Vintage OG and Present Day TOTL Impressions

[TheAbyss2022]

I would say though that it's not just about being warmer or with just better bass. I *do* think both CRBNs do an amazing job with tonality overall, similar to the HE90 and I'm sure the HE-1 from what I read and have talked to people about. The 007, although bass sufficient and warmer, does have it's own quirks that the masses don't necessarily agree with. Same with the 009, Shang Sr. and others. What complicates things extremely here is that there a few variations of the 007 that have less quirks. But majority of 007s that are in people's hands is what matters most imo, not rarer versions with slight variations (although those that have them are lucky!). I mention this because I suspect your 007 is possibly a bit less dark than average and possibly has more clarity than the CRBN. In general, I've found both versions of the CRBN to be very close to the average 007 but not ass dark specifically.

So in general I will give the CRBN the credit it deserves in having transformative tonality overall that very few stats can match.

In direct comparison between CRBN 2 and MK1 007, CRBN has more midrange clarity and the vocals are warmer and fuller. The vocals are probably my favourite aspect of the CRBN 2. The tonality is good but becomes an issue when listening to classical or orchestral as it's too dark and the 007 has more sparkle.

The HE1 is a headphone with zero weak points. We have always chased a headphone that can do it all with zero compromises and you will get that for a very hefty price! I guess you can just live a care free audiophile life with one instead of always chasing something lol.

 

[VandyMan]

It doesn't really since we've had warmer and bassier stats like the 007. The one headphone that truly redefines what a stat could sound like is the Sennheiser HE1.

You're misunderstanding me slightly. When I say it redefines what a stat sounds like, I'm not saying it is the best representation of the stat sound. I mean that by sounding different enough from all other stats that it gets criticized as not sounding like a stat, it redefines the parameters or boundaries of what stat sound is. It forces us to reconsider what it actually means to say something sounds like a stat. That does not mean that I necessarily prefer it over others. I'm quite enchanted with the ES2a right now, which is a more conventional sounding stat, but a great implementation. I agree that the HE-1 defines what an stat can be and serves as the benchmark (for me anyway).

 

[normie610]

This discussion on CRBN2’s air and instrument placement is really interesting. Immanis is my #1 headphone and to my ears it has vast soundstage, amazing air and separation, and precise instrument separation, which I believe a view commonly shared by Immanis owners. Now I feel that although CRBN2’s soundstage is definitely smaller than Immanis, BUT the air and instrument placement is really almost on par with Immanis. I tend to listen to well mastered jazz albums and classical pieces and it may contribute to how I perceive this aspect of air and separation.

 

[VandyMan]

My Dublin team used to carefully plan everywhere we'd go and we had really good dinner experiences. I'll ask them if they remember some of the places we went. Mainly did a lot of that and happy hours with the team, not much exploration as I'd use the weekend to pop over to other places after a full week.

That is what I think will happen in my trip too. I'd really like to visit the library at Trinity College and see the Book of the Kells, so I may try to squeeze that in.

To my ears, the Susvara for example, does pretty much all of the things the CRBN 2 does mentioned above, better. As it does the CRBN1 as well. Realism, clarity, and speed specifically. Expanse is another. I think the TC would also be close (but obviously with much worse tonality), and quite a few others. So for me, I really only see the tonality as a major "wow factor" over any other types of headphones--but to be very clear, this IS a huge win overall and to my ears, only the HE90 is as good or better (and that comes down to the CRBN1 or 2).

For me, sometimes I've enjoyed the Susvara, but other times it sounds almost wind-swept. I'd like to have a few days to listen to one sometime. I agree about the TC midrange and for me, that plus comfort issues are a stopper. I think the Expanse is under-rated here on Head-Fi. I'm glad you include it in discussions of ToTL headphones. I especially like it with my 300b tube amp (Woo WA-5). The HE90 was the best I've heard until the HE-1, but I heard it like 25 years ago so I don't really remember much about it.

 

[SolarCetacean]

You're misunderstanding me slightly. When I say it redefines what a stat sounds like, I'm not saying it is the best representation of the stat sound. I mean that by sounding different enough from all other stats that it gets criticized as not sounding like a stat, it redefines the parameters or boundaries of what stat sound is. It forces us to reconsider what it actually means to say something sounds like a stat. That does not mean that I necessarily prefer it over others. I'm quite enchanted with the ES2a right now, which is a more conventional sounding stat, but a great implementation. I agree that the HE-1 defines what an stat can be and serves as the benchmark (for me anyway).

