• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mark Levinson 5909, new ANC wireless cans that advertise use of the Harman curve

Hephaestus

Active Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
233
Likes
495
Location
Rapture
I believe this is an actual production sample - it slightly differs how it measures from the production validation sample posted earlier.

What @Sean Olive thinks about Brent Butterworth´s measurements at Soundstage Solo?

Anyhow I pulled a trigger on these -looking forward getting them later this month ;)

EDIT: fixed the link and added Butterworth´s measurement.

fr_lr_700h.png
 
Last edited:

theobserver

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
16
Likes
13
I believe this is an actual production sample - it slightly differs how it measures from the production validation sample posted earlier.

What @Sean Olive thinks about Brent Butterworth´s measurements at Soundstage Solo?

Anyhow I pulled a trigger on these -looking forward getting them later this month ;)

EDIT: fixed the link and added Butterworth´s measurement.

fr_lr_700h.png

Greetings to all, first post here.

When I learned about the release of the 5909s I was excited and hoped they'd deliver on the SQ (Harman curve) and ANC fronts. When I saw Sean Olive's graph a few weeks ago, I was quite hopeful.

However, the measurements above by Brent Butterworth are rather worrisome. The peak in the high mids/lower treble has me concerned, as well as the marked differences between ANC (high) on, off or the headphone in passive mode (cabled).

I've just come across 2 posts on head-fi.org that also mention a rather troublesome upper frequencies performance. One person even seemed to have some QC issues (My unit arrived with persistent, RFI-like noise coming from the left channel. Noticable at very low volumes and when music is not playing. Also present when not paired.) and has already received a replacement unit which seems to be fine so far.

I don't really care whether the 5909 is made in China or not (all my Apple products are made in China) as I've had QC issues with products made in Germany, Austria or the USA. I'm much more worried about sound quality in BT mode with ANC on and off, and sound variances in all modes, including a not so great low-end performance in passive mode. I wonder how a firmware update could improve things, though probably not at all when used passively.

As an aside, the mention by one person of only 16 volume steps on iOS devices isn't very encouraging and is, quite frankly, very surprising considering these are meant to be for people who actually appreciate good sound. 16 steps makes any headphone at times either too loud or too quiet (this made worse by modern pop/rock masters) – this should be rectified very soon in a firmware update.
 
Last edited:

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
Greetings to all, first post here.

When I learned about the release of the 5909s I was excited and hoped they'd deliver on the SQ (Harman curve) and ANC fronts. When I saw Sean Olive's graph a few weeks ago, I was quite hopeful.

However, the measurements above by Brent Butterworth are rather worrisome. The peak in the high mids/lower treble has me concerned, as well as the marked differences between ANC (high) on, off or the headphone in passive mode (cabled).

Resolve's measurements are more in line with what you'd expect given what the intent seemingly was (consistency of results between modes) :
I don't know what happened with SoundStageSolo's results.

One person even seemed to have some QC issues (My unit arrived with persistent, RFI-like noise coming from the left channel. Noticable at very low volumes and when music is not playing. Also present when not paired.) and has already received a replacement unit which seems to be fine so far.

Various issues with background noises (ANC noise floor, pops, inconstant noise floor over time or between left/right channels, electronic whines or buzz) has, so far, been a rather prevalent problem for me with most ANC headphones, Harman's as well. There are only three ANC headphones I've used so far that I found OK (AirPods Pro, AirPods Max and H910N).
 

Ulmer

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2021
Messages
10
Likes
3
Great reference MayaTalb! I'm one of the posters on HeadFi.

After seeing these measurements, I just added a single EQ filter in Roon: 11 kHz, -5 dB, Q = 3.2

This removes the most objectionable brightness / sibilance I was hearing. Still a little hot, but those Resolve measurements seem to track with what I'm hearing. Sounds really good to me. Maybe they'll fix this in firmware, or add an EQ to the app one day. I think I'll deal with it either way. IMO, really good except for this.
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
I've digitised the data available so far.
This is how Resolve's (red traces) and SoundStageSolo's (green traces) compare, with ANC on (dotted traces), and ANC off (solid traces), normalised across an octave centred at 2kHz (given that the discrepancies mostly occur in the feedback range, most likely confined to below 500Hz or so with these HPs, and that SoundStageSolo's ANC on results seem to exhibit problems up to slightly above 1kHz). Both use the same fixture unless I'm mistaken.
Screenshot 2022-02-07 at 10.46.17.png

This is the ANC off results, adding Sean Olive's measurements (blue), with a different fixture :
Screenshot 2022-02-07 at 10.47.04.png
 

Sean Olive

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
3,004
Resolve's measurements are more in line with what you'd expect given what the intent seemingly was (consistency of results between modes) :
I don't know what happened with SoundStageSolo's results.



