Omega1990 ZMF Bokeh Review part 2
Comparisons
Now this is where the bulk of the review is going to take place. There is a ton to cover here. For the first portion of these comparisons with the bokeh compared to other zmf closed backs I will use the stock protein pads and burst mesh, after that for two comparisons the bokeh will be using the hybrid pads and burst mesh (I will explain why when I get there) and the last comparison will be using the stock setup once more. I am still using the element 3 to remain consistent throughout the review.
Bokeh vs Atticus
We first start off with what I think is the most important comparison. Like when the atrium closed was being released, the eikon was being discontinued. Now the bokeh is being released while the Atticus is being discontinued. Potential buyers may be wondering if they should grab a new Atticus while they can or go ahead and get the bokeh. The Atticus is my second favorite headphone ever right after the zmf Aeolus so this one is a bit personal, but no matter how much I enjoy a headphone, I will not be holding back if the bokeh does something better. Now the first and imo most immediate and consistent difference between the bokeh and the atticus, eikon and verite closed is that the bokeh is easier to driver with an impedance of 80ohms vs other zmf dynamics that use 300hms. To me this translated to being that it takes the least amount of effort for the bokeh to sound dynamic. The next important part is that the bokeh in stock form does sound in many ways like an improved Atticus with some key differences for the Atticus enthusiasts.
For this comparison I used the stock ori lambskin pads on my atticus. Compared to the bokeh, the atticus is darker in the highs. The mids for both are present and intimate, but vocals shout more on the bokeh (bokeh is not a shouty headphone in isolation though). Bass on the atticus gives up some subbass for more midbass bloom. The bokeh has better extension in the bass and the subbass adds extra presence to the overall bass to my ears vs the atticus. The atticus was never a headphone that focused on all the details in a recording, but even though the bokeh is more transparent and its better at presenting more various nuances in the music, I still feel generally as emotionally engaged on the bokeh as I am on the atticus which surprised me. They are both very similar, but the bokeh is a bit thinner sounding than the atticus. Soundstage wise they are both on the small size, but the bokeh, due to the dampening system had better control. This creates a more immersive presentation over the atticus. The bokeh benefits from the innovations made since the atticus consistently showing more control over every track I play vs the atticus. Bokeh has better subbass rumble vs atticus which wants more impact over deep rumble. The bokehs sense of bass punch may be smoother, cleaner and a little less pronounced than the atticus but I personally still like the extra direct punchy sound of the atticus.
The bokeh is more orderly about how it images with better precision. When sounds sweep or travel across from left to right or vice versa the bokeh is more seamless in handling complex transitions. Overall execution of the sound is more simplified in its imaging and a bit rougher on the atticus. The atticus is tuned to be more fun at the expense of clarity and notes kind of touch one another at times, but that’s part of its charm for me. The atticus is still more musical while the bokeh is generally better balanced. The atticus still has a more direct authoritative attack over the bokeh (if you remove the mesh on the bokeh it does sound more direct and raw). The atticus however gets away with its direct attack to my ears because of how musical it sounds vs another headphone I will mention that when it attacks, its too fatiguing (more on that one much later). Since the bokeh is more transparent and cleaner, the staging and images feel more holographic in comparison to the atticus. The atticus is still warmer imo due to the darker treble plus greater midbass and lower midrange vs the bokeh. I still really like the atticus but the bokeh is a well thought out successor to the atticus that tries to maintain some of the things I love about the atticus while trying to move forward and offer more technical performance for its price which is something critics have said zmfs lacks. While I never felt zmf headphones truly lacked technical performance, I’ve felt zmf tries to balance the technical and musical sides while having great build at a fair price and that improves in overall value with the bokeh. The atticus that I have are made with African blackwood so there is a noticeable weight increase compared to the bokeh. The solid pads on the atticus also create a hotspot around my ears faster than the bokehs pads which are partially perforated against my head. Since the bokeh has the atrium dampening system you can hear far less resonances than the atticus. If there are moments when a resonant echo occurs on the bokeh, I think it has more to do with the recording than the headphone.
The bokeh is crispier and snappier than the atticus. While the atticus is sometimes forgiving for being musical, the bokeh is sometimes forgiving by being more overall smoother. I could listen to either of them all day. The bokeh has a more focused and resolving sound over the atticus and I like that the bokeh pays tribute to the atticus by focusing on the music despite the additional resolving capabilities. The technical improvements are noticeable across the board at the expense of the richness and darkness of the atticus for a more balanced approach that tilts warm.
