The humble Topping A70 Pro does it all. Following amplifier design breakthroughs in the late 2010s via nested feedback/composite amplifiers, Topping has adopted this technology to produce amps that provide not only the best technical performance, but they do so at low prices and while being compact. What we're seeing here is the typical evolution of electronics: improved performance, efficiency, smaller size, and lower price. No more need to spend thousands on the best headphone amp, which is hard to believe for some.

So it was time for me to upgrade and try some new equipment. The A70 Pro is really their flagship headphone amp, despite the presence of an A90 and A90 Discrete which are older.

The A70 Pro is packaged like other recent Topping products. It features a display which is a recent design update for Topping models. This is a nice improvement for me, as I'm used to having old school gear without any digital features like this.

The display has multiple modes, including a cute little VU meter which actually has an adjustable scale.


The A70 Pro features one set of SE inputs, one set of balanced inputs, one set of SE outputs, and one set of balanced outputs. It also has their ground loop lifting switch, a USB-C cable to connect to a computer (as a storage device) for easy firmware upgrades, and 12v trigger capability. Mine already came with the latest 2.02 firmware. For headphone outputs you get a 6.35mm SE, 4.4mm balanced, and XLR balanced. You can enable/disable each input/output individually, or have them all active. You can also disable the headphone outs and just use it as a preamp, or vice versa. The functionality of this device is great.
With the A70 Pro, Topping is sort of competing with themselves again. It costs less than the A90 and A90 Discrete and outperforms them, most of all in power output - the A70 Pro is the more powerful amp. It also has a newer interface than them. It also costs less than their Pre90 preamp which has minimal benefits: lower output impedance (20 vs 50 ohm SE and 40 vs 100 ohm balanced) and better crosstalk spec, but neither difference is huge on paper. The Pre90 has around 32 more steps of volume control which is honestly irrelevant, but the A70 Pro has two explicit gain settings unlike the Pre90 which has no explicit gain control.

Curiously enough, the $350 Topping L70 preamp has lower output impedance than the A70 Pro's preamp which is an improvement, granted it shouldn't make any difference realistically as both are low. In any case, the A70 Pro makes it impossible to recommend the Pre90.

As a headphone amp, I tested the A70 Pro with my SMSL SU-X DAC feeding it a 5.2v balanced signal, and the Dan Clark Audio E3 headphones in balanced mode. Although the E3 is rated at 90 dB/mW, low gain is the best option for this matchup, as low gain is still 6 dB. High gain is only for the very low sensitivity headphones of the world such as the HiFiMan HE-6, SUSVARA, and Mod House Tungsten. Note that there's no very low gain mode of 0 dB let alone negative values, so the A70 Pro is not ideal for very sensitive, low impedance headphones like IEMs.

With the AKG K371 or ETA Mini Closed in SE mode, I barely raise the volume in this stack. A lower gain mode would be ideal for them, but with such headphones you just don't need an amplifier of this caliber.


This amp is dead silent, and has tons of headroom with the E3 even on low gain. I did some blind testing comparisons between the A70 Pro and HeadAmp GS-X Mini. One huge, obvious advantage manifested when trying to level match them before the testing. I made the mistake of ordering the GS-X mini with the 24-step DACT stepped attenuator. I like the guarantee of perfect channel matching, since there's a luck of the draw factor here with potentiometers, but never order a measly 24-step attenuator. I can't get my ideal volume out of the GS-X Mini + E3 without resorting to small digital volume adjustments.

So for the blind tests, I just listened at a slightly lower level than I'm used to, and then did another shorter round of blind testing at a higher level than I'm used to, as uncomfortable as this was since with just 24 steps, each step is huge. Compared to the lovely ~200 0.5 dB steps of the A70 Pro, which likewise grants perfect channel matching since it's a relay switched R2R design that works with the remote control. This type of volume control is a requirement for me.

In either blind test, the A70 Pro and GS-X Mini sounded indistinguishable after many rounds on separate days.

I can't really ask for anything else from the A70 Pro, but I also don't have a Mod House Tungsten to test with it. In any case, I haven't encountered any issues with the A70 Pro.

As a preamp and ultra powerful headphone amp, you get the greatest performance in the industry at this power level, for a mid tier price in a fairly compact package, thanks to recent advancements in amplifier design. Now is a good time to let go of old school, huge, expensive audio electronics, as price/performance keeps increasing with these new products.

Update 1/22/24 - lowered my score to 2 as mine can no longer reliably power on and I'm working on returning it. So now, it does live up to its name! My original 5 star review is preserved below.

This DAC will always stand out for its name, but it sure doesn't sux! The SMSL SU-X does almost everything most people would want from a DAC, unless you want built-in room correction or EQ functionality - this isn't present, though it does have two sets of coloration options: one via the many filter options, the other via presets like the three "tube" presets which have rather subtle impact.

You can't actually make this sound like a tube DAC, which is interesting since such coloration is possible with EQ to some extent.

Personally I'm not interested in coloration options from a DAC, so I just use the linear fast filter and no coloration preset. Like this, the SU-X gives you the ultimate transparency, though it is admittedly overkill compared to their lower priced options like the SU-9 Pro for half the price. Neither DAC will be the bottleneck in your system.

The SU-X employs 2x ESS Sabre ES9039MSPRO. This DAC IC doesn't have the signature Sabre IMD hump, so the performance of this chip is unrivaled. 5.2v output over XLR results in this (and the Topping equivalent) being the SINAD, dynamic range, IMD king of DACs. This may also result in you having to use a lower volume setting as few DACs outside of these two brands have such high output voltage.


I've had no issues with any of the functionality of the DAC. The display is small, but I have no need to look at it. You can have the display turn off as well. The volume readout at least has a large font size, so that's easily legible from mid field listening. I was surprised that the edges of the device are rather sharp, enough to break skin. I don't think the Topping is like this, so that's another point for Topping over this.

This DAC is also quite compact for a flagship, especially considering it contains two linear power supplies (which don't result in better noise performance than the Topping counterpart which uses SMPS). For reference, here it is next to a Bricasti M1 SE, which also contains two DAC chips (Analog Devices AD1955 - only two channels vs the two eight channel DACs in the SU-X with summed outputs) but three linear power supplies. There's a tradeoff here: the SMSL is far smaller, but the Bricasti's physical separation of the two channels (they're on separate PCBs) likely results in better crosstalk, but the difference is totally inaudible.

Comparing the two, there's no audible difference in either of the two systems I've tested. The first uses DSP controlled monitors, so the analog signal ends up being converted back to digital and then back to analog - the purpose of the DAC here is to get me better volume control (analog via a preamp) instead of controlling volume digitally which is harmful to sound quality. In the headphone system (DAC -> Topping A70 Pro -> Dan Clark Audio E3), I also couldn't identify any differences between the two DACs in blind testing. This makes sense given the limitations imposed by the amplifiers in both systems - neither DAC is the bottleneck. Flat frequency response from both, lower distortion and noise than I can hear, and I avoid the gentle slope digital filers in both.

DACs have come a long way. If you're looking for a DAC with the absolute best performance and aren't in need of built-in features like advanced EQ or headphone amp, the SMSL SU-X fits the bill, but admittedly so does the Topping counterpart which costs $100 less. I chose the SU-X instead for the USB-C input, looks, and the name.

PS: If you want the best named headphone system, get yourself an SMSL SU-X DAC + a Schiit headphone amplifier + a HEDD HEDDphone Two, thus becoming a true Schiithedd that sux.

Headphones have come a long way.

I can't say anything that hasn't already been said about the E3. I'll just briefly discuss the journey that led me to it and give my subjective impressions of it.

I was searching for a new closed back headphone to go with my Chord Mojo 2, and recently I tried many: ZMF Eikon, HiFiMan Sundara closed, AKG K371, ETA Mini Closed, Focal Celestee (between this and the Utopia, it didn't seem necessary to try the Stellia and none were available for me to try easily), plus I've listened to the Audeze LCD-XC (though not the latest revision), Fostex TH900, many others though I never had the opportunity to listen to the DCA Stealth. But the DCA Stealth was simply out of my price range, so it wasn't a contender.

During my search, the DCA E3 released along with all the reviews. What timing! I had a vacation coming up in a few days and my closed back headphone search wasn't yet complete, and the E3 launched at the perfect time. Based on the reviews and taking advantage of good return policies, I bought it from my local store. After listening to those first few songs, it was clear I was hearing performance I had never heard before from a headphone.

Digging up the conversation I was having with a friend online when first listening to the E3, it went like this: "This is clearly the best headphone I'm testing, but it doesn't make the K371 sound terrible." You see, I was hoping it wouldn't blow me away, since I wanted to spend under $1k on a headphone. But then I said, "How on earth is the treble so clean? This doesn't make sense" Followed by, "This is amazing." From there I was pretty much speechless. This was all over the course of 2 hours, at which point it was clear I would not be returning it even though I had spent around 4x what I assumed I'd spend.


At home, I listen to music on active 3-way monitors: ADAM Audio S3V and I did the best I could with my listening room to maintain its linear frequency response thanks to Dirac Live digital room correction. I want maximum accuracy from my audio systems... except maybe with somewhat elevated sub-bass. Prior to the DCA E3, my favorite headphone was the Stax SR-009 which I had owned with a KGSSHV Carbon. That blew me away, but only the DCA E3 at all reminds me of listening to music on my S3V.

The main reason for this is its frequency response which is similar between the two systems: in my room, even with the EQ the S3V still has a bit of a spike centered on 50 Hz. The E3 is mostly neutral, but with an elevated bass response to the Harman 2018 preference curve - the frequency response that Harman has discovered satisfies the highest amount of people.

So the E3's general tonality is: a bit "warm", strong dynamics (bass slams and rumbles the headphone), very articulated highs, superb extension in both directions. "Warm" referring to the elevated bass response that ends at just after 150 Hz, which results in most people hearing a closer, more "forward" presentation (opposed to distant) presumably caused by being able to more strongly hear the lower frequencies in everything.

But also the sound stage presentation of the E3 is weirdly speaker-like - not to delve into hyperbole, but it just has this centered presentation that reminds me of listening to my speakers. This, combined with its stellar full range performance (no bottom or top frequency weirdness nor rolloff here), and the unusually clean treble performance blew my mind.

To date, I find it difficult to wrap my head around how clean its treble performance is! I've never heard anything like it from a headphone. I can't wait to try the Expanse and especially Corina some day just to sate my curiosity.


Never before have I heard such linear and clean treble performance from a headphone - headphones always do something wrong here (even if it's a pleasant exaggeration or pleasant recession), but with the E3 I can't find any real faults. Measurements do show a resonance of sorts after 10 KHz, but using tone generators I don't hear anything that really stands out.

During my comparisons to the aforementioned headphones (especially the dynamic driver ones: Focal Celestee, ETA Mini Closed, AKG K371), I was doing my best to pay attention to the "dynamics" since some claimed the DCA Stealth is lacking here. Some claim lackluster performance in this area (without clearly defining what they mean) is an attribute of highly damped, neutral, planar magnetic headphones like these. I don't know about that, but I can say I noticed no difference in dynamics. The E3 does not have a "softer" presentation, nor is it lacking in bass slam compared to those. No, if there's any high end headphone lineup I've heard with what I perceive to be reduced dynamics, it's the HiFiMan HE1000s with their recessed upper mids and flat bass response, creating a more "distant" sound presentation which has its appeal too.

But you can feel the headphone rumble in bassy tracks with the E3. It slams. The dynamics are no weaker to me compared to the above dynamic headphones.


The E3 is the least congested sounded closed back headphone I've heard, with surprisingly good spatial properties and it really excels at separation. It really outclassed every other closed back headphone I tested recently, and has overall surpassed every headphone I've heard period due to its evenness and articulation across the entire spectrum. But I look forward to doing more comparisons going forward. I have no need for EQ with this headphone, and it really was a revelation in headphone listening for me. I didn't want to spend $2k or even $1k on a headphone, but you win Dan Clark. I had to have this.

After some time, I finally got around to experimenting with EQ. Not that I felt it was necessary, but just for curiosity's sake. I started by creating an EQ preset that adheres to the Harman linear in-room response; this is the neutral headphone response curve, it's what Harman's research says is an average representation of what people hear with a flat/linear speaker frequency response.

Using TechPowerUp's VSG database, this is what I came up with. Note, this graph doesn't show my actual target curve (Harman linear in-room) since TechPowerUp doesn't reference it. Also, this is an imperfect EQ because I'm not taking measurements of my E3. It will give me a general idea of how this tuning sounds though.


All of this EQ'd listening was done using Equalizer APO + Peace on my home system, consisting of an SMSL SU-X DAC and Topping A70 Pro amplifier, all balanced, using low gain on the amplifier as that's most appropriate for the E3 between its two gain options (6 dB in this case).

Switching back and forth between this EQ preset and stock, what a difference! And with no audible distortion penalties! The E3 is a chameleon. With this EQ, it becomes considerably less forward. The "warmth" is totally gone, so I'm no longer hearing nearly as much bass frequencies in vocals, instruments, etc, giving the illusion of everything being further away. The slam is also gone, the headphone no longer rumbles in bassy tracks. Definitely not my preference.

If I add some 1-3 KHz recession, then I suspect this will sound like a better HE1000 series headphone to me thanks to more linear treble. That's not to my taste though, and I don't have one on hand to compare.

