[jrkong]

Well, I'm not sure quite what you mean. The iFi can be switched between separate JFET and valve output stages.

But, in any event, the striking point for me has been the recurring suggestion/acceptance that the performance of these phones - which cost thousands of dollars - may be significantly compromised unless some very particular post-purchase steps are taken. This seems to include: only using particular kinds of valve amplifiers; using special cables; operating them for many hours (hundreds?) before listening seriously. This seems to me different to the idea that the performance of decent phones will always be pretty good but may sometimes be usefully 'tweaked' with amps, cables, etc.

As someone who started the hobby around the time when the only flagships in the hobby outside of Stax are the HD800 and the LCD-2 dealing with gear dependency is par for the course for me. I'd argue that all gear have partners they synergize with more or less it's just how noticable is the synergy.

That said, if I bought a Utopia and used them with tubes I'd enjoy them a lot less because of the warmth tubes tend to provide. In that sense, if I had to get a solid state amp to fix that, is it not the same as getting a tube amp to get more enjoyment out of the YH-5000SE?

Valid opinions either way but I personally enjoy the YH-5000SE with all the gear I've listened to it's just a matter of how much it's quirks show compared to other gear and how much some gear makes it shine more.

 

[jamesjames]

That synergies may exist between components is something, I think, on which we can all agree.

 

[jamesjames]

In an earlier post I mentioned that, while generally preferring dynamic phones, I was interested in the Yamaha because it seemed to share some ‘dynamic’ characteristics which appeal to me. It seemed more promising than the Elite and Susvara – two other planar phones which I’ve owned and liked (although not quite enough to keep). With the benefit of more time with the Yamaha, however, I would say the Susvara and Elite are both more convincing with classical music. If the dynamic presentation of classical music appeals, but you’re also interested in exploring planars, the Susvara and Elite seem to me more obvious candidates for audition.

 

[HiFiDJ]

In an earlier post I mentioned that, while generally preferring dynamic phones, I was interested in the Yamaha because it seemed to share some ‘dynamic’ characteristics which appeal to me. It seemed more promising than the Elite and Susvara – two other planar phones which I’ve owned and liked (although not quite enough to keep). With the benefit of more time with the Yamaha, however, I would say the Susvara and Elite are both more convincing with classical music. If the dynamic presentation of classical music appeals, but you’re also interested in exploring planars, the Susvara and Elite seem to me more obvious candidates for audition.

And why do you think so, out of curiosity?

I haven't heard the elite or the susvara (only briefly), but I think the Yamaha is one of the best for classical because of how (1) focused the depth of the soundstage is, (2) extended (and textured) the high (and low) frequencies are, (3) precise the imaging is, (4) accurate the timbre is, and (5) capable the dynamics (both micro and macro) are.

I suppose it also depends on how you listen to classical music and what type of classical, but for me (in general) what takes the cake is the treble. So far, the yammy is the only HP I've heard that is able to reproduce the intensity and the timbre of anything in the treble with complete accuracy (previously it was utopia but not anymore). One good example is the violin (or any stringed instruments), which I've heard countless times in live performances. Piano is also very convincing because of the yammy's bass cleanliness and linearity all the way down to the lowest octaves. Brass instruments and how accurately it captures the texture or "dirtiness." Also, its ability to extract room information and present how big or small a venue is with very defined boundaries. Etc...

 

[jamesjames]

And why do you think so, out of curiosity?

I haven't heard the elite or the susvara (only briefly), but I think the Yamaha is one of the best for classical because of how (1) focused the depth of the soundstage is, (2) extended (and textured) the high (and low) frequencies are, (3) precise the imaging is, (4) accurate the timbre is, and (5) capable the dynamics (both micro and macro) are.

I suppose it also depends on how you listen to classical music and what type of classical, but for me (in general) what takes the cake is the treble. So far, the yammy is the only HP I've heard that is able to reproduce the intensity and the timbre of anything in the treble with complete accuracy (previously it was utopia but not anymore). One good example is the violin (or any stringed instruments), which I've heard countless times in live performances. Piano is also very convincing because of the yammy's bass cleanliness and linearity all the way down to the lowest octaves. Brass instruments and how accurately it captures the texture or "dirtiness." Also, its ability to extract room information and present how big or small a venue is with very defined boundaries. Etc...