It’s nice to hear that the bokeh is a proper successor to one of my favorite headphones. Is it an upgrade? On the technical side and frequency extension, yes no doubt about it. If I was to assume the atticus is a more special niche experience, then the bokeh is more of a universal atticus. That is, I feel the bokeh would be enjoyed by a wider range of customer vs the atticus, You really gotta be into that thicker fun sound if you want the atticus. The bokeh maintains important traits of the atticus while bringing improvements to its overall execution of sound. Lastly the bokehs lcp driver shares a lot of timbre qualities with the atticus that uses a tpe driver.
Bokeh vs Eikon
For this comparison I used the stock eikon lambskin pads on my eikon. The eikon uses a biocellulose driver giving it that extra special quality in the timbre department vs the tpe driver of the atticus. It just sounds so natural. The eikon also has better subbass extension than the atticus, but with less emphasis of midbass than the atticus. The eikon’s treble is also more resonant and present than other zmfs to my ears. The stage of the eikon is bigger than the atticus and a little wider than the bokeh, but the bokehs stage is more holographic. Vocals are still more natural and real on the eikon but the tuning of the bokeh makes its take on vocals very natural in its own way. The overall sound is more intimate on the bokeh while music is less in your face on the eikon so that’s something to consider. A distinct difference is going to be in the treble. The bokehs treble is very present but unlike the eikon, the bokeh is smoother while the eikon has treble that resonates and splashes more. Cymbals can get a bit hot on the eikon but the bokeh can play cymbals in a more refined way. The bass region is also interesting. Like the atrium closed the bokeh tries to split the difference and keep subbass extension while emphasizing more midbass than the eikon. You could pad roll the bokeh to the hybrid pads to make the bass more even if you prefer it that way though.
The bokeh continues showing it has better control over its imaging than the eikon. The vocals do shout a bit more on the eikon imo vs the bokeh. Even though the eikons imaging is admirable, the bokeh still sounds more seamless and orderly, with a cleaner background. In terms of resolution, it is a close call. Despite the bokeh having a cleaner sound, the eikon is about equal in overall resolution, so its nice that the bokeh punches above its price. The eikon plays well as a genre generalist being an early example of a zmf neutral like the auteur. The bokeh also does well as a generalist even in stock form. Even though the bokeh is warmer than the eikon to my ears, the bokeh has the technical ability to still pull off being a pretty good all-rounder. Detail is also on par between them but I have to really focus with the eikon to know that. What I mean is that the bokeh makes showing detail look easy since it has the dampening system. Music also has more weight on the bokeh vs the eikon. The eikon sounds rougher around the edge’s vs the bokeh which is generally smoother. Since the eikon reflects more resonances in the cups some users may prefer that for classical music for that chamber or concert hall effect over the bokeh which removes resonances. On the flip side the bokeh knows how to rock out more, and sounds better with metal and punk music if I had to be pickier with genres. The eikon’s more even-tempered bass did meld better with edm and electronic music but you can get a similar take on bass by switching to the hybrid pads on the bokeh if the midbass is too much. The bokeh also has better layering than the atticus and eikon. Even without the resonances on the bokeh it still does a good job of showing some sense of a concert hall since it has a cleaner sense of depth.
My eikon uses a much older chassis design, with rods that have no notches on them. The chassis is also made with aluminum which is thicker and much heavier than the bokeh, so I could listen to the bokeh for a longer period of time. The solid eikon pads like the atticus creates heat around my ears faster than the bokeh. The mids are debatable due to preferences. Do you prefer the lush textures of the biocellulose eikon? Or do you want less of that lushness and have a weighty smoother bokeh using the lcp driver?
Bokeh vs Verite Closed (using solid universe lambskin pads)
Even against a zmf flagship, I think the bokeh does an admirable job. I do not own an atrium closed yet, so I cannot say how they compare directly. The first flagship closed back from zmf is the verite closed. While the bokeh feels transparent and well separated, the vc sounds like a new layer of clarity has appeared. Things are more crystalline clear on the vc vs the bokeh. Vocals are more present to me on the vc vs the bokeh. The vc also has better imaging and while the bokeh does an admirable job of depth it won’t go as far as the vc. The vc like the eikon comes off as a little wider in stage. The vc is also faster than the bokeh and even though the bokeh uses the dampening system to remove more resonances than the vc, somehow the vc has better layering than the bokeh. The vc has always to my ears sounded like a planar/dynamic hybrid. In comparison the bokeh sounds more like a proper dynamic headphone in timbre. The vc uses a Vapor Deposed Beryllium driver which reminds me of focal headphones in that they show off detail, resolution, and speed. Thanks, to the vc tuning though, they don’t sound as fatiguing as a focal to my ears, but the vc are still more metallic in some ways than most other zmfs. While I keep saying how seamless the bokeh generally sounds, the vc is even more seamless in transitions and that extra speed on the vc helps with that. The bokeh shouts more than the vc which is more mellow sounding overall, but the bokeh is inoffensive with its vocals. What’s impressive to me is that while the vc is noticeably better, the bokeh sounds closer to the vc on the technical side than the atticus and eikon on how it controls the overall sound. While the vc pulls ahead in technical performance the bokeh comes close in many ways for less than half the price. Bass is well extended on the vc and pleasant to listen to with how tight it is, but the bokeh still has perceptibly more midbass. Listening to the vc’s take on resolution does encourage me to listen to higher quality recordings vs other zmfs, but not always as I kinda have a habit of just listening to whatever.