On the topic of "estat sound", I commented in the Watercooler thread that since Stax is so prominent in mindshare when it comes to electrostatics, the tuning direction of Stax estats is often conflated with the sound of electrostatics in general. And that makes it tricky for any brand coming into that market because there will inevitably be comparisons to the Stax sound. There was never any requirement for estats to sound ethereal or spacious or slightly wonky, it was that Stax thought that sort of tuning sounded best. And for many years, it was difficult for other driver types to have the sort of treble extension that allowed for that ethereal, spacious, and separated sound, so I suppose Stax stuck with that sort of tuning as a differentiator in the headphone market. My perspective is that the drivers and the tech in headphones are vehicles for sound qualities and that I chase the headphones that give me the most of the qualities I want. I'm not a fan of estats because of their spaciousness, I'm a fan of spaciousness and seeking spaciousness led me to estats; it's a subtle distinction.

Going back to market differentiation, I think there's a tricky chicken-and-egg problem with estats that don't follow the Stax tuning direction which is the gear needed to get into estats in the first place. Estats need their own amps, or at least their own energizer, which is usually another box on the desk or AV rack. It costs more to get into estats than nearly every other headphone type, so there had better be a payoff in the end. The Stax sound is so distinctive that the people willing to get into estats to begin with are usually those who like the Stax sound. So when a company comes to market with an estat that doesn't sound like a Stax, the people who already have estat amps might not take to it, and those who like the sound of that new estat have to weigh the benefits of the sound vs the cost of buying an estat amp.

I think that's a big part of the "sounds like a planar" criticism. It's not entirely that people think estats must sound ethereal, but they're wondering what part of the sound justifies the jump into the estat world. I think that criticism was often levied at the CRBN1; why get the CRBN when the LCD-5 is similarly tuned and far more accessible? And that's my main criticism of the DCA Corina; I don't hear what would elevate the Corina over one of DCA's excellent planar headphones. I think @number1sixerfan wrote in another comment that if the CRBN2 had been a planar, it would be making a much bigger splash than it is now, and I largely agree. Audeze already makes very good planars; I think many people are wondering what the CRBN2 brings to the table over the LCD-5 to warrant buying an estat amp in addition to the hefty price for the CRBN2 itself. While the X9000 has a bunch of tonal quirks, it also offers a presentation that few headphones on the market can match; you're getting something distinctive for the money.

Also as an fyi, when I really enjoy a pair of headphones that's like 95% perfect, with just one or two sticking points it really stings for me. I've harped at the TC's midrange a few times because you improve it and it arguably edges into the best pair of headphones ever convo. You give the CRBN more spacing and slightly better detail/imaging and essentially the same argument. So in a round about way I actually have a lot of respect for both.

I am very much the same way. A headphone with only one flaw is often worse than a headphone with multiple flaws, because with only 1 flaw, it sticks out as a flaw. Colorations in sound often combine in interesting ways so they just become part of a headphone's character. But if there's only 1 coloration, then it sticks out as a coloration and I can't unhear it. I draw parallels with the "uncanny valley" effect in human-like visuals; if a human character can't be made fully life-like, then it's often better to make it clearly stylized or else viewers get creeped out by it. For me, this has often affected my enjoyment of the newer Dan Clark headphones. The E3 was very good - much better than the previous generation of Dan Clark products - but it had an over-emphasis in the upper mids that in vocals reminded me of rolling my tongue against the roof of my mouth, like saying "nyeh". Once I heard it, I couldn't unhear it, and the rest of the sound was so on-point that the vocal coloration always grabbed my attention. I'd have to EQ it if I owned it, while with my current collection of headphones I can listen to them all without EQ despite their myriad tonal colorations because those combine to give a pleasant character to the sound.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Let me just take one pause and say that this is just excellent convo and exactly why I started this thread. I truly value you all's opinions even when they differ from mine. It's nice to see and you just can't usually get this in threads that lean so positive on one specific piece of gear. These are all really good thoughts and some of which challenge how I think through my own. Very good stuff!

In direct comparison between CRBN 2 and MK1 007, CRBN has more midrange clarity and the vocals are warmer and fuller. The vocals are probably my favourite aspect of the CRBN 2. The tonality is good but becomes an issue when listening to classical or orchestral as it's too dark and the 007 has more sparkle.

