Unfortunately, Bluetooth headphones often come with the significant shortcoming of not sounding that good relative to their price. These days, the market is a lot better than it was 10 years ago. But, for my money, the headphones listed below provide a significant improvement in sound quality over the equivalently-priced Bluetooth options. So here are five over-ear headphones that I would recommend as among the best in their class today.

As a warning: some of these headphones are open-back. That is, they expose the driver to the outside world, meaning they won’t block outside noise, and they’ll leak your music to the outside as well.

Beyerdynamic DT240 Pro

(pictured above)

This was a contribution by my colleague – I hadn’t heard the DT240 Pro before writing this article. Yet upon putting it on my noggin, I could tell why my colleague recommended it: it’s small, portable, and sturdy, and it sounds good, too. And unlike the other two closed-back headphones on this list, it provides a sizable soundstage with fantastic imaging.

The earcups are a bit smaller than the other entrants, making this somewhat closer to the nether realm between “over-ear” and “on-ear.” But the soft earpads make this comfortable enough to wear for a long period of time, and the clamp makes it stable enough to wear on the go. And the same goes for the sound signature: this is a pretty relaxed headphone that won’t be fatiguing to listen to (unlike Beyerdynamic’s DT770, which has somewhat bristly highs).

You can purchase them at Audio46 or Amazon.

Sennheiser HD559

Perhaps it’s just because the HD558 was the first “proper” headphone I ever owned. But I think that its successor, the $100 Sennheiser HD559, still offers one of the better deals on the market when it comes to providing quality sound at an affordable price. Unlike the DT880, these have a relaxed and inviting sound that’ll bring a pleasant warmth to any recording.

On the other hand, they’re somewhat less technical, so they might not provide quite as much insight into your music as something like the DT880. These are listening headphones – they’re not intended for professionals. There are also some that would recommend that you step up to the higher-priced HD599. But for my money, these provide almost the same performance at a lower cost. Just as a warning, though, these headphones are open-back, meaning they will leak sound in both directions – don’t plan to use these in noisy settings, or if the sound leakage will distract or annoy others.

You can purchase them at Audio46 or Amazon.

AKG K371

Until 2019, the AKG K553 was one of the most-recommended closed-back headphones for musicians, because of its slightly thin but accurate sound and its wide soundstage. Now, AKG is back with a new closed-back headphone. Like the K553, the K371 is intended for professional use; but this time, they feature an even more accurate tuning. They call it the “Harman target” – a specific frequency response devised to recreate the tonality of speakers in a well-treated room.

For under $200, the AKG K371 is as close as you can get to the Harman target in an over-ear headphone. As such, it’ll be ideal for anyone looking for a neutral, uncolored look at their music. The downside? It has a smaller soundstage than its predecessors, the K553 and K550, and its competitor the DT770. But if you’re looking for accurate sound, this is it.

You can purchase them at Amazon.

Audio-Technica ATH-M50x

The Audio-Technica ATH-M50x has been one of the most popular and best-selling budget closed-back headphones, and for good reason. It’s not the most accurate on the market, but it’s accurate enough to be the headphone of choice for more than a few professionals. More importantly, though, it’s fun, with a tight, slammy bass response and highs that bring out plenty of detail.

While it doesn’t offer the accuracy or technical ability of the K371, many listeners will find themselves preferring the M50x for its fun, dynamic sound – and even today, it’s still one of the best out there in general.

You can purchase them at Audio46 or on Amazon.

Beyerdynamic DT880 Premium

For those looking for an open-back headphone under $200, the DT880 has long been a go-to recommendation for me – it sounds fantastic for its price, even competing handily with significantly higher-priced headphones. If you’re new to the world of high-end headphones, you’ll likely be surprised by the amount of detail the DT880 is able to extract from the music. Yes, the sound signature of these headphones is slightly more detail-oriented than its competitors, and for some listeners, that’ll mean it sounds overly bright and potentially fatiguing. But I find that it strikes a very nice balance, and the treble rarely gets too hot for me.

Just as a warning – the DT880 is available in 32 ohm, 250 ohm, and 600 ohm versions. Casual listeners will probably want to steer toward the 32 ohm version, which is the easiest to use with portable players or laptops. The 250 ohm and 600 ohm versions both practically require the use of an amp, but you’ll also see significant performance gains with amplification.

You can purchase them at Audio46 or on Amazon.

In Conclusion

An audiophile like me is more than familiar with the trap of spending increasingly large amounts of money chasing minor gains in performance. But for those who are looking to make a single headphone purchase for the next several years, the five headphones listed above will be ideal choices, for either at-home or on-the-go usage.

Disclaimer: MajorHifi may receive commission from retail offerings.

The post The 2020 MajorHifi picks: 5 Over-Ear Wired Headphones under $200 appeared first on Major HiFi.

For a while, the Momentum True Wireless has been one of the top dogs when it comes to true-wireless earbuds, and the Momentum True Wireless 2 makes dramatic improvements to ergonomics and functionality while presumably retaining the same excellent sound quality.

Improvements

Battery life is up by almost 50% – while the original Momentum TW offered 4 hours of playback on a single charge, the Momentum TW 2 offers 7. The charging case’s capacity is also significantly higher, offering 21 additional hours of playback for 28 hours total. Compared to the original Momentum TW’s 12 hours, that’s a very significant improvement indeed!

The Momentum TW 2 also adds Active Noise Cancellation into the mix, making it an even better choice for public transportation.

We haven’t yet had a chance to listen to these at MajorHifi, but rest assured that when we do we’ll give you the lowdown on exactly how they sound. Identical distortion and sensitivity specs indicate that they probably share the same 7mm drivers, but the sound may be somewhat modified by the inclusion of ANC.

As usual, the Momentum TW 2 also features a nice touchpad on the faceplate, so making adjustments to your listening while on the go will be easy. And it uses Sennheiser’s equalizer, allowing you to change its sound signature easily.

Availability

The Sennheiser MOMENTUM True Wireless 2 will be available at Audio46, Sennheiser’s own website and other retailers starting on Wednesday, April 1st, 2020. They’re already available for pre-order.

And keep an eye out for our review – we hope to get a unit into our offices soon enough.

Stay safe, everybody!

The post Sennheiser MOMENTUM True Wireless 2 launches April 1st! appeared first on Major HiFi.

Rather than following the market and releasing even higher-priced models, Etymotic has recently been pushing the bottom line even lower, releasing impressively-performing models at the below-$200 range. Last year, they released the ER2SE and ER2XR, two IEMs that are both priced at around $160.

I’ve been very impressed with the ER2SE – in fact, I own a pair myself, and you can read my review of them here. The risk for Etymotic is that the ER2SE will prove as good as the ER4SR or even better, rendering the ER4SR obsolete. And that’s what I’m attempting to discover today – how exactly does the ER4SR improve over the ER2SE, and is it worth the extra ~$150?

In the Box

Probably the single biggest problem I had with the ER2SE was a lack in the variety of included eartips. On one hand, that says something pretty significant about the ER2SE’s sound quality; on the other, it means that some people will be stuck looking for replacement eartips.

With the ER4SR, this is not a problem. While the ER2SE comes with one extra pair of triple-flange eartips and one extra pair of foams, the ER4SR comes with three additional triple-flange, two additional foams, and a bunch of double-flange, all of varying sizes. There are also a few more additional goodies with the ER4SR, including a larger carrying case and a 1/4-inch adapter. All is listed below:

Build quality and Appearance

The Etymotic ER2SE and ER4SR are essentially built identically, with only a few small differences. Both, I would say, are exceptionally well-built. Both feature precision-machined metal bodies. And both feature a proprietary MMCX connector (with a small notch build in to prevent the IEMs from rotating around the cable).

