miss the sub-bass depth when listening to the Radiances and am not comparing them back to back- and I also listen to them with my Feliks Audio Echo tube amp, which is an amazing match with Focals. I haven’t checked this evening, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Echo gets deeper bass out of the Radiances…

The good news about Elegias is that they are reasonable when you get them pre-owned, you can find a pair in great condition for less than $ 500. Good luck!

 

[DenverW]

Bit under the radar, but I’ve been very impressed with a pair of alpha prime I picked up.

 

[Blanchot]

Rognir is one expensive closed back wonder what to the Abyss closed will clock in at. Not too sure about planar closed backs as LCD xc sounds totally different from the open back. You loose some of the fullness in the lower end becomes too tight. Doesn't sound bad just loose what the X is. If your thinking about the XC better to buy the X and try to get the XC caps like I did. $40 bucks for two headphones in one.

Where do you buy the caps?

 

[KCXT]

I find myself with an affinity for closed backs and am very happy with my current stable of LCD-2 closed, Dan Clark Aeon Flow RTs, and Elegias. Of the 3 the Elegias get the least time and are on the outside looking in but it's not a good/bad situation by any means, I just find the Aeon to be a bit more detailed and natural sounding when that's what I'm going for.

The LCD-2 closed scratches the itch for full bass but still offers plenty of detail and ample midrange balance as well, which I've been looking for in my collection for a long time. The Aeon extends just as far, if not even a bit cleaner, and has more than enough bass quantity (especially with a couple of nudges on the EQ) but doesn't have the same thickness or heft of the LCD. totally fine since IMO they seem to be designed with different goals in mind.

 

[gazzington]

They arrived today. They are beautiful and sound absolutely fab. Glad I got these over the stellia

 

[Wes S]

They arrived today. They are beautiful and sound absolutely fab. Glad I got these over the stellia

Best looking pair of Olive I have seen! Congrats!

 

[AudioDuck]

They arrived today. They are beautiful and sound absolutely fab. Glad I got these over the stellia

Absolutely gorgeous! Hearty congratulations.

 

[Malevolent]

Well, well, the Celestee is quite the keeper. I went into my local shop yesterday to audition the Celestee and the T5 (3rd Generation). I planned to eventually buy the Beyerdynamic, but I left with the shop with the Focal instead.

The Celestee has a more balanced and nuanced sound, offering decent levels of detail wrapped in slight, but noticeable layers of warmth. It is the more engaging headphone, too, thanks to a treble section that offers decent levels of air and sparkle. On the other hand, the T5 (3rd Generation) is a heavy-set, thick beast, that is, at first glance, muddy and devoid of detail. This is, of course, far from the truth - the Beyerdynamic flagship has the ability to produce a good level of technical prowess; it's just not immediately noticeable. It has an organic timbre, but one that's bookended by prominent bass, and shy, smooth treble.

The color scheme of the Celestee is a little suspect, but, oh well, at least it sounds (really) good.

 

[Malevolent]

Interesting. I just gathered from comparisons/reviews that Elegia was a little bit wider than Celestee which is more 'in your head'.
Elegia has been described as a closed back Clear. Seems like it has some weird peaks and that Celestee is more neutral.

I'm after a closed back that is close to neutral (or harman curve, a bit of warmth). Something that doesn't look and feel like I'm wearing a pair of speakers on my head (like Fostex's do) and don't look ridiculous on Zoom calls lol. Something I can use for podcasting, editing audio/video, some music production. Honestly the AKG K361/K371 tick all the boxes but they seem super cheap and crappy build-wise and like they wouldn't be the most enjoyable to use for actually listening to/enjoying music. And I do usually crave detail; I like to hear the nuances of instruments, drum transients etc.

So the logical step up in price/quality to me was Beyer 177X or 1770pro. And then Celestee.

The Denons seem like they would fit the bill, I'm just not sure if I want to fork out that much money.. (especially the d9200). But maybe I should just save up. I like that they are a bit more compact looking (smaller cups) than Fostex's.

