Some thoughts about the Ultrasone Pro 900

OK, I will start by saying that these headphones are solidly built, and that fit and finish is excellent. Also, Ultrasone has stood by its design philosophy solidly through the years, and you have to commend them for standing by their principles.

But the fact is, either you are going to love the Pro 900 or you are going to hate it, no in-betweens. These headphones are more polarizing than Grados, and for one and only one reason -- S-logic.

S-logic based on this paper that Florian Konig, the founder of Ultrasone, wrote. I read it when I first tried to figure out what the term "S-logic" meant, and I think it is the best (and probably only) detailed explanation you are ever going to get on the topic, unless you count the rather vague statements on the Ultrasone website. The problem is that the paper is translated into English in such a clumsy way (I assume that it was not initially written in English) that many of the concepts are almost impossible to understand. It's like the paper was written by a Tamarian ("Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel"). If you don't understand what I mean by this, well, you probably never will, it's a Star Trek thing :-)

Basically, as far as I can make out (disclaimer: it's been a while since I have thought about this in detail because it gives me a migraine) the sound gets better if you place the drivers in a "decentric" fashion (i.e. in an inhumanly low position and angled weirdly) then something called "head-related transfer" occurs and then the sound that travels through regular air conduction (via the drivers) and head-related transfer function are both picked up the brain and combined to create a magical 3D sound. You with me? Good, because I'm not sure I am.

Now to be fair, HD800 also utilizes a somewhat eccentric driver placement, and many IEMs add a component of bone conduction, and Ultrasone has a ton of patents for S-logic, and Florian Konig is clearly a very smart man, and his paper offers a reasonable scientific hypothesis to support decentral driver placement, so maybe there is something to it. I should also add that Ultrasone claims that their headphones subject you to less EM radiation than other headphones, and that you are less likely to sustain hearing loss with their headphones. Rather than depend on my biased opinion, read the paper for yourself and decide!

Suffice to say that depending on your perspective, S-Logic technology either improves the sound like the Traveler (whose name was unpronounceable by Humans) improved the warp drive of the USS Enterprise, or kills the sound more thoroughly than a rerun of a Star Trek Voyager episode.

I am of the latter persuasion.

I ripped my headphones!

Q: I accidentally ripped the fabric around the driver in my Beyerdynamic DT770 headphones! Will this affect sound?

A: Best case scenario, the tear reduces the treble reflex, so treble will increase. Most likely on the Beyerdynamic DT770 770 it will make treble harsh and the sound fatiguing.

Worst case scenario, over time the vibrations from the torn fabric that will be frustrating. In that case, the headphones may become unlistenable.

Scientifically comparing personal audio equipment

Q; Most comparisons of headphones or amps or DACs are so subjective. Why aren't there many scientific studies comparing personal audio equipment? How can we become better at comparing different headphones or different amps in a more scientific way?

A: Comparative analysis isn't a common or popular modality of testing audio equipment. Even the most quoted "objective" blinded A/B tests (like those for headphones) are methodologically weak, with lots of observer-dependent limitations that significantly detract from any results they manage to come up with.

Rather than trying to randomize the source like a drug trial or a physics experiment, another way to scientifically approach this might be to study the observations of different judges by looking at their inter-rater reliability as a measure of scientific "soundness".

For example, we could look at your data using Fleiss' kappa or a rank correlation coefficient (such as Spearmans, since your data will most likely be ordinal) as a measure of validity, since if our subjects were really under the influence of a placebo effect, there would be a very specific correlation (or not) between their scores, and if there was a true audio difference there would be a different specific correlation (or not) between their scores. So for example, if everything came up with poor correlation, we could make the argument that any sonic difference was attributable to the placebo effect.

Of course, the problem is that these projects are not viable because they are not really attractive to funding by the usual suspects, i.e. industry - after all, which DAC manufacturer would want to conduct an experiment which proved that their $1000 DAC was no better than a $100 DAC, or even the opposite, why would the manufacturer of a $100 DAC want to take a chance that the study would prove that the $1000 DAC was much better?

The best headphones for $500 or less?

Q: What would you consider to be the best headphones for $500 or less?

A: HD600/650 depending on your preferences
HD600 from a pure price-performance perspective.
HD650 if you don't want a neutral pair of headphones (most folks don't)

Why do Ultrasone headphones sound different?

Q: What's with Ultrasone headphones? Why do they sound different than everything else out there?

A: Few headphones polarize audiophiles as much as Ultrasone. Folks either love the sound, or hate it.

In essence Florian Konig, Ultrasone's founder, came up with this paper on how to bounce sound waves off the ears rather than into the ears directly to create this surround effect with normal headphones. They called this effect s-logic, and have been refining the technology ever since. Only Ultrasones have them. More details here -- this is what makes Ultrasone headphones sound so different.

Folks who love S-logic love Ultrasone. They sound unique, and in my opinion the only way you can figure out if you are a lover or a hater is to listen to them for yourself and decide.

What is a "sound signature"?

Q: What do you mean when you say "headphones have specific sound signatures"?

A: Different headphones have different signatures. For example the Beyer DT880 or Senn HD600 are more "neutral" sound profile, i.e. they are free from coloration,

Coloration refers to deviations from neutrality, for example the Philips Fidelio X1 is very colored. Coloration also often adds a "fun" element to listening.

Some headphones are intrinsically dark -- the term signifies a warm + rich sound profile. Technically, dark headphones have a frequency response which is skewed clockwise across the entire range, so that as the frequency increases, the output diminishes. A good example of this would be the HD650.

Other headphones are very bright, their frequency response is skewed counter-clockwise across the entire range, so that as the frequency increases, the output increases. A good example of this would be the Grado SR60i or e (or pretty much any Grado).

IEMs for speech / voice

Q:  I listen to lots of radio podcasts and audio books. Which in ear monitor (IEM) should I buy? My budget is $150-200.

A: For lots of speech / vocals, you don't want overwhelming bass or recessed mids. In your budget, consider the Shure SE315, especially if they are on sale. The 315 is a singe BA (balanced armature) IEM, it is very isolating and not as bass prominent as similar dynamic driver IEMs. The detail on these is astonishing, and they are awesome for podcasts / chorus / opera / voice.

However keep in mind that you won't get huge bass from them.

Q: Just bought a pair of Shure SRH440s, left speaker sounds great but the right one is quieter and more tinny, his there something I can do about it?

A: First make sure the pad on the R side is well seated, that the headphone connector has been inserted all the way into the jack, and that balance levels from your source are in the middle and not skewed towards L or R.

Then do the driver matching test here. Swap the sides around and do it again, if your R earcup is more quiet on the R side the first time around and on the L side the second time, then its a driver issue, and you should return the SRH440.

However if the R earcup is quieter on the R ear the first time around and the second time you do the test the L earcup is quieter (i.e. on the R side both times) then its your ear, you need to see your doctor or audiologist to figure out what is going on.

What you need to know about the Sennheiser HD600

If you are in the market for a relatively neutral pair of headphones, then yes the Sennheiser HD600 is a great choice. It excels for critical listening and some genres like classical. Keep in mind that you need an amp to get the most out of it.

If you don't want to play the upgrade game all the way to summit-fi for whatever reason, then the HD600 could conceivably be endgame for you, if you know what you are getting yourself into.

If you listen to a lot of bass-heavy music like EDM or hip hop, you may find the 600 to be surprisingly bass-light. The 600 isn't known for its sub bass, I can assure you. For the price, something like the VModa M100 may be a better bet for you.

If you are a detail whore, you may want to hold out for something like a Sennheiser HD800, a Beyerdynamic T90, or, at this price point, a Beyerdynamic DT880.

If you want a very bright listening experience, you may find the 600 treble to be disappointing. Instead, consider a Grado and some gauze pads (to apply to your ears when they start bleeding, ba dum tish!)

If you are looking for isolation or don't want folks around you to hear the fact that you secretly listen to Barry Manilow while proudly wearing that My Chemical Romance t-shirt, then don't get the HD600, it leaks sound like a sieve, and is as open as it gets.

if you want to listen to music off your phone, don't get the HD600. It has a 300 ohm impedcance and just won't sound as good as it would through, say an OTL amp. Sure, you will get sound through your iPhone, but the bass sounds just too flabby and meh.

And finally, if you are looking for a warm and smooth sound, consider the 600s younger sibling, the HD650.

The Martin Logan Mikros 90: A Bridge Too Far

The Martin Logan Mikros 90: A Bridge Too Far

It was a dark and stormy night. OK, not really, but I have always wanted to read a review that started this way. And now I have, and so have you.

When the Mikros 90 was conceived, it must have been a dark and stormy night indeed at Martin Logan HQ, which as a select few know is hidden in a bunker in the middle of a cornfield in Kansas.

“Guys I know a brilliant way to increase our market share. Let’s do headphones.”

“Oh wow, what a great idea! Electrostatic headphones, right?”

“Nope.”

“OK they will be huge, like our speakers, right?”

“Um, nope. They will be tiny on-ear headphones.” 

“All-metal construction, right?”

“Um, nope. But lots of plastic, and fake-looking leather. And some chrome.”

“OK then why are we doing headphones?” 

“Well, we can build these headphones cheaply, slap the ML logo on them, and mark up their price by *800%*!"

"Won't that erode customer confidence?"

"Guys we will be laughing all the way to the bank. This is the easiest way to make money since bitcoins!”

“But why would anyone buy these headphones?”

“Are you kidding? These puppies are *Martin Logans*! Every audiophile will want one of these babies!”

And thus, ladies and gentlemen, the Mikros 90 was born. OK the dialog is fiction, but it’s otherwise hard to understand from a business / marketing perspective why a venerable speaker company with a significant market share of the electrostatic audiophile speaker market would put out a $300 MSRP first-time-around-the-block on-ear headphone model.

ML Does Tiny, But Do They Do Tiny Right? First impression: they smell like new shoes

You have to admit, the Mikros 90 looks premium. It is enclosed in a luxurious black box with vague shadowy images embossed on the front that scream “luxury”, reminiscent of the Fidelio X1 box. Inside is a foam insert, and removing it reveals the carrying case, unzipping which finally delivers the Mikros 90 like an infant at the end of a complicated c-section on a Matryoshka doll.