Appearance-wise, they are only very slightly different. While the ER2 has a matte blue finish, the ER4 is a glossy dark grey.

The included cables are slightly different as well, although neither is particularly good. The ER4SR’s cable is braided above the Y-splitter, and is a bit more flexible than the ER2SE’s non-braided cable. In addition, the ER4SR’s cable below the Y-splitter is a bit thicker and thus probably a bit sturdier.

Both cables have some issues with being microphonic – i.e., transmitting the sound of rubbing against your clothes or bumping against household objects. This can be mostly mitigated by wrapping the cables over your ears while wearing. This is slightly easier with the ER4SR cable, due to its increased flexibility, but realistically it won’t be an issue with either.

Comfort

The Etymotic ER2SE and ER4SR are intended to sit deep in the ear – much deeper than other IEMs. This grosses some people out, and for some (including me) it’s slightly uncomfortable at first. In my experience, this discomfort goes away over time – it’s something you just learn to get used to, and should only take a couple days.

Neither IEM will vary in this respect. I will say, though, that this comparison review was kind of unpleasant to do as a result. Once the Etymotics are in my ears, they’re fine, but repeatedly removing and re-inserting them got to be kind of a drag.

Of course, both isolate sound very well – you won’t hear anything while you’re wearing them, which is why I tend to use them for my daily commute.

Sound

For more details on how I describe sound, check my article “How Headphones Sound (to me).”

Etymotic’s IEMs typically sound dead-neutral. The company is known for their strict adherence to an in-house target that mostly replicates the Diffuse-Field Target. So both the Etymotic ER2SE and ER4SR are tuned to the same target, and thus they sound very similar, when compared to other products.

One might be tempted to think they sound almost exactly the same based on the frequency response graphs alone. Yet they do sound different, though it’s slightly difficult to describe exactly how.

The source of the basic difference in the sound is the driver itself. While the ER4SR uses a single balanced armature (BA) driver, as all past ER4 variants have, the ER2SE uses a dynamic driver. This results in a tone that is weightier, but also less refined.

Based on the sound, I’d probably be tempted to call it for the ER2SE as the better deal overall. The ER4SR is very competitive at its price, and for $350, I can’t think of a much better pair of IEMs. If anything, the ER2SE is simply underpriced – it could probably command significantly more than its $160 going price.

Regardless, the ER4SR and the ER2SE offer different things, so let’s get further into what those things are.

Bass

Neither the ER2SE nor the ER4SR are bass-heavy IEMs by any standards. Both offer “studio responses,” meaning dead neutrality with maybe a slight bass roll-off to prevent bass from getting obtrusive (but not much of one). Despite their similar, even identical, frequency responses in the bass, though, the two offer significantly different experiences.

The ER2SE’s bass is, by and large, better. You’d expect that from a dynamic driver. Balanced-armature drivers are known for having slightly “hollow-sounding” or “airy” bass. I don’t find that to be wholly true of the ER4SR, but the ER2SE definitely strikes me as more impactful and tighter in the bass, by a small amount. The bass on the ER4SR, on the other hand, is perhaps “airier” or more “textured.”

Truth be told, though, the difference in bass response is more slight than most people would say. Neither is going to be at all appropriate for bassheads – generally speaking, I’d say true bassheads should probably steer clear of Etymotic. However, if you’re looking for a similar sound with more bass, both the ER2 and ER4 have XR variants, which have a greater emphasis on the bass without becoming overly bassy.

Mids

Compared to the ER2SE, the ER4SR seems a bit less mid-forward and a bit more balanced. There seems to be a bit more treble energy with the ER4SR. The midrange also seems to be a bit thinner and more “precise-sounding” on the ER4SR. Again, we can’t account for either of these differences by looking at the frequency response alone. We also have to consider the way each driver behaves.

One thing is for certain. The ER4SR is definitely more resolving than the ER2SE, and this includes the midrange: the low-level details are more accessible to the listener on the ER4SR. The ER2SE is no slouch in this department, though, beating pretty much every other IEM at its price range, but it loses out just a bit to the ER2SE.

However, the ER2SE does seem to have better dynamics, not only in the midrange but also in the bass. It has more slam and dynamic contrast as well. So the ER2SE offers a less refined sound, but it may offer a slightly more exciting one.

Treble

Both the ER2SE and the ER4SR perform very well in the treble, but here I think the price gulf starts to be even more obvious. The ER4SR offers pinpoint accurate, completely grainless treble. It does have more treble energy than the ER2SE, but it’s not bright, exactly, nor is it much more fatiguing.

I don’t get a sense that the ER2SE is grainy, either. To me, it still offers a pretty natural treble response. But it is missing a little bit of extra refinement – one gets a sense of “solidity” in the treble of the ER2SE, but not quite as much air or space.

Soundstage

The Etymotics have always been somewhat known for having a flat soundstage that doesn’t offer great depth or a sense of space. It’s true that I had trouble on the few occasions I had to use the ER2SE for mixing because I had issues discerning the dimensions of the stage. It’s that way with the ER4SR as well, but the greater resolution allows for more instrument separation and a better sense of space.

Given all the other strengths of the Etymotics, though, I more than forgive them for their soundstage deficiencies – and I say this as someone who typically prioritizes soundstage. They’re really not much weaker than other earphones at their price, and they simply sound so good in every other aspect.

Pros and Cons

ER2SE

Pros: Extremely good value, good dynamics

Cons: Slightly lacking in “air,” not quite as resolving as ER4SR

ER4SR

Pros: Better resolution than ER2SE, airier and better-separated sound, more refined, more accessories, still a good value

Cons: Bass doesn’t hit as hard, dynamics not quite as good or exciting

In Conclusion

Etymotic is a company that’s attracted great brand loyalty for a reason. While some won’t enjoy the dead-neutral, slightly clinical sound signature of the Ety’s (especially the Studio versions), or the slightly weird fit, one can’t deny that both the ER4SR and the ER2SE offer extraordinary sound quality at their respective price points.

While the ER2SE is a great entry into the Etymotic product sphere, the ER4SR takes things that extra step, giving everything a slightly more refined and airier sound. I think those who’ve tried and enjoyed the ER2SE’s sound will likely want to step up to the ER4SR at some point in their lives – the improvement is certainly not negligible.

The Etymotic ER2SE and ER4SR are both available on Audio46’s website: the ER2SE here, and the ER4SR here. They’re also available on Amazon: the ER2SE and ER4SR.

Technical Specs

As a disclaimer, MajorHifi may receive commissions from retail offers.

The post Etymotic ER2SE and ER4SR: A Comparison appeared first on Major HiFi.

When it comes to affordable DAC/amps, there’s few if any names that come to mind before FiiO. I personally use their Q1/MkII portable DAC/amp for on-the-go listening, and I know one of my colleagues uses the Q5. And with the K5 now positioned as one of the go-to DAC/amps for desktop use, FiiO is in quite a good position within the market.

Now they’ve announced plans for a new desktop DAC/amp via a thread on Head-Fi, which can be found here. According to the post, the K7 will be one of the most feature-rich desktop DAC/amps on the market.

Features

The THX AAA architecture suggests that the K7 will offer an extremely clean signal with high output power, as other recently-released THX amps have done.

It’ll have 4-pin XLR and 4.4mm balanced outputs and a 1/4th-inch single-ended output for the amp. It’ll also have dual XLR and RCA outputs and inputs.