I also experimented with just those 5.25 KHz and 6.5 KHz filters on their own, which made no audible difference to me. Then I did some listening with that low shelf filter turned down to -4 dB instead of -9-10 dB (and perhaps one other filter to flatten it more), which aligned the bass response with TechPowerUp's illustrated curve in that graph. That made for the expected subtle change: a bit less warmth, but not enough to make a noticeable change in perceived forwardness, and not much of a change in slam or dynamics.

The main point here is, because of how excellent the E3's technical performance is (low distortion, lack of problematic phase errors/reflections/resonances, and no major FR oddities by default), using PEQ you can really transform it into many different headphones. From forward and dynamic to distant and neutral, laid back treble character shouldn't be a problem either (I didn't try this). But I'll be going forward without any EQ.


Moving on, in my closed back headphone search, portability was a significant factor. I only really use headphones for on the go listening, and ones that fold and come with a fitted case have a huge advantage here. My AKG K371 and ETA Mini Closed fold, but I can't find a fitted hard case for them - all the cases I can find are way bigger than necessary which is harder to pack. The E3 solves that issue. Despite its large drivers and cups, it folds very compact and the case is perfectly fitted, making it very easy to pack.


I will keep an eye on the synthetic leather condition over time, hopefully I won't be disappointed. The comfort is perfect for me; the self-adjusting headband is the best design I've come across. Note that due to the size of the cups and the space inside the ear pads, you can move this headphone around to adjust the sound signature slightly (brighter/bassier depending on position). Gorilla glass isn't my preferred material though due to the fingerprints, but I don't let it bother me.

The E3 isolates you from your surroundings fairly well as it is fully circumaural and has a nice moderate clamp (not enough for soreness, but also not enough to remain in place when you move/turn your head). It is no champion in sound leakage but it's also not unusable here; when right next to an E3 user, you might hear loud bass notes, but you won't continuously hear music playing from my experience.

As for power requirements, the E3 isn't highly sensitive but it also isn't very demanding. I use it with a Chord Mojo 2 and I never have to push the volume past the green color range which is far from the maximum. But to drive this point home, I got a second DCA VIVO cable with XLR termination to use on my old home system: Bricasti M1 SE DAC + HeadAmp GS-X Mini combo. I didn't blind test this since I have no way to conveniently switch between both systems (headphone has to be unplugged, recabled, and plugged in elsewhere), but I couldn't reliably pinpoint any differences between either system.

So many high priced headphones sound off and disappointing to me whether due to blatant sub-bass rolloff, high frequency recession or rolloff, weird peaks and/or dips in the frequency response, weird resonances, but I find that the E3 is a rare exception that is actually worth its price.

I saw the HE-R9 on sale and decided to pick it up directly from HiFiMan, since HiFiMan often has headphones that hit far above their price range, like the HE-500 towards the end of its life, the Sundara especially, and supposedly the latest Deva which I have yet to try. Unfortunately, that same level of excellence isn't apparent here. I've tested it only wired out of a much higher end system than it was intended for.

The HE-R9 is pretty, plasticky but lightweight as a result. Ultimately it's an extremely dark headphone with very bloated mid-bass and an absence of treble - which I suppose is better than boosted treble, but it's a deficiency nonetheless. It does at least have sub-bass, unlike cheaper bass-bloated headphones, so it's a capable headphone but in my opinion "tuned" poorly. More in the realm of some Denon headphones of past perhaps.

If you're after a bass-emphasized headphone, you can do better than this even for its $369 sale price, but especially for its normal price, although you'll be sacrificing wireless capability. Argon's modified Fostex T50rp and presumably T60 headphones are much better balanced - dark and bassy, with noticeably superior sub-bass with less obnoxious mid-bass bloat and overall better bass performance, at a slight cost of resolution perhaps. Higher end modified T50rp-based headphones like the ZMF Blackwood and perhaps something from MrSpeakers (now Dan Clark Audio) far outperform this, though they can only be found used now. Look into Dan Clark's current AEON options; I'm unsure how they compare but definitely look into them before buying the HE-R9.

Here is the brief story of the first time I listened to the HiFiMan Sundara: I sat down in a very quiet storefront to audition both this and the Final Audio D8000 Pro Edition ($4,299 very efficient planar) side by side on a Chord Hugo 2. I had no real expectations for anything, I was just satisfying my own curiosity. Lo and behold, it was a crushing victory for the $350 Sundara over the $4,300 D8000 Pro.

The D8000's bass was very muddy in comparison, like listening to a mid range dynamic headphone at best. Decay was slow in comparison, again like a low to mid range dynamic headphone. The D8000's attack is just not crisp or clear at all. The D8000 also exhibited the stereotypical planar upper mid range recession that makes vocals sound weird, as if trapped in a vacuum with no air whatsoever, though this effect wasn't quite as strong on the D8000 as it is on most Audeze headphones. The treble response of the D8000 was also uneven in comparison, not terribly offensive but was not as linear.

So the $4,300 planar sounded like a mid range dynamic headphone next to the Sundara. Don't blame the wonderful Chord Hugo 2 for this either, it has plenty of power for both headphones. The D8000 is the more efficient one at 98 dB/mW, though its impedance is 60 ohm. The Sundara is 94 dB/mW at 37 ohm. And yes, the Sundara was dominant in this comparison with its stock cable from HiFiMan.

In all fairness, it won't fair so well in technical attributes versus other flagships. For me it easily defeats everything from Audeze but that's due to frequency response preference - Audeze's sucked out upper mids/lower treble ruins everything for me.


The Sundara is a single sided planar magnetic headphone. Make sure you don't buy a pre-2020 version; you do not want those fragile 2.5mm headphone connectors. Since 2020, they've used 3.5mm connectors instead. Not as nice as Audeze connectors, which I wish were industry standard, but an improvement for sure.

The headphone frame, yokes and cups are all metal. The cups swivel and are stiff to do so. It uses a suspension headband design which I prefer for minimizing the amount of weight on the top of your head. The headstrap and pads are pleather, and the pads have a nice surface texture. Long term durability of pleather is always questionable, we'll see how this one does in that regard. (Dec 2023 update: never had any issues)

There are still reported build quality concerns for the Sundara, but nothing I have experienced first hand yet, so at the moment I can't make any such complaints. The cable quality is like other HiFiMan headphones - it is a generic cable, not meant to be anything more than that. It didn't prevent it from outclassing the Final Audio D8000 Pro in my comparison. The quality of the cable tends to be exaggerated by some.

This is a relatively light planar, being well under 400g. The adjustment range is plenty for most, the suspension headband does its job, and the pads aren't too tight for my ears, so there are no comfort issues. It is light and doesn't squeeze my head or ears. It's a tiny bit heavier than the HiFiMan HE-5XX, but because the Sundara has a suspension headband design and the HE-5XX does not, the HE-5XX starts to fatigue the top of my head somewhere after an hour of listening, while the Sundara never does.


I would describe the Sundara's sound signature as this: well rounded but on the laid back side, clearly designed to not be fatiguing, but thankfully at the same time it achieves this without blatant upper mid/lower treble recession (like many planars do, and this is not even good at avoiding a fatiguing signature) and without a blatant lack of treble extension. The Sundara is not as forward as other HiFiMans. It isn't ideal for mixing/mastering.

For this review, I'm driving it with a Bricasti M1 SE DAC and HeadAmp GS-X Mini. I've also compared it in single ended with the stock cable vs balanced with a Norne Audio Drausk series 17.7awg cable. Single ended makes the GS-X Mini more like the Gilmore Lite Mk2 with the PSU upgrade. But the Sundara will sound good even out of a Chord Mojo or JDS stack, it is not a hard headphone to drive at all.

Bass: I hear the bass kick in at around 20 Hz in bass sweep tests. Most other headphones at this price point don't go this low. Same for the bass clarity; dynamic headphone bass (e.g. Sennheiser HD 6XX, AKG K7xx, Beyerdynamic DT 880) is often soft and/or muddy in comparison.

But the bass is noticeably less forward than other HiFiMans like the HE-5XX. It is still not soft and can deliver satisfying impact when needed. There's no mid bass bloom or hump, but it needs more sub-bass to achieve at least the common linear bass response of planars, much less the elevated one from the Harman curve.

Mids: The Sundara really hits above its price here, especially with complex, well recorded and mastered classical music. It keeps its composure, is competent in separation and imaging while retaining full bodied sound for all instruments.

Smooth upper mids, something many headphones in this price point struggle with - no offensive grain or harshness in the upper mids, no classic planar recession here either. Comparatively, the Sennheiser HD 650/HD 6XX is a grainy mess in the upper mids, but images more precisely. The HE-5XX is more forward in comparison, and has slight upper mid recession resulting in less "air". Vocals sound very authentic.

When comparing balanced to single ended, going back to single ended reveals a tiny bit of grain in the upper mids which balanced smooths out.

Treble: So many headphones fall apart here at any price point. I'm not the type of listener who finds treble that's not horribly recessed to be too bright either, ultimately lots of equipment is just lacking in treble extension and many headphones have uneven treble responses, but no such issues manifest with the Sundara. The treble has a laid back character, but not one that sacrifices "air" or extension - I hear it extend up to 18 KHz in treble sweep tests, which is probably the new limit of my hearing.

Although laid back, this doesn't result in anything sounding thin to my ears. Probably the most tonally similar treble I've heard comes from HiFiMAn's HE1000s but I'm relying on memory from years ago for this. You won't find many people call the Sundara fatiguing because of its treble character, but it still sounds capable with rock and metal music, unlike the HD 650/HD 6XX which are way out of their element there.

The Sundara's treble is more laid back overall than that of the HE-5XX, and certainly more than the HE-560 v2, while having better quality than both. So I take no issue with the Sundara's treble presentation; it is not my favorite ever, as I don't prefer a laid back character, but it is able to portray everything authentically to my ears regardless, just as if the treble is placed further behind on stage so to speak.

Sound Stage/Imaging: It's competent but not incredible here, embarrassed the D8000 though. My balanced chain significantly improves separation.

The Sundara places you a few rows back compared to the HE-500/HE-5XX, HE-560s, Audezes, and many other planars. In this regard it is more like the HE1000s I've heard (v1 and I think v2 but not SE). The sound stage can get wide if needed and is able to envelop me and portray things as if sounding centered, something every other sub $1,000 headphone I've listened to hasn't been able to do well.


Definitely listen to this headphone, it is really impressive for the price. As far as planars go, I rank it above the modded HE-6 and the Audeze LCD-4 I've owned, and it's not even close for the latter!

The GS-X Mini is around 95% of the GS-X Mk2. I can't honestly recommend spending beyond this for a headphone amp. Same basic amp circuit as the GS-X Mk2 but "only" 1 power supply instead of 2, but this is still plenty of power even for the likes of the HiFiMan HE-6 as long as you're using the balanced output.

At the moment I don't have any extremely difficult to drive headphones; only the HiFiMan Sundara, HE-5XX and ZMF Eikon, and I'm using the Bricasti M1 SE DAC with Kimber Kable Hero XLR interconnects. But I've had a very similar amp in the past - the Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar. Unsurprisingly, the GS-X Mini strongly reminds me of it, albeit with more power it seems.

Designed to provide minimum distortion and brutally honest performance, this amp makes it very easy to evaluate other components in your system. It is extremely transparent, and to my estimation has no real weaknesses. No grainy top end, no smothered, soft bass, everything is as it should be.

The GS-X Mini has two gain modes, so it is not the most flexible amp ever, but this should be sufficient for at least 95% of what's out there. It can serve as an active preamp and has a toggle switch for this function. It delivers balanced output even with single ended input; I believe it uses Nelson Pass' super symmetry design to accomplish this. Balanced input is still ideal with this design but it can deliver great results with single ended input.

The choices of front panel color and volume control solution are nice too; I've opted for satin red and the DACT attenuator, even though I knew it was only the 24 count attenuator and not the 48 count one (or another alternative like Acoustic Dimension 41 step, Goldpoint v47, or KHOZMO 64 step), which provides a much more reasonable amount of volume control. Also, the size of the amp is very convenient, far smaller than my old Pure BiPolar.

When using it as intended (balanced output), compared to a good single ended solution like the Chord Hugo 2, or even compared to its own single ended output which I suppose makes it almost equal to the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite Mk2 + PSU upgrade, expect to see some very obvious improvements - much clearer, harder bass, far better stereo separation and imaging, and if you were struggling for power before (e.g. HiFiMan HE-6 or SUSVARA), then probably a much clearer top end as well. A top quality balanced amp like this is really a must for planars I think.

Not only is the Chord Hugo 2 simply the best portable DAC/amp on the market right now and simply one of the best DACs I've heard to date (tested only with headphone systems), surpassing much bigger, heavier, balanced DACs to my ears.

Reviewing a DAC might seem tricky at first, but I don't believe it will be for the Hugo 2 since I have something to compare it to directly. The improvements it adds to most systems I've used is night and day. I will write about the Hugo 2's sound in the following systems:

• Standalone portable DAC/amp powering the ZMF Ori and Blackwood headphones.
• DAC for the following headphone system: Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar amp, Audeze LCD-4 headphones (200 ohms version), Kimber Kable Hero interconnects
• DAC for the following headphone system: Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon amp, Stax SR-009 headphones, Kimber Kable Hero interconnects

Other DACs of note I have owned are the Bel Canto DAC 3 (used only in balanced mode), Chord Mojo, and Denafrips Venus (used only in balanced mode). An interesting sample set as the Bel Canto DAC 3 represents a high end, more traditional delta sigma DAC, and the Denafrips Venus represents one of the better R2R DACs one can buy and offers both NOS and OS modes.