Various issues with background noises (ANC noise floor, pops, inconstant noise floor over time or between left/right channels, electronic whines or buzz) has, so far, been a rather prevalent problem for me with most ANC headphones, Harman's as well. There are only three ANC headphones I've used so far that I found OK (AirPods Pro, AirPods Max and H910N).
The measurements I posted earlier are based on a November sample. Although I didn't post all of them, the FR is very consistent across all ANC and non-ANC modes, all falling in the predicted score range of 90-99% based on compliance to the HARMAN target curve.

The measurements shown for Resolve and Brent as based on units from small sample run in early December. The measurements posted by Resolve show the latest firmware 1.5.0.4 that fixed some of the problems shown in Brent's measurements, which I suspect had the older firmware (1.5.0.1)
 
Last edited:

Ulmer

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2021
Messages
10
Likes
3
I have a retail pair running firmware 1.5.0.4. Received them yesterday. That ~10-11K boost is present. Noticed it immediately with ANC on and it's a bit less wired and ANC off. In all modes the 11 kHz, -5 dB, Q = 3.2 filter addresses the issue for me and they sound brilliant for my preferences. If that was tuned out in firmware in the future, these would be so close to perfect. :-D
 

Sean Olive

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
3,004
I have a retail pair running firmware 1.5.0.4. Received them yesterday. That ~10-11K boost is present. Noticed it immediately with ANC on and it's a bit less wired and ANC off. In all modes the 11 kHz, -5 dB, Q = 3.2 filter addresses the issue for me and they sound brilliant for my preferences. If that was tuned out in firmware in the future, these would be so close to perfect. :-D
Thanks, that's good information to know. :)
 
Last edited:

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
I have a retail pair running firmware 1.5.0.4. Received them yesterday. That ~10-11K boost is present. Noticed it immediately with ANC on and it's a bit less wired and ANC off. In all modes the 11 kHz, -5 dB, Q = 3.2 filter addresses the issue for me and they sound brilliant for my preferences. If that was tuned out in firmware in the future, these would be so close to perfect. :-D

It's interesting to see that in both SoundStageSolo and Resolve's measurements, the ANC on mode shows a tiny bit more presence at 10kHz. Positional / seatings to seatings variation is quite high at these frequencies but I believe that both average several seatings in their published results, so perhaps there is indeed something there.

BTW I had contacted a few shops here in Paris that were meant to receive demo units. One of them called me this morning to tell me that they had received theirs, so naturally I asked if I could come by next Friday to listen to them. They told me that it would be such a shame as only a few days of burn in wouldn't do the ML5909 justice and recommended me to schedule an appointment next week instead.

If it had been branded as AKG I might have been able to listen to them in a few pro audio stores where, when I ask to listen to a pair of headphones, they just brutally plonk their poorly kept sample, with a tangled up cable that looks like it’s been used for strangling someone, on a cheap and dirty glass table covered in smudges, let you do whatever you want to do with it, including stealing it it seems given how little attention they give you, and leave you in peace.

But nope, it’s a Mark Levinson, and I’m forced to listen to them in boutique uber-expensive audiophile stores full of exotic creations where the sole act of bringing the headphones to you is a whole ceremony in itself, starting from the selection of the comfortable leather chair I’m invited to sink into, I’m invariably offered excellent coffee and chocolate I’m embarrassed to refuse, and have to bear the retailer’s incessant comments about how Vinyl is better than CD and his insistence to have me play this or that specific pressing of Hotel California to properly test whatever I’m desperately trying to listen to.