Also, with SPDIF, coaxial, and USB-C inputs, the K7 will be quite versatile when it comes to sources. And with support for 768k and DSD512 files, it’s also able to handle quite a variety of material. FiiO has also mentioned an LDAC Bluetooth receiver and a control app, which would be an exciting feature, although the K7 will still likely not be suitable for portable listening.

In Conclusion

All in all, the FiiO K7 looks like it’ll be an extremely feature-rich alternative to the current offerings from Drop, SMSL, Monoprice, etc. And FiiO have also specified that it won’t be too expensive, likely sitting in the same $300-$500 range as its closest competitors (although that’s pure speculation from yours truly).

In their Head-fi thread, FiiO is taking suggestions from potential users. If you’ve thought of any features you’d love to see in a high-power desktop DAC/amp, head on over there and tell FiiO!

The post FiiO unveils plans for new K7 DAC/amp appeared first on Major HiFi.

If you’ve been following Major HiFi’s activities over the last few days, you might notice that we’ve been publishing a lot of reviews of electrostatic headphones. Frankly, ever since we got our Stax demo units, the time has just seemed right somehow. So we’re back! with the Jade II, another electrostat.

The Jade II has something of a history to it. Back before Hifiman became its own company, its president, Dr. Fang Bian, was designing headphones for He Audio, where he designed the the original Jade. This headphone is sort of a unicorn in the audio world – apparently somewhere on the order of magnitude of 25 units were made in total.

The Jade II, on the other hand, is much like any other Hifiman headphone – but it’s electrostatic. It fills out the lower-priced range of Hifiman’s electrostatic headphones, alongside the $8,000 Shangri-La Jr. and the $50,000 Shangri-La. But the going price is still floating somewhere around $1,000, so it’s no drop in the bucket!

In the Box

Hifiman hasn’t been investing heavily in the unboxing experience as of late, with the Arya coming in the same cardboard box as their lower-end headphones, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more spartan presentation than the Jade II. Do all of the units come like this? It’s just in a foam case inside of the brown cardboard box in which it came. There’s no presentation, none at all.

Anyway, all this has precious little to do with my actual opinions on the headphones. I don’t place much value on the unboxing experience. But, it’s kinda funny…

Build, Comfort and Appearance

The build is much like many other of the “egg-shaped” line of Hifiman headphones – that is, the HE1000, Arya, Ananda, Edition X, etc. The difference is that the Jade II forgoes the windowshade-style screen for a hexagonal grid. Otherwise, it’s very much the Hifiman headphones you’re used to – not so well-built, but not flimsy either.

That said, the absence of the typical array of magnets allows the Jade II to be much lighter than your average Hifiman. These sit very lightly on the head, and so they don’t weigh you down at all.

Of course, I’ve expressed concern with Hifiman’s current-generation headband design. It’s not uncommon to point out that the yokes lack the ability to swivel side-to-side, meaning the earpads will rest against the head at an uncomfortable angle for some. Unfortunately, I found that to be the case with the Jade II – the headphones exert a bit more pressure in front of the ear than behind for me, so they become a tiny bit fatiguing over time. Also, there’s the typical concerns with the headband adjustment: it has a tendency to be either too stiff or too loose, and to vary heavily between units.

When it comes to appearance, the Jade II is dominated by its iridescent dust screen, which looks fantastic. I’m not sure if there’s any technical reason for the screen to look this way, but I don’t really care – it looks strikingly good.

Sound

For a primer on how I describe sound, refer to my article “How Headphones Sound (to me).”

As an electrostat, I assumed two things to be true about the Jade II:

1. It’d be fast and detailed, with a kind of weightless sound, and…
2. It wouldn’t sound like other Hifiman headphones.

Both of these assumptions were true. I’m two for two – I must be the luckiest person in the world! Vegas, baby, here I come!

Overall, I found the Jade II to carry enough speed and detail to be worthy of inclusion in the electrostatic pantheon. It also had quite a nice tuning – very neutral, much moreso than the equivalently-priced Stax headphones. However, they aren’t perfect, and one wouldn’t expect them to be – they’re not that expensive, at around $1,000, for an electrostat.

Bass

Electrostats tend to have somewhat lessened bass impact, because they don’t move too much air when producing bass frequencies. The Jade II mostly continues with that pattern – the bass here is both rolled-off and lacking in impact. If you want to enjoy heavy-hitting bass, you’re gonna need to look for a different pair of headphones – preferably not electrostats at all.

In fact, Hifiman is known for making headphones with great bass performance, and the low-impact bass is probably the most un-Hifiman-esque part of this headphone’s tuning. Still, you will hear what’s going on down there – you just won’t feel it.

Mids

Those who are used to listening to the electrostats from companies like Stax may be surprised by the Jade II’s midrange tuning – it’s far more accurate than any other sub-$2,000 electrostat I’ve heard, and it’s about as accurately-tuned as something like, say, the SR-009s. That is to say, it’s not 100% on target, but it’s pretty damn close.

Typical of Hifiman, there’s a little bit of recession in the mid-mids (between 1-2kHz). It doesn’t do much to the overall tonality of the headphone, but it does make it sound just a tiny bit – a really tiny bit – warmer than perfect diffuse-field neutrality. Really, the difference is very small, and not all that significant.

Resolution and Dynamics

Where you do lose out in the midrange is resolution; these are just a tiny bit less resolving than, say, the L700 (which is more expensive, I should add!). Instrument separation is still fantastic, and you still get a lot of juicy details, but there’s just a teensy bit more vagueness around the edges of sounds. Of course, if you’ve never heard an electrostat, you’ll be amazed at the detail on display here, but if you’re a daily electrostat user like me, you might notice a very small deficit in resolution. That small loss may be worth it for the gains in neutrality.

The same goes for dynamics. These headphones sound just a bit less slammy and dynamic than my own personal pair of Stax Lambda Pros.

Treble

Treble is again more even and less resolving than the SR-L700. In a couple of my less forgiving recordings, I noticed a little bit of tizz in the highs, just a very small amount. That’s relatively characteristic of Hifiman, so I’m not surprised to hear it, though it points to the headphone’s driver perhaps being not so cooperative at certain frequencies or being under-damped.

No matter! The treble is still very resolving for a headphone at this price point.

Soundstage

The Jade II has great instrument separation and a sense of wide-openness that comes with the nature of being an electrostat. Still, I couldn’t help but feel that the soundstage was slightly lacking, in width, depth, and image specificity. Instrument positions weren’t totally clear or pinpoint. Again, though, it’s a small price to pay.

Pros and Cons

Pros: Neutral tuning, winning detail and instrument separation

Cons: Dynamics can be lacking, lazy packaging

In Conclusion

If you’re looking to get into electrostats, the Hifiman Jade II isn’t a bad way to start. Priced at $2,499 with the Jade II amplifier, and $1,399 without, it’s not the cheapest elecrostat on the market, but it also really requires no equalization to get truly accurate sound – the same can’t be said of the lower-end Stax Lambdas, for example, which are definitely colored. I also find that the Jade II “threads the needle” between being true to life, accurate and uncolored, while also being relatively forgiving toward not-so-good recordings.

All in all, the Jade II system is recommendable indeed, but the electrostatic presentation is so different that I can’t recommend buying it blind. Compared to planar and dynamic headphones, some may find the Jade II a bit too ethereal-sounding. But for those interested in the electrostatic sound, the Jade II is a worthwhile option to check out.

Head to Audio46 to peep the system or the headphones by themselves.

They’re also available on Amazon – both the system and the headphones alone.

As a disclaimer, MajorHifi may receive commissions from retail offers.