I'm happy to say a bit more - but would like to stress I'm not seeking to convince anyone of anything. My aim in posting on a site like this is just to outline my own reactions by reference to some components that others may have tried - so that anyone who shares my general preferences can follow up anything that seems interesting.

Perhaps the most basic point is that, to my ear, neither planars nor electrostatic phones sound as convincing as dynamic phones. By convincing I mean apparently putting me in the audience of a plausible concert or recital at a venue with a flattering acoustic. Both planars and electrostatic phones strike me as dynamically flat - I don't feel they are particularly good with dynamic shading. I find this typically lends the presentation a 'synthetic' character which works in particular against timbre. I think the Elite is less problematic in this regard - and better than other planars and e-stats I've heard - but it's too warm for me. The Susvara - while still polite - is less warm (but even more 'flat' to my ear). All of that said, I think both project a plausible performance space. For what it's worth, I find both the Elite and the Susvara significantly more convincing than the Yamaha in terms of both timbre and imaging - and apparently cleaner across the spectrum (although the Yamaha's slightly nasal, 'closed-in' character makes this hard to be sure about). But all have more than enough high and low extension to capture acoustic instruments, and I feel all present sufficient detail (transient information) - although with different emphases.

My feeling is that good dynamic phones are significantly more convincing in all the respects I've just mentioned. But this isn't likely to be very interesting (or relevant) to those who don't listen to classical music or who simply don't like dynamic phones.

 

[HiFiDJ]

I'm happy to say a bit more - but would like to stress I'm not seeking to convince anyone of anything. My aim in posting on a site like this is just to outline my own reactions by reference to some components that others may have tried - so that anyone who shares my general preferences can follow up anything that seems interesting.

Perhaps the most basic point is that, to my ear, neither planars nor electrostatic phones sound as convincing as dynamic phones. By convincing I mean apparently putting me in the audience of a plausible concert or recital at a venue with a flattering acoustic. Both planars and electrostatic phones strike me as dynamically flat - I don't feel they are good with dynamic shading. I find this typically lends the presentation a 'synthetic' character which works in particular against timbre. I think the Elite is less problematic in this regard - and better than other planars and e-stats I've heard - but it's too warm for me. The Susvara - while still polite - is less warm (but even more 'flat' to my ear). All of that said, I think both project a plausible performance space. For what it's worth, I find both the Elite and the Susvara significantly more convincing than the Yamaha in terms of both timbre and imaging - and apparently cleaner across the spectrum (although the Yamaha's slightly nasal, 'closed-in' character makes this hard to be sure about). But all have more than enough high and low extension to capture acoustic instruments, and I feel all present sufficient detail (transient information) - although with different emphases.

All of that said, I feel good dynamic phones are significantly more convincing in all the respects I've just mentioned. The real competition (to my ear) isn't other planars - it's dynamic phones. Obviously, my thoughts aren't likely to be very interesting (or relevant) to those don't listen to classical music or who simply prefer the planar or electrostatic presentation.

Ok, cool. I was just genuinely curious, thanks for elaborating on your thoughts.

 

[jrkong]

I'm happy to say a bit more - but would like to stress I'm not seeking to convince anyone of anything. My aim in posting on a site like this is just to outline my own reactions by reference to some components that others may have tried - so that anyone who shares my general preferences can follow up anything that seems interesting.

Perhaps the most basic point is that, to my ear, neither planars nor electrostatic phones sound as convincing as dynamic phones. By convincing I mean apparently putting me in the audience of a plausible concert or recital at a venue with a flattering acoustic. Both planars and electrostatic phones strike me as dynamically flat - I don't feel they are good with dynamic shading. I find this typically lends the presentation a 'synthetic' character which works in particular against timbre. I think the Elite is less problematic in this regard - and better than other planars and e-stats I've heard - but it's too warm for me. The Susvara - while still polite - is less warm (but even more 'flat' to my ear). All of that said, I think both project a plausible performance space. For what it's worth, I find both the Elite and the Susvara significantly more convincing than the Yamaha in terms of both timbre and imaging - and apparently cleaner across the spectrum (although the Yamaha's slightly nasal, 'closed-in' character makes this hard to be sure about). But all have more than enough high and low extension to capture acoustic instruments, and I feel all present sufficient detail (transient information) - although with different emphases.