The HE1 is a headphone with zero weak points. We have always chased a headphone that can do it all with zero compromises and you will get that for a very hefty price! I guess you can just live a care free audiophile life with one instead of always chasing something lol.

That's why I mentioned the versions, I think you have two 007s (70/71xxx) that may have a bit more clarity than most 007s. My SZN serial is clearer than MK2s to a good degree, but still a bit dark. About on par with the CRBN or maybe just ever so slightly darker, but similar treble presentations overall. I think there are a handful of 007 owners that have a different experience, which complicates things a bit.

If the HE-1 could be purchased standalone at a fraction of the price (like the Shang) I would've pulled the trigger. I do need to hear it asap, as the two things that intrigues me is that 1) most ppl that have heard it and the HE90 have preferred the HE90, and 2) seems like there is consensus that the bass is quite better than the HE90. So in general I'm very intrigued and I believe I'd find it as vv good overall.

This discussion on CRBN2’s air and instrument placement is really interesting. Immanis is my #1 headphone and to my ears it has vast soundstage, amazing air and separation, and precise instrument separation, which I believe a view commonly shared by Immanis owners. Now I feel that although CRBN2’s soundstage is definitely smaller than Immanis, BUT the air and instrument placement is really almost on par with Immanis. I tend to listen to well mastered jazz albums and classical pieces and it may contribute to how I perceive this aspect of air and separation.

Jazz and Classical easily are the two genres in which instrument separation, spacing, etc. are abundantly clear. I personally find it hard to see the CRBN 2 reaching near similar heights in this regard as the Immanis but I do know you also have an incredible chain. I would love a chance to hear the CRBN 2 in mine without purchase but I think it's unlikely to happen.

My personal belief is that the overall tonality is so good of the CRBNs that even if it doesn't reach similar technical performance of the Immanis, x9k, Shang Sr., etc., that it doesn't much matter. A smooth sound that still has a relatively high level of detail is simply hard to beat. But I don't hold this as an absolute position and hearing you consistently say that the CRBN 2 does reach similar heights *in your system* is promising and one of the main reasons I hope to hear it in mine.

For me, sometimes I've enjoyed the Susvara, but other times it sounds almost wind-swept. I'd like to have a few days to listen to one sometime. I agree about the TC midrange and for me, that plus comfort issues are a stopper. I think the Expanse is under-rated here on Head-Fi. I'm glad you include it in discussions of ToTL headphones. I especially like it with my 300b tube amp (Woo WA-5). The HE90 was the best I've heard until the HE-1, but I heard it like 25 years ago so I don't really remember much about it.

Challenge with the Susvara is that it changes with amplification more than just about anything else. It truly sounds completely different when amped well vs. not, plus synergy throwing in extra cahllenges. And yea the Expanse is extremely good imo when it comes to clarity and detail while maintaining smoothness. Could've have better impact and low end overall, but resolution wise it's a gem that I enjoyed immensely. And I'm still holding out for a TC successor with a better midrange with slightly better comfort but I don't think it'll ever come lol.

 

[Beyond The Blackwall]

I think many people are wondering what the CRBN2 brings to the table over the LCD-5 to warrant buying an estat amp in addition to the hefty price for the CRBN2 itself.

Interesting, it was very clear to me how technically and tonally superior the CRBN2 was when I demoed both a few months back. Certainly estat amp costs will deter many though.

 

[draytonklammer]

Interesting, it was very clear to me how technically and tonally superior the CRBN2 was when I demoed both a few months back. Certainly estat amp costs will deter many though.

I have to agree with this comment.
When I had an LCD-5 side-by-side with the original CRBN, it wasn't even close.
Only reason I sold my CRBN was due to the diaphragm constantly getting stuck to the stators.
Supposedly the new version fixes this, which is why I ordered one.

 

[number1sixerfan]

On the topic of "estat sound", I commented in the Watercooler thread that since Stax is so prominent in mindshare when it comes to electrostatics, the tuning direction of Stax estats is often conflated with the sound of electrostatics in general. And that makes it tricky for any brand coming into that market because there will inevitably be comparisons to the Stax sound. There was never any requirement for estats to sound ethereal or spacious or slightly wonky, it was that Stax thought that sort of tuning sounded best. And for many years, it was difficult for other driver types to have the sort of treble extension that allowed for that ethereal, spacious, and separated sound, so I suppose Stax stuck with that sort of tuning as a differentiator in the headphone market. My perspective is that the drivers and the tech in headphones are vehicles for sound qualities and that I chase the headphones that give me the most of the qualities I want. I'm not a fan of estats because of their spaciousness, I'm a fan of spaciousness and seeking spaciousness led me to estats; it's a subtle distinction.