The post Hifiman Jade II Review – Threading the Needle appeared first on Major HiFi.

I often get suspicious when I see packaging like this. Often, it points to a more consumer-oriented product that sacrifices sound quality for looks or functionality or whatever. Upon listening to the Aether R, these suspicions mostly vanished. These really do sound good.

The Aether R is a €1,200 IEM that employs 6 balanced-armature (BA) drivers, and it’s available in both custom and universal-fit models.

In the Box

In my reviews of high-end ($1000+) headphones, I’ve often found myself excluding this section. It tends more to apply to portable consumer products that demand certain accessories for proper functionality (cases, cables, etc.). But with the Aether R, Lime Ears provides a truly luxurious unboxing experience. People who love unboxing will love these earphones.

I’ve already spent a bit of review real estate talking about the construction of the box, but let’s talk about that cylinder. It’s heavy, thick, and it makes a satisfying clink when you remove or replace the lid. I’m not sure exactly where you’re expected to keep it, but I don’t care. It’s nice and I like it, okay?

The smaller box inside the larger box also contains a large collection of tips – SpinFit and Comply – which is always a welcome addition. It also contains a cleaning brush, a little baggy for transportation, a card containing the serial number and manufacturing date (December 6th for my review unit), and another little baggy full of pretty tasty Polish cream fudge candies (!) that the members of my office happily tucked into.

There’s no doubt that Lime Ears intends to spare no expense in the unboxing experience. For me, that’s usually a pretty dull part of any review, and the Aether R has clearly elevated itself above the competition in that regard.

• earphones
• carrying bag
• complete set of SpinFit and Comply foam tips
• nice metal cylindrical box
• user manual and signed certificate of authenticity
• 5x Polish fudge candies
• a lot of packing peanuts

Build and Comfort

I can’t say that I’ve seen a correlation between price tag and visual appeal with any of the earphones I’ve tried. The Aether R Universal combines a fairly standard black shell with a gold-colored metal logo on each faceplate – understated and attractive, but not standout. Not that I have much of a problem with that – most of my headphones are far uglier than these.

Of course, if you’re not getting the universal model, there are plenty of customization options on Lime Ears’s website for color, faceplate design, cable color, and many more, so you can easily make these as attractive as you want (or as unattractive – a skin-tone shell with gold-glitter faceplate, gold leaf, and rhinestones is a possible combination, for only €240.00 extra).

Comfort-wise, I found the Aether R Universal slightly lacking for my small, asymmetrical ears – they just didn’t quite fit in properly. Well, I do tend to have comfort issues with quite a few IEMs. Fortunately, this is available as a custom model, and I’d probably recommend going that route anyway if you’re planning on spending this much on your earphones.

Sound

The Lime Ears Aether R isn’t quite neutral, but it provides a non-fatiguing sound that’ll be a real winner among pleasure listeners. There are some areas where it falls a bit flat, most notably on resolution, but overall I like the way the Aether R sounds. On to the specifics!

(For more details on how my descriptions work, check out my article “How Headphones Sound (to me).”)

Bass

One of the selling points of the Aether R is the presence of a little switch on the shell that activates or deactivates a slight bass boost. While Lime Ears claims up to 8dB of gain in the bass with the bass boost on, I don’t think it’s quite that much – perhaps more in the realm of 4-5dB. The bass certainly comes forward in the mix, and perhaps the boost adds a bit of extra thump, but it’s not so bass-boosted as to drown out the mids. Overall, it’s a tasteful boost.

The character of the bass is slightly softened, as one might expect from an IEM that uses only BA drivers. It can hit, but it’s more with a slightly rounded “thud” than a rumble. Not a problem for me, as I enjoy this kind of bass texture as well. Bass extension is pretty good, but the Aether R clearly presents more of a midbass-oriented sound signature, which partially explains its sort of thumpy character. That means the subbass is somewhat downplayed, though still present.

Mids

The Lime Ears Aether R presents listeners with an unabashedly colored midrange. For listeners who are really used to a totally neutral midrange, the Aether R may come off as slightly strange-sounding. But I think it does something really nice with its tonality.

The midbass boost extends pretty far into the midrange, so the lower mids are primarily characterized by warmth. This is followed by a dip at around 500-600Hz, and a build in volume up to 3kHz. Interestingly, the frequency response more or less falls off a cliff from 3-4kHz.

The result is a non-fatiguing, warm sound with pretty laid-back but still present upper mids. In a more neutral tuning, we’d hear the upper midrange boost moved up to around 4kHz. As a result, the Aether R doesn’t sound 100% natural, but it doesn’t really sound artificial either. I still enjoy classical music on it, though (quite a bit, actually!) which indicates that the tonality isn’t that far off. But its warm, laid-back sound can sound straight-up intoxicating on certain genres – for example, I really enjoyed the Aether R for older J-pop and electronica.

Treble

The treble is where the Aether R runs into its biggest flaw, in my opinion. The Aether R doesn’t have any issues with recessed treble or lack of treble presence, despite its warm tonality. However, its treble is slightly peaky, leading to some sibilance issues on brightly-mastered or recorded tracks.

Specifically, I’m hearing a pretty strong boost at about 5kHz, and again at 8kHz. The fact that the treble’s frequency response isn’t that smooth does contribute to some loss of detail, but it’s not too bad – you still get a pretty good sense of detail with the Aether R, especially in the midrange.

Soundstage

The Lime Ears Aether R has a good sense of separation and a pretty expansive sound. The soundstage isn’t absurdly wide or deep, but I think it’s certainly above average – you get a realistic, uncluttered presentation of instruments. The high midrange resolution means that you get a pretty good sense of space through ambient noise, as well.

No, it’s not quite as vast as the very best available at this price (probably the Campfire Andromeda). But overall I think the Aether R provides a very good soundstage – certainly above average.

Pros and Cons

Pros: Good soundstage; laid-back, fatigue-free tonality; bass switch allows suitability for multiple genres; good midrange resolution; you get delicious Polish candies

Cons: Treble a little peaky and/or grainy; go custom for best comfort

In Conclusion

I think most listeners will be impressed with the Lime Ears Aether R. It offers a unique, well-balanced sound signature with relatively good technicalities, especially in the midrange. The bass switch is a welcome addition, allowing greater suitability for multiple genres. While the treble resolution may lag slightly behind the rest of the Aether R’s sound, it’s nothing offensive, and I don’t usually find myself bothered by it.

At €1,200 (or about $1,350 USD), the Aether R is no drop in the bucket, but it carries itself like a luxury product, with great, fun packaging. And it sounds great, too! Check it out at Lime Ears’s website.

As a disclaimer, MajorHifi may receive commissions from retail offers.

The post Lime Ears Aether R Review – Warm, Tasteful appeared first on Major HiFi.

The current flagship of Stax’s lineup is the SR-009s, a slight revision of its previous flagship the SR-009. This revision brings changes in the stator design (they’re now gold-plated, one of the big obvious differences), as well as the earcup design. It’s also reputed to sound a bit warmer, with a big more emphasis on the lower midrange, which should be welcome news to those who found the SR-009 too thin-sounding. More info is available on the Stax website, of course.

The SR-009’s outsize reputation for clarity, speed and airiness made this a very anticipated review for me. Basically, I’ve been looking forward to reviewing these things forever. And now, after first hearing them at Canjam, I have them in the offices for review, so let’s get started!

Build, Appearance and Comfort

Stax has a reputation for pouring their entire budget into sound and very little into quality materials or build quality. (Notably, the the SR-L700 is made almost completely of plastic.) This is only a little bit true for the SR-009s.