The headphones themselves look gorgeous. The cylindrical headband is wrapped in fake-looking leather like the steering wheel of a Lexus, with shiny chrome ends that sparkle, the plastic dome of the rotating earcups are imprinted with a rich leather pattern and discreetly feature the wavy ML logo, the smooth on-ear perforated pads are comfortably supple, with springy foam that displays good memory.

The build quality is solid. The detachable cable clicks firmly to the left earcup in a reassuring way, the cable itself is slinky and almost rubbery to touch, the connectors at both ends look well built.

The cups are closed in design, and extend by a friction mechanism that takes some getting used to. The pads are detachable. The 1/8 inch connector is right-angled.

Accessories: What else do you get?

Apart from the headphones, you get a carrying case, TRRS cable with iphone controls, an 1/8 to 1/4 inch adapter, and a tiny manual written in a font so small you need an electron microscope to make the words out.

Comfort: well, or not

I was surprised by how firmly these headphones clamp. The clamping force is up there well within ATH M50 territory. It’s not enough to crush your skull, but the significant clamping force is high enough to be uncomfortable, especially if you wear glasses. And not just for extended listening sessions -- you will begin to feel the clamp within a few minutes of first use.
To be fair, clamping force got a little better after I stretched the headband out for a few days, but is still super high compared to, say, a Grado SR60i. If you wear glasses, the Mikros 90 is not going to be put-it-on-and-forget-about-it, for sure.

The flat on-ear earcups also make your ears sweat. A lot. From a comfort perspective, that’s not a good start. The earcups do swivel, though, but getting the pads to seal on-ear just right can be a little tricky at times.

And finally, the cable is 4 feet long, includes ipod controls with recessed “buttons” that have poor tactile feedback, and has significant microphonics, which can be very distracting to some folks.

Sound: the real reason you should be reading this

Some basic tests: drivers of my Mikros 90 were balanced. The bass shaker test revealed no hum or rattle. Treble extension was excellent. Sub bass was moderately compromised. Overall, the headphones sounded like they were built as solidly as they looked.

Isolation was surprisingly good for on-ears. Probably because of the immense clamping force. After all, something that clamps with the gravitational pull of Jupiter will isolate well by pressure seal alone.

After burning them in (yes, I know, I don’t know whether burn-in real or not either, but I still burn in my headphones, it is a ritual, you know, like hitting your left heel three times on home plate and spitting twice and grabbing your crotch with your left hand every time before batting).

I subjected them to my current playlist of well known, well loved songs ripped as lossless flac files on my usual “neutral” test rig setup: Foobar > Benchmark DAC1 > O2 > Mikros 90. The Benchmark and O2 do what they are supposed to do -- they get out of the way and let me concentrate on the headphones. Kick off was with New Order’s Regret - Fire Island Mix, one of my favorite “first to play” songs.

Let’s play ball :-)

For on-ears, the sound is surprisingly rich. These headphones excel when it comes to the mids, saxophones, guitars and vocals are equally vivid and prominent. Voices are prominent and crisp. Instrument presence is appropriate, and midrange tonal variations are maintained. IMO the way that the Mikros 90 makes vocals shine is the most delightful feature of these headphones.

Treble is extended and modestly bright, without significant high-end rolloff. These headphones are not sibilant or harsh, and the highs are not tinny or artificial.

The bass is the Achilles heel of the Mikros 90. Lows are clear and defined but lack impact and gravitas. There is no low-end warmth, no soul, if you know what I mean. This isn’t weak bass presence like the SR60i. This is downright anemic. Don’t get me wrong, the bass isn’t missing entirely, it is on the lower end of adequate. And “lower end of adequate” is not a good choice for DnB or dubstep.

Soundstage is what you expect from closed, on-ear headphones. This is not in the same ballpark as a Q701. Probably not even in the same league. Instrument separation is adequate.

Price / performance value: Steal, from Old English Stelan, noun, informal, a bargain.

I wouldn’t pay $300 for these headphones, ML or no ML. But something curious happened to the Mikros 90. Soon after their introduction, and probably too soon into their product lifecycle, their price went into freefall. They dropped into the $150-200 range which was still probably more from a price/performance ratio than I would be willing to pay for them, but then when the discount price went dumpster diving into the sub-$150 range, I became interested in them.

But the discounting did not stop there. The price on these headphones dropped like Felix Baumgartner on a supersonic freefall run, and when they hit $100 the Mikros 90 became attractive, and then at $80 they became very attractive despite their flaws (you know, like the good looking cougar you pick up after a few drinks at 2 am when the bar closes), and when they went on sale for $60 IMO they became an absolute steal. Their value becomes pretty astronomical at this price point, and if you are looking for a stylish portable on-ear headphones for predominantly rock/ jazz/ classical musical tastes, they offer surprisingly good sound quality on a surprisingly low budget.

Final thoughts: what have we learned on the show tonight, Craig?

In sum:

Bargain basement price makes this closed on-ear offering from Martin Logan a steal
Portable, case is included
Stylish
Great mids, particularly vocals
Anemic bass
Clamps like a bitch

What you need to know about the Beyerdynamic DT990 Premium (600 ohm version)

The build

The DT990 Premium features impeccable build quality, and superb comfort, especially for extended listening sessions. They look and feel like high-end headphones.


The sound


These are open headphones, and leak sound significantly. All Beyers have a V-shaped frequency response curve. In general, the DT990 has the most V-shaped curve when compared to the DT770 and 880, with prominent bass and a somewhat bright treble.

The 600 ohm version of the 990 Premium follows the same general rules, but its bass is a little less prominent, most likely because of the reduced clamping force. The low end is controlled, and if you amp them appropriately, nice and tight.

Mids are neutral, vocals are well represented without tonal distortions or coloration.

It has the same 9000 Hz spike as the Pro version, and so if you are not a fan of tinkly treble then most likely the 990 premium will disappoint.


FAQs


Q: Does the Dt990 600 ohm premium need an amp?

A: Yes, it will benefit from an amp. You don't need a monster like the Schiit Lyr to power it, though. The most noticeable difference with a good amp will be tighter bass. Some mobile devices like phones and tablets will struggle to run the 600 ohm DT990


Q: Whats the difference between Pro and premium DT 990 versions?

A: Materials (more metal in the Premium version, more plastic in the Pro), and clamping force (less in the Premium).


Beyerdynamic DT880 vs DT990 Premium versions: The 880 is a lot more neutral. The DT880 does not have the sparkly highs that are so forward on the 990s. DT 880 bass is more linear when compared to the rest of the frequency profile.


AKG Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT990 Premium: If you are a fan of the Beyer sound profile with its V shaped emphasis on the bass as well as the highs, you may find that the bass and treble are both going to be lacking somewhat with the Q701.


HiFiman HE400 vs DT990 Premium: The 990 premium has better build quality. HE400s have a flatter frequency curve. You'll notice the mids coming forward compared to the 990. A lot. HE400 bass is tighter and more controlled than the DT990. The bass isn't as prominent as the DT990, but "punchier". HE400 treble is harsher and more sibilant than the 990. Cymbals and hi hats go into "attack mode". The HE400s are heavier and a lot less comfortable than the 990s.


Sennheiser HD598 vs DT990 Premium: 990s have much better build quality. The 598s are much warmer and smoother. Mids are more pronounced with the 698s.

What you need to know about the HiFiMan HE560

On the surface, HiFiMan's new model, the HE 560 is an amalgam of innovative design and great sound quality. It has garnered some great reviews, and expectations have been high.

Certainly the sound quality is excellent, as can be expected from a high-end model priced at $900.

But close up you can clearly see the fit and finish is somewhat disappointing -- the veneer does not come right up to the grille circumference, the universal headband looks really fragile at its tension points on the sides, and the earcup ratchet mechanism cover is cheap looking. Even the pad stitching is irregular.

And when you hold the 560, your biggest fear is that it will break in your hands. Yes the headband is stronger than folks give it credit for, but overall it feels incredibly flimsy, and that's not just my opinion. Of course, some of my fear is a bias -- it is super light, and when it comes to headphones, in our mind we unconsciously equate heaviness with "strength" and lightness with "fragility". But you have to hold one to understand what I mean when I say it feels "incredibly flimsy".

Am I being nitpicky? A little. But for $900 I expect more than this. I want a HiFiMan headphone I can love, that isn't disappointing. HiFiMan is like the dude who runs the whole race like a champ and then falls short at the finish line, their products have huge potential and yet continue to be marred by fatal flaws.

I think the piece that sticks in everyone's throat is the $900 price tag. If this were a $200 or $300 pair of headphones, it would not be an issue at all. After all, the AKG Q701 headband tension mechanism is just as flimsy, and the "wood" on the Sennheiser HD598 is just as fake looking. But at this price point, the general feeling is more that HiFiMan is overcharging for the HE560 than anything else.

Purchase advice for headphone noobs

Q: How do I go about buying my first decent pair of headphones?

A: you can enjoy music at any price. Just follow Veni's 3 Laws of price-performance personal audio-lation!

Veni's First Law: set a budget and stick to it. This rule is the Prime Directive.

Veni's Second Law: if you are on a budget, remember the rule headphones > amp > dac >> cable. This will give you a sense of the relative importance of components. If your budget is $100, you will get more bang for your buck spending the $100 on a pair of headphones that you can drive off your phone or computer than spending $30 on headphones and $70 on an amp.

Also, if all your music is poor quality (eg 64k mp3, or ripped off youtube) then it doesn't matter how good your headphones are, it will still sound terrible. So upgrade your music files as much as you can when you get good headphones.

Veni's Third Law: Do your research. There are price-performance champs at almost every price point. Know what they are, avoid hype, and be an informed consumer.

Veni's Bonus Law (Buy Three, Get One free! Law): Look for sales / deals. Audiophile products are usually marked up to an insane degree. If you are patient, there will always be a deal on the stuff you want sooner or later.

What you need to know about the NVX XPT100

The NVX XPT100 is made by Yoga (a Chinese OEM manufacturer) as the Yoga CD880. Other clones of the CD880 are the Fischer FA003, the Jaycar Pro Monitor, Brainwavz HM5, and Lindy HF100.

All these clones are differentiated by modest design differences, branding, and different pads. if you live in Europe, the Jaycar Pro Monitor is the best bang for your buck, and in the US, the NVX XPT100.