Fair point here.

Going back to market differentiation, I think there's a tricky chicken-and-egg problem with estats that don't follow the Stax tuning direction which is the gear needed to get into estats in the first place. Estats need their own amps, or at least their own energizer, which is usually another box on the desk or AV rack. It costs more to get into estats than nearly every other headphone type, so there had better be a payoff in the end. The Stax sound is so distinctive that the people willing to get into estats to begin with are usually those who like the Stax sound. So when a company comes to market with an estat that doesn't sound like a Stax, the people who already have estat amps might not take to it, and those who like the sound of that new estat have to weigh the benefits of the sound vs the cost of buying an estat amp.

I think that's a big part of the "sounds like a planar" criticism. It's not entirely that people think estats must sound ethereal, but they're wondering what part of the sound justifies the jump into the estat world. I think that criticism was often levied at the CRBN1; why get the CRBN when the LCD-5 is similarly tuned and far more accessible? And that's my main criticism of the DCA Corina; I don't hear what would elevate the Corina over one of DCA's excellent planar headphones. I think @number1sixerfan wrote in another comment that if the CRBN2 had been a planar, it would be making a much bigger splash than it is now, and I largely agree. Audeze already makes very good planars; I think many people are wondering what the CRBN2 brings to the table over the LCD-5 to warrant buying an estat amp in addition to the hefty price for the CRBN2 itself. While the X9000 has a bunch of tonal quirks, it also offers a presentation that few headphones on the market can match; you're getting something distinctive for the money.

I am very much the same way. A headphone with only one flaw is often worse than a headphone with multiple flaws, because with only 1 flaw, it sticks out as a flaw. Colorations in sound often combine in interesting ways so they just become part of a headphone's character. But if there's only 1 coloration, then it sticks out as a coloration and I can't unhear it. I draw parallels with the "uncanny valley" effect in human-like visuals; if a human character can't be made fully life-like, then it's often better to make it clearly stylized or else viewers get creeped out by it. For me, this has often affected my enjoyment of the newer Dan Clark headphones. The E3 was very good - much better than the previous generation of Dan Clark products - but it had an over-emphasis in the upper mids that in vocals reminded me of rolling my tongue against the roof of my mouth, like saying "nyeh". Once I heard it, I couldn't unhear it, and the rest of the sound was so on-point that the vocal coloration always grabbed my attention. I'd have to EQ it if I owned it, while with my current collection of headphones I can listen to them all without EQ despite their myriad tonal colorations because those combine to give a pleasant character to the sound.

And yea, this hits the nail on the head. The additional cost of an entirely different amp, for stat headphones that are hard to power and result in a high entry cost is what makes it a very tough value prop. You don't want to spend $3-10k+ on an amplifier for stats just for one headphone. So it makes it hard to do so for something that more so would shine against planar/dynamics. Now an easy win is if you enjoy the CRBN plus other stats that sound more traditional and already have a system in place.

Interesting, it was very clear to me how technically and tonally superior the CRBN2 was when I demoed both a few months back. Certainly estat amp costs will deter many though.

Yea I think the CRBN/CRBN2 are both easily better than the LCD-5. It's just that the unnecessary stat system entry barrier is a bit of a blocker to the adoption I think we could see in them, in addition to the very high bar of stat technical performance. The technology is completely different and it's not a good comparison at all, but just important to note that their performance as is would be much more highly received if it were somehow possible (the convo and adoption would be much different overall).

 

[VandyMan]

Yea I think the CRBN/CRBN2 are both easily better than the LCD-5.

I have both and fully agree. There is a family resemblance, but the similarities are sometimes overstated.
---

Very interesting thoughts about the marketing issues for a headphone like the CRBN. Seems likely to me.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I've been working a ton in the new role (unfortunately, part of transitioning was to see if I could get better work life/balance and it's worse lol) and haven't updated this thread in a bit. But also, I've just been happily listening to my system without doing much comparison, which has been really nice. I've been mainly listening to the ES-2a and Immanis/Shang (as always, they're my favorites).