Of course, it’s no Lambda. The design is both more conventionally attractive and more solid-feeling. The earcups are made out of precisely-machined aluminum, designed with an eye for detail. I particularly enjoy the little grooves along outside edges of the earcup. The SR-009s also comes with real leather pads, and they feel very premium, soft, and comfortable. Same goes for the leather head-strap (though I personally prefer the cloth headband that Stax used back in the 80s).

On the other hand, the SR-009s uses the same plastic headband as the SR-L700, something that provides unfortunately good cannon fodder for the Stax naysayers. The earcups also feel a little bit loose, and they tend to flop around a bit when the headphone isn’t on your head.

Is this all nitpicking? In my opinion, it is, especially given that the SR-009s is extremely comfortable. The headband gets the pressure just right – tight enough to avoid sliding around (which can be a problem with the Lambdas, especially the older ones, from time to time), but loose enough to avoid any discomfort at all.

And they look good, too. Stax used to hide the stators of their headphones behind a layer of foam, but I’m glad they’ve stopped – the gold-colored stators, with their hexagonal support structure, are extremely visually striking.

Sound

For more information on how I describe sound, check out my article “How Headphones Sound.”

The big advantage that Stax headphones provide is the way they present detail in a totally “effortless,” “smooth” way. People who’ve heard an electrostatic headphone for the first time will often comment that it’s like “there’s nothing between you and the music,” “it just feels like it materializes out of the air,” etc.

And a big part of that sound is low distortion and lightning-fast decay. When you’re using the SR-009s, there’s a very low chance that any grain or ringing you’re hearing is coming from the headphones – more likely, it’s a part of the recording.

On the other hand, the total lack of distortion can make the headphones sound like they lack “solidity” or “tactility,” a common criticism of Stax (and electrostats in general). Whether that impression is valid or not is up to you. I find it to be only partially true – for me, the Stax SR-009s is great at imitating the sound of a concert hall. For more intimate recordings, though, the sound can be a bit airy and diffuse, but more on that later.

(For the purposes of this review, I used the iFi Micro iDSD Black Label as a DAC, feeding the Stax SRM-700s amp.)

Bass

While the total lack of distortion makes for supreme clarity and definition, some find that it takes away a sense of “tactility” or “solidity” from the headphones. Nowhere in the frequency response spectrum is this more applicable than the bass region. Here, the SR-009s has been found by some to lack “slam.”

Well, it isn’t totally lacking, but when it comes to replicating the astonishing dynamics of a headphone like the Hifiman HE-6, the SR-009s isn’t quite up to par. If all you’re looking for is slam and dynamic ability, somewhat at the expense of clarity, there are planar magnetic headphones that may be more your speed.

However, the SR-009s provides predictably great bass resolution. The SR-009s provides THD well below 1% right down to 20Hz, so you’ll miss absolutely nothing happening in there. All textures will shine through. The SR-009s’s bass is very good, it just won’t provide the kind of visceral, skull-pounding attack that some other flagship-tier headphones are capable of.

Mids

In the midrange section, I usually find myself addressing issues of clarity and realism – how close to actual instruments does the SR-009s sound? A lot of that has to do with frequency response in the midrange.

Frequency response-wise, the SR-009s’s midrange is broadly neutral, with a few minor colorations present. Most notably, there’s a dip at around 2.5kHz – 3kHz, meaning the midrange sounds just a bit distant or thin – a boost in this region would result in a more “intimate,” “full-bodied” sound. Otherwise, the SR-009s’s mids are largely on the mark.

A Word on “Realism”

But with Stax in general, and especially the SR-009s, one finds oneself considering problems that are a bit larger than frequency response. That is, what exactly is “realism?” It’s true that a fast decay means that Stax’s headphones present the truest possible recreation of a recording, with some variations in frequency response. But some people prefer a slightly slower headphone, considering headphones like the Sennheiser HD600 more realistic. The timbre of the SR-009s is too light, too airy, some people say; “it sounds like you’re listening to toy instruments,” said one person I talked to.

It’s also worth mentioning that as far as I’ve been able to hear, electrostats tend to foreground issues with recordings, like resonances and distortion. As a result, any recording that’s been made with flawed equipment retains more of the characteristics of the equipment than the sound source. So there are times when it feels like I’m “listening to the recording” more than I’m “listening to the music.” But of course this is only an issue with bad recordings, and it’s hardly reasonable to blame Stax for that!

As a classical musician for most of my life, I can say that the SR-009s at least gives you a pretty damn close approximation of what it’s like to be in the audience at a concert hall. That’s not to say that the simulation is perfect; that’s impossible with headphones. But it gets me closer than pretty much any other pair of headphones I’ve tried.

Treble

The Stax SR-009s fares about how one would expect in the treble – extremely well. It’s absurdly fast and resolving, and it’ll give you pretty much all of the details of your music without compromise.

One might expect that extremely resolving treble would necessarily be harsher or less forgiving of bad recordings, but I find that this typically isn’t the case. Yes, the SR-009s will reveal low-quality recordings. But because there’s no ringing in the treble, recordings with pronounced treble will be less fatiguing than on less resolving headphones.

The result is that the treble of the SR-009s is both extremely resolving and extremely smooth. However, it’s not completely even in frequency response (very few headphones are), so you get a bit more upper treble than mid- and lower-treble.

Soundstage

The HD800s is still my benchmark for soundstage, and it doesn’t look like SR-009s will dethrone it, but that doesn’t mean it can’t take a nice comfy seat in the top 3 soundstaging headphones I’ve heard, right next to the Final D8000 Pro. One gets a very wide stereo image with pinpoint accuracy. The stage also has a great sense of depth and height.

The one shortcoming with the SR-009s is that it doesn’t do intimacy quite as well as some other headphones. Things that are supposed to sound distant sound distant; things that are supposed to sound immediate still sound just a tiny bit distant. Perhaps this is part of what people mean by “artificial.” Then again, many headphones that are great at intimacy fall flat in soundstage width for me – this is really a trade-off for any headphone, I think, not necessarily a flaw in and of itself.

Pros and Cons

Pros: Ridiculous resolution; wide soundstage with good imaging; smooth presentation; well-balanced sound; looks great; very comfortable

Cons: Not great for intimate or aggressive recordings; upper midrange a bit thin; unforgiving of production errors

In Conclusion

It probably seems like I’ve leveled a lot of criticisms at the Stax SR-009s. Luckily, I have this conclusion section to sort things out. The Stax SR-009s is one of the best headphones I’ve heard. Its airy, ethereal presentation of sounds is unlike anything else out there, and it’s absurdly good for classical, ambient, and any other genre that demands a wide, well-separated sound.

Of course, that airy sound can turn from a strength to a weakness when it comes to rock, metal, and other genres that demand an energetic, in-your-face sound. Those whose libraries consist primarily of classic rock, for example, may want to look at other options for the pure enjoyment factor. (That said, I’ll add that the totally uncompromising insight into your music of which the SR-009s is capable is an enlightening and enjoyable experience in and of itself.)

But of course, even if the SR-009s doesn’t sound quite up your alley, it (or its sibling, the SR-009) is still one of the absolute “must-try” headphones of audiophilia. Its polarizing reputation only proves that it boasts the absolute performance to attract a reputation in the first place. So do try the SR-009s if you’re given a chance.

And if you’re interested in purchasing, check it out at Audio46.

Specifications

As a disclaimer, MajorHifi may receive commissions from retail offers.

The post Stax SR-009s Review – The Air Elemental appeared first on Major HiFi.