I will not delve too much into how to use the device; it is button controlled but also has a remote control that I have never used. It has a 3.5mm coaxial input (44.1kHz – 384kHz – 16bit – 32bit), micro USB input (44.1kHz – 768kHz – 16bit – 32bit), optical TOSLINK input (44.1kHz – 192kHz – 16bit – 24bit), and bluetooth (44.1kHz – 48kHz – 16bit). It also supports dual BNC input via adapters using its 3.5mm coaxial input (44.1kHz – 768kHz – 16bit – 32bit). It also supports DSD64 (Single) to DSD512 (Octa-DSD). I have tested only optical TOSLINK (fed by a Breeze DU-U8 level 3) and USB directly from a Samsung Galaxy S9+, and I hear no difference.

The Chord Hugo 2 is battery powered (2x Rechargeable custom Enix Energies 3.7v 9.6Wh Li-ion (lithium-ion (2600mAh) batteries) which is charged using its other micro USB input. You can keep it plugged in without worry of overcharging, the Hugo 2 is a very intelligent device. It will even automatically set itself into a desktop mode if left plugged in for 24 hours, during which the battery neither charges nor discharges and auto shutoff is disabled.

It can be set to line level output which is fixed at 3v RMS, which is ideal if using it only as a DAC. The Hugo 2 features two headphone jacks (1/4" and 1/8") and dual RCA outputs, and the output stage is pure class A.


The Hugo 2 is a neutral sounding device that is extremely transparent and resolving, and capable of great dynamics. Not laid back at all like NOS R2R DACs or the Chord Mojo, it does not refrain from making all details extremely obvious. And it is a bass monster; if you are upgrading to the Hugo 2, expect a new body of bass dimension and much more bass slam to be added.

Of all the DACs I have owned (refer to the significant ones listed above), the Hugo 2 is the bassiest of them all, and it is not artificial bass boost, it is simply not recessing these frequencies. It sounds closest in tonality to the Bel Canto DAC 3, while the Chord Mojo and Denafrips Venus are both notably laid back with 1-2 KHz less treble extension (the DAC 3 also has 1-2 KHz less treble extension but isn't laid back sounding).

Those trying to create a laid back sound system (which is very common among high end audio enthusiasts) will have to plan around the Hugo 2 not being laid back whatsoever. I don't call it bright, it's just not laid back.

So it is neutral, extremely transparent and resolving, and has awesome bass. What else? It also has zero noise floor, breathtakingly clean treble performance when the rest of the system can keep up (this is very important), and incredibly full bodied, weighty, impactful sound for all instruments unlike every other DAC I have owned.

Strings, piano, wind instruments, horns, everything sounds and feels as if there is no barrier between me and them, as if they are right there in front of me and I can reach out and touch them - this is of course with the Stax SR-009, KGSSHV Carbon, and Kimber Kable Hero interconnects. The attack is so quick and crisp and clean, the decay is much faster, adding to the transparency, snappiness, speed, and PRaT. My other DACs sound sluggish and blurred in comparison.


Other noteworthy attributes of the Hugo 2's sound are incredible 3D sound stage and imaging, far outdoing every other DAC I've owned here too. This may all sound like exaggeration, that a DAC can make such huge differences, but I will clarify: the differences are much less pronounced on non-electrostatic headphone systems. But when used with my Stax SR-009 + KGSSHV Carbon system with quality analog interconnects, every aspect of the sound is infinitely better than any other DAC I have owned!

But notice my emphasis on the rest of the system being up to par. If using generic interconnects or Audioquest Evergreen interconnects in the Stax SR-009 + KGSSHV Carbon system, there is notable treble harshness and sibilance. The same would occur if I had a much lower end amplifier I assume. But, insert the Kimber Kable Hero interconnects, and the difference is night and day, pure magic. No more harshness, no more sibilance, so much more airiness and so much better bass slam and body, instrumental impact and weight, sound stage and imaging, attack, decay, transparency, treble extension.

So if you're hearing rough treble, it's not the Hugo 2's fault, it is something else in your system.

The filters do make obvious changes to the sound, sacrificing treble for all the people overly sensitive to it. Crossfeed presents an interesting sound stage that is more centered and in front of you, but with any of these filters I hear some degradation in transparency and refinement, so I use none.


When using the Hugo 2 as a standalone device, it is supremely impressive. Of the three test systems listed above, this is the 2nd most impressive (and I expected it to be most impressive here, but I was wrong). True Hi-Fi sound in your pocket, or bag more realistically. Only in the modern era do we get to carry around a top notch DAC and high end single ended class A headphone amp bundled in one device. For this reason, I have referred to the Hugo 2 as a necessity for any traveling music lover.

The Chord Hugo 2 alone allows the ZMF Ori and ZMF Blackwood, which are inefficient planar magnetic headphones, to truly shine. Compared to the Chord Mojo as a standalone device, I hear the following differences:

• Less laid back sound signature, upper mids to treble transition is more forward.
• Significantly cleaner upper mids to treble transition and treble response, better treble extension and a bit more "air".
• Greatly increased bass slam, bass is now much more full bodied and less recessed (biggest difference to me).
• Improved transparency.
• Slightly improved sound stage and imaging but nothing significant here to my ears with this system.

I felt the Hugo 2 was definitely worth the price difference vs the Mojo. Truly high end sound on the go, it's still hard to believe today how good portable sound can be nowadays.

The Hugo 2 also made my Schiit Lyr 3 at the time redundant, so I sold it. Adding the Lyr 3 to the chain with these headphones just slightly worsened the transparency of the upper frequencies if anything, not a big difference though.

But adding a good enough amp will of course come in handy. The Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar brought the ZMF Ori and Blackwood to a different level, as my reviews of those headphones describe.

Update: The Hugo 2 can also drive the ZMF Eikon with ease. The Hugo 2 + the Eikon is my new favorite portable system.

Before I sold my Stax system to move to speakers, this was the only way I use the Hugo 2 now. I don't even listen to music on the go anymore, because I've been so spoiled by the Chord Hugo 2 + Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon + Stax SR-009 + good interconnects that I no longer want to listen to anything below this.

But first, let me share my experience using the Hugo 2 with a high end non-electrostatic system, the Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar + Audeze LCD-4 using Kimber Kable Hero RCA interconnects with Neutrik RCA to XLR adapters. With this system, I compared it again to the Chord Mojo, and my impressions were... exactly the same as my impressions in the previous section, only less pronounced (and MUCH less pronounced than the differences with the Stax system).


The sound was slightly less laid back again, with improved and more forward upper mids to treble, with more "airy" sound. The bass improvements were still there, but less pronounced - it was a night and day difference before, but now not quite that. The difference in transparency was there but not as huge, sound stage and imaging improvements seemed about the same though.

I don't think the Hugo 2 is worth the price difference when using something akin to the Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar amp and Audeze LCD-4 or ZMF Ori/Blackwood headphones, but keep in mind these headphones are deliberately designed to not be the most revealing sound. A Focal Utopia with this same amp would certainly benefit more from the Hugo 2.

I suppose I got excited and already spilled the beans here, so I'll try to just fill out some remaining details. Enter the Stax SR-009, Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon, and Kimber Kable Hero interconnects (same as above). Some have noticed that I can't shut up about this combination here on Head-Fi. There's a reason for that, never before have I been blown away by an audio system or any audio upgrade that much. Not even when going from a Cooler Master "5.1" gaming headset to the AKG K7xx / Beyerdynamic DT 880, not even when comparing a Sennheiser HD 598 Cs to a Sennheiser HD 800/HD 800 S.

This Stax system is what made me really want to write this review. It makes the difference in analog interconnects and especially DACs infinitely more obvious than any non-electrostatic system.

The Chord Mojo is great for the price, but absolutely ruins this system. With the Mojo, the treble sounds like it's locked away in a cardboard box, all that air up top is trapped. Transparency is way down, many details are far less obvious, bass is gone, sound stage is now flat and two dimensional and seems to extend nowhere. Imaging is blurred and generic, the opposite of precise. And the Mojo is probably the best DAC below $1,000 (pretty sure I'd think so at least).

In this system, the Denafrips Venus sounds like a much better, cleaner version of the Chord Mojo. The Venus is in the same price range as the Hugo 2 and is a beast of engineering: isolated dual mono PSU with two huge power transformers, four 0.005% precision matched resistor ladders per channel allowing for 26-bit PCM and fully balanced 4.4v RMS output, excellent digital processing. Impressive engineering for the price.

But compared to the Hugo 2, it is too laid back, and I believe this speaks for most R2R DACs in the same price range (definitely NOS ones at least), since it is not deliberately designed to sound this way, and it reminds me of how the Holo Audio Spring DAC level 3 sounds but even worse. A lot of people will like this about it, laid back "slow" sound is really popular these days, but I prefer what sounds more realistic to me.

This laid back sound from the Venus not only really lowers treble response (but without ruining it like admittedly even the Mojo does, since this is comparing a $500 DAC to DACs valued at over 5x after all) and extension by 1-2 KHz, it really blurs/soften the attack, slows decay, and oddly/unfortunately lowers bass presence and impact, creating a slower softer sound with less PRaT so to speak.

Plenty of people like this (see all the HE1000 fans), but this reduces transparency. The SR-009 stands out for its speed, attack, crispness and clarity, and is a bass monster with the Hugo 2 and good interconnects. With the Venus, the SR-009's bass is now soft and muddy. With the Hugo 2, it's a rock concert when called for.

Ultimately this system allows the Chord Hugo 2 to shine, demonstrating that it is incredibly transparent with superior treble extension and quality, and compared to every other DAC I've owned, is so significantly superior in bass slam and body, sound stage, imaging, bringing out detail.

If you have not seen my extremely positive review of the Stax SR-009, check it out here, and realize that a Chord Hugo 2 or another similarly excellent DAC that isn't highly laid back is required for that review to be so positive. And so are interconnects at least as good as the Kimber Kable Hero, because even with the Hugo 2, so much of that magic is lost with cheap interconnects!

On a no-compromise system, the Hugo 2 injects layers of transparency into the entire frequency range like nothing I have ever heard before. The way it is able to not only clean up any treble harshness, make the attack much crisper and cleaner, and speed up and improve decay, but it is truly extraordinary how much cleaner and more transparent bass, mids, and treble all become. It opens up a window into the music that was previously sealed shut. Its improvements are hugely evident in all genres, and probably the most impressive to me in metal. Without the Hugo 2, instruments sound so much smaller and softer and less clear.

Too Long Didn't Read Version: <insert endless stream of superlatives> How can a headphone sound so realistic? How can a headphone so clearly have the best transparency, detail, bass, mids, AND treble by far of any headphone I've used? Ah, one of few headphones with a sound stage and imaging that sounds as if it was trickled down from excellent loudspeakers. As close to perfection as headphones will ever get I think.

If there's any compromise in the audio chain though, or if I have a laid back DAC, the magic is gone for me... the only things I dislike about the SR-009 are the top headband being plastic, and how annoying and expensive it is to get the most out of it, because if you don't get the most out of it (more or less, not saying you need a DIY-T2 amp) then don't bother with it. And you can have a no compromise system but still have a dull sounding SR-009 if something is just a sonic mismatch like the DAC or interconnects.

Full Version:
The Stax SR-009 is a legendary headphone. Tyll's "Comparing World-Class Headphones" review at Innerfidelity opened many peoples' eyes to it, including mine. When I began my hi-fi headphone journey, I just knew the SR-009 was where I had to end up. Since opening this can of worms, I have owned the following open back flagships or former flagships:

- Stax SR-007A
- Audeze LCD-4
- LFF Code-6 (modded HiFiMan HE-6)

On numerous occasions I have also listened to the HiFiMan HE1000, Sennheiser HD 800 S, and Sennheiser HD 800 in quiet environments, and auditioned the Sennheiser HE 1 back when Sennheiser had audition spots for them in NYC. I have also listened to the Abyss AB-1266, entire Audeze LCD fazor lineup, Focal Utopia, and Beyerdynamic T1 Gen 1 in louder environments (not very meaningful listening). Other noteworthy headphones I have owned are listed in my profile.

I really wanted to write this review, more than any other headphone since with the Stax SR-009 and Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon I have finally reached an end game. With the Stax SR-009, I have perhaps reached the end of my headphone journey (not headphone gear as a whole, but primary at-home listening headphone journey). I don't foresee any major improvements beyond this point, while the SR-009 is a major improvement over every other headphone I have ever owned or listened to... in just about every way.

Before we get started, I must emphasize that high end Stax headphones (SR-007, SR-009, SR-009S) scale more with higher end amplification, DACs, and analog interconnects than any dynamic or planar magnetic headphone. Amp and DAC and interconnects each make a MASSIVE difference. This is an extremely positive review as you're about to see, but it would NOT have been nearly this positive if my DAC was only the Chord Mojo, even with the same amp. Likewise, it wouldn't have been this positive if my amp was a KGSS regardless of DAC. Nor would it have been this positive with cheap generic interconnects.

