- Joined
- Apr 20, 2016
- Posts
- 1,664
- Likes
- 3,913
Just curious, have you tried the mantle mesh and/or the thick pads?
ZMF Caldera - New Planar Magnetic from ZMF!
- Thread starter ScornDefeat
- Start date
Just curious, have you tried the mantle mesh and/or the thick pads?
Have you tried the thick pads or the mantle mesh? The thick pads tame that upper-mid/low treble energy for me just enough for a perfect balance. Others found their sweet spot with the mantle mesh.
unfitstew
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2016
- Posts
- 321
- Likes
- 1,171
No but I should try them. I chose the Caldera Suedes as my secondary pad. Will have to grab the mantle and/or the Thick pads for them.
Lyssky
100+ Head-Fier
OMG That Atrium...The red Calderas are so pretty and yet I am considering selling my redwood Caldera to recoup funds.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2016
- Posts
- 1,664
- Likes
- 3,913
While I'm hesitant to make any guarantees, I think a number of folks with similar impressions to yours have preferred them with the mantle+thick pad configuration.
The red Calderas are so pretty and yet I am considering selling my redwood Caldera to recoup funds.
I wonder how how much the redwood contributes to that? I've found the Atrium sounds different depending on the wood.
Both of those red Atrium and Caldera look amazing. I am contemplating buying another Caldera and if I do, it'll be a red one. Was planning on waiting until CanJam next month though to see if there's one there that I'd want.
unfitstew
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2016
- Posts
- 321
- Likes
- 1,171
It would make more sense to sell either that red Atrium or the new White and Black Ebony Atrium I got a few weeks back than caldera tbh. But the red Atrium I have is so gorgeous I don't think I can sell it.
Yeah I wonder. I haven't heard another Caldera to compare.
It may not be the most original colour scheme, but red + black always hits just right imo
TheMiddleSky
Headphoneus Supremus
I really love how treble sound on Caldera with Suede pads. (more rounded character). Especially if you think you want to tame treble a little compare to standard pad.
Mantle mesh work like a charm as well in this regard.
You, sir, win the internet today.
At least this little audiophile niche of it.Seriously, try the thick pads before you do anything rash. Balances it PERFECTLY to my ears.
kobinski
New Head-Fier
...in contrast to the CHARYBDIS —and beyond the first (and second) impressions...
First of all: the CHARYBDIS are headphones that require a very fine tuning. I know we could say this about almost all headphones. But I think that the CHARYBDIS are particularly demanding —as are, for example, the EMPYREAN. It's not a matter of them fitting well enough, but they must fit perfectly. Otherwise, they can throw a somewhat strange treble, losing the enormous balance of which they are capable along the way. The CALDERA, on the other hand, are kinder when it comes to this matter. And not because they don't need a good adjustment, but because they integrate the different frequency fields in a single trace. The CHARYBDIS put us in the front row of the auditorium, though without facing a wall of sound. There is air, they let you breathe. The CALDERA, on the other hand, a little further back. I listen to both with stock cables and pads and connected to the FERRUM combo (OOR + HYPSOS).
I will briefly comment what my impressions are with a few recordings whose sound pickup is exceptional. The comments do not follow the same pattern. They are rather field notes.
1—George Onslow: Sonates violoncelle & piano, Op.16, with Maude Gratton and Emmanuel Jacques —here. Recording with good dynamic contrasts and excellent timbre.
"Air" between instruments: CH > CAL. Timbre-textures: CH > CAL (yes, surprising). Dynamic contrast: CH > CAL. Scene: CH > CAL (wider in the CH). Scene focus: CAL > CH. Layers: CH > CAL. Decay of the notes: CAL > CH, although it goes to taste: the CHs are drier or more precise; but the CAL translate better the resonance of the room.
2—Franz Liszt by Claire-Marie Le Guay —here. Excellent recording -and performance- at the piano... always so difficult to "reproduce". CH: unobjectionable dynamics and cleanliness. CAL: "less" cleanliness and contrast. On the other hand, they reproduce better the resonances of the piano box. The piano is more piano with the CHs.
3—Beethoven, Bruckner, Hartmann and Holliger quartets by the Zehetmair Quartett —here. Pure string, very well recorded. The CALs sweeten it (and therefore the violins, cello, viola are not as realistic). But they still translate the reverberations of the room better.
4—Let's go with the voice: Julian Prégardien with Christoph Schnackertz on piano —here The CHs effortlessly express the subtleties of Prégardien's playing, the inflections of his voice. The CALs are not so informative here. They prefer to follow the phrasing line. On the other hand, the CHs better separate the voice from the piano, placing it in the foreground. The CALs "delay" it a step (or two).