As I mentioned in my previous comments shared there is a recession in the midrange that I don't love, but outside of that it is really good for the price. It has rich tone and timbre and does all the things you expect from a stat, although it doesn't scream technical prowess like say the 009 or Shang. I see it more of a flavor similar to the Omega/007 that I actually enjoy more than either, and that's saying something.

Otherwise, I took pictures of my 007/009 to potentially sale but when I look that the going rates it doesn't really seem to make sense to sell them. I don't want to be a hoarder lol and they barely get use, but if the going rates are like $1.5k~ I rather keep them I think. We'll see. I do want to try the JOAL and the Grado S950/HP100 but may just fund those separately. For all three of these, I can see selling them down the line so I'm keeping an eye out used for them.

Lastly, the originally tuned Valkyria, which is supposed to have much better bass should be here in the next 3-5 days. Really excited to try these and will report back within a few days. Will be selling whichever pair I don't prefer to keep by the end of the month, which I assume is my current pair. Still really happy to have come across the opportunity as I really enjoy the Valkyria overall. Was really hoping it to be a temporary purchase so I could recoup the funds but clearly that just isn't in the cards for me lol. Same with the HE90. You really gotta be careful in this hobby lol

 

[number1sixerfan]

The Eagle has landed. Have already given them a spin and did some comparisons with my version of the Valkyria. (OG tuning is the model on the right). So bass impact improves a bit--it's not night and day, but in my current version it's just a bit flatter. Sense of subbass quantity hasn't changed, but this is just my first early session. I'll follow up later, but overall if you had a choice you'd want to grab the OG tuning, as otherwise they sound exactly the same. But I probably wouldn't go much out of my way searching for it or lose any sleep if I only had the current version.

Definitely reserve the right to change my thoughts here--I typically never share anything this early, but given I know the headphones well overall I think it's a pretty safe bet to do so.

 

[Exekuhtor]

OOOOOOH!
The difference is definitely there, and the longer i listened between my OG Valkyria and an identical tuned (to the new Valkyria) Pulsar, i could just not go back to the newer tuning without being disappointed.
I also felt that with certain tracks i lost too much subbass information on the Pulsar, while the Valkyria still had a decent enough subbass floor.

 

[number1sixerfan]

OOOOOOH!
The difference is definitely there, and the longer i listened between my OG Valkyria and an identical tuned (to the new Valkyria) Pulsar, i could just not go back to the newer tuning without being disappointed.
I also felt that with certain tracks i lost too much subbass information on the Pulsar, while the Valkyria still had a decent enough subbass floor.

For sure, it's definitely there. It's pretty clearly discernible. I just don't sense it's a massive change--but this is actually a good thing. If it were it would very likely change its overall tonality and it doesn't. It sounds exactly the same throughout the rest of the spectrum with no added tradeoffs. I think @ThanatosVI mentioned the lack of tradeoffs at one point.

What I do think may happen is like you say over time I may just appreciate it more just because of what it consistently adds to the music (A/B'ing lacks the ability to account for this). Similar to how I appreciated the Immanis having stronger bass than the Shang Sr. much more over time. I typically don't expect much great bass reproduction from headphones and don't really have it high up on my priority list (or didn't, that perspective is changing a bit), but that experience mattered a lot more over time. That said, the difference is nowhere near that of the Shang Sr./Immanis. It's more subtle for sure for me.

 

[normie610]

For sure, it's definitely there. It's pretty clearly discernible. I just don't sense it's a massive change--but this is actually a good thing. If it were it would very likely change its overall tonality and it doesn't. It sounds exactly the same throughout the rest of the spectrum with no added tradeoffs. I think @ThanatosVI mentioned the lack of tradeoffs at one point.

What I do think may happen is like you say over time I may just appreciate it more just because of what it consistently adds to the music (A/B'ing lacks the ability to account for this). Similar to how I appreciated the Immanis having stronger bass than the Shang Sr. much more over time. I typically don't expect much great bass reproduction from headphones and don't really have it high up on my priority list (or didn't, that perspective is changing a bit), but that experience mattered a lot more over time. That said, the difference is nowhere near that of the Shang Sr./Immanis. It's more subtle for sure for me.

Perhaps it depends on the genre as well, where in one genre the difference can get more pronounced than the other.