Going from a KGSS to a KGSSHV Carbon with an SR-007/SR-009/SR-009S makes a bigger difference than going from a Schiit Magni to a HeadAmp GS-X Mk2 with a HiFiMan HE1000 or any Audeze. And going from a Chord Mojo to a Hugo 2 with an excellent Stax system is a gigantic upgrade in every possible way.

Believe it or not, going from cheap generic interconnects like Mediabridge, to Kimber Kable Hero interconnects with this system is a bigger upgrade than most DAC upgrades with ANY non-electrostatic system, and many amp upgrades to. For example, it is a bigger upgrade than going from a Chord Mojo to a Hugo 2 with a Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar and Audeze LCD-4 or LFF Code-6, and it is a bigger upgrade than going from a Schiit Lyr 3 to a Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar with an Audeze LCD-4. Hard to believe, right?

Another review here says that the SR-009 has less dynamic punch than today's offerings like the Focal Utopia. He mentioned his amp was a KGST (didn't see which DAC). Well, I use a KGSSHV Carbon, I've listened to the Utopia and owned the Audeze LCD-4 with top tier amplification, all of this with a Chord Hugo 2, and I can confirm that statement is a false generalization.

The SR-009 + KGSSHV Carbon + Chord Hugo 2 has the most dynamic punch I've ever heard in a headphone overall, and nothing else comes close. Does this have the most bass impact? Not quite, though more than any open back dynamic headphone I have come across despite not having that annoying mid bass hump. But the attack, transient response, and lightning quick decay, and full bodied/impactful instruments that non-electrostats can only dream of, is what causes this amazing sense of dynamic punch that no other headphone has given me.

But when I substitute my Chord Mojo for the Hugo 2, most of that goes away and indeed the SR-009 starts to lack punch and dynamics. Moral of the story = don't cheap out on any system component!

I can break it down like this:
- Any non-electrostatic headphone system = veiled, muffled artificial headphone experienced
- Chord Mojo + KGSSHV Carbon + Stax SR-009 = Noticeably better than non-electrostats, but still a veiled artificial headphone experience
- Chord Hugo 2 + KGSSHV Carbon + Stax SR-009 = No longer a headphone system but a clear open window into the music (and I'm sure if you swap the Carbon with a KGSS or any Stax amp then you're back to a veiled artificial headphone experience)

Moral of the story is, if you are building a Stax SR-007/SR-009/SR-009S system, don't cheap out on anything. Except perhaps power cables, I don't even hear a difference between generic ones and Pangea ones anyway.
The SR-009 comes in a rather mundane but clearly labeled box. Inside however is a wooden case; not the most protective, I much prefer the Seahorse case ZMF uses or the similar case employed by the Audeze LCD-4 (best included case I have ever come across), heck I also prefer the SR-007's metal case, but this is nice. I store the headphone in it when I don't plan to use it for days. Otherwise, it sits on my Stax stand underneath an electrostatic bag for protection.

Somewhat disappointing in all honesty. The top headband is plastic; one could abuse it and break it. The adjusting slides for the inner headband are also plastic. Surprisingly, the build quality of modern day HiFiMan flagships (formerly HE1000, currently Susvara for planar line and Shangri La for electrostatic) employs a better built headphone body and adjusting slides which are all metal. So... I'd really like these parts to be metal. Or just go with the SR-007's headband.

On the bright side, the inner headband and ear pads are lambskin leather as far as I know. Soft, comfortable, no odd smell, and should last a long time.


The yokes and cups are very solid metal and the cups have a large swivel range. The cable is long and unfortunately not removable, but supposedly of very high quality. While the build quality isn't as solid as I'd like (the SR-007 is also better to me, no plastic), the comfort is top tier. People talk all day long about the HD 800/HD 800 S's comfort, but really the ultimate combination for comfort is adjustable suspension headband with a soft leather inner headband, and large, thick, soft leather ear pads that don't touch your ears at all. Considering this, the SR-009's pads are not very thick, but your ears don't touch anything hard on the inside (they barely touch anything in fact) and the clamp isn't hard so it's alright. Exquisite, flawless comfort.

Adjustment range for the SR-009 could be more. I use it on the largest size and plenty of people have larger heads than me. Poor NBA and NFL players... they won't get to enjoy the SR-009/SR-009S? Though they can afford full range electrostatic loudspeakers so not much is lost for them!

This is the part that matters most and it is where the SR-009 excels the most. The Stax SR-009 is utterly unlike any other headphone I've listened to. Some traces of its excellence exists in the SR-007, but it is a totally different animal. I remain in disbelief to this day how shockingly transparent, detailed, and real it sounds.

I have seen many headphone enthusiasts go through various dynamic and planar magnetic flagships, and never touch Stax. What a mistake. Top tier Stax systems (SR-007, perhaps SR-Omega, and especially SR-009 and SR-009S, powered by at least a well built KGSSHV) make all other headphones sound relatively veiled/muffled and fake. Almost like the others are toys. This is coming from someone who at least anticipated favoring a planar magnetic headphone for rap, but no, I ended up favoring the SR-009 for every genre and it's not even close at all. Line up every headphone I've owned, and I would never reach for another if my goal was musical enjoyment. Only the SR-009. Granted, I never had a beefy enough amplifier for my SR-007A (only a China clone KGSS fixed up by Birgir).

Compared to all non-electrostatic headphone systems, the SR-009 + KGSSHV Carbon or Grounded Grid or Blue Hawaii SE or Megatron or DIY-T2 (and probably a regular KGSSHV as well but to a lesser extent) will reveal MANY new sounds in almost all music that other headphone systems are not good enough to reveal. This is one of the most incredible attributes about the SR-009. The transparency is just almost unrivaled; as I said, almost all other headphones are veiled in comparison, including all dynamics and planars

The SR-009 with a good enough amp will "take you there" and I am convinced only an electrostatic system can do this, since no planar or dynamic system can. Not the Focal Utopia. Nothing from Sennheiser, no HiFiMan planar (and I personally doubt their electrostats too), nor Audeze. They don't come close whatsoever.


It's actually difficult to describe the SR-009's sound signature. You will see people call it very neutral, or perhaps a bit bright, but that's misleading. The sound signature is totally unlike any non-electrostatic headphone. Contrary to what I see written I do NOT believe it is a poor matchup for bad recordings/poorly mastered music. I think the SR-009 makes ALL music sound better, whether vinyl or digital, great quality or not. For crappy MP3s it still reveals sounds I never heard before, and good ones at that, while making the music more transparent and realistic than ever. Such that the only other headphones I have any measurable interest in listening to are the SR-009S and to a much lesser degree SR-Omega (mostly curiosity since I'm entirely convinced the SR-009 and SR-009S rule over all).

So I will describe the sound signature in a nutshell as... mostly neutral but with an upward tilt, wonderfully extended in both directions (spoiler alert: the best bass, mids, AND treble of any headphone I've listened to, and remember I've owned the Audeze LCD-4 and have experience with all kinds), full bodied beyond what any non-electrostatic headphone can achieve, impactful with phenomenal spatialization and sound stage and imaging, the fastest headphone I've ever listened to by far (most realistic decay and transient response I've encountered) which combined with the very impressive bass slam and unmatched treble performance is why I find it has the most dynamic punch of any headphone system I have used.

To me the SR-009 is upward tilted in a way that allows its upper frequencies to create a clear transparent window into the music like nothing I've ever heard before, and this is without recessing any of the lower frequencies. You have not heard full bodied headphone treble worthy of being called authentic unless you've listened to a properly driven top tier Stax headphone.

A well driven SR-009 creates so much more body, weight, impact to nearly every single instrument in existence, compared to all non-electrostatic headphones. The only exceptions are certain drums which the best planars like the LCD-4 can match or surpass in impact, and match in body/weight. But the SR-009's bass is far more transparent and detailed than any planar, such that I prefer its bass to any planar by clear margins.

Every frequency range, from sub-bass to upper treble and everything in between, is FAR more transparent and detailed and realistic than every headphone I have heard to date (though again, never properly amped my SR-007A). Of all headphones I've listened to, only the SR-009 has perfected the upper mids to lower treble transition. This perfection right here, this frequency range, is responsible for making nearly every other headphone sound veiled and fake and even toyish in comparison, especially non-electrostats.


But the SR-009, SR-009S, and SR-007 are some of the most amp dependent headphones out there. For example, I have also listened to the SR-009 out of the Woo Audio WES, and it was just veiled and obscured compared to a Blue Hawaii SE or KGSSHV Carbon. To get the most out of these headphones, you do need a very expensive amplifier like my Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon. But even then, my SR-007A + KGSS was more transparent than any non-electrostatic headphone, with noticeably more full bodied and realistic treble than any non-electrostatic headphone, but still absolutely nothing compared to how it sounds with a top tier amp (I have used the SR-007Mk1 with a HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE on several occasions).

But when I use the Chord Mojo as the DAC instead of the Hugo 2, a LOT of this magic is gone. Much of that transparency, resolution, impact, airiness, sound stage, and imaging gets flushed down the drain. It's still far more transparent than any non-electrostatic system I've listened to but yeah... this is kind of lame haha.

Let's try to break it down and get more specific here.

Bass
The most breathtakingly convincing bass presentation I have ever heard in a headphone. Remember, I've owned the Audeze LCD-4. Compared to that, the SR-009's bass transparency and detail are as if it opens up a window, revealing a new dimension to bass that not even the best planars can reveal.

The LCD-4 does have much heavier bass presence creating a thicker sound which some might prefer (bass is always distinctly present during all sounds), no doubt about that, and it can slam a bit harder as well, and it extends deeper, but it's still missing a dimension of clarity and details compared to the SR-009's bass. Percussive instruments even sound so much more real on the SR-009 than any planar. One of the most impressive attributes of bass performance with the SR-009 + KGSSHV Carbon is the portrayal of very fast drums on heavy metal songs. The SR-009 just annihilates all non-electrostatic headphone systems here.

Using the bass sweep test at this website, the SR-009 only seems to extend down to around 20 Hz while great planars can go down to around 10 Hz, but that's no big deal in practice since music almost never goes this deep. Believe me, I care a ton for bass extension. I listen to rap and heavy rock and metal, and the SR-009's bass is by far my favorite of any headphone I've listened to. It even has more bass slam than most headphones, more than my previous LFF Code-6 (modded HiFiMan HE-6), more than the HE1000/HE1000 V2 so probably more than any HiFiMan headphone that ever existed for reference.

There is a stereotype about electrostatic headphones having less bass than dynamic headphones or something. The main source for this is that dynamic headphones naturally have a mid-bass hump... as well as sub-bass rolloff which is another story. Well, I cannot name a single dynamic open back headphone with more bass slam than the SR-009 on an amp like the KGSSHV Carbon, nor can I name a single dynamic open back headphone with a single advantage in bass performance vs the SR-009. Then again, the only dynamic open back headphones I've listened to with any advantage over the SR-009 are the Sennheiser HD 800 and HD 800 S in imaging performance, but the SR-009 is close enough for me. But I digress.

Mids
Magical. Vocalists are super clear and brought to the forefront, but at the same time you can't help but notice incredible sound staging and imaging, so many layers to music, perfect instrument separation.

The most impressive thing about the mids to me is the body, weight, and impact to every instrument. Of course this isn't limited to the mids, but every instrument in every frequency range has a fullness and impact to it that I've never heard before. I've never heard such full, clear/transparent, and real sounding strings or pianos or horns before for example. Not even close. These instruments and many others sound tiny, veiled, obscured, and fake in comparison, and again the difference is massive.

There is a slight upper mid range hump visible on frequency graphs, which to my ears manifests as a slight upward tilt that gives more body/weight/fullness to the upper mids to treble transition area, where so many headphones sound weak/frail and fake in comparison. But this upward tilt isn't to everyone's preference and I am really curious how the SR-009S sounds which supposedly doesn't have this. But as it stands, I have no issue with any mid range region.

Treble
Of all frequency regions, the SR-009's treble is the most impressive to me, because of how much better its treble is than every other headphone system I've owned. It doesn't overshadow the rest of the spectrum, but the SR-009's treble doesn't hold back at all... yet it is the cleanest, clearest, most full bodied, most realistic treble I've ever heard by far and is largely responsible for this headphone sounding so transparent, detailed, and real. Every non-electrostatic headphone's treble sounds so thin and one note compared to this. Words really do not suffice, you have to hear a properly driven SR-009 in a quiet environment. This improvement will jump right out at you immediately.

Likewise, the upper mids to lower treble transition is like no other headphone I've heard before. It creates a whole new dimension of realism, transparency, detail. I've also never heard such "airy" sound from a headphone before. This airy factor seems to improve imaging and perceived realism significantly.

I was surprised to 'only' hear the SR-009's treble extend to 20 KHz in the treble sweep test located at this website. My previous LFF Code-6 (modded HiFiMan HE-6) reached 21 KHz, so it's not my ears. So the Code-6 has the most treble extension I've ever heard, SR-009 is #2. But in practice this is meaningless... what music goes beyond 20 KHz?

With all of that being said, the SR-009 will always be too upper mid/treble forward for some. Some will always prefer a thick, laid back sound like the LCD-4 or better yet ZMF planars. But for all you Focal Utopia, Sennheiser HD 800/HD 800 S, AKG K812, Beyerdynamic T1/T1 Gen 2, and HiFiMan HE-6 lovers, the SR-009 or SR-009S is your ultimate headphone most likely. It beats all of those in nearly every area, the exceptions being imaging versus the Sennheisers, but the SR-009 images so impressively anyway and if you really want more, I'd suggest loudspeakers. If you want neutrality and realism above all, the SR-009 or SR-009S is your ultimate headphone.