5—Now an unusual recording, some Shostakovich cantatas conducted by Paavo Järvi —here. The CHs launch the orchestral winds —and percussion, soloist's voice, choir...— with undisputed authority. Phew! An impressive sound scene. The CALs, on the other hand, opt for the sumptuous, splendid, majestic, superb... side of the presentation. The stroke is more far-reaching. The attack is not as precise as in the CHs. I understand that, with the orchestra, some prefer the CALs. However, the CHs invite you —rather, push you— to pick up the baton.
6—Music For Solo Baroque Guitar & Theorbo by Rolf Lislevand —here. The baroque guitar is darker —deviantly warm?— in the CALs. With the CHs, the jaggedness is more precise. Perhaps as it should be.
7—New Moon Daughter by Cassandra Wilson —here. The CHs, as expected, separate better, offering top-notch textures. Also with the attack they have more malice. The bass is crisp and punchy. However, the CALs are perhaps more "seductive" for this type of music -and I say perhaps because it depends on what seduces us.
8— ... and to finish some blues —the good kind: Get on board Taj by Mahal and Ry Cooder —here. I would say more or less the same as what I said about Cassandra Wilson's album. Although here CH take a step forward. At least, because the blues doesn't pretend to seduce....
To sum up:
CHARYBDIS: enormously resolute, without falling into tonal imbalance; details at the tip of the iceberg that, nevertheless, are not thrown in your face; they translate dynamic contrasts without problem; they attack until they bite, although without making us bleed; crisp and forceful bass; textures of the first level; very good separation and air, but at the price, which we can gladly pay, of placing us in the first row.
CALDERA: "neutral" profile, tending to warm, but with more than enough resolution; smooth treble; dynamic contrasts... pulling on the reins: kisses, not bites; prefer long strokes to short ones; offer a slower decay without being slow, but perhaps for that very reason they deliver a more friendly or "musical" sound; they are not a layering monster, although, in this aspect, they sound better with the OOR than with the ACRO: no doubt, they ask for a bit of current to loosen up. VERY enjoyable.
The CHARYBDIS are cool —not ice-cold— water in the face. The CALDERA, a blanket on your lap in the evening. Pilsen vs "toast". Macallan vs Lagavulin. The CALDERA are a Mediterranean woman. The CHARYBDIS, on the other hand, a Slavic woman, not much given to caresses, but honest: she always comes from the face. I can understand that the CALDERA are more attractive. You could have them as the only headset —it plays a lot of sticks— and be happy. However...
First of all: the CHARYBDIS are headphones that require a very fine tuning. I know we could say this about almost all headphones. But I think that the CHARYBDIS are particularly demanding —as are, for example, the EMPYREAN. It's not a matter of them fitting well enough, but they must fit perfectly. Otherwise, they can throw a somewhat strange treble, losing the enormous balance of which they are capable along the way. The CALDERA, on the other hand, are kinder when it comes to this matter. And not because they don't need a good adjustment, but because they integrate the different frequency fields in a single trace. The CHARYBDIS put us in the front row of the auditorium, though without facing a wall of sound. There is air, they let you breathe. The CALDERA, on the other hand, a little further back. I listen to both with stock cables and pads and connected to the FERRUM combo (OOR + HYPSOS).
I will briefly comment what my impressions are with a few recordings whose sound pickup is exceptional. The comments do not follow the same pattern. They are rather field notes.
1—George Onslow: Sonates violoncelle & piano, Op.16, with Maude Gratton and Emmanuel Jacques —here. Recording with good dynamic contrasts and excellent timbre.
"Air" between instruments: CH > CAL. Timbre-textures: CH > CAL (yes, surprising). Dynamic contrast: CH > CAL. Scene: CH > CAL (wider in the CH). Scene focus: CAL > CH. Layers: CH > CAL. Decay of the notes: CAL > CH, although it goes to taste: the CHs are drier or more precise; but the CAL translate better the resonance of the room.
2—Franz Liszt by Claire-Marie Le Guay —here. Excellent recording -and performance- at the piano... always so difficult to "reproduce". CH: unobjectionable dynamics and cleanliness. CAL: "less" cleanliness and contrast. On the other hand, they reproduce better the resonances of the piano box. The piano is more piano with the CHs.
3—Beethoven, Bruckner, Hartmann and Holliger quartets by the Zehetmair Quartett —here. Pure string, very well recorded. The CALs sweeten it (and therefore the violins, cello, viola are not as realistic). But they still translate the reverberations of the room better.