Dynamics are easier to get out of the bokeh since its more efficient but the vc can still show off more refined shifts in dynamics than the more in your face bokeh. The bokeh is also punchier and snappier than the vc. The attack on the vc is more delicate and rounded vs the bokeh. I think the main reason for the vc sounding more mellow is because the vc’s tuning and 300ohm impedance responds better to an otl tube amp. On my zmf deware otl amp, the vc is a lot livelier and more dynamic, but on budget gear you might think the vc is a bit off in some ways. The vc has a special tuning that responds better to otl amps imo. Vc pads like all previous comparisons get warmer around my ears vs the bokeh. On solids state amps the vc sounds too polite and may not be an ideal choice vs the bokeh which is more budget friendly. On an otl amp the vc is its own end game experience. For the most part the vc sounds ok on the element 3, but its performance may leave some listeners wondering why does it have a much higher price tag than the bokeh. It really needs an otl amp imo. Like the eikon, the vc is thinner than the bokeh when it comes to the weight of the music. The treble is also mellower on the vc vs the bokeh which has a more evenly present and louder treble probably due to impedance differences. Personally, I did not think the impedance difference mattered so much when comparing the bokeh to the atticus and eikon, but here its very noticeable why this difference matters.
I feel in isolation the bokeh is very impressive in what it does as it brings higher performance from zmf to a much lower cost than its flagships. The bokeh overall has this more focused and actively engaging in your face sound vs the vc which while still at times is even more focused than the bokeh, the vc’s mellowness and tuning is a more colored sound to my ears. The presentation might be seen as more basic on the bokeh vs the vc which has an even more holographic sound. While the small soundstage and in your face attitude of the bokeh shows off details very easily than the more distant sounding vc, the vc is still more detailed and more resolving overall. Still, coming as close to the vc as the bokeh does makes me very excited about zmfs future as the bokeh is raising the bar imo. By having an entry level headphone that does as much as the bokeh is doing, I think some customers will now expect the rest of the lineup to do even more. The bokeh’s lcp driver and use of the dampening system shows a lot of potential.
Comparisons to headphones that are tuned close to the Harman curve
Ok so since this headphone using hybrid pads gets me closer to Harman than any other zmf I’ve heard, I wanted to know how they compare to other headphones that are tuned to Harman. Now I do not have infinite funds, but with what I have, I managed to get an akg k371 and a focal radiance. They are both basically Harman tuned and I thought they would make for interesting comparisons to the bokeh.
Bokeh (using hybrid pads, burst mesh) vs Focal Radiance
Personally, I thought this would be the most important comparison for the bokeh since not only are they both close to Harman but they are of a similar price. They are both efficient and built well. Now I won’t go into some kind of rant saying whether Harman is good or bad just that it’s a sound I usually feel indifferent toward. I am typically not excited or truly bored by it, I just think it’s simply a generally agreeable sound, but nowhere near my personal ideal. I did acquire my pair of focal radiances second hand as they are discontinued and were made in limited numbers showing a logo of the car company Bentley. My previous experience with focal include the focal stellia and a pair of floor standing focal speakers that I can’t remember the name of but they used beryllium for the drivers. Now after hearing the radiance, I am coming to the conclusion that focal is simply not a brand for me but I respect others who enjoy it. There are distinct problems I have had with focal and that is that they are very fatiguing to me. Both the radiance, stellia, and their speakers gave me headaches. Also, on the radiance while its built well, the pressure it puts on my ears is more present than any headphone I’ve ever worn and its difficult for me to listen to the radiance for even 30 minutes. The manual also mentions not to listen to it for more than 1 hour but I can barely get half way there. I’m sorry but its one of the most painful experiences I’ve had with a headphone up there with the hifiman he6se v1 and the ultrasone edition 10. I even burned in the radiance for 200 hours, but it barely made a difference. The bokeh presented no discomfort at all, and unlike the focal which you can’t bend the headband, if you feel the bokeh clamps too hard, you can watch a video by zmf on how to bend the headband. Basically, I can listen to the bokeh all day with no issues.