Sound Stage/Imaging
Superb width, depth, and height. Best in each category of any headphone I've owned by far. Imaging is precise and very natural, also the best of any headphone I've owned by far. Most importantly is the flawless instrument separation and sense of layering; no sound overlaps where it shouldn't, which is standard practice for elite open back headphones. But even then, the SR-009's instrument separation clearly surpasses every other headphone I've owned, which combined with the sound stage makes for very immersive listening.

The SR-009's most impressive sound stage dimension is its depth. You're going to need something like the Sennheiser HD 800 / HD 800 S, maybe the Abyss Phi/Phi CC, and of course the Stax SR-009S to compete here, and you will need something like the AKG K1000/MySphere (and maybe the Stax SR-Sigmas?) to win here.

When comparing the Stax SR-009 + Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon to the Audeze LCD-4 + Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar setup, the latter sounds veiled, unrefined, two dimensional, not detailed, with a flat sound stage and poor imprecise imaging in comparison, plus the LCD-4's horrible lower treble dips ruin vocals, pianos, and many other sounds.

But the LCD-4 does sound "thicker" in the traditional sense: there is considerably more bass presence, creating more emphasis on the lower frequencies. The LCD-4's bass is always present, when it's not called for then you can still hear/feel it waiting in the background waiting to explode, and when it explodes there's more of it. More... but of considerably lower quality than that of the SR-009.

I really was not expecting the Stax SR-009's bass to far outperform that of the Audeze LCD-4. While the LCD-4 has more quantity, it's two dimensional in comparison while the SR-009's transparency and resolution brings out tons of hidden sounds from the bass region... and every other region, and the bass texture is so much more real. The only real concrete advantages the LCD-4 has are deeper bass extension and stronger sub-bass presence which are fairly minor, then on top of that subjectively some people will prefer the added bass presence of the LCD-4.

There's no way the SR-009 should cost less than the LCD-4 if you ask me. The LCD-4 has far more treble woes than various good $500-1,000 headphones, making it sound more artificial in comparison. And it cannot compete with the SR-009 technically. If people were to blind test both of these systems, I suspect most if not all would guess that the SR-009 is the much more expensive headphone. I wish I could've blind tested them, but I returned the LCD-4 a while ago.


Compared to the LFF Code-6 + Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar, the Code-6/HE-6 is clearly like a much lower end version of the SR-009. The Code-6 has, in comparison, soft muddy bass, weak sound stage and imaging, thin mids, thin treble that lacks airiness, lack of detail and transparency. Definitely not the same level.

The Stax SR-009 and KGSSHV Carbon is the biggest headphone upgrade I have ever made. Going from the Audeze LCD-4 and LFF Code-6 (and I would say the Sennheiser HD 800/HD 800 S and Focal Utopia as well based on my experience with those) to the SR-009 with an elite amp is a bigger upgrade than when I went from a Cooler Master 5.1 surround headset to an Audio Technica ATH-A900X and Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro and AKG K7XX.

I would say it's a bigger upgrade than going from the Sennheiser HD 598 to the HD 800/HD 800 S, because the Stax will reveal a greater amount of new sounds and detail than that upgrade, and it will offer a bigger leap in transparency and authentic full bodied portrayal of all instruments.

Not much left for me to say. The SR-009 when driven by an excellent amplifier such as the Mjolnir Audio KGSSHV Carbon completely, totally outclasses all non-electrostatic headphones in transparency, realism, and detail. It will introduce new dimensions, new sounds that were always hiding in the music, to every frequency range in nearly every song. I did not think this was possible. It seriously makes all non-electrostatic headphones sound "Low-Fi" in comparison, at least when pairing the SR-009 with a capable amplifier such as the KGSSHV Carbon. An SR-009 with a KGSS or SRM-353X, or a Chord Mojo tier DAC (regardless of amp) will NOT do this.

Some people have written that the SR-009 is too analytical, almost too technically perfect, and lacks euphoric character. For me, this is absolutely not the case. Since no headphone connects me to the music as much as the SR-009 (but I need to try the SR-009S), that makes the SR-009 by far the most euphoric headphone to me. All other headphones are too veiled and fake sounding to me, while the SR-009 with a proper amplifier connects me to the music directly with no obstacles in the way.

I broke this review down into the following sound sections above: bass, mids, treble, and sound stage/imaging, and the SR-009 clearly bests every headphone I've owned in ALL of those categories, as well as in transparency obviously and also detail retrieval. Yeah... hands down the single best in every category. I wasn't even expecting this. I was expecting the LCD-4's bass to outright beat the SR-009 but that's not even close to what really occurs. The SR-009's bass clearly wins in quality, it just has less quantity (but still a lot of quantity, more than any open back dynamic headphone I have used).

Thanks to the SR-009 + KGSSHV Carbon combo, I'm selling off most of my headphone gear and sailing off into the sunset (UPDATE years later: obviously my journey didn't really end here, but with loudspeakers). I'll remain interested in new amps designed by Kevin Gilmore (or existing designs further developed, e.g. KGSSHV Carbon Nanotube).

Any improvement beyond this will be so insignificant I think, as far as headphones go. No other flagship or former flagship headphone fully scratches my itch for better sound, but the SR-009 and KGSSHV Carbon and Chord Hugo 2 combination plus good analog interconnects does (if I substitute cheap interconnects it certainly does not. This combo is just too superior to all the flagship stuff I've owned or listened to in the past.

The Chord Mojo seems to be one of the hottest items in the high end audio world today. It can be found in the $500-600 range (I paid $500 for mine from Amazon), is of a very small form factor (it measures approximately 3.2" x 2.4" x 0.9") and is battery powered, it is both a DAC and headphone amp and supports high bitrate files including DSD, features advanced technology that everyone likes to talk about, and has an attractive aluminum chassis and cool buttons to control it. So the Mojo is certainly designed to meet first impressions, as are all Chord products with their distinct looks and impressive physical build quality.


The Mojo accepts micro USB (768 KHz/32-bit), optical TOSLINK (192 KHz/24-bit), and coaxial 3.5mm (768 KHz/32-bit) digital inputs, and has two 3.5mm headphone jack outputs which are active simultaneously. It also features a micro USB charging port, and supports DSD256 (4x) and DSD via DoP. Note, I absolutely do not care about DSD because hardly any music is true DSD (much of it is converted from PCM and even then, the amount is small). Here is a phenomenal article on the subject:

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

I have used the Chord Mojo as a portable DAC and amp, and also as a dedicated DAC connected to various amplifiers via 3.5mm to dual RCA cables (it has a line output mode). It has a distinct sound signature: somewhat laid back, it sounds as if it results in a reduced lower treble response than most other DACs. This does not cause any recession, just less up front upper mids/lower treble, reducing fatigue on fatiguing setups and reducing perceived 'energetic sound' so it isn't a perfect match for all systems.


As a portable amp and DAC, I have primarily used it with two headphones: the ZMF Blackwood and ZMF Ori, both modded Fostex T50RP MK3's, so I will focus on these. These are 50 ohms rather inefficient headphones; the stock T50RP MK3 is rated for 92 dB/mW, the ZMFs are probably even lower.

Despite that, the Mojo does an admirable job with them. They can get plenty loud long before maxing out volume on the Mojo, and the Mojo brings no obvious bad sound quality to these headphones. Only when you use a powerful, decent dedicated amp like the Schiit Lyr 2 or 3 (which I've used hence me naming them, as I would recommend a Dynalo over either of those), or step it up to a Hugo 2, do you notice the Mojo's relatively minor deficiencies: reduced bass impact and fullness (but bass of course isn't thin with the Mojo and these headphones), less refined upper mids (to the point where some harshness is introduced when just using the Mojo, can be detected in some songs that emphasize female vocals), and less detail retrieval.

Still, for such a small portable device to do this well with modded Fostex T50RPs is very impressive. Exceeded my expectations.

I did also use the Mojo as a standalone DAC and amp with two other headphones: Audio Technica ATH-W1000Z and Sennheiser HD 6XX. Both of those systems sounded poor to my ears, though I don't blame the Mojo specifically. The ATH-W1000Z is just a terrible sounding headphone, the most unrealistic, unbalanced tonalities I have ever heard. It sounds terrible out of everything because it just sounds terrible, period. The HD 6XX + Mojo just lacks synergy, they are a bad matchup for one another to my ears. It just sounds dull and lifeless, although I think the HD 6XX/HD 600 sounds dull and lifeless out of everything but really colored tube amps (not even tube hybrids) so that's just me.


As a dedicated DAC, I believe the Chord Mojo can hold its own against any 'traditional' delta sigma DAC that uses common DAC chips. I base this on my experience directly comparing the Mojo to my former Bel Canto DAC 3 with a Stax SR-007A + KGSS system. The Bel Canto DAC 3 is a massive, heavy DAC with balanced outputs and used to cost over $2,500, but with my Stax SR-007A + KGSS system, the Mojo gave up nothing! Technical performance seemed identical between them, but the Mojo's sound signature was preferable; more musical and less sterile is how I describe it, no doubt caused by the Mojo's slightly laid back sound presentation.

So yes, the Mojo can compete with desktop DACs, particularly generic delta sigma chip designs. This is not just a portable device, this is a serious audio product for anywhere.


Unfortunately, I cannot yet directly compare the Mojo's performance to a modern high end DAC. As you can see, I do own a Chord Hugo 2, but I am not yet ready to compare them as dedicated DACs because I keep changing primary system components. Once I settle down, I will compare them and update this review accordingly.

As a standalone DAC/amp combo unit, the Chord Hugo 2 does outclass the Mojo considerably as the price would suggest (though the Hugo costs around 5x more, I would not say it is anywhere near 5x better). The Hugo 2 delivers better clarity, instrument separation/layering (though even with the fully closed back ZMF Blackwood, it has no issues with sounds overlapping when they shouldn't), more refined upper mids/lower treble (the slight harshness with just the Mojo is gone), loses the laid back character for better or worse, fuller bass, much more bass impact. I will be reviewing the Hugo 2 as well of course.

Nevertheless, I think the Chord Mojo will compare favorably to any non-Chord portable DAC/amp. It is very impressive both for portable and at-home use, being able to compete with devices far larger and more expensive. My experience with Chord has led me to believe that their DACs are the only delta sigma DACs worth buying these days, their FPGA implementation is impressive both on paper and in practice.

So while I rate this product 5 stars, that is considering its price and functionality, not just its sound quality. Keep this in mind.

The HiFiMan HE-560 is an open back planar magnetic headphone with a single sided magnet array. For more information about planar magnetic headphones, read Tyll's excellent article on the subject:

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-planar-magnetic-headphone-drivers-work

This is going to be a more concise review than my others, simply because I don't love this headphone so I don't feel compelled to write as much in this review. I will write as much as I feel is necessary to describe its sound and build quality, which is what matters. I bought it for $320 from Adorama, for that price I'd give it 4 stars. But for the typical price of $450-500 in Q2 2018, 3 stars seems about right. If you get it from Adorama, you won't get the case with it. Otherwise you will get what seems to be a nice case, but I can't speak for it. HiFiMan is nice enough to include two cables with the HE-560; a single ended 1/4" one and a balanced XLR cable.

Audio Chain:
- Breeze DU-U8 digital interface
- Chord Mojo DAC
- Schiit Lyr 3 amplifier with Raytheon VT-231 tube (was NOS when I bought it in 2018).


The first thing that jumps out are the plastic yokes. Cheap, people have had them break. The inner headband is a synthetic material that seems fine, the pads are pleather with velour where it touches your ears. HiFiMan can't even use real leather on their $6,000 SUSVARA so of course they don't use it here.

The biggest problem though is the fragile 2.5mm cable connectors. So don't unplug your cable often at all, it will not handle repeated use very well.

Comfort is excellent however, thanks to the suspension headband design, large soft pads, light weight. It is highly adjustable and should fit most adults. But the build quality just supports stereotypes of Chinese made products. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Though I like how much the cups rotate.

The general sound signature of the HE-560 is a bright and somewhat forward one. Good extension in both directions, mostly linear but with a slightly forward treble response. Too bright for my taste, doesn't have the bass slam or awesome aggression of say the HE-6 to accompany such brightness which could make for a very "fun" listening experience for many listeners. Detail retrieval is nothing extraordinary nor is it weak by any means.

Bass:
Very good extension that goes firmly below 20 Hz. Easily outclasses 99.9% of dynamic headphones here. Good texture, mostly linear sounding bass with no mid bass bloom or hump. A bit more bass slam than most dynamic headphones but not a major focus of this one at all. I prefer more full bodied bass than what the HE-560 provides.

I directly compared the HE-560 to two headphones: the ZMF Blackwood (also a planar, a heavily modded closed back Fostex T50RP MK3 in fact) and the Sennheiser HD 6XX. As expected, the bass completely outclasses the HD 6XX's in every way; deeper, better texture and detail, more impact. The ZMF Blackwood however beats the HE-560's bass in every way, again deeper but also more full bodied, and more impact. Sub-bass is the biggest improvement for the Blackwood.

Mids:
The mids here sound linear, nothing really stands out more than anything else here and the bass doesn't overshadow anything since it's not a particularly bassy headphone. Good detail, doesn't sound thin in the mids at all which is one of the most important aspects of a headphone for me. No instrument sounds particularly unauthentic.