All of that said, I feel good dynamic phones are significantly more convincing in all the respects I've just mentioned. The real competition (to my ear) isn't other planars - it's dynamic phones. Obviously, my thoughts aren't likely to be very interesting (or relevant) to those don't listen to classical music or who simply prefer the planar or electrostatic presentation.

Well you don't have to convince anyone of anything. At the end of the day sound is subjective anyways and it's whatever works best for you.

I don't personally listen to a lot of classical enough to comment but if reading posts here have shown me anything it's I'm quite an oddball as the Elites rank fairly low for me as, while they aren't bad by any means they feel very inoffensive but they are also extremely stale to my ears. But before I get too sidetracked I've found some of your comments pretty interesting in the sense that I actually enjoy the YH-5000SE and the HD800S as they both share characteristics that I really enjoy. To elaborate, I went with the YH-5000SE because of all the flagships I tried they were the only ones that offered a similar level of energy while adding a bit to the bass region which was exactly what I was looking for. Of course the genre of music I usually listen to (jpop, pop, rock, electric to name a few) are less reliant on the midrange so the lower energy in those frequencies isn't as much of a dealbreaker for me.

That said, what dynamics do you think do the things you've mentioned well? Because from what I understand you're saying the Elites and Susvara are better but they don't exactly excel in those areas, however they are better then the Yammys so I'd love to know what excels in those areas to your ears.

 

[jamesjames]

Well you don't have to convince anyone of anything. At the end of the day sound is subjective anyways and it's whatever works best for you.

I don't personally listen to a lot of classical enough to comment but if reading posts here have shown me anything it's I'm quite an oddball as the Elites rank fairly low for me as, while they aren't bad by any means they feel very inoffensive but they are also extremely stale to my ears. But before I get too sidetracked I've found some of your comments pretty interesting in the sense that I actually enjoy the YH-5000SE and the HD800S as they both share characteristics that I really enjoy. To elaborate, I went with the YH-5000SE because of all the flagships I tried they were the only ones that offered a similar level of energy while adding a bit to the bass region which was exactly what I was looking for. Of course the genre of music I usually listen to (jpop, pop, rock, electric to name a few) are less reliant on the midrange so the lower energy in those frequencies isn't as much of a dealbreaker for me.

That said, what dynamics do you think do the things you've mentioned well? Because from what I understand you're saying the Elites and Susvara are better but they don't exactly excel in those areas, however they are better then the Yammys so I'd love to know what excels in those areas to your ears.

Well, on that basis I'm also an oddball - I know what you mean about the Yamaha and HD800S sharing some characteristics - that sparked my interest despite losing enthusiasm for e-stats and planars after using the SR-009S and the Elite. I did hope the Yamaha might be a real success (in my terms) - and was disappointed that I couldn't maintain my enthusiasm. My initial impressions above touch on this.

I usually mention the HD800S and K812 as these are models that I like and that many will have heard. Just recently I've been using the Beyerdynamic T1.1 and T1.2 - and I'm reminded how good they sound to me. To confirm my oddball status I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the Utopia - old or new - or Focal phones generally. They're dynamic and refined I think but nevertheless strike me as too polite and also a bit 'closed in' - I don't find the imaging convincing. That said (and from memory), I prefer them to the Yamaha.

EDIT: I should also have mentioned the ADX5000 - which I think is very impressive; and the MySphere 3.2 - which I find very open and natural with chamber music.