The only retailer I have seen stocking the XPT100 is Sonic Electronix (are there others?). Usually they sell for $80-100, but have gone down on sale to as low as $70. From a price-performance perspective, the "sweet spot" pricing for them is in the $70-80 range.

They are mostly plastic, and build quality is a bit dodgy, but what did you expect for the price? They come with extra angled pads, which is unusual to see in a sub-$100 model. They feature a detachable cable, another surprising detail in a budget pair of headphones. They also come with a huge soft carrying case, which offers no protection whatsoever but does allow organizing and dust-free headphone storage.

They are super comfortable to wear for extended listening sessions, with decent SQ. I would characterize them as modestly warm, with reasonable but not dominant bass, some low-end rolloff (but not alarming amounts of bass loss), smooth mids (with surprisingly good rendering of vocals) and mildly recessed highs (but not disappointingly so). I

Their best feature apart from comfort is that they have a very decent soundstage, considering that they are closed headphones.

Headphones for folks with TMJ problems

Q: I'm looking for headphones for general use.  I am a long time TMJ (temporomandibular joint dysfunction) sufferer and have been hesitant to drop a lot of money on a new headset that will just end up causing me extreme pain after a few hours. What headphones can I use?

A: If you have TMJ then many general headphone recommendations may not work for you because what's comfortable to many may be painful to you.

My suggestion would be that you audition headphones if possible before buying them.

However, some folks with TMJ prefer on-ear headphones or IEMs. You may want to consider the Senn PX100-ii, it is on ear, has very light pressure and is very comfortable (and I am one of those folks who typically find on-ears uncomfortable!)

And an IEM with a behind-the-ear wearing style may also be very comfortable for you if you have TMJ -- consider the Shure SE215.

Does an expensive DAC make a difference?

Q: Does an expensive DAC make a difference?

A: Most sigma delta DAC chips sound so similar it is hard to tell them apart. The sound the DAC puts out is also influenced by the analog circuitry, which may or may not be significant. Since many DACs try to be "transparent", i.e/ to add or take away nothing from the signal, you are not going to see a huge difference between them, despite their cost. So for example an ODAC sounds very similar to a Benchmark DAC1.

There are 3 exceptions:

1) some manufacturers go our of their way to "tune" the sound of their dac, typically by using the analog circuit to modify the sound, for example the warm sound of the Cambridge Audio DACMagic 100 or the Micromega MyDAC.

2) An NOS DAC often sounds very different than regular sigma delta DACs, mainly because the DAC chip itself i very different.

3) Some DACs add a filter to the output stage to modify the sound. This filter can be a tube, for example the Aune T1. The tube does not really act as a tube (i.e. for amplification) but serves to distort the signal in a pleasing way. Therefore these DACs sound different.

So it's not the price of the DAC per se, but which category it falls under that ultimately determines the sound it generates.

In general headphones and amps make much more different to sound than DACs. But DACs make a bigger difference than cables.

Help, my Grado headphones rattle!

Q: I have an annoying rattle emanating from my Grado SR80i whenever I try to hear it. At higher volume levels there are buzzing/fluttering noises that come from one or both sides of the headphones. How do I get rid of the noises?

A: Grado rattle is a known issue and quite common. At best it is irritating. At worst it is unlistenable. The rattle is typically caused by one of  three things:

Most commonly its a hair on the driver. Take the pads off and take a look. You can gently blow the hair off, or use tweezers. Non magnetic tweezers are best if you don't want to risk accidentally puncturing drivers. I have a pair if plastic tweezers I keep around for working in close proximity to driver magnets.

Second, it may be because of a deformed driver diaphgram. Grados are notorious for rippled diaphragms, which dimple and distort with alarming frequency. Folks say its because Grados are so easy to drive, but personally I think it is because the quality of the materials they use are suboptimal. You can gently try to suck the driver back into shape. It usually works, for a while, so you have to keep doing it again and again.

Third, it may be because the driver does not fit well in the enclosure. This is because  cheaper Grado parts are made with poor tolerances. You could always lay down a bead of glue or epoxy circumferentially at the join, which sometimes fixes the issue.

But once a Grado starts rattling, it is probable that its days are numbered.

Can someone tell the difference between lossy and lossless music files?

Q: Can someone really tell the difference between lossy and lossless music files?

A: Why not conduct an experiment.

Pick a song you have on CD that you know well, and rip it to FLAC, 320 kbps mp3, 256kbps mp3, 128 kbps mp3 and 64 kbps mp3. Now start at the bottom and slowly listen your way up the quality ladder. It's easier to listen "up" and appreciate nuanced differences than to listen "down".

At what point do you stop hearing a difference between a file and the next one up in sequence? That's your bar. If it is really low, you can always practice to become a more discerning listener (develop those golden ears!).

Having said that, you should probably be able to tell the difference between a low bitrate mp3 file and a high bitrate mp3 file, but at bitrates of 320 kbps, it becomes astonishingly difficult to differentiate lossy from lossless, even with high-quality equipment.

This experiment works best when it is lubricated by a glass or two of single malt (or your choice of beverage).

Do it for science!

Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?

The SE315 is a sleeper IEM. Let me explain.

But first, the usual obligatory photo.

Strophe

Shure has been quietly refining its IEM design over the last decade, and gaining increasing recognition for ots products. You could argue that the SE215 is one of the best bass-prominent IEMs at its price point. Its dynamic driver gives you rich powerful bass, the design is excellent with a high-quality finish, a detachable cord, great fit within the ear with a variety of tip designs, superb isolation, and it is very comfortable (once you get used to the over-ear style of wearing them). If you are a basshead, it is hard to find a better value for the price you pay for the 215s.

The SE315 is a different animal. It is a single balanced armature (BA) IEM. The problem with single BA implementations is that even though BAs offer some benefits in comparison to a dynamic driver (specifically improved clarity and some advantages with respect to detail), they don't have the depth or range of a dynamic driver.

So a single BA IEM sacrifices both low end impact, and also suffers from some degree of high end rolloff, but in exchange for its shortcomings offers improved quality of presence and separation. Usually designers overcome the limitations intrinsic to single BA designs by adding additional BAs and designating the frequencies each BA can handle, or by adding a dynamic driver predominantly to handle the bass and round off the BA's FR characteristics (the so-called "hybrid" IEM).

The physical design of the SE315 is essentially very similar as that of the 215. Shure followed the same styling cues, but tried to solve the anemic bass of the SE315's single BA architecture by engineering a bass vent within the design, which does add some depth to the low end.

With the 315, what you get is a relatively neutral sound, with bass that has great detail but lacks the "punch" of the 215, and a more cool tone (although with some high-treble rolloff) than the warmth of the 215.

I don't think comparing IEMs to full size headphones makes much sense, but FWIW if the 215 is something like the HD650 in its sound (and I compare the two very loosely) then then the 315 is something like the HD600.

Antistrophe

So why did I buy the SE315? Well, I wanted an IEM for critical listening, mostly for classical / acoustic / folk / jazz music, and I found that while the 215 was awesome for genres like EDM, it was too bass-rich for my taste for these genres. But at the same time I did not want to spend hundreds of dollars on a multi-BA setup, because frankly I would rather spend the money on full size headphones, amps or DACs since I spend very little time actually listening on IEMs unless I am traveling (and even then not exclusively).

So I listened to as many single BA IEMs that I could get my hands on, and read reviews by folks I trusted and came to the conclusion that the 315 offered the most neutral profile for critically listening to the genres I wanted to match them with, had the best fit (for my ears), and made the most sense from a price-performance perspective.

Plus it looks good. My 215s are black, with that cool smoky translucent dark plastic, but unfortunately the black SE315s are entirely opaque, so I went with the clear shell, which is a decision that I definitely do not regret. IMO they are gorgeous in their see-through clothes :-)

Epode

What the SE315 is: a single BA over-ear cord style IEM with a relatively neutral profile, a little shy on the bass, but with great clarity and presence. From a price/performance perspective IMO this is the best single BA IEM for what it offers. If you want a neutral sound to critically listen to classical / acoustic/ jazz you will probably enjoy the 315s.

What the SE315 isn't: it does not have the FR range or depth of multi-BA IEMs or hybrids. If you don't like the Shure over-ear way of wearing IEMs you will hate the 315s because you can't just stick it in your ear with the wires hanging down. If you mostly listen to EDM or hip hop you will probably be disappointed by the 315's low end. And if you want range or impact, you may be better off with a dynamic or a multi BA or a hybrid IEM.

The bottom line: if you are planning to go up the IEM ladder and upgrade to CIEMs or high-end UIEMs, then you should probably skip the SE315s and save your money for the good stuff. If you are in the market for a single BA IEM and you know what you are getting into, then this is a good choice.

Modding the Audio Technica ATH-M50 with new pads

These Audio Technica ATH-M50s are extremely popular headphones, but one issue with them is their uncomfortable plastic-covered pads, that cause may folks to itch and sweat.

The good news is that the issue can easily by solved by swapping the stock ATH-M50 pads with Beyerdynamic DT250 velour pads.

This mod is easy and straightforward and should not take you more than a few minutes. You don't need any special tools like a screwdriver, soldering iron, etc. Just slip the stock pads off, and pull the new ones on. The DT250 pads fit tightly, without any looseness. You can rest assured these pads won't come off accidentally. You can still fold the M50s the same way as before.

Tip #1: If you invert the lip of the pads before placing them on the earcups, and slowly roll the pads down circumferentially, you will have them on much quicker (and with less cussing) than if you try to force them in place.

Tip #2: Also, use a thin plastic tool (I used a credit card) to tuck the edge of the pad into the groove on the earcup. You'll know what I mean when you see it.

Sound differences: There is definitely an audible drop in bass prominence with the velour pads. Rolloff is a little sooner, too. Bass attenuation is a little more prominent in the lower end of the bass frequencies, but the relative differences between lower and higher bass drop is really not that noticeable unless you are listening to genres like DnB, and even then only when you know the song well. Another interesting effect is that the infamous 70-80Hz bass dip (dude to the stock M50 pad) goes away.

But there is a silver lining. The 9000 Hz spike is also attenuated a little with the pad swap, so the treble sounds a little less tizzy than with the stock pad.