4—Let's go with the voice: Julian Prégardien with Christoph Schnackertz on piano —here The CHs effortlessly express the subtleties of Prégardien's playing, the inflections of his voice. The CALs are not so informative here. They prefer to follow the phrasing line. On the other hand, the CHs better separate the voice from the piano, placing it in the foreground. The CALs "delay" it a step (or two).
5—Now an unusual recording, some Shostakovich cantatas conducted by Paavo Järvi —here. The CHs launch the orchestral winds —and percussion, soloist's voice, choir...— with undisputed authority. Phew! An impressive sound scene. The CALs, on the other hand, opt for the sumptuous, splendid, majestic, superb... side of the presentation. The stroke is more far-reaching. The attack is not as precise as in the CHs. I understand that, with the orchestra, some prefer the CALs. However, the CHs invite you —rather, push you— to pick up the baton.
6—Music For Solo Baroque Guitar & Theorbo by Rolf Lislevand —here. The baroque guitar is darker —deviantly warm?— in the CALs. With the CHs, the jaggedness is more precise. Perhaps as it should be.
7—New Moon Daughter by Cassandra Wilson —here. The CHs, as expected, separate better, offering top-notch textures. Also with the attack they have more malice. The bass is crisp and punchy. However, the CALs are perhaps more "seductive" for this type of music -and I say perhaps because it depends on what seduces us.
8— ... and to finish some blues —the good kind: Get on board Taj by Mahal and Ry Cooder —here. I would say more or less the same as what I said about Cassandra Wilson's album. Although here CH take a step forward. At least, because the blues doesn't pretend to seduce....
To sum up:
CHARYBDIS: enormously resolute, without falling into tonal imbalance; details at the tip of the iceberg that, nevertheless, are not thrown in your face; they translate dynamic contrasts without problem; they attack until they bite, although without making us bleed; crisp and forceful bass; textures of the first level; very good separation and air, but at the price, which we can gladly pay, of placing us in the first row.
CALDERA: "neutral" profile, tending to warm, but with more than enough resolution; smooth treble; dynamic contrasts... pulling on the reins: kisses, not bites; prefer long strokes to short ones; offer a slower decay without being slow, but perhaps for that very reason they deliver a more friendly or "musical" sound; they are not a layering monster, although, in this aspect, they sound better with the OOR than with the ACRO: no doubt, they ask for a bit of current to loosen up. VERY enjoyable.
The CHARYBDIS are cool —not ice-cold— water in the face. The CALDERA, a blanket on your lap in the evening. Pilsen vs "toast". Macallan vs Lagavulin. The CALDERA are a Mediterranean woman. The CHARYBDIS, on the other hand, a Slavic woman, not much given to caresses, but honest: she always comes from the face. I can understand that the CALDERA are more attractive. You could have them as the only headset —it plays a lot of sticks— and be happy. However...
Interesting, that the Charybdis won pretty much every comparison point for you. Too bad, the 700g+ weight will stop many potential buyers....in contrast to the CHARYBDIS —and beyond the first (and second) impressions...
First of all: the CHARYBDIS are headphones that require a very fine tuning. I know we could say this about almost all headphones. But I think that the CHARYBDIS are particularly demanding —as are, for example, the EMPYREAN. It's not a matter of them fitting well enough, but they must fit perfectly. Otherwise, they can throw a somewhat strange treble, losing the enormous balance of which they are capable along the way. The CALDERA, on the other hand, are kinder when it comes to this matter. And not because they don't need a good adjustment, but because they integrate the different frequency fields in a single trace. The CHARYBDIS put us in the front row of the auditorium, though without facing a wall of sound. There is air, they let you breathe. The CALDERA, on the other hand, a little further back. I listen to both with stock cables and pads and connected to the FERRUM combo (OOR + HYPSOS).
I will briefly comment what my impressions are with a few recordings whose sound pickup is exceptional. The comments do not follow the same pattern. They are rather field notes.
1—George Onslow: Sonates violoncelle & piano, Op.16, with Maude Gratton and Emmanuel Jacques —here. Recording with good dynamic contrasts and excellent timbre.
"Air" between instruments: CH > CAL. Timbre-textures: CH > CAL (yes, surprising). Dynamic contrast: CH > CAL. Scene: CH > CAL (wider in the CH). Scene focus: CAL > CH. Layers: CH > CAL. Decay of the notes: CAL > CH, although it goes to taste: the CHs are drier or more precise; but the CAL translate better the resonance of the room.