Now, the U18t has another sibling. The 64 Audio A18s is a new custom variant of 64 Audio’s 18-driver model, intended to be used primarily by stage performers (the “s” stands for “stage”). As such, it adapts to some of the particular problems associated with stage equipment.

What’s New?

First, the A18s incorporate’s 64 Audio’s new LID technology. This means that it’ll be able to adapt to sources of varying output impedance. Headphones and IEMs will typically react to a high-impedance source by significantly altering their frequency response, usually becoming warmer and mushier-sounding. This would’ve been a problem for the A18t, but not for the A18s.

This is especially relevant for performers who will be plugging their IEMs into mic packs and such. These sources are often suboptimal for low-impedance IEMs, and the A18s intends to solve that problem.

The A18s boasts a slightly lower impedance and higher sensitivity than the A18t as well, meaning it’ll reach a louder listening volume off of low-power mic packs.

For audiophiles, the most notable change comes in the form of a slight boosted low end. The A18t/U18t has great, solid bass, but some find it a bit light for their tastes. For those who want the rich, airy sound of the A18t/U18t with a slightly warmer, more impactful bass response, the A18s will be a perfect match.

How Do I Get a Pair?

The 64 Audio A18s will cost $3,000, the same as the U18t and the A18t. In order to get a pair, you’ll need impressions of your ear done by a professional audiologist. See 64 Audio’s guide on how to order for more details and order online from Audio46.

The post 64 Audio Releases New A18s Custom IEMs appeared first on Major HiFi.

The problem is that not every reviewer relies on the same vocabulary to describe the sound of headphones. While one reviewer might talk about “transient response” or “speed,” another might talk about “note weight” or “development.” While one reviewer calls a headphone “hard,” another might call it “shouty.” While one calls a headphone “fast,” another might call it “bright.”

For those new to the world of audiophilia, I’ve written this absurdly long tome of an article as a primer to the way we talk about sound. However, those who’ve been around the block may also want to check out the later parts of the guide to see what I personally mean when I use certain words.

Measurements

Already the novice audiophile runs into an issue when they’re expected to understand the numerous graphs, charts, and squiggly lines that are put forward by many headphone review websites (but not MajorHifi – we’re working on it, though!). If you already know what all these measurements are, feel free to skip this section.

Sometimes, though, I’ll refer to measurements from other websites like InnerFidelity, DIY-Audio-Heaven, or crinacle’s in-ear fidelity.

Frequency response

A frequency response graph, like the one pictured above (taken from the Sennheiser HD800S review on DIY-Audio-Heaven), is a chart where the horizontal axis represents pitch, in Hertz, and the vertical axis represents volume, in decibels. We look at these graphs because no headphone is truly flat when it comes to frequency response – each headphone plays some pitches louder than others. And a headphone’s sound depends quite a bit on what its frequency response graph looks like.

A good deal of this article will be talking about how boosts at certain frequencies and cuts at others affect sound – and all of this is visible on a frequency response graph.

Other graphs

Besides the frequency response, we also look at things like impulse response, step response, and CSD plots. An impulse response basically displays what a headphone does in response to an extremely short blip of white noise, while a step response takes the integral of that, which demonstrates additional properties of a driver.

CSD stands for Cumulative Spectral Decay, and it is a three-dimensional plot. You can see one above, also taken from the DIY-Audio-Heaven HD800S review. The first two axes are essentially the same as in a frequency response graph; the third is time. When a headphone plays sound, its driver, being a physical object that carries momentum, can’t stop instanteneously, and in fact every driver stops at a different rate depending on pitch. A CSD displays how fast a headphone driver stops playing sound at each frequency.

When a headphone has a particularly long decay at a certain pitch, we call it “ringing” – and sometimes that ringing is audible, while sometimes it isn’t. But when I say a headphone has “ringing,” it means that a particular pitch overstays its welcome, muddying the sound.

Sine sweeps

Since I lack the tools to make my own frequency response graphs, I instead use a sine sweep. This is an easy way to test your own headphones at home for frequency response.

Most pitches that you hear played by instruments have overtones. They produce both a fundamental pitch (the note that you hear) and a number of pitches above that fundamental that influence the timbre of the sound. A sine wave, on the other hand, is just the principle pitch with no overtones, making it the best way to analyze the sound of a headphone.

Using a sine-tone generator, like this free one online, I move the slider up and down to check which frequencies are louder. This gives me a lot of information about how a headphone sounds, usually enough to review it. However, it’s not completely objective, as it depends on the structure of my ear.

Compensations and targets

You might think that an ideal headphone would be one with a completely flat frequency response, and that anything else is unrealistic. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. Speakers are quite easy to measure – just put a microphone in a room, and if a speaker is flat, it has an accurate tonal balance.

Headphones, on the other hand, are harder to measure, and those difficulties with measurement present headphone manufacturers with a challenge. In fact, it turns out that a headphone that sounds “flat” actually doesn’t measure flat. For one thing, you have to have a significant boost at 3kHz to truly sound flat.

But also, scientists have created a number of different targets, each with its own claim to neutrality. The diffuse-field curve, for example, is the frequency response measured by a dummy head placed in a “diffuse field” – a room where sound comes equally from all directions.

And I could keep going with more targets and more about equalization, but there are other places you can read about this. I may write my own article on the subject one of these days.

Distortion

In a perfect recreation of an audio signal, every pitch will be recreated exactly as it is found in the original recording. But since drivers are imperfect objects that have weight and momentum, an exact rendering is unfortunately physically impossible. Distortion describes imperfections in the sound that exist beyond the frequency response.

I’ve already explained the concept of overtones, and distortion has a lot to do with that. Essentially, distortion is the addition of overtones beyond what’s in the original recording. Usually, it’s not severe enough to be audible beyond a sort of harshness or grating quality to the sound. However, occasionally, distortion can be audible, especially in the bass frequencies (more on that later).

Pictured above is a distortion graph for the HD800S. The red line represents the amount present of the 2nd harmonic; the other colors represent the rest of the harmonics. As you can see, the distortion levels of the HD800S are very low, generally below 0.2% – hence the HD800S’s reputation as an outstandingly resolving headphone.

The Listening Process

One of the greatest drawbacks of being a reviewer is the need to listen to the same tracks for every new headphone that you test. Every reviewer is familiar with the fatigue of listening to one of your favorite albums, over and over again, until it becomes almost unbearable. But that’s the thing: to know what a headphone sounds like, you need to listen to music that you know well.

Luckily for me, I have eclectic tastes, so my tracks cover a range different sounds and sensibilities. There’s:

• Joni Mitchell’s Refuge of the Roads for vocals and jangly guitars
• Led Zeppelin’s When the Levee Breaks and The Field’s Leave It for dynamic power
• Nico Niquo’s Timeless for soundstage
• Burial’s Ghost Hardware for bass extension
• Tim Hecker’s Counter Attack for bass cleanliness / Dungeoneering for midrange cleanliness
• Melt-Banana’s Schemes of the Tails for overall cleanliness and speed
• Eric Wubbels’s Katachi for natural timbre and clarity

There’s quite a few more, but those are some of the more specialized tracks on my playlist, and I’m always sure to hit those at some point during my review. Most headphones aren’t able to play all of these tracks equally well: one can tell quite a bit from which tracks a pair struggles on.

Bass

Subbass

The subbass comprises the very lowest of the low frequencies. These are the “rumble” frequencies, the frequencies that create the gut-punch effect of a good kick drum, and the slam of dubstep basslines. Subbass generally refers to the very lowest frequencies (down to 20Hz or below) to about 60Hz.