A couple of other listening notes: IMO the mids and highs are a little more smeared with the velour pads, which adversely affects detail as well as clarity, luckily only modestly. And there's a mild reduction in "boominess" of the sound compared to stock.

The biggest difference is the comfort, which increases by leaps and bounds. The internal volume of the pads is about the same, so the diameter of the opening is relatively unchanged. The old pads would get warm and cause me to itch after a while, but the velours are perfectly cool, breathable and significantly more comfortable for extended listening sessions.

So is it worth it? As you can see, I have put my money where my mouth is (or my velour where my ear is, to be more precise). I aint going back to stock anytime soon.

While the DT250 pads are more comfortable, unfortunately they do not reduce the (significant) clamping force of the M50s. I have read about folks bending their M50 headband to make them fit less tightly, but I would not recommend using force since the headband is prone to crack. An easier way is to use a pillow -- place the M50 over the pillow making sure that the size of the pillow is a little bigger than your head. Let it marinade for a day or two. You'll notice some reduction in clamp force. Try repeating the pillow stretch if the first time does not work for you.

The Emotiva XDA-2: A capable DAC/amp with a large form factor

What features does it have?

The XDA2 is actually a very capable dac/headphone amp, with USB, 2 optical and 2 coax inputs, and a AES/EBU jack. It has a decent AD1955 DAC, that can manage 24/192.

The headphone amp section has a high current circuit and 0.1 ohm output impedance. It can power most headphones with ease, except highest-impedance models.

It has RCA and XLR pre outs, so you can run your active speakers. There's also a button on the remote that allows the XDA2 to upsample everything it receives to 24/192.

For the price it has a ton of cool features -- a display, a digital volume control, and even a remote that is built very solidly.

What does it sound like?

The sound is pretty transparent, minimally favoring brightness. There is zero noise floor except with the most sensitive IEMs (and even then just a barely noticeable amount).

So what's not to love?

First, the fatal flaw is that the XDA2 is huge. Check the dimensions and see if it works for you -- it may not for many. It is full size, and bigger than most personal audio gear I have seen. Did I mention, it is huge?

Second, the blue LEDs are irritatingly bright, even when dimmed (and when at full blast they can light up an entire city block).

Some folks don't like the lack of a potentiometer they can physically turn (no knob feel!). I'm fine with button-clicking instead of knob-turning, but my biggest issue with the XDA2 is that it takes forever to cycle up and down the digital volume scale by clicking.

In sum

The XDA-2 is actually great value for money, with a slew of features that allow it to be used as a DAC (with multiple inputs), a headphone amp, and as a preamp for powered speakers. It is solidly built, and includes some features (like a digital display, a remote, etc.) that you would expect from models at a much higher price point. The current model is being closed out, and consequently a bargain at this time.

If you have the space, the XDA-2 should certainly be on the shortlist for folks assembling a setup on a budget.

Wooden headphones that won't break the bank

Accidentally Extraordinary 51st Studio Headphones

"Accidentally Ordinary"

Insert Obligatory Artistic Photograph Here

The Scene: Chili Palmer's office in downtown LA

"Chili, I've got an idea for a movie."

"OK let me have it, Harry."

"Imagine there's this guy who works in the boonies in Utah in education as a teacher and a high school administrator. Imagine this fantastic opening scene, it's dawn and this guy looks out at the desert sand and smiles wistfully because he has this dream of being an entrepreneur."

"What kind of an entrepreneur? Porn like Larry Flynt? Retail like Sam Walton? Cars like Preston Tucker? Rags to riches, that would be a great movie!"

"Nope, none of that sissy stuff, Chili. Headphones. The guy wants to make headphones."

"Look at me, Harry. I said, look at me! What on earth are you talking about?"

"I mean headphones, Chili. Real wooden headphones that sell like Beats and makes him rich, but they sound better, and without the celebrity endorsements. So he goes to China...."

"China? Why China?"

"That's where they make 'em, Chili. And then he comes back to Oakland and hangs out with some eclectic buddies like a poet and a high school counselor and a history teacher and they call themselves, well, I dunno, maybe something like 'Accidentally Extraordinary' and they start selling these headphones."

"Harry this is the silliest idea you have pitched to me since Revenge of the Lesbian Zombies Part Three."

"Wait a minute, Chili. Listen to the rest of it. There's this famous critic. He reviews the headphones and loves it. This gets our hero so excited he starts a Kickstarter campaign to produce a brand new revolutionary model."

"And?"

"The campaign fails, of course. This isn't a freaking Disney movie, Chili."

"Oh wow that's a tragedy. Like Shakespeare, except without, well, Shakespeare."

"And I'm thinking we could use a real-life personality in a guest role as the Critic."

"Well we can't use Walt Mossberg, I hear he retired. And David Pogue has his head so far up Apple's butt I don't think he'll be interested in popping out for a cameo in a movie."

"Well we could use Tyll Hertsens...."

"You don't say! I'd love to meet Mr Hertsens. Can we fly him down to LA to discuss the movie? Wait, is there even an airport where he lives...Montana, right? Isn't that in Canada someplace?"


I may have taken artistic liberties with this scenario, but Accidentally Extraordinary did start as an idea in Kunal Dalal's imagination. The 51st Studio headphones does feature real wood in its construction.  The company is based out of Oakland and consists of a bunch of eclectic people . They did have a failed Kickstarter project. And it was favorably reviewed at Inner Fidelity, which is how I became interested in it. So of course, I had to get myself a pair to see what it was about.

And without further ado, on to the review.


The look

The 51st Studio looks like it is a modified Esmooth design. Esmooth is a Chinese company that makes OEM/ODM headphones for others.

It features smallish cups with pleather earpads and a metal headband with a slider mechanism for extending the earcups. The design is closed -- what appear to be vents on the outer earcups are purely cosmetic. The primary feature of the 51st Studio's design are the flat wooden plates of the earcups -- these are solid wood and an integral part of the cup and so affect the tone of the sound. The 51st Studio features a detachable cable and comes with two flat cables that feature 3.5 mm TRS connectors. One of them has a single button remote.

The feel

Build quality is average. The pleather pads look cheaply made. Fit and finish could be better. The headband pad is glued to the headband, and not too well. Both cables lack a quality look and feel, and have moderate microphonics. Apart from the cables, accessories are sparse -- a cloth carry bag that offers no shock protection whatsoever, and well, that's about all you get.

The best part of the headphones are the wooden cups -- the wood is warm and solid-looking, and the headphones look somewhat antique and surprisingly sharp because of the wood.

The fit

The pads are plush and squared off in shape, but cup size is small, if you have average or large ears, then, the 51st Studio is not going to fit comfortably circumaurally; you will probably end up using them (as I did) as predominantly on-ear headphones. The ratcheting cup extension mechanism feels somewhat flimsy, but the headphones themselves do not look or feel delicate.

The sound

When I first heard the 51st Studios, I was surprised how warm and lush everything sounded. The sound is very rich, smooth, and there's a creamy texture to the bass that is somewhat reminiscent of the Denon AH-D600. Bass rolls off quickly at the low end, though, and extension is lacking.  Vocals are warm and modestly recessed. The real surprise here is the treble, which is rich, and very smooth, if a tad syrupy. It really complements the lower end of the spectrum well to present music very forgivingly in a fatigue-free fashion.

Since I fell in love with the Philips Fidelio X1 sound I have been searching for a closed pair of headphones with a similar warm, colored, lush sound profile, and in the 51st Studio I think I have found what I am looking for. They isolate sound well, and there is little to no leakage, which makes them a great (and fashionable) choice for the daily commute.

The fatal flaw

So it's cheap, it sounds good, it looks good, it has a good backstory, so of course there has to be a fatal flaw, right? Well, there is. The earcups connect to the headband with two metal pins and a D-shaped band of metal, which allows them to swivel freely around their attachment axis.

The problem is that the cable going up from the earcups to the headband get stretched when that happens, which does not bode well for their longevity. It's not something that should necessarily deter you from buying the 51st Studios, but certainly something to consider.

It's a silly flaw really, because almost all headphone manufacturers have found solutions to prevent the wire from being stretched with axial movement of the cups -- just look at any mid-fi Beyerdynamic or the Sony MDR V6 or the Fostex T50RP -- all have exposed wiring and all have a design for stress relief.

Not Accidentally Extraordinary, though. Which I guess makes them accidentally ordinary.

DAC vs DAC

Q: Do DACs really sound that different from each other? I thought all DAC chips sounded pretty much the same

A: Most DAC chips are indistinguishable from each other, but keep in mind that DACs have analog circuitry too, which changes the sound to a lesser or greater degree.

So for example I cannot tell the difference between Modi and ODAC most of the time but I can tell the difference between my NOS DAC and ODAC every time!

And between my Cambridge Audio DacMagic 100 and Modi every time (different analog circuitry specifically tuned by Cambridge Audio to sound warm for classical music)

What sound experience do real audiophiles want?

Q: Do real audiophiles progressively move toward the most neutral experience they can get?

A: Not all audiophiles, it may be better to use the word "some" instead of "real". Rather than call it "neutral" vs "colored" or "objective" vs "subjective" I think of the listening experience more as being "analytical" vs "fun". I'll explain what I mean.

Some times I want to get the source recording, the whole source recording, and nothing but the source recording. While you may think this desire only extends to classical and/or live performances, in reality there are times when I ant to hear music the way the artists/ producers conceptualized it. So for example when Daft Punk won the "best engineered album" award at the Grammys, I wanted to go back and hear RAM exactly as it was on my source file, ni plus ni moins. And the best way to achieve it is with a neutral DAC, a solid state amp that does not sound too bright or too dark, and something like the HD600.

But at other times I want a completely different experience. I want the violins in Mendelssohn's Concerto in E minor Op 64 to come out of the orchestra and smack me across the face, I want Christina Novelli to breathe in my ear when I hear Garth Emery's "Concrete Angel", and I want that in-your-face Southern rock stance when I listen to 38 Special's "Caught Up In You" and perform right alongside them on stage with my air guitar. And frankly, for any of those scenarios (classical, EDM, rock) when you want a more "fun" experience, the analytic set up fails. So an alternative set up with a warmish DAC, a tube amp and a HD650 or Fidelio X1 will give you a very different (and probably more pleasing) experience than the one I outlined in the previous paragraph.

