What are your top 3 headphones over $1000?

Q: What would you consider to be the top 3 headphones that cost over $1000?

A: Personally, I would consider the Sennheiser HD800, the Audeze LCD3 and the Fostex TH900 my top 3 (open, planar, closed). HD800 wins on design, TH900 wins on craftsmanship (urushi!) and LCD3 wins on its materials.

But there is a second tier of headphones that are cheaper and provide almost as much performance, so from a price-performance perspective these headphones make much more sense to aspire to than my top 3.

Two disclaimers: I'm not into electrostatic headphones, so haven't considered them in the ranking.

Second, I'm not going to rank headphones that cost well over $2000, because I wouldn't spend over $2000 on headphones. At that price point (and above) speakers reign supreme, and you will never get the best $2000 headphones to sound as good as above-average $2000 speakers, and the best $3000 speakers will end up blowing the best $3000 headphones away.

In sum, it doesn't make sense from a price performance perspective to spend over $2000 for headphones, since above that price point you are probably better off getting speakers.

Purchase advice: cheap closed on-ear headphones

Q: My budget is small - $30-$80, and I am looking for closed on ear headphones that I can use when out and about. Help! Bonus points for looking good.

A: At your budget, its hard to find closed on ears. In the US the Martin Logan Mikros 90 is being discounted for $80-90, and would fit your needs perfectly,and is worth trying to find on sale.

Alternatively, consider the JVC HAS160 Flats. They are closed, on ear, in your budget, don't look terrible, and sound reasonably good for the price.

What is the actual cost to manufacture headphones?

Ascertaining the true cost to manufacture headphones is complicated because there are multiple factors to consider, and this is the type of business intelligence every company keeps very close to its chest.

To break things down in simple terms, essentially there are 4 aspects to the cost of any product [1] R&D [2] materials [3] manufacturing and [4] marketing.

R&D is variable, so calculating the cost of R&D for an individual headphone model is difficult, especially because R&D costs may be capitalized or expensed even before production begins. In general, newer models still haven't seen a return on ROI costs, while older models (for example the Sennheiser HD600) have probably recouped their R&D costs, and then some.

Material costs vary over time, often wildly, and are subject to supply and demand constraints.

Production costs also vary, for example AKG 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.

Material and manufacturing costs may be variable (materials, packaging, etc.) or fixed (labor, storage, personnel salaries, etc.). To make things even more complicated, 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 to save money aall around -- some Denon headphones for example were OEMd by Fostex, another Japanese company.

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. Beats) and make huge profits, while others spend very little on traditional marketing and still manage to do very well for themselves (e.g. Schiit).

In sum, good luck finding this info out unless you are an industry insider, and even then you will have issues trying to calculate the true product cost of your competitors.

My RHA MA350 IEMs are electrocuting me...help!

Q: I bought a pair of RHA MA350 IEMs when they first got released around 2 years ago and they've been fine ever since.

Recently however, whenever I connect them to a PC or a Laptop I feel an electric shock (along with an electricity sound), which as you might imagine is a tad annoying. When connected to my phone it's fine. Any ideas what's causing this?

A: Watt? I find it shocking that you still continue to use them despite being electrocuted.

While some folks may get a charge out of your predicament, I for one must strongly suggest that you do not try to swim against the current of prevailing wisdom and stop using them in any capacity. It you meet with any resistance to this suggestion, then ignore it.

But seriously, it's not right to be electrocuted by your headphones. First, make sure that it isn't a grounding issue with your equipment, to be safe. If not, it is most likely to be static.

Apple has a great support post about static and Apple earbuds which is worth reading.

Some thoughts about the Little Dot Mk IV SE, and how it compares to the Mk III

How does the Little Dot Mk IV SE differ from the Little Dot Mk III? 

Well, both are OTL (output transformer-less) tube amps, made by Little Dot in China. The Mk IV SE is supposed to be an upgraded version of the Mk III, with a premium price. So what are the differences?

[1] upgraded tubes - instead of stock GE5654s, you get a pair of Mullard M8100s, and also updated 6H30P-i power tubes. It should be noted that my LD Mk III came with stock RCA EF95 tubes (which was a pleasant surprise, because they were 70s vintage. I might have lucked out).

[2] The 1/4 plug on the SE is a Neutrik

[3] The SE has "upgraded" RCA connectors

[4] The SE has pretty gold tube protectors

[5] The SE has a different volume knob

In theory the Mk IV SE is supposed to have a different ALPS pot than the Mk III, but every internal shot I have seen of the SE has the same pot as my Mk III.

David ZheZhe (Little Dot seller) claims the SE has "premium circuit component upgrades in key signal path locations". As to what these upgrades actually are (apart from the ones I noted above), your guess is as good as mine.

So are the differences worth the extra money?

As you start going up the Little Dot product ladder, you begin to slowly start losing the price-performance advantage you have with the Mk III.

You can get M8100s in abundance on ebay for $20-40 for the pair. The upgrade to the Elektro-harmonix 6H30P-i isn't really a deal unless you get a NOS Elektro-harmonix, since the new "reissued" EH 6H30P from the Reflektor plant are, well, reissues.