These comparisons were difficult to get because the radiance is so difficult to listen to so it took me many tries over the course of a week to get. Even though they are both close to Harman, there were some differences. The radiances take on Harman is very dynamic, super focused but also aggressive. I felt a bit of this on the stellia but the stellia is more mellow and had a better take on stage depth. While the bokeh is very focused sounding on its own, the radiance is even more focused and raw sounding. The bokeh is smoother on the attack but just as in your face about it as the radiance. The bokeh just gets away with it when conveying aggressive sounds probably due to the burst mesh. The radiance also shouts more than the bokeh which is kind of subdued in the presence region when using hybrid pads. The bokeh using hybrid pads brings the upper mids down a bit and to my ears, vocals sound more like they’re in a room, while the radiance sounds better for live recorded music. Both the radiance and bokeh have a small stage but I can enjoy the bokehs sense of stage and imaging with ease vs the more fatiguing radiance which feels like it trying to burn the music into my head at times, its hurts even at low volumes.
If the radiance do not bother you than I think they are a great option as they give a lot of the performance of the stellia to my ears at a big discount, but I just can’t listen to them for long so I will be selling them. On its own the radiance is very balanced sounding tonally like how I feel when listening to a Harman tuning, but the headphones design creates that uncomfortable pressure on my ears that make it difficult to listen to for any period of time. The treble like the bokeh is nothing spectacular, they are both even to my ears and the Harman take on treble is nothing remarkable, it’s just evenly present treble. Most of the technical stuff like resolution and detail is about on par. Sorry I can’t say more, its just very difficult to listen to the radiance. The radiance mid-range is also very clear and if I ignored the shout, pretty even. If the bokeh feels like a slight u shape in the mids its very minor. The radiance is very punchy and snappy but the bokeh when being punchy and snappy is not so abrasive about it. I think the bass is a little more softer on the bokeh when using hybrid pads.
Bokeh (using hybrid pads, burst mesh) vs AKG k371
Ok so from what I’ve read, the k371 is an affordable option for those that want a Harman tuning right out the box. After listening to the k371, I can confirm that it is not only easier to listen to than the radiance but it is a pretty spot on take on Harman and would make for a decent product on its own. Compared to the bokeh I know some will see this as unfair, but there are audiophiles that might argue that technicalities are an illusion if you simply use the Harman curve, that this curve gives the truth. The truth to my ears is that the k371 has huge shortcomings due to its design. While both the bokeh and the k371 clamp down and press your ears against the drivers, the bokeh is simply far more spacious having bigger cups. The k371 sounds like music is taking place in a tiny diorama and even then, its being overwhelmed from having such a small stage. On its own for the $150 I spent on it, its fine, but compared to higher end headphones its no contest Harman or not. Having a tuning is not enough if your limited by the cost of materials. The bokeh and radiance are simply better sounding products across the board in terms of technical performance. Music has space on the other two vs the k371 which sandwiches the images together. If it is a good recording there is some semblance to proper imaging on the k371 but more often than not, it is all pressed together. Tonally there is nothing wrong with the k371, even though it sounds very balanced, it just has no room to work with when you play music with it. When music gets busy, instruments seem like there shouldering for space and make the music become a blurry mess, but that’s never an issue with the bokeh or the radiance. Details are simply lost in this blurry effect that does not happen with the radiance or bokeh.
I think on its own the k371 sounds closest to Harman out of the box, but for Harman purists, I would recommend eq’ing the radiance or bokeh if you had to have Harman matched to a T as their presentations are more accommodating to appreciating the balance of Harman if that’s your thing. While the bokeh takes liberties in adding a touch more midbass and brings down the uppermids, this makes things enjoyable to my ears for a much longer period of time. While my preferences would be with zmfs take on Harman, I think those who are Harman purists, will still find issue with these deviations even though it the does not fatigue my ears like the other 2. The k371 shares the same differences to the bokeh as the radiance does in that the bokeh has more midbass emphasis and the vocals don’t shout like they do from the k371 and radiance, but I will add that the k371 to my ears does shout a little less than the radiance. For detail and resolution, again, the music is just being too overwhelmed too often on the k371 to hear if any small details can be found. I like the k371 on simple acoustic tracks but tried avoiding anything that gets busy and more complicated.