So what headphones like Grados offer is a "fun" experience. And while "fun" is good, there is a totally different "analytical" experience out there waiting to be discovered. Some may enjoy it, some may not. And for everyone who enjoys an "analytical" experience, there is a "fun" experience waiting around the corner to surprise and thrill them. That's why there are so many headphones out there.

I just realized that everything that I said about headphones also applies to your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other. Sometimes you want fun, and sometimes you want analytical.

What song do I demo my new headphones with?

Q: What song do I demo my new headphones with?

A: I would say the most important criterion for demoing headphones (apart from the song being of good quality) is that you know it very very well, so that you can pick up nuances sooner rather than later. Typically my demo playlist comprises of one song from each genre I love that I know like the back of my hand.

It's hard to pick one song, my current demo playlist starts with New Order - Regret (Fire Island mix). Lots of tonal variations, both "cold" and "warm", instrumentation allows you to focus on bass, mids and highs in turn, tests tightness of bass rather well, brings out coloration, vocals have good intonational characteristics that can be used to advantage when A/Bing, positional nuances are subtle so a reasonably good test of soundstage, too.

[Review] The NuForce NE-600X: what happens when your starship travels at impulse speed

Drop to impulse speed!

[Insert obligatory picture here]

The problem with deals is that you end up buying stuff you never wanted in the first place. So when I saw the Nuforce NE-600X for under $10, I immediately felt that familiar feeling when the two little dudes climbed out of my clavicles and took up their usual places on my shoulders.

"Don't do it," the little dude in white with the wings and harp on my left shoulder said, "You need another pair of headphones like you need a third testicle."

"Do it," the little dude in red with the horns and pitchfork on my right shoulder said, "It's a sweet deal, pull the freaking trigger already!"

"But it's an IEM, and you don't even like IEMs!" the dude in white said.

"WTF is he talking about, you've always wanted another cheap pair of IEMs so that you don't repeat what you did on that flight to Boston last year."

I remembered the sad story of my SE535s who, like Jimmy Hoffa, were lost and never found again (that's when I swore never to travel with expensive headphones) and shuddered at the horror of the terrible memories (the loss! the empty aching hollow feeling inside!).

"Look over there on the wall!" I told the dude in white, and when he was distracted, I clicked on "Add To Cart" and bought the NE-600Xs.

The dude in red laughed with evil glee. The dude in white started to weep softly. I looked down, and discovered that lo and behold, I now had a third testicle.

The Look

The packaging is robust, and easy to open -- the cover pops open without the need to resort to a laser cutting tool or the jaws of life to extricate the IEMs from the packaging.

The plastic + metal IEMs are well built. Left and right sides are marked by a small "L" and "R" respectively on one side but not the other, but are not otherwise color-coded. The nozzles are large, and there is a bass port at the opposite ends. The flat cable is a nice touch, and terminates in a 90 degree TRS connector. At the other end the cable enters the IEM housing at 90 degrees, and so these IEMs are best worn with the cable hanging down; they can be worn behind-the-ear style but I found them uncomfortable to wear that way because of the flat cables.

Personally, I like the red/silver/black color combination. The NE-600X is also available in a silver/black variation. Accessories are sparse. Three earbuds, the medium tips pre-installed on the IEMs, and the cable tie if you count it as an "accessory". That's it.

The Feel

Fit and finish is reasonably good. Cable microphonics are moderate. Luckily the medium tips fit my ears reasonably well with good seal.

The sound

The NE-600X features 11mm dynamic drivers and have an impedance of 16 ohms. The first thing that strikes you when you listen is the prominent bass. Extension is good, and low-end tonal definition is surprisingly robust. There's some boominess of the upper bass, though which can be distracting in non-EDM genres. Mids are recessed and vocals have a somewhat flat sound but aren't smeared or distorted. The treble is somewhat artificial-sounding and the highs roll off rapidly and noticeably. Tone is on the warm side. Soundstage is modest. As usual, isolation is highly dependent on fit and seal, personally I thought isolation as average.

In conclusion

I'm somewhat ambivalent about these IEMs. For $10 they are certainly cheap, bass prominent headphones. But the flat mids and tinny highs detract from an otherwise enjoyable listening experience. If you are looking for bass-prominent IEMs in this price range for genres like EDM, the JVC HAFX101 gives you more bang for your buck. And if you want a bright pair of headphones, these are definitely not for you because of the artificiality of the tone. As a throwaway pair I suppose they are fine, but for serious listening they do not step up to the plate. If you ever have an impulse to jump on the NE-600X, my suggestion: don't do it. It's not worth it.

I should have listened to the dude in white.

[Review] AKG Q701: Would You Like To Join The Q Continuum?

Would You Like To Join The Q Continuum?

Picture of my "Stormtrooper" Q701

But First, a Preface: And Now, The Larch.


The scene: AKG HQ. A bunch of AKG executives are sitting around a table deciding on a strategy to counter the whipping Beats is giving them in the marketplace.

"We have got to come up with a viable model that can take on Beats. What can we market?"

"Well our headphones are stylish."

"Ummm...most people think AKG makes headphones for people with neckbeards and black turtlenecks who listen to Dave Brubeck!"

"OK let's color them white and green, like those gaming headophones, so that nobody can see that our basic design hasn't changed since 1880."

"How about marketing our headphones as "heavy on the bass"? That seems to be working for Beats."

"Ummm...our headphones have less bass than Mel Gibson has acting offers!"

"OK. Maybe what we need is a celebrity endorser. Can we get LeBron?"

"Ummm...he signed with Beats."

"I know, how about Dave Brubeck?"

"Ummm...he's dead, Jim. How about Quincy Jones?"

"Oh wow, the Q. He may be almost 90, but he is a living legend. Who hasn't heard of him?"

The answer: almost anyone under 30. If you are in the said demographic, at this point of time please review this video to familiarize yourself with the Q Experience before proceeding to read this review.


And thus the Q701 was born: the bastard child of the union of the K701 and Quincy Jones and radioactive green slimy ooze from Mars.


OK now on to the review

First, a disclaimer. I like the Q701, and it is my go-to headphones for gaming.


What the Q701 is


The Q701 is an open model with lots of detail, some (but not substantial) bass presence, and veers towards brightness. It has a huge soundstage for headphones, and so has the fortunate side effect of being particularly good for gaming, because

[1] the soundstage, obviously
[2] it is comfortable especially around the ears (see below about headband) and
[3] it does not have too much bass which kills gaming for me -- modern games have so many explosions that i get a headache gaming with bass-heavy headphones -- but it is not so bass-shy that I can't listen to music when gaming. Like Goldilocks, I don't wan't too much or too little bass when gaming, and IMO the Q701 is just right.


What the Q701 isn't


It's not a great choice for EDM, because of its profile. If you are looking for isolation, move on. It isn't as warm as many other headphones. The headband has bumps that can be painful for some. If you are looking for a new Q701 made in Austria, good luck finding one. While it works fine without an amp, to squeeze maximum performance you will need to consider amping it. It does not pair well with some amps. Also, if you are thinking that the Q701 with its huge soundstage will give you a speaker-like experience, dream on. It won't. No headphones can. And finally, this headphone is not for portable use.


The Look


The Q701 comes in three flavors. I'm going to call the black version "vanilla, except for the weirdly coordinated green cable", the white "Look ma, I'm a Stormtrooper!" and the green "I'll take these to a LAN party so that I can fit in with all those fools with Razers". Of the three, my favorite is white, because I can wear it and say "Let me see your identification......We don't need to see his identification......These aren't the droids we're looking for......Move along......move along."

Even though the Q701 looks large, hefty and substantial, when you hold it, it feels weirdly delicate. That's partly because of the headband design -- the two curved metal rods frame the headband, and have considerable flex. AKG claims the Q701 arches are unbreakable, but I would not want to test that assertion.

The universal self-adjusting stretch headband is attached to the frame by a flimsy-looking plastic clip mechanism, and tensioned by two rubber bands on each side, which looks (and feels) more delicate than industrial.The earcups are huge, and mostly plastic. The large velour earcups are circular in shape, deeply recessed for ears, but do not feature memory foam. The Q701 cable connects at the left earcup with a sturdy mini XLR connector.

And yes, the inside of the universal headband has eight (count 'em. eight) bumps, which are either a good thing or AKG's attempt to waterboard its customers, depending on your viewpoint.

In summary, from a distance, the Q701 looks rugged, but up close it feels somewhat frail. The materials themselves are of good quality, but it almost feels like the Q701 has brittle bones and you have to baby it to prevent something from snapping. Think of the Q701 as being akin to a boxer with osteoporosis, and you will understand what I mean.


The Feel


This is a very light (235 gm) pair of headphones. The fit and finish is excellent. The velour is plush, the plastic is shiny, the green stitching on the headband is an interesting touch. The cable is long but of good quality, the connectors are top notch. The mini XLR connection is solid and tight. The plug and contacts are gold plated.

AKG claims their patented "Varimotion" diaphgrams (which feature a multi-layer construction technique) are their best yet. The voice coils are wound with flat wires.

Let me address up front what many folks consider to be the Achilles heel of the Q701 -- the headband bumps. Regarding comfort: I find the Q701 comfortable and don't have an issue with the bumps, but some folks just hate the Q701 headband bumps digging into their skulls. People go as far as to chop the bumps off with a blade and wrap with something like a Beyerdynamic replacement pad around the amputated headband to get comfortable. I think that the only way you will know if you have a sensitive scalp is to try the Q701 and see what happens.

Also, I keep reading questions online where folks are concerned where the Q701 is made. AKG shifted production of the Q701 from Austria to China a couple of years ago. If it does not say "Made in Austria" right on the headphones it is made in China. I don't think there is any difference, although I have seen people work themselves up into a frenzy about this very topic. There are pictures of Q701 showing "smooth" plastic in the made in Austria model vs "blemished" plastic made in China. My personal opinion is that QC is QC no matter which country products are made in. If AKG values their reputation, hopefully they picked a factory in China with quality standards that meet or exceed what they had in in their facilities in Austria.

The Q701 comes with two cables -- one long, the other that stretches from here to, well, China. Maybe if they bundled the headphone with a 1.5m and 3m cable I would use both, but the 6m cable is ridiculously long and pretty much unusable. Ah well, maybe I can knit a sweater with it.