When talking about subbass, reviewers will often mention the “subbass extension” of a headphone. Essentially, many headphones (some types more than others) have what we call “roll-off,” which is a decrease in volume and clarity towards the bottom of the audio spectrum. A rolled-off headphone will sound less authoritative in the bass, and may render some bass frequencies inaudible, making them suboptimal for bass-heavy genres like EDM and pop.

In the subbass, I also frequently refer to “slam.” This is much less easily measurable than extension. To me, it refers to the sense of dynamics and speed of attack for sounds in the bass region. A headphone that really “slams” or “thumps” will provide an impression of moving a lot of air, very quickly, against my eardrum.

It’s important to note that some headphones with relatively quiet or even rolled-off bass can still slam, as long as they’re fast in the bass, and with low distortion. For example, the Focal Utopia is not the bassiest headphone, and has some roll-off – but when it comes to slam, it has it.

Midbass

From 60Hz to about 250Hz we have the “midbass,” the frequency range in which most acoustic or “real-world” bass frequencies are found. (Although not all – for reference, the lowest note that’s playable on a double bass is about 41 Hz.) This is a frequency range that’s often responsible for lending a headphone a sound of heft, weight, or body.

Many consumer-oriented headphones, like those from Beats and Bose, have a pronounced midbass region, producing a weighty, “fun” sound. This can leave some audiophile headphones sounding thin or dry in comparison, even when they’re completely neutral. When the midbass is overly pronounced, we often call it a “midbass hump,” because it looks on a FR graph like a big hump centered somewhere in the midbass.

The downside to a pronounced midbass is that it can obscure clarity. In addition, many lower-end drivers feature significant distortion in the midbass, which can allow it to “bleed” into the midrange (remember, distortion adds overtones, which can extend upward into the midrange). In this case, we call it “midbass bleed.”

Midrange

Lower midrange

For my purposes, I’ll call the region from about 250Hz to about 750 Hz the “lower midrange.” Never mind the fact that the upper end of this range isn’t actually that low – this is where most of the fundamental frequencies of instruments are going to be found. So this is the region that lends “body” to the sound.

Instruments with a pronounced lower midrange will sound warm, thick, or intimate. An overly-large emphasis on the lower midrange can make a headphone sound cloying, lacking in clarity, or dull. And a headphone with a recessed lower midrange can sound thin or lifeless.

In general, it’s really important to get this frequency band right – and significant boost or cut in this area will be audible, since instruments actually play notes that fall within it.

Mid-to-upper midrange

The upper midrange technically consists of anything above 2kHz, up to about 4kHz, or maybe slightly above. This might be the single most important area in determing the “timbre” of a headphone, so pay close attention.

The upper midrange, especially around 3-4kHz, is sometimes known as the “presence.” A boost or peak here will make instruments sound clearer, closer, and more, well, present. But headphone manufacturers walk a fine line here because this region can also sound very harsh and unpleasant when the levels get too high.

One phenomenon that we like to talk about in audio is “shout.” Shoutiness refers to a boost in the upper midrange that makes things sound unpleasant and…well, shouty, as if the headphones are yelling into your ear.

So you might think the safe thing to do in the upper midrange is to pull it back, and this is true, to an extent. Many consumer-tuned headphones do pull back the upper midrange – the Bowers & Wilkins PX5 that I recently reviewed is a good example. But this often results in a headphone that sounds boring, laid-back, and unengaging.

However, a cut at 3-4kHz combined with a boost at around 2-2.5kHz can create a very interesting effect. While the recession at 3-4kHz does take away presence and make instruments sound more distant, the slightly lower boost can achieve the clarity of the missing higher frequencies, allowing for a wider soundstage. The K701 from AKG is an example of a headphone that uses this trick to its advantage.

If there’s one thing to take away from this section, when it comes to the upper midrange…too much, it’s shouty and unpleasant; too little, it’s unclear and unengaging.

Treble

Most of the pitched content happens in the bass and the mids; once one gets to the treble region, starting around 4-5kHz and extending upward to the ceiling of human hearing (about 20kHz, slightly lower for most people), it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to pick out individual notes. Instead, the treble is reserved for unpitched sounds like cymbals, environmental noises, and the grain of the human voice, among others.

But that’s not to say that treble isn’t important. Bad treble can truly ruin a headphone.

It’s almost impossible to create a headphone with no peaks or dips in the treble response – even headphones that sell for thousands of dollars still have an emphasis on some frequencies over others.

One of the terms we reviewers will commonly refer to when describing treble response is “sibilance.” Sibilance refers to certain consonants, like “s,” “z,” and “sh,” that are produced without activating the vocal chords, and result in a higher-pitched burst of noise. In headphones with especially bright, jagged, or distorted treble response, these sounds can come across as piercing or fatiguing. So we call headphones that emphasize these sounds “sibilant.”

On the other hand, headphones with a subdued treble response, especially in the lower treble (say, around 6kHz), can sound flat, dull, or unrealistic. I will often refer to these headphones as “dark.” That’s not to say that a dark sound is always a bad thing – I consider the Audeze LCD-2 a “dark headphone,” and it’s unquestionably a great product. But I personally do prefer things on the brighter side.

Texture

Speed

You’ll probably see people referring to headphones as “fast” fairly frequently, and you might wonder what that means. While some reviewers (notably Tyll from InnerFidelity) use it differently, most people are referring to the ability to transition quickly and seamlessly between different sounds.

Headphones operate by using magnets to make their drivers move, producing sound. But these drivers have mass, and therefore momentum, so they won’t move perfectly in accordance with the incoming signal – they’ll lag behind, or they’ll bend and distort. “Speed” essentially refers to how far behind the signal the driver lags.

Of course, a slow headphone won’t actually sound slow, per se. Instead, textures get confused and blended together, especially in fast-paced, complex music. Ringing causes individual sounds to bleed into the next. So a slow headphone, like the old AKG K400 that I still use occasionally, will play slow music beautifully but won’t bring any clarity or separation to more complex, dynamic passages.

Detail

Speed has quite a bit to do with detail, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Indeed, it’s possible for a headphone to be quite fast while still losing out on some detail. Detail also has quite a bit to do with the frequency response of a pair of headphones.

I still haven’t completely “cracked the code” on what aspects of the frequency response makes a headphone “detailed-sounding,” but headphones with forward treble tend to emphasize detail like tape hiss, and a slight boost somewhere in the upper midrange (especially around 2kHz) tends to help out. It’s also possible for a headphone to be detailed in one region, but lacking in detail in another – again this has to do with both speed and frequency response. For example, I could say a headphone is “lacking in mid-treble detail” because of either a dip in frequency response, a ringing edge or grain at a certain frequency, or both.

Soundstage

The first headphone I ever fell in love with was the Sennheiser HD558. After a lifetime of listening to music on tiny, on-ear noise-cancelling headphones, the HD558 was a revelation – and a big part of that revelation was my experience of the 558’s wide, expansive soundstage (at least, in comparison with my previous headphones). It’s true that headphones will never sound like speakers; they’ll also never replicate how sounds happen “in real life.” But to me, they have a captivating way of presenting sounds – they have a way of creating a private little world.

Since soundstage is mostly a psychoacoustic phenomenon, I personally consider it faintly ridiculous when viewers talk about how a certain thing is “4 inches tall” on one headphone, or “7 inches tall” on another. But it does seem possible, when listening to two headphones side-by-side, to determine things like imaging precision, and the depth, width, and height of the image.

No, you’ll never catch me using precise measurements to describe the dimensions of a soundstage. But I’ll still say things like “wider than it is high,” or “uncanny,” or “grandiose.” (And for your reference, the two kings of staging as I’ve heard it are the Sennheiser HD800 and the Final D8000 Pro.)