I was also looking at the Neumann NDH20 (which have been described as neutral resolving studio tools) but seems like they have bad clamp/comfort. And Adam SP-5s which are very similar to the Ultrasone Signature's I've had and enjoy but with brighter/detailed Adam tuning. I have Adam studio monitor speakers so this kind of makes sense in terms of translating a similar frequency response from speakers to headphones....

Obviously not closed-back but I've always wanted to try LCD-X as well.... the 2021 versions seem like they have some welcome improvements.

I didn't think that the Elegia has a particularly wide stage to begin with, but it has good imaging chops. In any case, I have just purchased the Celestee, so I could provide a comparison between the Elegia and the Celestee, if it helps you on your journey.

The AH-D9200 is a genre master; it plays music with a melodic tone, but it doesn't struggle on the technical front either. However, if you're looking for a detail-oriented can, from the closed-back side of things, you should also place the ATH-AWKT, the K872, the HD 820, and the Ether C Flow 1.1 on your To-Try list.

 

[MatW]

Well, well, the Celestee is quite the keeper. I went into my local shop yesterday to audition the Celestee and the T5 (3rd Generation). I planned to eventually buy the Beyerdynamic, but I left with the shop with the Focal instead.

The Celestee has a more balanced and nuanced sound, offering decent levels of detail wrapped in slight, but noticeable layers of warmth. It is the more engaging headphone, too, thanks to a treble section that offers decent levels of air and sparkle. On the other hand, the T5 (3rd Generation) is a heavy-set, thick beast, that is, at first glance, muddy and devoid of detail. This is, of course, far from the truth - the Beyerdynamic flagship has the ability to produce a good level of technical prowess; it's just not immediately noticeable. It has an organic timbre, but one that's bookended by prominent bass, and shy, smooth treble.

The color scheme of the Celestee is a little suspect, but, oh well, at least it sounds (really) good.

I actually like the looks of the Celestee quite a bit. But I'm not sure I should get these as I didn't like the Stellia. Do you like Focal headphones in general? My preference is more on the ZMF side, warmer, less bright.

 

[arielext]

I'm in the market for a good closed back. Prefer one with a good seal (no fostex, Denon, etc) suitable for larger heads (no DCA) and neutral to v shaped sound sig. Soundstage doesn't have to be killer but it can help
My shortlist:
- kennerton gjallarhorn/LSA hp-2
- focal Celestee
- beyerdynamic T5 (mixed feelings)

Am I missing any great contenders here? Audeze's are not my thing either

I've tried all three of them by now

Well, well, the Celestee is quite the keeper. I went into my local shop yesterday to audition the Celestee and the T5 (3rd Generation). I planned to eventually buy the Beyerdynamic, but I left with the shop with the Focal instead.

The Celestee has a more balanced and nuanced sound, offering decent levels of detail wrapped in slight, but noticeable layers of warmth. It is the more engaging headphone, too, thanks to a treble section that offers decent levels of air and sparkle. On the other hand, the T5 (3rd Generation) is a heavy-set, thick beast, that is, at first glance, muddy and devoid of detail. This is, of course, far from the truth - the Beyerdynamic flagship has the ability to produce a good level of technical prowess; it's just not immediately noticeable. It has an organic timbre, but one that's bookended by prominent bass, and shy, smooth treble.

The color scheme of the Celestee is a little suspect, but, oh well, at least it sounds (really) good.

I ended up with the Celestee as well (for now ). I prefer the fit and dynamic sound over the t5, though I really liked their sound as well. With the Celestee I have the feeling my money is better spent than with the t5.
It's only short notice but I have the feeling the Celestee might just be a keeper

 

[Bonddam]

Where do you buy the caps?

I called Audeze and the person asked for serial number and then sent me a invoice and done deal. I bought the grills from Audeze for $40. No funny business to deal with. My XC I got from HeadAmp so no issue not buying directly from Audeze. In my case the headphone did 180 on sound. The caps and grills come with the dampening installed. Easy swap.