The Sound


First, the biggest criticism leveled against the Q701: that it has a "plasticky" sound. I would not characterize the main characteristic of the Q701 sound as "plasticky", although I appreciate where folks are coming from with this criticism, having heard the K701 also.

Some folks complain that tHE Q701 is fatiguing, but certainly I don't have an issue with extended sessions.

The Q701 has a clean, neutral-to-modestly bright profile. Bass is present, but by no means prominent. Vocals are crisp and natural; mids are smooth. The treble is a little artificial-sounding, and somewhat brittle. Clarity is outstanding. Detail is truly excellent. Soundstage is very wide. Frequency response is relatively flat.

Maximum input power is rated at 200mW. Sensitivity is 105 dB SPLV. With its impedance of 62 ohms, you can power the Q701 in theory off your phone or tablet or motherboard, but this is one headphone that likes to be amped.

If I had to decribe Q701 sound in a single word, I would pick "spacious". It really is.


In conclusion


I'm going to call my white Q701 "The Stormtrooper In Drag" because it looks like a stormtrooper, but doesn't sound like one. It is a great midfi audiophile headphone choice for folks who want a more neutral-to-bright tone without dominant bass, and for folks who prize detail uber alles. It's also a great choice for folks who listen to a lot of live performances, because of the vast soundstage it projects. But where the Q701 really shines is as a pair of gaming headphones, which I am sure neither AKG or Quincy Jones foresaw when they released this model.

In case you are wondering where the "Stormtrooper In Drag" reference comes from, it is from a Gary Numan song.


Some head to head comparisons: the Cliff Notes version


Q701 vs ATHM50: The Q701 has much less bass than the M50, and more visible mids. Highs are not as artificial as the M50. Soundstage is obviously better than the closed M50. By a mile.

Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT990: If you are a fan of the Beyer sound profile with its V shaped emphasis on the bass as well as the highs, you may find that the bass and treble are both going to be lacking somewhat with the Q701.

Q701 vs Sennheiser HD598 with respect to music: The 598 is a little warmer, and has a little more emphasized bass, despite its 100 Hz impedance spike. The real difference is in the treble: HD598 has much smoother treble, without the slightly artificial tone that the Q701 brings to the table.

Q701 vs Sennheiser HD598 with respect to gaming: With respect to gaming, particularly FPS gaming, while situational positioning is an advantage, it is not the biggest factor associated with playing FPS games well. What I mean is that if you suck at FPS games in general, improved soundstage is not going to make you into a superstar all of a sudden. For example, if you cannot support your buddies appropriately, or you have no clue what "cover" means, the Q701 will not make you either more popular with your buddies or suddenly render you invincible. What positional advantage does do in FPS gaming is give you a small advantage in using an extra sense to determine where people (or objects) are. To be honest you cannot go wrong with either the HD598 or the Q701. If you are an average gamer, either will give you a good positional sense. If you are an uber competitive gamer, then maybe the Q701 will give you an extra few % of positional advantage, and if you believe that you really need that small extra boost to get to your desired level of gaming, then yes Q701 is a better choice.

Q701 vs Philips Fidelio X1: They are very different headphones. Both are open, and the similarities pretty much stop there. The X1 is much more colored, has more (and IMO better) bass, is very warm in comparison to the Q701, but has less detail. If you like warmth and colored "fun" sound the X1 clearly wins.

Q701 vs K701: The two share the same basic design but having heard both side by side, they sound different. Specifically, K701 has less bass and sounds more, well, plasticky than the Q701. I'm not a fan of K701 sound.

Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT880 versus Sennheiser HD650 3-way shootout: The HD650 sits on one end of midline neutrality with its dark nature, the DT880 sits closer to the middle, and the Q701 is just on the bright side of the 880 furthest from the 650. Personally I think that when it comes to detail the Q701 trumps the 650 by a nose.

Q701 vs HD600: AKG claims that the Q701 is the "the most accurate and responsive reference headphones we‘ve ever produced". If you are looking for a neutral pair of headphones, the HD600 might even be at endgame-level for you, so it makes sense to bypass the 701 and just jump on the HD600. The Q701 is more comfortable than the HD600 (less clamp, lighter) unless you have issues with the headband bumps. The 701 also has a more spacious soundstage and a little more detail than the 600, which is worth considering.


The Mods


2 mods you may want to look at before you decide to buy: [1] the Q701 bass mod, and [2] the headband mod (to fix the bumps issue)

With respect to the bass mod, the two common methods are to remove the small reflex adhesive tape dots on the drivers, and using a reflector/attenuator (like microfiber) to try and make the Q701 a "semi open" headphone. But adding a microfiber layer behind the driver reduces the soundstage, which is probably why you bought the Q701 in the first place. Also, the little round bandaid reflectors are actually there for a reason -- without them the Q701 bass becomes too smeared. Since the design is so open, the reflex really improves low end resonance characteristics. Sure if you peel them off you get a little more bass, but the overall sound worsens. So the bottom line is: don't do the 701 bass mod, it does not improve sound quality. If you want tons of bass, you shouldn't buy an AKG. Also don't try to close off the open Q701 with microfiber/ electrical tape, etc. You kill the soundstage, which IMO is the Q701's biggest feature.

With respect to the headband mod, keep in mind that mutilating the headband kills resale value. Some folks have made custom universal headbands or transplanted the K701 headbands (which are expensive!). Wrapping Beyerdynamic replacement headband around the Q701 headband works, but you will have to cut the stock headband to size to allow the Beyer clips to fasten. You could also fill the valleys in the headband with adhesive foam tape.

Which flavor headphones to pick?

Q: I'm looking at Beyerdynamic DT770 headphones, but they come in three flavors -- 32 ohm, 80 ohms and 250 ohms. Which one do I buy?

A: 32 ohm versions are easiest to drive, no amp needed.

80 ohm DT770s will be driven by many mp3 players and phones, but some devices with weak outputs may struggle, and if you amp a 80ohm DT770 Pro you will see modest sound improvement (tighter bass, for example, but this also is related to damping factor and the output impedance of the device powering the headphones).

The 250 ohm DT770 will definitely require amping. Some Beyerdynamic models have 600 ohms of impedance, and those certainly will need an amp as well to shine.

Bent headphone connector

Q: Help, my headphone connector is bent!

A: It is probably best to replace the connector end. Once the connector bends, you run the risk that it will break off inside the 3.5mm jack, which is much more complicated to fix than replacing the connector. Your local Radio Shack or electronics parts store should have the connector. There are lots of guides on YouTube to walk you through the process.

One way to straighten it out is to place the connector at the end of a flat surface like a table, place something flat and reasonably heavy over it like a hardback book, and then move the book back and forth so that the connector rolls between the book and the table and straightens. But once those TRS connectors are bent it is usually only a question of time before they fail.

If the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were headphones

If the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were headphones:

• Picard is obviously a Sennheiser HD600, because he is neutral
• Guinan is a Beyerdynamic T90, because she is great for critical listening
• Geordi is a Sennheiser HD800, because he is overengineered
• Deanna Troi is a Grado, because she is too bright and gets on your nerves after a while
• Tasha Yar is a Sennheiser Amperior because she, like the Amperior, was discontinued abruptly
• the Tamarian aliens from the episode "Darmok" are Ultrasones because noone can undertand what they are saying
• Q is obviously a AKG Q701, obviously

What makes really expensive headphones so expensive?

Q: What makes really expensive headphones so expensive?

A: Essentially there are 4 aspects to the cost of any product [1] R&D [2] materials [3] manufacturing and [4] marketing. These costs may be either fixed (eg payroll) or variable (eg sourcing raw materials).

R&D is variable, so calculating the cost of R&D for an individual headphone model is difficult. Newer models still haven't seen a return on ROI costs, while older models (for example HD600) have probably recouped their R&D costs, and then some. R&D costs may be hard to figure out accurately because one technology may be used in multiple products, or may be responsible for the development of other innovations, for example the design of the HD580 enclosure and drivers directly influenced the design of the HD600 and 650 enclosures and drivers. Another great example is the Q701 -- it is in essence a K701 with modest changes. Most of the R&D cost was for the K701, and the Q701 reaped much of the benefit.

Material costs vary over time, often wildly, and are subject to supply and demand constraints. For example the price of copper, used in headphone voice coils and wires, has changed dramatically over the last few decades, and copper futures are still often volatile.

Production costs also vary, for example Q701s were made in Austria, but AKG wanted to save costs and moved production to China. But moving production to China does not necessarily make things cheaper, for example some Audio Gd amps probably cost more to make than equivalent Schiit amps, even though Schiit makes its stuff in the US and Audio Gd in China.

Many companies OEM some or all of production, which again affects costs depending on who they OEM to. And it's not just a case of folks using cheap Chinese OEMs -- some Denons for example were OEMd by Fostex, for example. And keep in mind that OEM companies typically conduct their own R&D, have their own design costs, have to retool equipment for specific products, etc, which changes cost calculations.

And finally marketing: some companies spend more on marketing (e.g. Apple, Nike, Beats) and make huge profits, while others spend very little on traditional marketing and still manage to do very well for themselves. One way to get around substantial marketing costs is to engage in direct marketing (eg Emotiva, Schiit) or to depend on word of mouth (like HiFiMan depends on HeadFi).

But eventually, keep in mind that companies will try to make as much profit as they can, so the price may be determined by what the market can support. For audiophile products, there may be a substantial markup in price just because companies know they can get away with it. A classical example of this is the Grado RA1, which has been substantially marked up when you take into account its design and materials/manufacturing cost.

AKG Q701 headband bumps hurt my head!

Q: I got a new pair of AKG Q701 and those bumps on the headband hurt my scalp! What can I do?

A: If you condition your scalp you will soon learn to ignore the headband. I recommend this activity.

But seriously, some have cut the bumps out with a knife, narrowed the headband and applied a Beyer headband cover or a modded HD600/650 headband pad. Others have crafted new headbands from fabric or leather.

Burson Soloist SL vs Schiit Asgard 2 for the HiFiMan HE500

Q: I own the HifiMan HE500. Which is a better amp for it, the Burson Soloist SL or would a cheaper amp like the Schiit Asgard 2 get the job done?