Well screw them I'm still coming in next Friday.
 

theobserver

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
16
Likes
13
Resolve's measurements are more in line with what you'd expect given what the intent seemingly was (consistency of results between modes) :
I don't know what happened with SoundStageSolo's results.

Thanks for this.

The measurements I posted earlier are based on a November sample. Although I didn't post all of them, the FR is very consistent across all ANC and non-ANC modes, all falling in the predicted score range of 90-99% based on compliance to the HARMAN target curve.

The measurements shown for Resolve and Brent as based on units from small sample run in early December. The measurements posted by Resolve show the latest firmware 1.5.0.4 that fixed some of the problems shown in Brent's measurements, which I suspect had the older firmware (1.5.0.1)

Good to know a recent FW update seems to have improved the FR!

Like I said in my previous post, I do wish a new update addresses adding more volume steps for iOS devices (and macOS) like some other wireless headphones already do.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,280
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Good to know a recent FW update seems to have improved the FR!

You know it's 2022 when you need a 'firmware update' to fix anomalies in the frequency response of the $1K headphones you just bought...
 

Sean Olive

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
3,004
You know it's 2022 when you need a 'firmware update' to fix anomalies in the frequency response of the $1K headphones you just bought...
They are just like my Tesla :)

Hopefully, they won't send firmware updates that temporarily remove features because you drive through stop signs when wearing them :)
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
You know it's 2022 when you need a 'firmware update' to fix anomalies in the frequency response of the $1K headphones you just bought...

If only the anomalous response of most of the passive headphones that are out there could be fixed with a simple firmware update...
I see that as a great benefit of active headphones, not a drawback :D.
 

theobserver

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
16
Likes
13
I see that as a great benefit of active headphones, not a drawback

I agree. The question remains, though, whose (SoundStageSolo and Resolve's) measurements represent more accurately the 5909's FR in passive mode.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,280
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
They are just like my Tesla :)

Hopefully, they won't send firmware updates that temporarily remove features because you drive through stop signs when wearing them :)

Good point, they might get bricked into a $999 pair of silent earmuffs with a buggy OTA firmware update. I guess at least they could be used as ear protection when mowing the lawn if that happens. ;)
 

sfdoddsy

Active Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
293
Likes
438
I own some Levinson stuff so I'm obviously not averse to spending money for minimal gain.

And a $1000 dollar ANC headphone with DSP flat response at least makes more sense than a $2000 passive headphone with crap response.

So what I find disturbing is the wide variation in measurements.

Given headphone EQ is pretty simple with DSP, I'll give Levinson/Harman the benefit of the doubt that the 509 meets the response they have targetted, in the way they measure them.

So the finger gets pointed at those doing the measuring.

Obviously two of the three above are wrong. Which makes me question their other measurements.

In speakers, bass is the hardest part to measure. In headphones it should be the easiest.
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
So the finger gets pointed at those doing the measuring.

Obviously two of the three above are wrong.

Not quite :D. More on that shortly. But I don't think that it is only firmware or seal related.

In speakers, bass is the hardest part to measure. In headphones it should be the easiest.

Mmmm...
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
I think that while I can’t pinpoint to the exact cause(s ?) of the disparities between Resolve’s and SoundstageSolo’s results, I can, to a limited extent, reproduce the trends observed between their measurements - even with the latest firmware, and with a single sample. That may be helpful for more knowledgeable people to start providing a more thorough explanation.

So, I went to have a listen. I was offered coffee and invited to sit in a worn out chair in a room full of old vinyls. God I hate these boutiques.

The sample they had came from Mark Levinson’s distributor here and freshly arrived. The pads were brand new (not ideal). Turns out the firmware wasn’t up to date, I updated it myself to 1.5.0.4.

I had mixed expectations, but to be frank after no more than a minute I knew that something was quite a bit off, and that trying to enjoy myself listening to them wasn’t going to be particularly fruitful, so I took out the in-ear mics and started sweeping away.

From now on it’s all boring graphs. Sorry for the dump. I promise I’m much funnier at parties.