 

[Fatdoi]

Yamaha Japan posted a new article featuring its flagship grand concert piano CFX and YH-5000SE.
https://www.yamaha.com/ja/about/stories/007_02/

In the article, Mr. Kobayashi, the development team manager, said their next goal is to make the headphones' product life as long as possible.
Here is a translation of that part:

Some people who are financially unable to afford them now may be able to afford them in a few years' time, but it would be meaningless if the product doesn't exist when they think, 'Okay, I'll buy them'. In fact, at the exhibition in Japan, there was a young customer who said, "I was really impressed with the YH-5000SE, but I don't have the money to buy it right now." We have worked hard to bring this product to the world, so we want to make its life cycle as long as possible. I think it is essential to listen to customers' opinions and continue to make improvements to make a long-lasting product (Kobayashi).

Mr. Hadano mentioned they hope to make a users' community. (I think this thread is exactly such a community if Yamaha official joins)

We want to create a connection between the customers who choose the YH-5000SE and Yamaha, and between fans of the YH-5000SE. The customers, who are maniacs in a sense, must be very particular about the sound. Also, as we discovered from participating in exhibitions in Japan and abroad, there are still people for whom these headphones stick. That's why we want to provide a meeting place for people who like this kind of pointy product and allow them to talk about the YH-5000SE and the true sound as much as they want.

From you previous posts, you said you mainly listen to classical music...

How does YH5k sound in large orchestral pieces like Mahler 2, 5, 8 or even Stravinsky the Rite of Spring?

 

[jamesjames]

From you previous posts, you said you mainly listen to classical music...

How does YH5k sound in large orchestral pieces like Mahler 2, 5, 8 or even Stravinsky the Rite of Spring?

Well, my general thoughts about the Yamaha apply equally to orchestral and other classical music. The low frequency weight can be impressive I think, but separation, precision and timbre less so. I find the tendency to present a 'wash' of sound to be relatively pronounced with orchestral music. It's not so evident to me with simpler, chamber music. But, as I've said, I find the Yamaha quite engaging in some cases - just not as convincing as other phones that I prefer.

 

[HiFiDJ]

Huh, interesting... I guess the pads weren't made in Japan. Box says made in Thailand. #funfact

 

[SolarCetacean]

I finally had the chance to hear the YH-5K for myself at The Source AV. I used two sources: the first is my personal Japanese SKU Sony Walkman ZX707 via the 4.4mm port, and the second is my Walkman acting as a DAC for the Woo Audio WA22 and its 6.35mm output (seen above). Low impedance output was selected on the WA22. The YH-5K is very light, quite compact, and very comfortable. Unfortunately, they didn't have a Stax SR-X9000 for demo for me to compare them, but I think they're in the same overall league in regards to comfort and build. I suspect that the larger earcups on the Stax will prove more comfortable in the long run as they avoid putting any pressure on certain bones in my cheeks, but I wish I had the opportunity to test (I was told the store's X9K demo unit was stolen in a recent burglary). I think the tips of my ears only lightly touch the insides of the headphone due to the angled drivers and the contact wasn't hard or uncomfortable. Edit to Add: I used the leather pads the entire time. I put on the headphone with the suede pads for a bit before I listened, and I think the suede pads are softer, but I only listened with the leather pads after an employee changed them for me. All sound impressions are with the leather earpads.

Sound-wise, it's probably the most interesting headphone I've heard in a while. With every test track, I went "huh, I haven't heard it like that before", and yet (or perhaps thus), I continue to be intrigued. It is quite difficult to pin down exactly what it sounds like, because it can provide different, sometimes contradictory characteristics with different tracks. To me, the first thing that stood out was its vocal spatialization. Vocals sound like they're coming from further away, deeper within the soundstage. This is something that I generally like. Yet the Yamaha doesn't do in the same way that other headphones do it. Many of the headphones that I've heard good vocal spatial depth on have had withdrawn midranges with a peak in the presence region. Think of the Hifiman open-back tuning; a dip in the 1-2KHz region and then elevation in the 3-5KHz presence region. That results in a thinner, "breathier" sound that has good spatial qualities while also being present and not muffled. The Yamaha does not do that. It tries to maintain the "body" of the vocals while also placing them further in front of the listener. So vocals don't have the thin and breathy sound of a Hifiman or Sony headphone. It has this more full-bodied or richer tone with more of those throat-generated frequencies present, but the vocals aren't shouty or forward (close to the listener). Some other listeners have called this a "retro" or "vintage" sound, and I can see that. The downside is that some vocals can sound "nasally", which is what happens when there's too much of a boost around 1.5KHz.