2—Franz Liszt by Claire-Marie Le Guay —here. Excellent recording -and performance- at the piano... always so difficult to "reproduce". CH: unobjectionable dynamics and cleanliness. CAL: "less" cleanliness and contrast. On the other hand, they reproduce better the resonances of the piano box. The piano is more piano with the CHs.
3—Beethoven, Bruckner, Hartmann and Holliger quartets by the Zehetmair Quartett —here. Pure string, very well recorded. The CALs sweeten it (and therefore the violins, cello, viola are not as realistic). But they still translate the reverberations of the room better.
4—Let's go with the voice: Julian Prégardien with Christoph Schnackertz on piano —here The CHs effortlessly express the subtleties of Prégardien's playing, the inflections of his voice. The CALs are not so informative here. They prefer to follow the phrasing line. On the other hand, the CHs better separate the voice from the piano, placing it in the foreground. The CALs "delay" it a step (or two).
5—Now an unusual recording, some Shostakovich cantatas conducted by Paavo Järvi —here. The CHs launch the orchestral winds —and percussion, soloist's voice, choir...— with undisputed authority. Phew! An impressive sound scene. The CALs, on the other hand, opt for the sumptuous, splendid, majestic, superb... side of the presentation. The stroke is more far-reaching. The attack is not as precise as in the CHs. I understand that, with the orchestra, some prefer the CALs. However, the CHs invite you —rather, push you— to pick up the baton.
6—Music For Solo Baroque Guitar & Theorbo by Rolf Lislevand —here. The baroque guitar is darker —deviantly warm?— in the CALs. With the CHs, the jaggedness is more precise. Perhaps as it should be.
7—New Moon Daughter by Cassandra Wilson —here. The CHs, as expected, separate better, offering top-notch textures. Also with the attack they have more malice. The bass is crisp and punchy. However, the CALs are perhaps more "seductive" for this type of music -and I say perhaps because it depends on what seduces us.
8— ... and to finish some blues —the good kind: Get on board Taj by Mahal and Ry Cooder —here. I would say more or less the same as what I said about Cassandra Wilson's album. Although here CH take a step forward. At least, because the blues doesn't pretend to seduce....
To sum up:
CHARYBDIS: enormously resolute, without falling into tonal imbalance; details at the tip of the iceberg that, nevertheless, are not thrown in your face; they translate dynamic contrasts without problem; they attack until they bite, although without making us bleed; crisp and forceful bass; textures of the first level; very good separation and air, but at the price, which we can gladly pay, of placing us in the first row.
CALDERA: "neutral" profile, tending to warm, but with more than enough resolution; smooth treble; dynamic contrasts... pulling on the reins: kisses, not bites; prefer long strokes to short ones; offer a slower decay without being slow, but perhaps for that very reason they deliver a more friendly or "musical" sound; they are not a layering monster, although, in this aspect, they sound better with the OOR than with the ACRO: no doubt, they ask for a bit of current to loosen up. VERY enjoyable.
The CHARYBDIS are cool —not ice-cold— water in the face. The CALDERA, a blanket on your lap in the evening. Pilsen vs "toast". Macallan vs Lagavulin. The CALDERA are a Mediterranean woman. The CHARYBDIS, on the other hand, a Slavic woman, not much given to caresses, but honest: she always comes from the face. I can understand that the CALDERA are more attractive. You could have them as the only headset —it plays a lot of sticks— and be happy. However...
Just for clarification, when you say they 'require a fine tuning' and 'It's not a matter of them fitting well enough, but they must fit perfectly.' do you simply mean the earcup position around the ears?
kobinski
New Head-Fier
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the CHs beat the CALs. They are very different flavors. Technically, CH may be a few rungs higher than CAL. But the CALs have something to love.... (but not only: technically they are also convincing). As some of us here say, when you put them on, you can't get them out of your head. They don't highlight one aspect of the music or another. But you don't find something missing either.
When I refer to fit, I mean that the position of the pads on the earpieces has to be adjusted to the millimeter, as it were. At least in my ears.
When I refer to fit, I mean that the position of the pads on the earpieces has to be adjusted to the millimeter, as it were. At least in my ears.
Switching to the Suedes helped for me. I have the Thick pads and by themselves I did not like them, preferred the suedes over them.
However yesterday I put on the mantle mesh and the thicks and it sounded really good! Totally removed any of the treble issues I was experiencing. And it felt like resolution went up for me.
The mantle sounds really good with the Thicks that I haven't been tempted to try swapping pads yet. Gonna give it a few more days of listening before pad rolling.