Some notes about the in-ear mics :
  • They’re blocked ear canal entrance mics.
  • The absolute values are incorrect. I didn’t bother to compensate the levels as I occasionally do, but I’ve often compared these mics with a UMIK-1 in near-field conditions against a speaker and it’s not that off either. Also, the mics aren’t calibrated : the absolute values on the y axis are meaningless.
  • You shouldn’t compare the absolute values with results obtained from ear simulators (at the DRP), only the relative results between traces from the same sample on the same system (the sample I listen to with my in-ear mics on my own head, and the other samples on ear simulators).
  • Relative results between headphones with blocked ear canal entrance mics may not be perfectly accurate in the 2-3kHz region and above 7kHz in particular. Don’t use these graphs outside of this post’s context.
  • These results are only illustrating my own experience, with the sample I listened to, on my own head. Using the same sample, mics and method on your own head may yield more or less different results.
  • I was in a rush. I usually prefer to repeat measurements several times and avoid measuring brand new pads. This in contrast was a quick and dirty job.
So, squiggles.

* The relative difference between some of the various modes available *

ML5909 modes difference.jpg


Right channel only, as they naturally sit on my head, blue trace ANC off, solid red traces ANC low or high, dotted red trace ANC adaptive, all wirelessly. Averages of 3 individual seatings, normalised at 3.15Khz (that value lands in a part of the spectrum where the SPL is less affected by position / pad compression and above the effects of the active filtering). Absolute values incorrect, only look at the relative values please.

I’ve elected to include the results above 7kHz but I repeat : please take them with a pinch of salt, I have reservations about this type of mics above that frequency. See that peak at 9700Hz or so ? Well in reality it might be located at a slightly different frequency for example. Its magnitude might also be quite different relative to other headphones than what these mics would show. Above that frequency, with these mics, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about “peaks” or “dips”.

I didn't test them in fully passive (wired, powered off) mode.

While I don’t think that we’re facing a feedback mechanism that needs a broader signal to properly work, like on the AirPods Pro and Max when ANC is turned off, or on the Airpods 3, given that the individual traces were quite consistent with low seatings to seatings variation, I’d still prefer to have these results confirmed with measurements using noise as a signal, as I believe that it’s generally good practice for headphones with a feedback mechanism. That wasn’t done (not enough time).

The shape of the ANC off trace, below 100-120Hz, might make you think that I’m not getting the same seal quality that you’d see on the sort of ear simulators that have been used so far to test them. We’ll see later on that, while to a moderate degree that might be the case (even though I couldn’t pinpoint to any obvious source of leakage when wearing them), even with a lot of pad compression, the bass levels when ANC is turned off never aligned with the ANC on results.

Now, let’s move on to where it gets interesting.

* Behaviour under pad compression *

A few notes first :
  • Measuring frequency response under varying degrees of pad compression affects several variables at the same time (volume of air in the front volume, foam compression, the pad's side walls deforming, etc.). Therefore it can’t be used on its own to determine the exact cause of a phenomenon for someone like me, but can provide some clues to more knowledgeable people who would then be able to test each of these variables in isolation if possible or derive hypotheses. So think of it as a test that points towards directions for further investigation, not the cause in itself of the phenomena you obverse.
  • I manually applied varying degrees of pad compression while running sweeps. Because of that method, the traces can be quite a bit noisy at lower frequencies. So I won’t show data below 70Hz.
  • It isn’t possible to compress the pads by a precise amount each time. So what I tend to do is take a lot of individual measurements (north of 20) and then select 4-5 representative traces out of the total.
  • A corollary of that caveat is that the way to read these graphs is to avoid looking at the magnitude (dB), but rather focus on trends / directions, the shape of the traces, and the relative changes in SPL for different parts of the spectrum.
  • These are individual traces, not normalised, without averaging.
Let’s start with a long detour. We’ll circle back to the ML5909 eventually.

As a primer, that’s typically how a fully open, passive dynamic (HD650) behaves under varying degrees of pad compression :

HD650 comp.jpg


The blue trace is how they perform when they naturally sit on my head. The red traces show increasing levels of pad compression.
@solderdude has published an interesting article on earpads where you’ll find plenty of compression traces, including for the HD650 :

A better way (for what follows) to represent these results, I think, is to compensate the blue trace to a flat line at 0, and only show the difference between it and the red traces :

HD650 comp diff.jpg


If the lines stay flat, it means that the sound colouration / balance doesn't change as the pads are compressed, only the SPL rises.
These fully open dynamic headphones are quite constant below 3kHz or so in my limited experience.