Bass is odd, because it can sometimes sound "pillowy", but other times sound thunderous. It doesn't have the immediacy of impact of something like the electrostatics, and its more rounded attack reminds me of a dynamic driver like the Sony MDR-Z1R. On a song like 'Obstacle' by Karra, the large electronic bass hits at 1:33 don't have the sudden and sharp impact that I hear on my Shangri-La Jr, so I was a bit underwhelmed (though I use a Ferrum Erco DAC which has a punchier sound). But on 'my strange addiction' by Billie Eilish, the bass there reminded me of when I heard that song on a pair of Wilson Audio Sasha V speakers driven by Dan D'Agostino power amps. Bass was thunderous on that speaker setup, and the Yamaha came closest to that same thundering presentation of any headphone I've heard it on (though I haven't listened to that track on an Abyss AB 1266).

The combination of bass and vocals is curious. Taking 'my strange addiction' again, vocals are distant yet full-bodied and the bass is powerful and localized slightly closer than the vocals and on either side. This reminds me of how I hear that combination on speakers. Vocals generally appear between the speakers, bass tends to image as coming from the speakers. There's no "between the speakers" effect for me with bass. So I think the Yamaha comes the closest to replicating the sound positioning that I hear with two-channel speakers. Most headphones image the vocals as being closer than the bass, or the bass being too far to the sides of my head rather than in front of me flanking the vocals.

"Did you replicate speaker imaging?"
"Yes"
"What did it cost?"

Well, maybe not everything, but it required quite a few trade-offs. First, tonality overall is pretty weird. I'd generally characterize it as a W-shaped sound signature. If a listener really values their tonal balance, this headphone WILL NOT be for them. The combination of distant yet full-bodied vocals seems to force a strange tuning in the midrange, with the slight nasal tone due to the emphasized body yet withdrawn presence region. Curiously, in one of my piano tracks 'La Gazza Ladra' performed by Chelsea Guo, at around 3:23 at the high point of that piano interlude, there seems to be a bit of distortion in those piano notes. I think the FR and distortion measurements also show some weird tonality and distortion issues. Treble also seemed to have some peakiness, though my usual upper treble peak detector track 'If It Isn't You' by Nurko between 1:29 and 1:57 didn't show any single sharp treble peaks. It's probably a series of smaller peaks distributed throughout the lower/mid treble rather than a single big peak. Jason at TSAV mentioned that there's an oddity at around 4KHz, and that seems plausible, though I didn't run measurements or a sine sweep. Treble definitely isn't as smooth as on a current-gen Dan Clark or my Shangri-La Jr, but never quite reaches irritation levels, at least for me with generally low listening levels. I'll need to listen to more tracks for sure. Bass is very present, and it shows in the FR as well. It's a bit like the MDR-Z1R in bass presentation, like quantity, attack, and decay. It doesn't have the usual "planar speed" or planar bass extension. It's honestly hard to put into words what exactly the headphone sounds like. It just sounds weird, a bit distant on some parts, a bit boomy in others, a bit lean in some parts, a bit strident in others. It's strangely compelling, as for any song in my library I don't know how it will sound on the Yamaha, but I'm not sure if it will hold the appeal after I've gone through it all.

For synergy and stuff, I'll concur that tubes can help. Comparing my Walkman to the WA22, the tube amp softens some of the upper midrange strangeness and stridency. It sounded a bit less weird overall, though I realize that description isn't particularly helpful. The stridency of the upper mids can be a distraction, and mellowing that out helps me enjoy its spatial presentation with less interruption.