In Conclusion

If you’re just reading this article for fun, I hope you’ve enjoyed it. If you followed a link from a review, I hope this article has helped you understand all the crazy jargon that I use from time to time.

However, I hope to continue revising this article as I gain more and more experience with writing reviews. After all, the act of listening is a dynamic, ever-changing thing, and one never hears the same thing the exact same way twice.

If anything has been unclear, please leave a comment so I can update it – I would very much appreciate it! And thank you for reading MajorHifi.

The post How Headphones Sound (to me) appeared first on Major HiFi.

The Voce is intended to compete with the very top offering from competing manufacturer Stax, the SR-009. What the Voce brings to the table is primarily an updated, Dan Clark-ified tuning. And those familiar with Dan Clark Audio will know what that means: these are laid-back, relaxing headphones, first and foremost.

In the Box

I do love the way Dan Clark Audio presents their headphones. As they do with many of their products, they’ve included the typical tuning inserts that can help calm down the treble for the particularly treble-allergic among us. This is always a much-appreciated addition.

The included display case is pretty nice – it’s made out of real wood, and it has a nice little chamber where you can store the coiled-up cable. (It also says MrSpeakers on it, because the unit I’m reviewing comes from before they transitioned to the new name, Dan Clark Audio.)

• Voce headphones
• pretty nice-looking display case
• the traditional Dan Clark Audio foam / felt inserts

Build, Comfort and Appearance

The Dan Clark Audio Voce is a wonder of weight reduction, sitting lightly and securely on the head despite a premium, all-metal build. Then again, that’s to be expected from Dan Clark Audio – they’ve always excelled in creating distinctive, comfortable, lightweight headphones. (The Aeon 2 still reigns supreme as the all-time most comfortable pair of headphones I’ve ever tried.)

The outside of the earcups present the onlooker with a captivating spiderweb-like design. They’re also all-metal – a feature that Stax naysayers will certainly appreciate, given Stax’s not wholly deserved reputation for shoddy construction. One could never call these poorly-built. They’re precise in their construction, with beautifully rounded edges and a memory-metal headband that distributes weight naturally and evenly. Even the net-like construction of the headband oozes attention to detail.

The earpads sit quite naturally on the head. They’re wide and deep – nobody’s going to find that their ears touch the driver. However, they’re a bit thin (see the picture below for more info), so I do find that they can exert a little bit of pressure against my head. Generally, I prefer earpads that spread the force more evenly against my skull.

A little note: if, in adjusting the headphones, you press them into your head, the resulting pressure can cause the electrostatic membrane to flex and hit the stators, resulting in a little pop. This is just something to be aware of – just try not to do it. The Voce is built well enough that this won’t break the headphones, but it’s important to have good habits.

Sound

Dan Clark Audio’s headphones tend to carry a relaxing, laid-back, easy-listening sound signature. That’s mostly a result of the fact that they damp their drivers significantly more than many other manufacturers. Many find that their headphones are “over-damped,” lacking in dynamic impact. Others enjoy the slightly lessened punch of Dan Clark’s products, finding them less fatiguing than their competition.

The Voce does have the Dan Clark sound, so they are somewhat over-damped, but not nearly as much as some of their earlier headphones. Overall, it has a slightly warm, slightly thin sound that trades just a bit of naturality for a feel that’s more relaxing and intimate than the comparable Stax models.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Voce is rather difficult to drive. While I find that the SR-009 scales well with more powerful amps, the Voce practically demands high power. Running the Voce off the Stax SRM-D50 was simply not quite good enough; I needed to step up to the SRM-700S to get the best sound possible out of these headphones.

Bass

Electrostatic headphones are generally known to have a bass response that is very clean but also somewhat rolled-off. Although Dan Clark Audio claims a flat, well-extended bass response, I hear the Voce as moderately rolled-off, especially below 40Hz. As some have pointed out, it offers more of a “thump” than a deep rumble.

Overall, I find the bass of the Voce to be very precise and detailed but a bit too “polite” to play within its league. It’s in good company – the same applies to many other electrostats – but it does fall slightly short of the SR-009S, which offers flatter bass with better impact.

Mids

Dan Clark Audio themselves describe the Voce’s sound as “neutral, but slightly mid-forward.” I agree with that description – for me, the Voce’s overall sound really rides on the midrange.

This is a slightly unusually-tuned headphone, for sure, with a sound that’s somewhat difficult to describe. If I had to characterize, I’d say it’s broadly neutral, with a bit of warmth in the lower mids and a bit of coldness in the upper mids – sort of like a less exaggerated Hifiman tuning. Running a sine sweep I can say is that the Voce is slightly recessed in the lower midrange, forward at 1kHz, laid-back at 2kHz, and somewhat more forward at 3-4kHz.

The benefit to the slight colorations in the midrange is that the Voce is supremely non-fatiguing. While other headphones like the Utopia will blast you with dynamic power and forwardness, the Voce is gentler and easier on the ear, even with the craziest tracks.

The downside (of course, because there is always a downside) is that the Voce is ever-so-slightly lacking in clarity and naturality. But for those who want a more forgiving electrostat, that’s a small price to pay.

Treble

Of course, the biggest advantage of an electrostatic driver is uncolored, natural, “grainless” treble. The Voce has that, as it ought to. The treble is audibly less forward than the SR-009, meaning that you don’t get quite as much of a “wide-open,” detail-oriented sound. But the detail is there regardless – it just doesn’t emerge quite much from the overall texture of the headphone.

I suspect the laid-back treble is what leads Dan Clark Audio to call these “mid-forward” headphones. And that’s certainly the impression I get – the treble simply integrates naturally into the midrange. There’s still some shimmer, but the treble really isn’t detached in any way from what’s going on in the rest of the frequency spectrum. To me, that’s a feature.

Soundstage

Headphones will never have the ability to perfectly replicate the expansive sound one gets from real-world experiences. We’ve gotten close, but I’m pretty confident that we’ll never quite get there – headphones will always sound like headphones. But that’s kind of the beauty of soundstage, to me – headphones create a private world that swirls around your head.

The Dan Clark Audio Voce throws a soundstage that’s wide, deep and realistic. As with most headphones, it’s a bit wider than it is deep. It could also stand to gain a little bit of a sense of height, perhaps. But overall, it’s the type of organic, uncanny soundstage that befits the Voce’s high price tag.

Pros and Cons

Pros: relaxed but balanced sound signature, good soundstage, very detailed sound, comfortable and well-built

Cons: slightly flabby bass, dynamics could be better

In Conclusion

Dan Clark Audio has priced the Voce fairly aggressively at $3,299, indicating that they’re confident in the product they’re putting out. As an alternative to the Stax SR-009, the Voce is a moderate success, in my view.

Where the Voce falls slightly flat is in its bass response, which isn’t as tight or articulate as it could be. Its driver is also a bit over-damped, making it less dynamic than other similarly-priced electrostats.

On the other hand, its mid-forward tuning makes it unique among modern summit-fi electrostatic headphones. And, in my view, it boasts sufficient resolution and staging ability to demand a high price.

For those looking for a headphone that offers precise detail in tandem with a laid-back, relaxed, “easy” sound signature, the Voce should be on your radar.

If you’re interested in pulling the trigger, the Voce is on sale at Audio46 or Amazon.

Technical Specifications

As a disclaimer, MajorHifi may receive commissions from retail offers.

The post Dan Clark Audio Voce Review – Easy Does It appeared first on Major HiFi.