Bokeh (using protein pads and burst mesh) vs Sony z1r
For this comparison I switched back to the stock protein pads and burst mesh. The z1r has been around for several years now and is still sony’s flagship headphone. While I’ve owned the z1r for about 2 years now, the reason I stayed away from it for so long was because of the polarizing reviews it had. While I understand where some criticism comes from, I really enjoyed it whenever I put it on. In some ways the z1r is kind of like a fun take on a studio monitor to my ears. It also has this super wide frequency response of 4-120,000hrz but its not because you will hear 120,000hrz. From what I understand, this is to help with controlling distortion and the magnesium housing on the z1r is very controlled and resonant free. The z1r is also easy to drive and is easy to listen to but its take on sound may still be controversial compared to the bokeh.
When it comes to the bass, the z1r feels like a mini subwoofer and its bass boost while not huge is an even boost that adds a lot of body to the sound. So, if you have music that you wish had more bass then z1r sounds like it can add more bass to it. To some this can simply be perceived as too much overall bass. The bass is thinner on the bokeh vs the phatter bass on the z1r, but the bokeh’s bass is tighter and punchier. The bokeh has more midbass emphasis and while its subbass is present, it won’t grunt like the z1r. The z1r is basically a thicker laid back sound vs the bokeh which sounds more lively and thinner. Mids and vocals while not recessed on the z1r are just so laidback and warm that some may feel that they’re veiled but they are not truly veiled to my ears. The bokeh in comparison sounds clearer like taking a fresh breath of air, but detail and resolution are on par. Pads are also very thick on the z1r so they create sweat more easily around my ears vs the bokeh. Similar to when the eikon was released around the time the z1r was, audio critics seemed to be favoring the eikon in retrospect over the z1r and I feel the same will be true here. The bokeh is simply so crystal clear about itself that audio critics will gravitate toward it more often than a z1r. The z1r is more capable than what critics might make you think if you have higher end gear, but lower end gear will make the z1r’s sound too congested vs the bokeh which sounds like nothing is being held back on everything I’ve tried both expensive and cheap.
While the bokeh makes showing detail look easy, the z1r does a really good job on its own but takes some getting used to. For example, classical sounds excellent on the bokeh, presenting things in a more stereotypical audiophile way, but the z1r despite being so dense also does an excellent job with classic and present things with a larger soundstage. Even though the soundstage on the z1r is wide for a closed back the bokeh’s smaller stage will have more air and actually sound more open to my ears. The z1r’s overall detail and resolution is similar to the eikon and also the bokeh. The bokeh has some warmth in its stock configuration but nowhere near as much overall warmth as the z1r. The mids of the bokeh are more forward/clear sounding and even though the z1r is not forward in the mids like the bokeh I can hear the mids just fine. The bokeh is also more physical about its sound and more lively. The z1r is more relaxed and denser. Since my favorite closed back was the atticus, I would automatically prefer the bokeh over the z1r, but I still like the z1r for what it does. It’s so easy to rock out with the bokeh. The z1r thickness may seem veiled to some while the bokeh sounds like a veil has been lifted.
The upper mids and highs are gonna be user dependent when it comes to the z1r. Some users say the peaks on the z1r fatigue them, but luckily, I can listen to it just fine. The bokeh since its not as thick and relaxed has more forward upper mids to my ears but its not shouty. Listening to acoustic music or classical music on the bokeh sounds natural and clear, and while it wont go as far as zmf flagships in overall layering, it gets really close. At first you might think the z1r is not cut out for classical because of how thick it sounds, but it actually works really well since it has such a large soundstage. Both headphones have their own ways of controlling resonances so classical sounds great on both. While I do hear the peaks on the z1r more often with classical music it still does not bother me and the boosted bass on the z1r never truly get in the way imo but it does a tightrope walk that gets close to being overwhelming. While the bokeh makes showing detail look easy with its clarity and control, the z1r can also be detailed if you listen more carefully.
Overall, even though the z1r may not be the sony flagship sony aficionados were hoping for, it solved many problems of past sony flagships. First off unlike the r10 (I own the replica, the es-r10) and qualia 010 (I also own this), the z1r is not being made in limited amounts and can be mass produced. Second the z1r is built better than the other 2 sony flagships which feel more fragile and delicate to handle. Lastly the z1r has more bass than my es-r10 and qualia 010 combined which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on taste. I may prefer the bokeh, but I think the z1r is kind of an underdog. As much as I would personally want a qualia 010 successor from sony, at least if anyone wants to find a second hand z1r, there are plenty available and at much more affordable prices than the other 2 sony flagships by far.
I'll add the amp section and my conclusion tomorrow.
If you search back in this thread you'll see a few reviewers who explain the differences much better than I ever could.