A: I would pick the Soloist SL over the Asgard2. Mainly because it puts out 2W at low resistance, as opposed to the Asgard's 1W, which would be better for the HE500. But also from a purely subjective perspective, really. I just like the design, execution and sound of the Soloist SL better than Asgard2. The variable output stage is IMO particularly well done. Plus the Soloist SL just looks better.

Help! I have a crease in my new headphone earpad!

Q: I just received my new pair of headphones and noticed that the headband has a bit of a "pinch" in one of the creases. Is this something I should be worried about for wear/damage in the long term and get them exchanged?

A: Typically these upholstering imperfections do not amount to anything, and will not cause the headband cover to unravel / fall off/ or otherwise damage your headphones. Think of it as getting a baby with a small and harmless birthmark.

Personally I would not return headphones for cosmetic defects like this. However I do know that some folks are anal about receiving "perfect" items when they buy something, and if you think you will constantly worry about this minor blemish IMO you will never be truly happy with your purchase. And if you are one of those folks (you know if you are!) then you are going to return these no matter what I say, right?

USB vs optical vs coaxial inputs

Q: What is the difference between USB and optical/coaxial inputs? Is one better than the other?

A: In essence they are the same -- a digital signal is a digital signal, no matter how you transport it. Having said that, there are a couple of differences:

[1] if you use USB, you can plug it into any computer. With optical or coax you need a source with an optical or coax jack. Not all computers have them, for example.

[2] At one point until not so long ago, USB technology was limited to 24 bits/48 kHz. At that time, it was much more advantageous to use optical or coax, which went up to 24/96. That technological disadvantage is no longer the case with current generation of USB chips. However, the technology has swung the other way -- many DAC manufacturers limit optical/coax thruput rates to 24 bits at 96 or 192 kHz. If you want to go higher beyond 192 kHz, for example 24-32 bit/352.8kHz-384kHz, USB may be the only way to do this. Keep in mind that your ears probably cannot tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192.

[3] If you want DSD you may have to have USB input (of course, if your DAC does not support DSD then this is moot)

[4] if you have USB line noise from EMI (because USB carries power in addition to the audio signal) then optical/coax may get help rid of the noise (because you are not using USB)

Personally, my favorite connection is optical out, and not for any musical reason -- I just like the idea that my music traveled along a fiberoptic cable as light before ending up between my ears.

When lossless isn't really lossless

Q: Are all lossless audio file formats truly lossless?

A: Many like FLAC or ALAC are. But others can be somewhat deceiving. For example Sony's ATRAC Lossless audio files.

ATRAC Lossless is actually an interesting format. It works differently than FLAC or ALAC -- the way I understand it is that ATRAC lossless is actually a lossy ATRAC3 file with additional information ("correction data") that allows the lossless sound to be reconstituted. Kind of like packaging the water and the Top Ramen separately in the same box to reconstitute the whole noodles. Somehow that isn't the same as cooking the ramen from scratch.

United we stand, divided we....stand?

Q: Should I buy a standalone headphone amplifier + a standalone DAC or an amp + DAC combination unit?

A: If you buy a amp+dac combo unit (a single enclosure holds both the ehadphone amplifier as well as the DAC) and think you will be using the amp alone or the DAC alone at some point, then the key is to buy a combo that allows DAC output as line out without involving the amplifier circuit (i.e. the DAC output from the combo can bypass the amp) so that you don't end up double amping. So for example if you have an amp/dac combo and want to buy a better standalone amp, you don't want to run the signal through two amplifier circuits in tandem, in this case the amp in the amp/DAC and then the standalone amp, since you will introduce additional distortion into the signal.

Some combos (e.g. the Audioengine D1) will not allow you to decouple the DAC output from the amp which makes them inferior as standalone DACs. If you are planning to own multiple amps and/or DACs, getting separate units (such as the O2 and ODAC individually) as opposed to a combo (such as the O2 and ODAC in a single unit) makes much more sense because you can swap out the DAC or amp to something different.

However if you have decided that your purchase will be endgame 9at least for a while) then getting a single unit makes more sense because it is more convenient + less clutter.

HiFiMan HE-400 versus the Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro

Q: Is the HiFiMan HE-400 a big step over the Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro?

A: It depends on how well you amp the HE400s. They are different from the DT990s in 4 ways:

1) HE400s have a flatter frequency curve. You'll notice the mids coming forward compared to the 990. A lot.

2) The bass is tighter and more controlled than the DT990. The bass isn't as prominent as the DT990, but "punchier".

3) The treble is harsher and more sibilant than the 990. Cymbals and hi hats go into "attack mode".

4) The HE400s are heavier and a lot less comfortable than the 990s. Over time you will get used to their weight, though.

Now I see it, now I don't....

Q: Do different DACs sound different? What kind of DAC should I get?

A: In theory the DAC should generate the exact identical analog version of the digital source, i.e. the sound is faithfully transmitted to the next link in the chain without any additions or subtractions. This is my definition of a transparent DAC --- a DAC that behaves "like it's not there".

But in reality that's not what happens, since the additional components that make up the DAC add their own "voices" to the signal, as does the DAC chip itself.

Having said this, most DAC chips use the same digital processing method (delta-sigma) and so sound remarkably similar to each other, whether they are made by Sabre or Wolfson or Cirrus Logic or Analog Devices, or any of the other slew of DAC manufacturers. There are some exceptions, for example old-style NOS (non oversampling) DACs sound different than their delta-sigma brethren, because they operate under entirely different principles.  But by and large when you read reviews that wax eloquent about the significant and substantial differences in the sound from one DAC chip or another, you are being subjected to, well, bullshit.

Why then is there so much variation recorded between DACs? Why are some dacs felt to be "warm" and others to be "cold"?  Well, the biggest reason is that it is a matter of perception: if you approach DAC transparency from an objectivist position, then for you a transparent DAC is ideal and if you are a subjectivist listener then the same DAC is "cold" or "boring".

If you are an objectivist, you want the faithful transmission of a signal, then the coloration imparted by the analog component fo a DAC like the Cambridge Audio DacMAgic 100 is anathema.

And if you are a subjectivist, the coloring of the sound excites you just as much as the faithful transmission of the signal, and the transparent output of a DAC like the ODAC might be "bland" or "cold" or "not energetic" to you. I would argue that for such a subjectivist listener, the tonal variations offered by a tube DAC might actually be more pleasing than "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" offered by a transparent DAC. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with a Grado.

Further, a DAC can pick up floor noise -- hiss from, say a laptop via the USB port, that the muddies the sound profile a ta. But the same DAC may be deathly silent when plugged into a desktop USB. Does that mean that the DAC is transparent when it's connected to a desktop but not to a laptop? By my definition, yes.

You can get around noisy USB by including a good power transformer with the DAC itself. But these are expensive, and can drive up the price of the DAC. One DAC brand that has been touted for its sonic neutrality, to the point of becoming a standard reference whenever the term "transparent DAC" rears its head, is the Bench mark DAC1, which is an expensive option.

So from price-performance perspective, does buying a DAC1 make sense? Probably not. You can get a relatively transparent DAC as cheaply as $100 - the Schiit Modi (which uses a wallwart for power), or alternatively the ODAC (which uses USB power, and is priced at $150) and these are perfectly acceptable price-performance options to something like the DAC1.

Tube versus solid state amps (the cheap ones!)

Q: How does a cheap tube amp like the Darkvoice 336SE compare to a cheap solid state amp like the Schiit Magni?

A: You cant really compare solid state and tube amps, since their sound profiles are entirely different.

If you want neutral sound (or relatively neutral sound), reliability, and true value for money I would say always go with solid state  (Magni, O2, etc.) over a tube amp.

If you want the warm tubey sound at a budget, then before you pull the trigger on a budget tube amp, you should probably also think about how much you will need to factor in for tube rolling. DarkVoice tubes are cheaper than, say those for McIntoshes, but keep in mind that something like a Shuguang Treasure CV181 will cost you upwards of $100 so after swapping the stock tubes you may be really looking at closer to $350-500 than $250. At that price point, Magni isn't really a comparable amp anymore from a price perspective, IMO you should now be looking at a totally different tier of solid state amps.

If you just want to get into tube amps for the rolling experience more than anything else, tube rolling for a Little Dot mk3 works out better than a DarkVoice 336SE because tubes are relatively cheaper and you have more variety.

Q: But doesn't a tube amp better than a solid state amp? After all, tube amps have variations in their sound when you put in different tubes but all solid state amps pretty much sound the same?

A: I don't know if tube amps are better or worse than solid state amps, just that they are different.

There is a lot to be said for solid state amps, for example: quality solid state components cost much less than quality tube components, solid state components are more reliable than tubes, and they are more efficient. If you are buying your first amp, you should probably get a solid state instead of a tube amp unless you are very sure that you want tube sound.

If you are a "purist", i.e. what you want to hear is the source file without coloration or added tonality, then you should not go down the tube route since you are sure to be disappointed. If you want the coloration, tubes give you pleasing distortion and the ability to "tune" that distortion by swapping tubes.

"Better solid state" is not necessarily "the same sound, just better". The quality of solid state components do make a difference acoustically, to some degree (like noise floor, THD, etc.) But you are right that the difference between, say a Magni and an O2 is not as vast as the difference between, say a Schiit Valhalla and a Little Dot.

Review: Ultrasone Edition 10

"The best headphones ever!" I read recently online. The Ultrasone Edition 10 headphones certainly meet the criteria for audiophile goodness. Huge price tag (over $2000!), limited to only 2010 pieces (each of which has its own serial number), extraordinary level of hype when they were introduce, glowing reviews from the few who were fortunate enough to listen to one.....they must sound absolutely fabulous, right?

Well, these headphones look gorgeous. They will certainly make you feel cool as you roll in your 1936 Ford down Ocean Drive in South Beach, Miami, but a critical issue will reduce your overall level of enjoyment, despite the "butterfly-inspired design", the Zebrano wood, and the Ethiopian sheepskin leather earcup covers (I "kid" you not!) that are featured in these headphones.

And the problem, simply put, is this: The S-Logic technology kills the sound more thoroughly than a Klingon warrior with a bat'leth.