Vocals sound authentic for the most part, but female vocals can become a bit harsh/strident on the most demanding songs like Sledgehammer (Rihanna). That might be my Lyr 3's fault but the ZMF Blackwood and Ori for reference don't sound strident there. That harshness is actually worse on the HD 6XX.

Nothing in the mids is amazing, but aside from rare and mild harshness in the upper mids that the Lyr 3 probably exacerbated, there are no problems with the mids either to my ears.

Treble:
The most prominent frequency region of the HE-560. It's not as bright as say the Beyerdynamic T90, but the treble is more prominent and will get the most of your attention, like it or not.

Thankfully, the treble is not terrible. It sounds like a fairly linear treble response to my ears. Using treble sweep tests, it reaches 19 KHz (might be equipment limited). The treble presentation is not smooth, perhaps even a touch grainy at times but again I never used the HE-560 with an excellent amplifier or top tier DAC, but then again, the system I used it with is a realistic one for a $500 headphone.

The forward nature of the HE-560 contributes to it being an overall forward sounding headphone, though the only thing in your face will be the treble. I really wonder why HiFiMan went for this sound signature (this is the only HiFiMan headphone with this sound signature).

Sound Stage/Imaging:
It sounds open and airy, but lacks precision and the very noticeable dimensions of top tier open back headphones. Imaging is actually weaker and less precise than the closed ZMF Blackwood.

Focus vs Focus-A Pads:
I ordered Focus-A pads since I was anticipating the HE-560 sounding too bright based off my memory of it, having listened to it in the past (albeit in a noisy environment). The Focus-A pad is said to make the HE-560 sound more neutral/linear, move the treble back a bit.

The truth is, to my ears the Focus-A pads hardly sound any different than the stock ones. The pads are extremely similar and are crafted with the same materials. The only difference I hear is that yes, the treble is a teeny weeny bit less forward overall, but now slightly less linear sounding too. But the differences for both are very mild, and the treble sounds no more smooth nor grainy with either pad to me.


I love how the HiFiMan HE-500 sounds. For a long time, it was by far my favorite sub $1,000 headphone and I liked it more than flagships and past flagships like the Sennheiser HD 800, Audeze LCD-3F, and JPS Labs Abyss AB-1266.

The HE-560 is the HE-500's successor but not a worthy one. I never owned an HE-500 so can't give an accurate comparison, but the Sundara is the real HE-500 successor.

The Sundara is almost the opposite of the HE-560 with its more laid back character, a dip when the upper mids transition into the treble that doesn't cause recession like Audeze headphones, just moves the overall presentation back a bit as if you're in the audience opposed to being on the stage (similar to the HE1000). I don't prefer the laid back character of the Sundara in general, but to me it sounds considerably better than the HE-560's treble forwardness. The Sundara is more natural, images better and has a better defined sound stage. It also has metal yokes, but seems to have its own QC issues right now based on reception here on Head-Fi.

The ZMF Ori is a semi-open (85% closed, 15% open according to the website) planar magnetic headphone based on the Fostex T50RP MK3. One common concern I see is, how can a modded $160 headphone compete with the big dogs in the $1,000 price range? The answer: with ease.

It's one thing to have the biggest driver with the thinnest diaphragms and most powerful magnets in the world, but it's another to tune and voice a headphone. Zach from ZMF has mastered the latter, empowering these modded T50RPs (Blackwood and Ori) to be among the best sounding headphones I have ever listened to. And I have listened to the vast majority of popular flagships, and I own or have owned the following headphones:

- AKG K7XX
- Audeze LCD-4
- Audio Technica ATH-A900X
- Audio Technica ATH-W1000Z
- Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro
- Fostex T50RP MK3
- HiFiMan HE-560
- LFF Code-6/Code Sex (modded HiFiMan HE-6)
- Sennheiser HD 598 Cs
- Sennheiser HD 6XX
- Stax SR-007A
- Stax SR-30
- ZMF Blackwood (another modded Fostex T50RP MK3)

Only one of those do I rank above the ZMF Ori personally for most genres: the Stax SR-007A (but I rank the Ori over it and all others for rap/hip hop). That's right, I rank the Ori (and Blackwood) above the Audeze LCD-4. It was actually the Ori that replaced the LCD-4 for me. You can find my review of it on the LCD-4 page here on Head-Fi.

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/audeze-lcd-4.20951/reviews

Other flagships I prefer the Ori to are every Sennheiser (HD 800 / HD 800 S), Beyerdynamic (T1), Focal (Utopia), JPS Labs (Abyss AB-1266). I consider the ZMF Ori's sound to be less technically flawed than all of those. I personally enjoy it more than the HiFiMan HE1000/HE1000v2 as well, but I acknowledge how excellent those headphones are and technically superior.

But let's not beat that dead horse. My first ZMF headphone was the Blackwood. The Ori was my second. It will not be my last. Both headphones I purchased, blindly I might add (though one can hardly call the Ori a blind purchase when I already had a Blackwood). I rarely make blind headphone purchases, but these were worth every penny and then some. My audio chain is as follows:

• Breeze DU-U8 Digital Interface (I have also tried this configuration without this)
• Chord Hugo 2 (tested as just a DAC for the amp below, and also as a standalone DAC/amp)
• Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar
• Kimber Kable Hero Ultraplate RCA interconnects with Neutrik RCA to XLR adapters
• Norne Audio Solvine cable (Eidolic rhodium plated XLR) with the Pure BiPolar, ZMF Atmos C cable with Hugo 2.

Yeah yeah, I didn't list the stock cable. I've tried it plenty with the Blackwood along with the Atmos C, honestly I cannot hear a difference between the two. Perhaps you can, I cannot. I only got the Atmos C because I wanted a 4 foot cable.

For music genres, I primarily listen to various degrees of rock (e.g. Rage Against the Machine, The Doors, The Neighbourhood), different metal bands (e.g. Firelake, Chantry, Genitorturers), some late 90s and early 2000s rap (mostly Eminem and D12), and occasionally classical music and soundtrack music. I will also specify specific test songs I use for these reviews, and why I use them, later in the review.

About me: I am 24 years old and I just like music. My upper hearing limit seems to be around 19 KHz, lower limit might be just over 10 Hz considering my results with the Audeze LCD-4 (as good as it gets for headphone bass). I use this website for frequency tests. I maintain strong interest in the DIY community and believe in the work of people like Kevin Gilmore, Birgir Gudjonsson, Pete Millett, and companies like Audio Note, AMB Laboratories and HeadAmp. My favorite headphone reviewer ever is Tyll Hertsens. I believe in the objective and the subjective side to audio, so I don't believe in things like burn-in for electrostatic and planar magnetic drivers. I also firmly believe planar magnetic and especially electrostatic technology perform flat out better than dynamic, when implemented correctly. Both the objective and subjective have me believing that one.


That's enough of the boring stuff. Now the real reason we are here: the ZMF Ori. It is available in various wood options, you can customize the slider colors and the coin design/color. You can also get a very nice S3 Hardshell case with it for an extra $50.

My Ori has rose copper sliders, inset coin, and most of all the utmost magnificent purpleheart wood. It is one of the most beautiful headphones I've ever witnessed, a true work of art.

The pads are lambskin leather, thick and very soft. A suspension headband design is thoughtfully utilized by ZMF these days, it is simply the best design as it offloads much of the headphone's weight. This is important for these headphones since they are heavier than most. Planars are generally heavier due to the magnets, and wood is heavier than plastic, so we have a recipe for heft here! Never a problem though since the suspension headband design works perfectly. These headphones also don't have a strong clamp like say the Sennheiser HD 600 series.

The original T50RP MK3 headband seems to be the top one, with additional material wrapped around it. The inner headband is of ZMF's own design. I'm not sure of the exact material, but it's thick and dense. The headphone makes most others look and feel like toys, and makes me laugh at plasticky > $1,000 models.


The overall sound signature of the ZMF Ori is incredibly balanced. It's as forward as most other high end headphones I would say, like those from Audeze and older HiFiMan models. A comparison I like to make is, take the sound of Audeze's LCD lineup, remove the realism-hampering treble recession, and you've got something close to the ZMF Blackwood and Ori sound.

The Ori, like the Blackwood, emphasizes IMPACT but without drowning out the mids. Probably the most bass impact of any headphone that doesn't have severely recessed mids. The overall attack and PRaT for the Ori is incredible, making for one of the most fun headphones but without being fatiguing since it does not have accentuated treble.

This is what full bodied sound sounds like. Planars and electrostats can deliver this effortlessly, but it takes a special dynamic headphone to not sound thin in comparison (especially but not only in the bass, but I need to listen to the ZMF Eikon). You will also notice faster, more effortless decay leading to improved transparency with the ZMF Ori over most dynamic headphones. I commented about this in my Blackwood review, decay is even faster and more natural with the Ori due to it being semi open. Though higher end planars like the HiFiMan HE1000, SUSVARA, and Audeze LCD-4 will demonstrate this the best, and elite electrostats (Stax SR-007/SR-009/SR-009S) even better.

But let's break it down and get more specific:

Bass
World class. Extends as deep as any other headphone I've used including the Audeze LCD-4. My hearing is probably the limitation. I can hear the bass response close to 10 Hz in bass sweep tests. Sub-bass that a dynamic headphone can only dream of. The bass slam of the Ori includes the sub-bass as well, so you don't just hear mid-bass slamming like most "basshead" headphones, but the real deal. Breathtaking texture, transparency, and realism. Percussion sounds as if it is right there and you can reach out and feel it. Note that my Pure BiPolar amp improves bass considerably, in every way versus say a Schiit Lyr 3 with any tube (since I have the Lyr 3 on hand along with most beloved 6SN7 tubes).

The amount of bass impact is substantial when called for. It can rumble your dome, but doesn't try to force this in every song. It is just a very natural bass presentation that only a planar can do. The Ori (like the Blackwood) has harder bass slam than the vast majority of high end headphones, even among planars. I have listened to it side by side with the Audeze LCD-4 out of my Pure BiPolar balanced amplifier, and the Ori's bass is still respectable, thoroughly enjoyable, and breathtaking even next to the LCD-4. Yeah, the LCD-4's bass is even better (the best of any planar I've heard, but I still prefer SR-009 bass), but it doesn't outright crush the ZMF Ori (nor the Blackwood).

Compared to the Blackwood with one bass port sealed, there is a bit more mid-bass presence and seemingly more effortless detail retrieval, and the bass slam doesn't seem quite as forward as the Blackwood when both are slamming the most (rap music), but for this last point the difference is very mild. I believe this is all simply due to the Ori being semi-open while the Blackwood is fully sealed. I haven't thoroughly compared the Ori to any other Blackwood bass port configurations, but you can read my bass port configuration comparisons in my Blackwood review. With all bass ports open, the Blackwood bass is looser and less controlled but mid-bass presence will be closer to the Ori.

I no longer have the HiFiMan HE-560 on hand, but the ZMF Blackwood's bass outperformed it handily. Deeper extension, much better body and impact.

Compared to the LFF Code-6 (modded HiFiMan HE-6), the Ori's bass completely outclasses it. Code-6 is muddy in comparison, less extended with too little response in the sub-bass, seems to have an ever so slightly distracting dip in the bass to mids transition, and the Ori simply has more forward bass (slightly too recessed for me on the Code-6) with much, much more slam.

From my experience, the ZMF Ori is the king of rap/hip hop as far as headphones go. I've never heard better for these genres; not the Audeze LCD-4, not the HiFiMan HE1000, not the LFF Code-6, not the Stax SR-007A (though mine was only used with a KGSS). Bass to mids integration on the Ori is flawless. The mids are not at all drowned out by the bass, this is a high performance headphone not Beats after all.

Mids
The Ori's mids invite you in and keep you engaged throughout. Very linear, again an overall forward presentation. Vocals stand out even more than the Blackwood, supremely detailed and transparent! Sounds like you are in the recording studio with them.

One of my favorite songs to test is Sledgehammer (from one of the modern Star Trek movie soundtracks apparently). Rihanna's voice in that song sounds harsh and strident and artificial on probably > 95% of headphone systems. Even on the Sennheiser HD 6XX which is supposed to be laid back and never fatiguing (it is more laid back, just has some problems in the upper mids apparently). Slightly on the HiFiMan HE-560 too (less so than the HD 6XX). Not at all harsh or strident on the Audeze LCD-4 but that has its own issue thanks to the 4-8 KHz dips causing some odd immersion breaking recession (detailed in my review of it, which is here on Head-Fi). But the ZMF Ori nails it, like the Blackwood but with a more open sound and the other differences I've been describing. This is my favorite test song, if a headphone/speaker fails it then I don't want it.

It sounds to me like the upper mids of the Ori have a slightly stronger relative response than the Blackwood, also stronger than the HiFiMan Sundara and Audeze headphones for reference, but lower than the HE-560. I hear this most in Sledgehammer with Rihanna's voice, it sounds a bit closer than some other headphones.

Furthermore, every instrument sounds authentic, which means a lot to me since I absolutely hate unnatural instrument portrayal. Not the most detailed sound for non-percussion instruments; the Sennheiser HD 6XX has more detailed string instruments and more detailed/transparent pianos, but they are all authentic and enjoyable nonetheless.

Compared to the Blackwood, the biggest differences in the mids are again due to the Ori being semi-open, making for a generally "airier" sound due to there being less reverberations. It can make some details more obvious and natural on the Ori, most notably vocals and then string instruments.