A typical closed front volume / closed back like the K371 may show less linearity as the SPL rises under pad compression, but for this model it’s still quite linear below 3kHz, as long as you have a good seal (which I had for the blue trace) :

K371 comp diff..jpg


Now, this is how two ANC headphones (Bose QC45, Sony H910N) behave in ANC off or passive (wired) modes :

QC45 ANC OFF comp diff copy.jpg
H910N ANC OFF comp diff copy.jpg


These two ANC headphones seem to have been designed in quite a similar way. There seems to be a null point where variation in pad compression doesn’t change the SPL much (around 1.5kHz, black arrow). Below that point the variation in SPL is quite smooth. Above that point the variation is quite wild. This is not the case for all ANC headphones when ANC is turned off or in passive mode, but I suspect that in particular all Bose ANC HPs stick to that approach quite religiously.

In both cases the raw measurements when ANC is turned off are quite poor.

What happens when you engage the ANC ? Well, the feedback mechanism springs into action :

QC45 ANC ON comp diff copy.jpg
H910N ANC ON comp diff copy.jpg


I think that it tries to deliver an exact dB value at your eardrum for a specific input value. As you can see, in the range where it operates, it nullifies (in the case of the QC45) or at least makes more linear (H910N) the variation in SPL, and delivers a more or less constant SPL, regardless of the amount of pad compression that’s going on.

You might have noticed that the QC45 successfully maintained the SPL constant up to the “null point” mentioned above (which I guess, in the case of Bose headphones, is located very deliberately right above where the feedback range stops). This means that, when ANC is engaged, it can basically deliver a constant response up to 1-1.5kHz. On the other hand the H910N’s feedback mechanism seems to stop operating at around 500Hz.

And here’s the rather interesting bit for the H910N : in the range above where the feedback mechanism stops operating, but below 1.5kHz or so, when ANC is engaged, a similar amount of pad compression (which you can determine by matching the compression traces above 1.5kHz) results in more SPL than when ANC is off, as if the active filtering was amplifying the effect of the compression, instead of reducing it :

H910N ANC OFF vs ANC ON under similar compression copy.jpg


This overshoot does not occur with the QC45 :

QC45 ANC OFF vs ANC on under similar compression copy.jpg


* So, how does the Mark Levinson 5909 behave - at least the sample I tried, on my head - under pad compression ? *

When ANC is turned off (wireless) :

ML5909 ANC OFF comp diff.jpg


It seems to behave more like the K371 than the QC45 and H910N. Perhaps as a by-product of the intent to have them perform well when used passively ?
You can also see that seal was only a minor issue.

When ANC is turned on, in the “low” mode (I didn’t have the time to check the other modes) :

ML5909 ANC ON LOW comp diff. copy.jpg


I think you’re starting to see something that should already look familiar :

ML5909 ANC OFF vs ANC ON under similar compression copy 2.jpg


Now, we’re going to do a bit of Room EQ Wizard trace arithmetics acrobatics so please bear with me.

Let’s divide the ANC on results with the ANC off results, for either no compression (blue), or two matched (between ANC on and off, above 1.5kHz) pairs of compression traces (red) :

ANClow vs ANCoff various degrees of similar compression copy.jpg


I normalised the traces at 4kHz as this is where the SPL varies the least with pad compression, and far above the range where active filtering occurs.

If there were no difference between the ANC on and off results, you’d see a flat line at zero.

That isn’t the case (cf first graph, even without pad compression), and you can see that as pad compression rises, the difference between the modes increases, following a certain trend :
  • In the 150-600Hz region, as pad compression increases, ANC on reduces SPL relative to ANC off.
  • In the 600-1500Hz region, as pad compression increases, ANC on increases the SPL relative to ANC off. In other words, the more the compression, the more the overshoot.
Now let’s take a look at Resolve and SoundstageSolo’s measurements, both performed, unless I’m mistaken, on the same ear simulator (GRAS 43AG + KB5000 pinna) :

Resolve and Brent results.jpg


Resolve’s in fancy fuchsia, Brent’s in fashionable turquoise. Solid lines either “passive” (Resolve) or ANC off (SoundstageSolo). Dotted lines ANC “high” (SoundstageSolo, similar FR for me as “low”), or ANC unknown (Resolve).