For a comparison, I think the Yamaha is like if the Sony MDR-Z1R and the Stax SR-L700mk2 got kitbashed together. The YH-5K has the bass of the Z1R, but a midrange more similar to that of the Stax. The Stax has a similar vocal to bass presentation with bass clearly localized to two position surrounding the vocals, but the Stax vocals are quite forward and focused, while the YH-5K moves those vocals further back. The Stax and the Yamaha also have similarities in their FR measurements in the upper midrange with that 1.5K peak followed by the 2-4K recession. And both seem to slightly benefit from amps with higher distortion, perhaps because distortion products of the 1.5K peak help fill in the 2-3K region.

All in all, I want to hear more of the YH-5000. It's probably the strangest, yet most interesting, headphone tuning I've encountered in a long time. It's certainly distinctive, and since I'm maintaining a collection (as opposed to finding the one headphone to rule them all), I find it strangely compelling.

 

[HiFiDJ]

I've said it before but I think the yammy gives you so much insight into the music. Its ability to extract the minutiae within a recording is impressive and faithful. If the song was recorded in a bathroom you can hear that, and it doesn't try to butter it up, unless you have a buttery chain.

Stax SR-X9000 for demo for me to compare them, but I think they're in the same overall league.

Now that's an interesting statement.

 

[Midian27]

I finally had the chance to hear the YH-5K for myself at The Source AV. I used two sources: the first is my personal Japanese SKU Sony Walkman ZX707 via the 4.4mm port, and the second is my Walkman acting as a DAC for the Woo Audio WA22 and its 6.35mm output (seen above). Low impedance output was selected on the WA22. The YH-5K is very light, quite compact, and very comfortable. Unfortunately, they didn't have a Stax SR-X9000 for demo for me to compare them, but I think they're in the same overall league. I suspect that the larger earcups on the Stax will prove more comfortable in the long run as they avoid putting any pressure on certain bones in my cheeks, but I wish I had the opportunity to test (I was told the store's X9K demo unit was stolen in a recent burglary). I think the tips of my ears only lightly touch the insides of the headphone due to the angled drivers and the contact wasn't hard or uncomfortable.

Sound-wise, it's probably the most interesting headphone I've heard in a while. With every test track, I went "huh, I haven't heard it like that before", and yet (or perhaps thus), I continue to be intrigued. It is quite difficult to pin down exactly what it sounds like, because it can provide different, sometimes contradictory characteristics with different tracks. To me, the first thing that stood out was its vocal spatialization. Vocals sound like they're coming from further away, deeper within the soundstage. This is something that I generally like. Yet the Yamaha doesn't do in the same way that other headphones do it. Many of the headphones that I've heard good vocal spatial depth on have had withdrawn midranges with a peak in the presence region. Think of the Hifiman open-back tuning; a dip in the 1-2KHz region and then elevation in the 3-5KHz presence region. That results in a thinner, "breathier" sound that has good spatial qualities while also being present and not muffled. The Yamaha does not do that. It tries to maintain the "body" of the vocals while also placing them further in front of the listener. So vocals don't have the thin and breathy sound of a Hifiman or Sony headphone. It has this more full-bodied or richer tone with more of those throat-generated frequencies present, but the vocals aren't shouty or forward (close to the listener). Some other listeners have called this a "retro" or "vintage" sound, and I can see that. The downside is that some vocals can sound "nasally", which is what happens when there's too much of a boost around 1.5KHz.

Bass is odd, because it can sometimes sound "pillowy", but other times sound thunderous. It doesn't have the immediacy of impact of something like the electrostatics, and its more rounded attack reminds me of a dynamic driver like the Sony MDR-Z1R. On a song like 'Obstacle' by Karra, the large electronic bass hits at 1:33 don't have the sudden and sharp impact that I hear on my Shangri-La Jr, so I was a bit underwhelmed (though I use a Ferrum Erco DAC which has a punchier sound). But on 'my strange addiction' by Billie Eilish, the bass there reminded me of when I heard that song on a pair of Wilson Audio Sasha V speakers driven by Dan D'Agostino power amps. Bass was thunderous on that speaker setup, and the Yamaha came closest to that same thundering presentation of any headphone I've heard it on (though I haven't listened to that track on an Abyss AB 1266).