Transition between upper mids and treble is flawless to my ears, something the aforementioned Sledgehammer song really tests well. Flawless, but without taking a step back. Audeze headphones and the HiFiMan Sundara will take a step back here to really avoid being fatiguing for example, making the upper mids sound a bit more distant than the lower mids. The ZMF Ori does not do this. Different strokes for different folks.

Treble
This is where most headphones fall apart. The unmodded Fostex T50RP MK3 falls apart here (and in the sub-bass region like a dynamic headphone). But not the ZMF Ori, likewise not the Blackwood. I still don't understand how Zach from ZMF transforms stock T50RP MK3 treble into this. Keep your "it's just a modded T50" generalizations at the door. The ZMF Ori has better treble than the vast majority of non-electrostatic headphones.

The treble is linear with no odd peaks or dips to my ears and zero graininess. It doesn't have a forward aggressive character, nor is it as laid back as my Sennheiser HD 6XX, leading to excellent PRaT and tons of fun for rock and rap. Zero sibilance, never fatiguing (and for those who care, remember I typically use a Norne Audio Solvine cable which has lots of silver content), doesn't sound excessively thin like a lot of headphones. A nice airy sound with surprisingly impressive detail retrieval! The difference aerodynamics make (thinking of the Blackwood as I type this part). The airier sound makes this headphone much, much better than the Blackwood for classical music.

The treble remains polite yet fun for dynamic music, as I said I listen to lots of rock including some of the heaviest, also metal and rap. The ZMF Ori (and Blackwood) are some of the most "fun" headphones for me, without the awful mid-range recession and brightness typically associated with "fun" headphones (I hate V-Shaped sound). The bass performance of the Ori and Blackwood are obviously major contributors, but so is the treble.

Something about the presence region causes the Ori to be the "sweetest" sounding headphone I have heard. More so than the Blackwood, I guess the semi-open nature reveals this more. Maybe it's a coloration, but everything sounds natural and effortless to me, and that sweet sound is incredibly engaging. Note my Pure BiPolar amp makes treble noticeably more clear and transparent.

Sound Stage and Imaging
Again, being semi-open helps a lot versus fully closed. Layering of instrument separation is better than the Blackwood, also note the balanced Pure BiPolar amplifier adds noticeable improvement here.

As with the Blackwood, I can't believe how precise the imaging is for what began life as a Fostex T50RP MK3. I don't need better imaging than this from a headphone. Sound stage is again presented in an overall forward manner but has noticeable depth and width, just a bit more open sounding with more effortless expansion of sound than the Blackwood but nothing overlaps when it shouldn't on either headphone. It images more precisely than the Sennheiser HD 6XX and HiFiMan HE-560 for reference.

Isolation and Sound Leakage
The ZMF Ori impresses me here too. It is 85% closed, 15% open. That 15% open makes for large improvements in sound, while the 85% closed still seems like 100% closed to me. I seem just as isolated from the environment compared to wearing my Blackwood, any difference here is negligible. Same for sound leakage - negligible difference. Looks like I don't require fully closed back after all.

Amplifier Pairing
The ZMF Ori still sounds great just out of a Chord Mojo, it's not like it becomes a totally different headphone. But you will lose a significant amount of impact, layering/instrument separation, and treble smoothness and clarity versus a top of the line setup.

The Chord Hugo 2 alone sounds exactly the same to me as the Chord Hugo 2 + the Schiit Lyr 3 with both the ZMF Ori and ZMF Blackwood. The Hugo 2 is a beast. But, compared to my Pure BiPolar, it is still missing a dimension of layering/spacing throughout the entire frequency spectrum, treble is noticeably less transparent, bass doesn't hit as hard and the Pure BiPolar introduces even more body to the bass (not that it sounds lean out of the Hugo 2 though).

So the ZMF Ori (and Blackwood) really scale well with top of the line gear. The Pure BiPolar amp (Super Symmetry Dynalo Mk2) and its sibling the HeadAmp GS-X Mk2 are perhaps the best amplifiers for 50 ohm planars such as these. It copes with the load effortlessly and, much to my surprise, elevates it to a higher tier. I thought the Schiit Lyr 3 or better yet a standard single ended Dynalo with a good power supply would be the end of the road for any Fostex T50RP, but I was wrong. Yes, I underestimated ZMF too.

Conclusion
I've cycled through so many headphones over the years. I don't foresee the ZMF Ori ever leaving my collection. It sounds too good, too well rounded, and on top of that it is such a marvelous piece of equipment. A beauty to behold, a work of art. The ZMF Blackwood will also remain in my collection, both for airplane use (and maybe road trips) and nostalgia. I have a soft spot for wooden headphones I admit, but even then they have to be excellent sounding for me to keep them!

At the end of the day, I listen to the ZMF Ori for hours at a time with no physical or auditory fatigue. It is difficult to put down due to its uniquely engaging sound presentation. A very rare blend of excellent sound in all frequencies for all genres, excellent comfort, outstanding build quality and gorgeous aesthetics.

Or so I would appear. This is my honest review of the Audeze LCD-4. Let's get straight to the point, since that's probably what most of you would want after seeing only 3 stars for this flagship headphone.

About me: I'm 24 years old, I attend audio shows every year to listen to gear, and I live in NYC and have access to many Hi-Fi shops and more private auditions. So I've listened to all sorts of top of the line headphone systems. Other headphones I have owned or own presently: Stax SR-007A, Stax SR-30, HiFiMan HE-560, ZMF Ori, ZMF Blackwood, Fostex T50RP MKIII, Sennheiser HD 6XX, AKG K7xx, Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro 250 Ohm, Audio Technica ATH-W1000Z, Audio Technica ATH-A900X, Audio Technica ATH-M40X.

I mostly listen to metal (various kinds), rock (newest being Rage Against the Machine, oldest dating back to the 60s), and some late 90s and early 2000s rap. Occasionally various kinds of soundtrack music and some classical too. So my primary genres are supposed to be Audeze's strength, according to the community.

My gear:

• Breeze DU-U8 level 3 Digital Interface (also tried this setup without this)
• Chord Hugo 2 DAC, no filters used, line level output used, used with 0.5m Kimber Kable Hero interconnects with Ultraplate connectors + Neutrik RCA to XLR adapters
• Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar (aka Dynalo Mk2 or Super Symmetry Dynalo)
• Norne Audio Solvine balanced 4' cable terminated with Eidolic Rhodium plated 4-pin XLR (2017 model)

The Case
Best headphone case I've ever seen. Perfect seal, seems incredibly weather resistant and robust.

Inside is a pair of gloves (seriously), a super long hybrid cable terminated in 1/4" that seems very high quality, an owner's certificate, and a flash drive containing the manual in PDF format.


No complaints here. 10/10 packaging.

Build Quality and Comfort
Carbon fiber top headband, leather headstrap, extremely solid metal yokes and other parts, mine has ebony wood trimmed cups. Super thick lambskin leather pads (very soft). My favorite cable connectors in the business, the usual Audeze ones, and as usual for them they are angled which is very nice. Exceptional craftsmanship on display. I read that the pads are glued on which would be a negative, but I didn't attempt to verify. Size adjustment range is very wide, should fit almost any adult well.


It's not very flexible as in it doesn't fold and the cups don't rotate much, as expected for such a big headphone. This is the heaviest headphone I've ever encountered. This would not be a problem with the combination of super thick soft pads and a suspension headband, only the suspension headband design is a failure. It doesn't really suspend, not on my head and not on any size. Only very partial suspension, most of the carbon fiber band still presses against my head so I bare the weight. Most LCD-4 owners (not LCD-4z owners it seems, but I'm not sure) encounter this too.


So the weight becomes a problem for me after an hour of use I'd say, or a bit more. Then I feel it on the top of my head.

Sound Signature
As Tyll's measurements show and review in general explains, incredibly linear response throughout the entirety of the bass and mids. Planars are typically sort of like this, but the LCD-4 may be the most linear from bass to mids of any headphone.

Treble is inconsistent, a bit of sibilance (most notable in the form of exaggerated cymbals, can be heard in 'T-' sounds) caused by excess energy in the upper treble region, but lower treble has very notable dips that cause an odd veil. More on this below.

The overall sound presentation of the LCD-4 is forward, more on the intimate side, not at all distant like the Sennheiser HD 800/HD 800S or HiFiMan HE1000v2/HE1000. At the same time, it is not nearly as closed in as the Sennheiser HD 650/HD 600/HD 6XX, it is more expansive than those.

The LCD-4, like its siblings, sounds bassier and more full bodied than 99% of high end headphones. But it is no basshead can, this is what I consider neutral bass and mids because it's essentially a razor straight frequency response from 10 Hz to a little over 1000 Hz. But you will notice far more bass presence than even HiFiMan planars, and any non-planar magnetic headphone. The bass is NOT more forward than the mids though. ZMF Headphones planars (Blackwood and Ori, both are modded Fostex T50s) has the closest sound to Audeze from my experience.

The LCD-4 does much better with detail retrieval than its younger siblings, though isn't the final word on the subject. The treble dips prevent it from being extremely resolving.

Something particularly impressive about the LCD-4 is its transparency. It has some of the thinnest diaphragms and strongest magnets of any planar magnetic headphone, and comes closer to the transparency of elite electrostatic headphones (Stax SR-007 and SR-009 and SR-009S) on relatively mid tier amps (e.g. KGSS) than any other headphone I've heard, although it does not come close to a really high end Stax system here.

The HiFiMan HE1000 is super close to the LCD-4 in this regard though, and I've never heard the SUSVARA. Also, while it is close, it is not quite there.

I use the following site for sweep tests: https://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php

Bass
Incredible. Nothing else is quite like it. I can hear the bass extend down to around 10 Hz, the limit of the test listed above. Bass slam isn't the most since the LCD-4 makes sure to not have bass bleed over the mids at all, but boy is there sub-bass presence like no other headphone. Breathtaking texture, transparency, detail, very punchy. No issues whatsoever, although not nearly as transparent or detailed as Stax SR-009 bass which makes LCD-4 bass sound two dimensional in comparison. But that 20 Hz (or maybe 30 Hz) and below sub-bass is probably the best of any headphone.

Mids
Linear mids that will sound thicker to those who are used to dynamic headphones. Thicker in a good way, one of the reasons is appropriate heft from the bass region. Bass to mids transition is flawless. The LCD-4 is meant to be slightly mid-centric I suppose, and I can find no flaws in the mids themselves. Extremely even, clear, transparent, pleasant tonality. Full bodied, again unlike so many dynamic headphones.

I don't think there is any issue with the upper mids, unlike how people feel about other Audeze headphones. The real issues lies in the treble.

Treble
Very few non-electrostatic headphones have impressive treble to me. Maybe even none. But even then, very few have treble for which I don't have any major problems with.

The LCD-4 has two real treble problems. Tyll explained them perfectly in his review, I hear the same exact things he mentioned. The first and least offender is some excess energy above 10 KHz that causes some sibilance ('T-') and exaggerated cymbals. I actually seem to have greatly remediated this with parametric EQ (EqualizerAPO with PeaceGUI) just by dropping 12 KHz and 16 KHz by 0.5dB.

But the deal breaker for me is the recession in the 4-8 KHz range. This causes a distinct veil, that affects vocals the most. It causes vocals to sound unnatural, as if there is some kind of void or black hole immediately following the voice that sucks up all sounds that should be there. As if there is distinctively no "air" for these vocals, and as if their sound doesn't really travel but gets sucked into some void. I don't know how else to describe it. This is also notable with pianos, and can affect plenty of other sounds. But vocals being affected most is a HUGE problem.

If only the LCD-4 didn't have these treble problems. It would be phenomenal then. This alone is the reason I deducted two stars from my review, that 4-8 KHz recession is a real deal breaker. Makes it sound worse to me than several sub $1,000 headphones (specifically the ZMF Ori, ZMF Blackwood, HiFiMan HE-500, HiFiMan Sundara) since I prefer realistic and natural sound, which this treble dip makes impossible.

I'm surprised more people don't take issue with Audeze's treble dip, and no it's not just there to make it non-fatiguing. There are headphones with a higher response there but are actually less fatiguing due to lower > 10 KHz response.

Sound Stage/Imaging
The LCD-4's sound stage presentation is on the closer and more intimate side. I can describe the sound stage as being centralized. It sounds three dimensional but not stretched out or huge in any direction. Instrument separation is outstanding as is mandatory for any great open back headphone. Imaging is satisfactory but not elite.

Compared to an extremely open sounding headphone like the Stax SR-009, the LCD-4's sound stage and imaging rate rather poorly. Severely lacking in depth next to the SR-009, and imaging is nowhere near as precise.

Conclusion
At $3,995, it costs more than most other flagships. What does it offer for the price? Incredible bass performance (but I find the Stax SR-009's far better when the rest of the system is up for it), stellar mid range performance (bested by both the Stax SR-007 and SR-009 to my ears), inconsistent flawed treble performance that to me ruins it all (but it obviously doesn't ruin it for everyone), comfort issues, and great build quality so that you don't have to worry about replacing pads or the cable connectors breaking (cough HiFiMan).

But I cannot recommend the LCD-4. One might find its bass to be the best or 2nd best of any headphone, but that's not enough to justify a $4k headphone. For anyone after this sound, I'd suggest the Stax SR-007 first, especially with the bass port mod.