Plotting the difference between ANC on and ANC off for each set of measurements :

ANCon vs ANCoff Resolve+SoundstageSolo.jpg


This isn’t a perfect match for the trends observed under increasing degrees of pad compression seen above, but I think that there might be something there. Among other factors (it’s entirely possible the firmware update did indeed affect the results), are we also seeing the effect of varying degrees of pad compression here - or at minima a different “value”, between Resolve and SoundstageSolo's tests, for at least one of the variables that are affected by pad compression ?

Besides, the difference between their measurements above 1.5kHz, ie above the range where active filtering occurs, seems to also share a fairly similar shape and trends to the ones I obtain when I increase pad compression, even when we’re dealing with totally different systems (ear simulators measuring at DRP with a flat plate around the pinna, vs. my own anatomy and blocked ear canal entrance mics). Which, theoretically we shouldn’t compare, particularly at higher frequencies, but let’s be unreasonable for a while :

High frequencies differences.jpg


If I divide my own results between the traces with the maximum amount of compression and the traces as they sit on my head, for both ANC off and ANC on, normalised at 4kHz, and compare the results with the ones obtained by dividing SoundstageSolo’s results by Resolve’s, we get this :

High frequencies in-ear mics, difference compMAX vs. no compression.jpg
High frequencies diff Brent vs Resolve.jpg


I’m probably really stretching it here I think. But is the trend towards a broad elevation around 6-8kHz, and the rather similar shape (albeit with frequencies offset a little bit) merely a coincidence, or indeed caused by one of the variables affected by pad compression ?
I would be surprised that this range would have been affected by the 1.5.0.4 firmware update, and let’s remember that both SoundstageSolo and Resolve used the same pinna.

So, to sum it up, while the 1.5.0.4 firmware update may have reduced the disparities between the various modes, it could also be that some of the difference observed between Resolve's and SoundstageSolo's results is the product of at least one of the variables affected by pad compression being different between their respective tests.

Given the design of the GRAS 43AG rig, it might simply be a question of different levels of pad compression during testing indeed, but I wouldn’t directly go to that conclusion without further details, and I've never manipulated such a fixture.

How I personally experienced them in terms of consistency between modes seems to be an in-between hybrid with some unique characteristics (here using the same data I used for the first graph in this post, without pad compression) :

ANC on vs off everyone.jpg


As I wrote, pad compression merely is a proxy to test for several variables at the same time, so it’s difficult to know exactly why in my case I get these results. It might be the case, for example, that even with a similar amount of pad compression, the front volume of a pair of headphones may vary slightly between ear simulators and individuals because of geometry around the pinna. And perhaps we can't rule out sample variation. Or the pads' age. Etc.

This is why I don’t think that some of these measurements are “wrong”. Maybe they just simply illustrate the sort of variability we can expect between ear simulators and individuals or between individuals ?

And perhaps also tell us how mindbogglingly difficult it might be to design a pair of ANC over-ears ?
 

RJO

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
30
Likes
15
I got mine and have been listening to Tidal with BT LDAC, ANC Low, paired to a Shanling M8 DAP. There's treble sharpness in the upper region that is concerning and needs EQ. I developed ear fatigue after 30 mins of listening to different genres at med to low volume.

On the plus side, it's well balanced with nice tonality; even at low volume it has good bass definition. It might be due to the beryllium drivers and DSP, resulting to this nice dynamic range at any volume level?

I'll have to give it more time before deciding whether to keep it but I hope another firmware update will come out soon to tame that treble region or, at least, revise the app to include treble control. That's my 2 cents.
 

Hephaestus

Active Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
233
Likes
495
Location
Rapture
Just like @RJO I received mine. Initial observations:

-Tonal balance is subjectively very good BUT that high treble peak has to be fixed via software update to make these truly great
-ANC is very effective and the related background hiss is not too bad
-Multipoint connection seems to work between 2 devices
-On-head detection does not work with Apple Music on iPhone but is does work on PC & Deezer
-Wearing comfort is good

All in all this is solid product that needs some TLC via software updates.
 
Top Bottom