The drivers are positioned weirdly, somewhere waaay below where my ears are, and I have normal size ears positioned where normal humans grow ears (I can confidently say that if you were Abe Sapien from "Hellboy" the Edition 10 would fit you just right). And even if it did fit (or probably because it did not), the S-logic just makes everything sound so weird. It just plain sounds wrong.

You must be either [a] mad or [b] have more money to throw around than Warren Buffet to buy the Ultrasone Edition 10, no matter how gorgeous they look, and no matter how high the hype level is. I mean, you could do better by buying a used Ford Festiva for the same kind of money. You wouldn't look as cool driving down a busy Miami street, but you would certainly sound better.

The moral of the story: just because they are expensive and are finely crafted using exotic materials by  dwarves in Moria, does not necessarily mean that they sound as fantastic as they look.

The sweet spot of compressed versus uncompressed audio files

Q: At what point does compressed vs uncompressed audio files really become an issue?

A: You can have compressed lossless files (eg. FLAC files) that are sonically identical to uncompressed lossless files (eg. WAV files). The only issue you would have here is if you compress FLAC files very tightly, you will need a powerful computer to uncompress on the fly.

Now with respect to mp3 vs WAV or CDs; that's more of a lossy vs lossless question rather than compressed vs uncompressed question. For example, with mp3, the lower the bitrate (measured in kbps, an index of the file's audio quality) the more obvious the quality deterioration is appreciable with good headphones.

For streaming music, uncompressed isn't really viable because it takes up an extraordinarily huge amount of bandwidth to stream, so all radio stations / streaming services typically offer some level of lossy streams. For me, the 320 kbps Orbis bit rate that Spotify uses for streaming its Premium service is not an issue, even with really good headphones.

For local files, what you really get with compression is the ability to save some space. Typically I rip my CDs to FLAC files, and then rerip to varying mp3 rates when transferring to my phone or mp3 player because, well, like real estate, there is only so much you can fit in limited space, and either you fit a lesser number of quality files or more files but of lower quality.

Double amping

Q: What happens if you double amp?

A: Double amping occurs when you run the audio signal through two amplifier circuits in tandem, for whatever reason. When that happens, you increase distortion. In theory you may damage the downstream amp but that's unlikely.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Q: My headphone connector is bent! What do I do?

A: It is probably best to replace the connector end. Once the connector bends, you run the risk that it will break off inside the 3.5mm jack, which is much more complicated to fix than replacing the connector. If you have some basic soldering skills, you can cut off the bad connector, strip the wires, and solder in a new one . It's not complicated. Your local Radio Shack or electronics parts store should have the connector in stock.  There are lots of guides on YouTube on how to do this.

One way to straighten it out is to place the connector at the end of a flat surface like a table, place something flat and reasonably heavy over it like a hardback book, and then move the book back and forth so that the connector rolls between the book and the table and straightens. But once those TRS connectors are bent it is usually only a question of time before they fail.

[Review] Fostex HP-A4: The Little Black Box That Could

Preliminary impressions of the Fostex HP-A4 DAC/headphone amplifier

or

"The Little Black Box That Could"

Fostex? Who dat?

Fostex has been around for a while. In addition to manufacturing their own products, they OEM for other brands (think Denon headphones, for example). They are a subsidiary of the Japanese company Foster Electric (they merged with Foster in 2003). Foster has been around since the 1940s and is probably the biggest audio company you have never heard of.

History of the HPA4, or "The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?"

Earlier this year, Fostex upgraded their little HPA3 DAC/amp with an new design, the HPA4. There hasn't been much buzz or hype about this model, and I didn't know much about it until recently. That's when I got interested, initially because the HPA3 is a USB-powered amp/DAC that utilizes a DAC chip made by a company you don't commonly see -- Asahi Kasei's AK4390 chip, and I couldn't figure out what DAC the HPA4 was using.

But as I did my research, the HPA4 stood out for a bunch of reasons, and soon I realized I was obsessing about it all the time. When a product's webpage ends up as a Favorite on my browser, that's when I know I am screwed, and will probably end up buying said product. So sure enough, both logical arguments ("I need another DAC like I need another testicle") and emotional pleas ("USB powered amps don't have enough juice to even drive a Grado") failed miserably, and I ended up buying the HPA4.

What is it?

The HPA4 is a USB powered amp/DAC. It has USB and optical in, and can support up to 24 bit/192 kHz frequencies on PCM and SPDIF, and 2.8 and 5.6 MHz DSD.

It has a single 1/4 inch headphone jack that delivers 100 mw at 32 ohms, dropping to 20 mw at 300 ohms. It also has RCA out, so can act as a preamp for active speakers.

As usual, within a few hours of powering it up I had to open it up and take a look inside. It does not feature an Asahi Kasei DAC chip, instead settling for a more run-of-the-mill PCM1792A. There's a custom crystal oscillator to run asynchronous mode, the PCB design is efficient, and the build quality is excellent.

Most of the reviews I have read about the HPA4 claim that is the "little brother" of the acclaimed Fostex HPA8 DAC/amp, which is considered by some to be an endgame setup. From my look inside the HPA4, that description is, well, untrue. Different DAC, different architecture, different components -- IMO these are two entirely different DAC/amps that merely share the Fostex brand and a couple of common features. The hype train strikes again.

Features

I have four interesting features to report to you.

First, the HPA4 has optical out, so it can convert USB or optical in to a SPDIF optical out signal, which is useful if you want to daisy-chain another DAC with optical in.

Second, it has a gain switch that adds an extra 10 dB. This is very useful given that the HPA4 is USB powered.

Third, it has a filter switch. With a PCM source you can select between a slow and sharp roll-off digital filter, and with a DSD source you can choose a high cutoff (185 kHz with gain of -6.6 dB) or low cutoff (85 kHz with gain of -1.5 db).

And fourth, it has a microSD slot at the back. Unfortunately, this can't be used to play music, it is designed to allow easy firmware updates using a microSD card.

For those looking for button and connection pictures, here is the front end, and the back end.


Looks

It's small, but heavy. It comes with 4 rubber feet that you have to stick, and once they are on the unit is solid and does not slide. It has a sleek industrial black look similar to the HPA8 (but no display). It has a row of LEDs which are green and red, like Christmas all over again. The metal enclosure is a fingerprint magnet -- it attracts more fingerprints than Lindsay Lohan attracts DUIs.


Knobfeel

How can you have a device with a knob and not describe knobfeel in a review? Alas, the potentiometer does have a little friction -- it's not buttery smooth. No low end imbalance though, so I'm happy.


The sound

I read a a review a while ago (on Headphonia?) where the HPA4 was pitted against the Benchmark DAC1, and won.Ha ha, I said to myself, since the DAC1 is my gold standard. It takes challengers and breaks them like Gregor Clegane. So of course my first set of tests were against the DAC1.
The results? To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in his famous debate against Dan Quayle: "Senator, I served with the DAC1. I knew the DAC1. The DAC1 was a friend of mine. The HPA4 is no DAC1."

It comes close though, which I thought was surprising. Shocking, even, given the difference sin design and price points. The sound is detailed, if a little smooth. Treble is modestly accentuated, but not harsh at all. Bass is well represented, tight, and without artifacts or muddiness. There is zero noise floor, both in low as well as high gain.
I couldn't make out any difference between the slow and sharp PCM filter. Sorry. I convinced myself I heard a difference with the DSD filter, but that was probably a combination of expectation bias and the dB attenuation more than a real, tangible difference.

I used Fostex's own Audio Player to listen to DSD files. It is very bare-bones, but does the job. It utilizes custom ASIO drivers by default, and can decode DSD over PCM or native DSD. It also has a "load to RAM" feature for handling audio data, for which of course you need a decent amount of RAM. My gaming rig has 32GB of RAM, and although 16GB is taken up by a RAMdrive, the remaining 16GB does not struggle with running the Audio player in its Expanded RAM setting. DSD files sound great, of course, but that's more a function of the file type than the DAC.

I have been rotating headphones only over the last few days, so have not had time to go through my stable. Most of my testing was done with my modded T50RP, which I thought was only fitting since I was flying the Fostex flag. The HPA4 is IMO synergistic with the HD650 and LCD3, but struggles to power the high impedance 600 ohm Beyer DT990. The high gain mode helps, but is merely passable. Ah well, what did you expect from a USB powered amp?


In sum: The good

It's a compact, solidly built, convenient DAC/amp that does not require its own AC power line. It sounds remarkably good, with no sonic flaws. If you are looking to get into a futureproof DSD capable DAC, then this a a great deal from a price-performance perspective. Of course the Aune X1 is the bargain basement option in this category, but Aune QC is hit-or-miss, and Fostex build quality is impeccable.

It also has RCA and optical out, so you can connect it to another optical-in device and to active speakers. The pot on the HPA4 ramps the volume of the RCA-out signal, so it can be used to control active speaker volume.

For the price, it sounds really good. It doesn't quite beat the DAC1, but it comes close. The DAC1 retails for $1000+. The MSRP on the HAA4 is $400. So from the price-performance perspective, I recommend this product.

The bad

It struggles with high-impedance headphones. The filter switch might not be hooked up to the amp at all, for all I can tell. The LED lights are bright and the green-and-red combo is a tad cheesy.RCA and headphone gain levels are not independently controlled, so when you switch from RCA out to headphone jack, you have to make sure the potentiometer is dialed down or you may blast your headphones.

The enclosure isn't a fingerprint magnet in the normal sense, it attracts smudges with the magnetic field strength of a dozen MRI machines chained together. And oh yes, the potentiometer isn't buttery smooth. I know, that's nitpicking, but it is a big deal for me.

The ugly

There really isn't anything ugly about this little black box. Even the USB cable it comes with is well built.

The bottom line

What it is: This is a great portable DAC/amp. For folks who carry their gear from home to work and back again, this is a great choice. For folks looking to get into DSD on the cheap, this is a great choice. For folks looking for a compact bedside amp/dac unit without the usual spaghetti of wires sticking out the back, this is a great choice. For Fostex fanboys, this is a great choice.

What it isn't: It's not the "little brother of the HPA8". So if you are looking for HPA8 performance on a HPA4 budget, that aint going to happen. If you have high impedance headphones, pass on the HPA4. If you want to play music off your microSD card, this isn't the unit for you. If you are paranoid about fingerprints and smudges, stock up on non-abrasive neutral electronics-safe cleaner. By the gallon.