If you are upgrading power tubes you might as well get a couple of Novosibirsk Gold Grid 6N6P-i from the 70s/80s (before the Wall came down!) for $10-15 for a pair (keep in mind that driver tubes typically last longer than power tubes, and the Gold Grids with the "OTK" quality symbol were engineered to last a while).

Who should get this? 

Those that want to experience OTL tube sound, and don't have the money to get a Woo Audio WA3, a Woo Audio WA2 or an Eddie Current Zana Deux.

Also those who own a Sennheiser HD600 or HD650, the pairing is excellent.

Keep in mind that the Little Dot Mk III is a better bang for your buck than the Mk IV SE. Also keep some money aside for tube rolling.

Who should not get this? 

Folks getting their first amp (get a solid state amp!) or those who run orthodynamic headphones as their primary headphone (bad pairing, as are the Beyerdynamic T90 and T1).

Also folks whose budget will not extend to tube rolling.

And this certainly isn't "endgame" material, if that is your goal.

Folks wanting the ultimate price performance ratio should probably look at the Little Dot Mk III. And those who want a transparent amp without coloration or distortion should not touch this with a 10 foot pole.

Who are the competitors? 

The Bottlehead Crack, of course, although the Crack is a DIY OTL tube amp. And the Valhalla 2 is a serious competitor (gain switch, preamp out) especially if you are looking for a more transparent sound, as is the Woo Audio WA3 (although that costs about 2x the cose of the Mk IV SE).

Is the Aune T1 Mk2 worth it?

The Aune T1 Mk1 was constantly dropping on Massdrop for $130. Recently, it has been supplanted by the Aune T1 Mk2 with a sale price of $170. So what changed, apart from $40?

It's hard to find information about the T1 Mk2. The Shenzen Audio website says "T1 MK2 amp can bar the use of an enlarged portion of the gain OP + BUF". Um OK..... Maybe Google Translate was having a bad day when it did that particular translation.

In sum, the T1 Mk 2 got a new power supply and a new USB chip to allow asynchronous transfer and reduce jitter (from pictures of the internals, it looks like a SA9027 Savi controller, which is pretty much a bottom-of-the-barrel chip).

Is that worth $40 more? Probably not. At $170 I can't really recommend this as a price-performance steal anymore.

But then Massdrop threw in a Genalex Gold Lion tube too, for free. Sounds tempting, right? But before you pull the trigger, consider this:

This isn't the old Genalex Gold Lion from the 40s and 50s made by the Marconi-Osram Valve Company (they have long gone the way of the dodo and the great auk) but the "reissue" Genalex, which is made by New Sensor corp, who took over the old Reflektor plant and is now churning out OEM tubes under the ElectroHarmonix, Genalex, TungSol, Sovtek, Tesla, and even [shudder] the Mullard brand names. The 6922 versions of these tubes are essentially the same design, merely with different brand names printed on them. So the stock ElectroHarmonix tubes that come with the Aune T1 Mk1 are made in the same Reflektor plant that these Genalex tubes are made in.

So you may ask, how is it that some reviewers try a reissue Genalex or a rebadged Sovtek 6922 and report such a vast difference in sound quality in comparison to whatever they had before, if all these tubes are OEM? Unless they are getting the original NOS tubes, your guess is as good as mine.

If you want to roll tubes for Aune T1, IMO do it properly. Get the Mk1 for $130 (even though it does not have asynchronous data transfer) and with the $40 you save, get some real NOS tubes. You can get genuine Mullard ECC88/6922 tubes for $15-20 each, or a genuine cold war-era Russian Voskhod for $10 or thereabouts. Or spring for a NOS Amperex Bugle Boy which should cost you less than $40 if you are patient. Heck, you could even get a genuine Genalex from the 50s for under $40.

Modding the Fostex T50RP

There is probably more out there about how to mod the T50 than any other headphone. Yes, if done right you will have an awesome sounding pair of headphones. Keep in mind that the mad dogs are in essence modded T50 RP, so you have a sense of what a good mod can achieve.

Many headphone mods are one-offs and hard to reproduce but IMO the T50 can be modded in a consistent way to sound good. All you need is time, patience, and a steady hand.

In essence the mods for the T50 consist of the following

1) mass load the baffles inside the cup with something like blu-tac (I used uhu-tac)

2) create a bass port by closing off the vent with something like electricians tape. The size of the bass port determines the level of bass you want from the T50s.

3) use sound baffling material to line the inside of the cups (I used acoustimat that I got from an auto repair place. How I got my hands on the stuff is an interesting story, but probably not for this post)

4) Fill the cups with cotton wool / fiberglass insulation etc just like a speaker (I used cotton wool. Be sure to weigh the wool and use the same amount for both cups!)

5) create a reflex dot for the driver with transpore or paper tape, or add layers of transpore over the driver to redirect sound (I used two layers, it worked best for me. Others have used more or less)

6) change the pads (I used shure 840 pads but there are other options)

A good place to start might be to search for " bluemonkeyflyer T50RP mod". Do your research, make incremental changes and tune your T50 to just the way you want it to sound like!

My T50 is the only headphones I have modded that sound exactly like I want them to. It took me a while to get there, and some steps were hit and miss and required undoing, but in the end it has turned out to be a fun and enjoyable activity.