The combination of bass and vocals is curious. Taking 'my strange addiction' again, vocals are distant yet full-bodied and the bass is powerful and localized slightly closer than the vocals and on either side. This reminds me of how I hear that combination on speakers. Vocals generally appear between the speakers, bass tends to image as coming from the speakers. There's no "between the speakers" effect for me with bass. So I think the Yamaha comes the closest to replicating the sound positioning that I hear with two-channel speakers. Most headphones image the vocals as being closer than the bass, or the bass being too far to the sides of my head rather than in front of me flanking the vocals.

"Did you replicate speaker imaging?"
"Yes"
"What did it cost?"

Well, maybe not everything, but it required quite a few trade-offs. First, tonality overall is pretty weird. I'd generally characterize it as a W-shaped sound signature. If a listener really values their tonal balance, this headphone WILL NOT be for them. The combination of distant yet full-bodied vocals seems to force a strange tuning in the midrange, with the slight nasal tone due to the emphasized body yet withdrawn presence region. Curiously, in one of my piano tracks 'La Gazza Ladra' performed by Chelsea Guo, at around 3:23 at the high point of that piano interlude, there seems to be a bit of distortion in those piano notes. I think the FR and distortion measurements also show some weird tonality and distortion issues. Treble also seemed to have some peakiness, though my usual upper treble peak detector track 'If It Isn't You' by Nurko between 1:29 and 1:57 didn't show any single sharp treble peaks. It's probably a series of smaller peaks distributed throughout the lower/mid treble rather than a single big peak. Jason at TSAV mentioned that there's an oddity at around 4KHz, and that seems plausible, though I didn't run measurements or a sine sweep. Treble definitely isn't as smooth as on a current-gen Dan Clark or my Shangri-La Jr, but never quite reaches irritation levels, at least for me with generally low listening levels. I'll need to listen to more tracks for sure. Bass is very present, and it shows in the FR as well. It's a bit like the MDR-Z1R in bass presentation, like quantity, attack, and decay. It doesn't have the usual "planar speed" or planar bass extension. It's honestly hard to put into words what exactly the headphone sounds like. It just sounds weird, a bit distant on some parts, a bit boomy in others, a bit lean in some parts, a bit strident in others. It's strangely compelling, as for any song in my library I don't know how it will sound on the Yamaha, but I'm not sure if it will hold the appeal after I've gone through it all.

For synergy and stuff, I'll concur that tubes can help. Comparing my Walkman to the WA22, the tube amp softens some of the upper midrange strangeness and stridency. It sounded a bit less weird overall, though I realize that description isn't particularly helpful. The stridency of the upper mids can be a distraction, and mellowing that out helps me enjoy its spatial presentation with less interruption.

For a comparison, I think the Yamaha is like if the Sony MDR-Z1R and the Stax SR-L700mk2 got kitbashed together. The YH-5K has the bass of the Z1R, but a midrange more similar to that of the Stax. The Stax has a similar vocal to bass presentation with bass clearly localized to two position surrounding the vocals, but the Stax vocals are quite forward and focused, while the YH-5K moves those vocals further back. The Stax and the Yamaha also have similarities in their FR measurements in the upper midrange with that 1.5K peak followed by the 2-4K recession. And both seem to slightly benefit from amps with higher distortion, perhaps because distortion products of the 1.5K peak help fill in the 2-3K region.

All in all, I want to hear more of the YH-5000. It's probably the strangest, yet most interesting, headphone tuning I've encountered in a long time. It's certainly distinctive, and since I'm maintaining a collection (as opposed to finding the one headphone to rule them all), I find it strangely compelling.

Don't own the Stax SR-X9000 but could try them together not long ago.
There are both very comfortable but for me the Stax is a little bit better.

 

[SolarCetacean]

Now that's an interesting statement.

Ah, I should clarify that I meant that in terms of comfort and build. Both are extremely comfortable and well-built headphones. Sound-wise, they're completely different, but they're so different than I find it difficult to compare them, especially without them side-by-side. From memory, the Stax SR-X9000 is more conventional, or at least more familiar, in its presentation of sound. The Yamaha does its own thing, and while it has slip-ups here and there, it's a very unique presentation of sound that I find somehow compelling.