I have the ZMF Blackwood and Ori on hand along with the LCD-4, and the Blackwood and Ori bass are still impeccable even next to the LCD-4. Overall, I rank both of those ZMF headphones higher than the LCD-4 because they sound more natural and less flawed. That's right, I consider both a $700 and $900 modded Fostex T50RP MKIII to be better than the Audeze LCD-4.

Sure, the LCD-4 has even better bass (not a huge difference), slightly more detail, better sound staging, and slightly more transparency, but the 4-8 KHz treble dip makes all of that irrelevant since it makes it sound so fake and unsatisfying at the end of the day. Music isn't nearly as engaging with the LCD-4.

As for driving the LCD-4, it is 200 ohms and not very efficient, so you need a good and powerful amplifier. It gets plenty loud out of a Schiit Lyr 3, but scales with top of the line gear. I've used the LCD-4 with the aforementioned Lyr 3, HeadAmp GS-X MkII, and Mjolnir Audio Pure BiPolar (which Bob Katz used with the LCD-4). The latter two definitely elevate the LCD-4 compared to a mid-fi amp like the Lyr 3. I'm guessing though that the absolute best amp for the LCD-4 would be a balanced/super symmetry Dynahi (aka Dynamite), but the Pure BiPolar, GS-X MkII, and GS-X Mini are end game worthy.

At the end of the day, the LCD-4 is not a headphone I will keep. Too flawed, for this price you better have it all and the LCD-4 does not. Stax still reigns supreme in the top of the line open back headphone category in my opinion (even the SR-007) and it's not even close.

Equipment used for this review:
- Chord Mojo (DAC)
- Schiit Lyr 3 on low gain w/ Electro-Harmonix 6SN7 Gold tube and Tung-Sol 6SN7
- Note that every other headphone cited in this review is one I've owned and used extensively.

I've owned and heard lots of headphones in my life, including the lower end Audio Technica ATH-A900X which is better than the W1000Z. The W1000Z is one of the least authentic headphones I've heard aside from all the ones with super exaggerated V-shaped frequency response. Not only that, but it is very thin sounding, has a horrible ringing somewhere over 12 KHz that ruins the entire sound signature and makes it sound extra harsh, highly inconsistent treble that manages to be harsh and perhaps recessed in some ranges, it lacks bass extension and sub-bass response... based on all of this, I consider the W1000Z easily bested by the far less expensive ATH-A900X, and other much less costly headphones such as the Fostex T50RP MKIII, Beyerdynamic DT 880, Sennheiser HD 598 Cs for starters (the latter two I've only used with inferior equipment, no Lyr 3 or Chord Mojo).


This particular Audio Technica lineup is known for having wonky colorations. Of all of their wooden headphones, the W1000Z is the only one I've used thus far, but it is certainly full of "wonky colorations" and horrible overall treble quality, as well as an expected lack of bass extension and sub-bass response. The W1000Z is made in Japan and looks beautiful, but like every other Audio Technica headphone in this lineup, the build quality is not great, subpar for the price even, and the 3D wing design is just silly and not ideal.

The wood is gorgeous, the plastic is mediocre, the pads are mere pleather (why not real leather or a vegan counterpart of equal quality on a $700 MSRP headphone?), the cable is not removable, and the 3D wing design means essentially all of the headphone's weight will rest on your ears. Luckily it's a lightweight headphone so it's not uncomfortable, but it is still an inferior design. The W1000Z takes on an interesting design with angled drivers. The non-removable cable is just nonsense especially for a closed headphone (you'd think a manufacturer would consider that a user would take a closed headphone out of the house, therefore a removable cable is even more convenient than otherwise, not to mention my W1000Z didn't come with a 6.35mm to 3.5mm adapter). Physically, the W1000Z is disappointing despite its attractive looks. Much less costly Beyerdynamic headphones such as the DT 880 are more sturdy with better ear pad material too.

With the physical elements out of the way, let's take a closer look at the sound quality of the W1000Z. The overall sound signature is weird: weak sub-bass, some mid-bass emphasis for warmth, relatively forward mids (though mid bass presence is always there), perhaps the most inconsistent treble I have ever heard that is very harsh above 12 KHz (not due to being too forward, just due to an awful ringing and poor quality in general), overall it sounds thin and fake. Doesn't have much in the way of dynamics and energy, it's meant to be a more relaxed listen I think but the ringing above 12 KHz that causes extreme harshness throws that out the window.

The W1000Z is thinner and less authentic than the Sennheiser HD 598 Cs on inferior gear, Beyerdynamic DT 880 on inferior gear, AKG K7xx on inferior gear, some old used Stax electret I used to have, and obviously it thus sounds really thin and fake compared to my Sennheiser HD 6XX and even more so my ZMF Blackwood.

Yet the W1000Z is remarkably good at detail retrieval, even better than my ZMF Blackwood in this regard overall. It doesn't sound overly enclosed barring that horrible ringing in the treble, and imaging is weak. The W1000Z somehow pulls off some magic with guitars and they sound super clear (and forward) but still pretty thin, since everything on the W1000Z sounds very thin except perhaps the mid-bass oddly enough.


Bass:
Not terrible, but lacks extension. Extremely weak and soft when approaching 30 Hz and going below, and it can't go far below. Much less costly headphones like the Fostex T50RP MKIII, Beyerdynamic DT 880, AKG K7xx all have deeper bass extension (the latter two I've only used with an inferior DAC and highly inferior amplifier, the Maverick Audio Tubemagic D1).

The W1000Z has some mid bass emphasis to give it a warmer sound. Not much slam though.

Mids:
Thin with nasally female vocals that get shouty and harsh as you approach higher frequencies, so not all female vocalists will be affected by the shoutyness but many will. The mids are also clear and detailed, but I can't get over the thinness. Vocals are a bit more forward than the rest. Overall they are highly unconvincing and disappointing as a whole, the W1000Z has some of the worst vocals I've heard in a while. Listen to Rihanna's "Sledgehammer" with this, you'll be tempted to remove the headphone immediately and never listen to it again.

Acoustic guitars (and thus lutes I guess) sound very forward and detailed, but still a bit on the thin side. These are by far the best sounding instruments with the W1000Z, the vast majority of them really lack authenticity due to them sounding too thin. I thought this would handle wind instruments, piano, violins and other string instruments, but nope, they all sound too thin and not convincing. As far as mids go, I am most disappointed with vocals though.

Treble:
The source of most of this headphone's problems. I've mentioned the horrible ringing that I notice over 11-12 KHz, I've never heard anything so bad in that regard. It ruins the entire sound signature when listening to music that constantly reaches up beyond 12 KHz. The treble sounds super inconsistent to me with some noticeable dips, making it sound incredibly unrealistic, hollow, and thin. At the same time it has obvious colorations to make it sound even more fake. The lower treble has some decent qualities to it I think, but it is honestly hard to tell due to its inconsistencies. Cymbals sound so incredibly thin and fake.

Sound Stage/Imaging
Surprisingly weak imaging, and more complex music shows how the W1000Z really lacks layers as it totally loses coherence and sounds start to blend together. Not good at all especially for the price. This might be the absolute worst $400ish headphones I have ever heard. The sound stage is quite forward overall, doesn't have much in the sense of defined width or depth as expected for a closed headphone. Overall the sound stage isn't bad at all for a closed headphone but imaging is subpar.


Conclusion
I really wonder what Audio Technica was trying to do with this headphone, as it is tuned to sound artificially colored. The W1000Z is decent for guitar solos I suppose, and bad for everything else to my ears so it has no purpose in my collection. From a physical design standpoint to the actual sound quality, the W1000Z is 99% disappointment to me. This disappointment took me by surprise, I knew to expect some colorations but this is something else.

Naturally, Audio Technica fans may try to fault my other gear for this, but there's nothing wrong on that front. The Chord Mojo is an excellent DAC, the Lyr 3 is a good amp without any particularly bad qualities (and neutral enough for it to not be a particularly bad match for any headphone) and I use it on low gain. The W1000Z is efficient with its 101 dB/mW sensitivity and 43 Ohm impedance, easy for most amps.

Judging by the detail retrieval of the W1000Z which is surprisingly good, it shows that it's not that far from being a good headphone, but it needs a LOT of tuning. I really expected more out of this, something clearly better than the ATH-A900X which impressed me for the price (though the Sennheiser HD 598 Cs beats that handily now). The ATH-A900X doesn't have the horrible treble ringing and thinness that the W1000Z has.

For a long time I was searching for the ultimate closed back headphone according to my listening preferences. After years of purchasing and auditioning different headphones, I wound up with a ZMF Blackwood. To date it is the only blind high end headphone purchase I have made, and I don't regret it even though it was risky.

The ZMF Blackwood is a heavily modded (by hand) Fostex T50RP (MK3 at this point in time). I own a stock T50RP MK3, and the difference is indeed significant. It is extremely impressive how fine tuned the Blackwood's treble is, but more on that below. The Blackwood was actually the first T50RP I ever listened to! And before this, I was accustomed to the Stax SR-007A and other top of the line headphones... so I am hard to impress.

I purchased my Blackwood in Q1 2018, so it is a newer model with the suspension headband design (ZMF headband) rather than the pilot pad. This is a better, more comfortable design that I can wear for hours with no soreness or discomfort afterwards. These headphones are on the heavier side, but you can never tell with a suspension headband and such soft pads. I have only used the stock cowhide leather earpads, the lambskin ones put your ears closer to the driver, but based on my experience simply holding the headphones closer to my ears, the difference seems insignificant (unlike a stock T50RP for which the difference is huge). My Blackwood also has Blackwood cups. The build quality is superb, the Blackwood is a looker and a showpiece. Makes most other headphones look and feel like toys.

A bit about myself: overall my favorite headphone I've heard to date is the Stax SR-009 though I've only auditioned this, followed closely by the SR-007 (both variants) and then the Audeze LCD-4. I prefer a transparent, mostly neutral yet musical sound signature generally speaking, but I can also enjoy a warmer sound. I am 24 years old, and using frequency sweep tests, I seem to be able to hear up to 19 KHz. I enjoy a wide variety of music, from different kinds of metal (melodeath, progressive, industrial), rock from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, classical, and some rap.

Other headphones I've owned when I first wrote this review: Stax SR-007A, Sennheiser HD 6XX, AKG K7xx, Beyerdynamic DT 880 250 Ohms, Audio Technica ATH-A900X, and some others I didn't use as much.

Get the seahorse case! It's excellent, really protects the headphone from dust and everything else.

My audio chain is as follows: Chord Mojo -> Schiit Lyr 3 (preferred with Raytheon VT-231 6SN7 tube) -> ZMF Blackwood. This is what is used for the review, although I mostly got the Blackwood for on the go use directly with the Mojo. I'll say it here: the Mojo drives it fairly well, volume isn't a problem. I don't even use more than 75% volume with the Mojo and the Blackwood!

The Lyr 3 makes a big difference however: it really improves dynamics, making it more lively. Bass extension and sub-bass impact is way better with the Lyr 3, treble is much cleaner, instrument separation improves as if an extra dimension is added. I'd say the Mojo alone drives the Blackwood to around 80% of its full potential, which is still really good.

My impressions below are with one bass port closed, my favorite way to listen to the Blackwood with the Lyr 3. Comparisons between different configurations are later in this review.

The Blackwood is a surprisingly phenomenal all-around headphone. No real weaknesses to my ears, and I don't say this often! It sounds linear overall, smooth and never harsh with a good amp, but very musical and euphoric with awesome dynamics and slam. The bass extends very deep, and combined with the impact with a powerful amplifier like the Schiit Lyr 3, you get bass performance that only a planar can deliver. Vocals are a bit forward with the Blackwood, the only thing in front of them is sub-bass slam. Great mix of detail without ruining poor recordings, transparency, slam, bass extension, treble clarity, imaging, rapid fast decay. I was not expecting performance this good out of a modded Fostex T50.

I am rather picky about headphone sound. A lot of headphones others love sound dull and/or unimpressive to me, and I can pick out problematic frequency ranges in almost all. So it is quite unique for a closed back planar to not have any complaints from me, but here we are.

Think of Audeze's sound signature, then remove distinct treble dips that cause some recession, fix the loose ends up top (in other words, fix Audeze's sound signature perhaps?) and you've got something close to the ZMF Blackwood's sound signature, which I suppose is the "ZMF house sound."

Yeah, this headphone has perhaps the best overall sound signature, frequency response, tuning of any I've heard. Which would apply to the ZMF Ori too since that's in the same boat. It's between this and the Stax SR-007 for me, and perhaps the SR-009 as well (I'd need to spend more time with it but now we have the SR-009S).

Let's look into this in a bit more detail.

Bass
Very deep bass extension with incredible detail and awesome impact. This headphone is so darn FUN with this impact and slam. I don't find the bass impact/slam overdone, but some may disagree. It doesn't obscure mid range detail so I'm fine with it, although the bass slam can be the most up front sound with this headphone; I've noticed this only in rap music with powerful and aggressive amps like the Schiit Lyr 3.

I also have the Sennheiser HD 6XX on hand, which is the best headphone I can compare it to I suppose. ZMF Blackwood bass is at least three leagues above the HD 6XX, and has similar detail to my unmodded (and admittedly underpowered) SR-007A to my ears but with more impact and sub-bass body. It almost sounds like live percussion: percussion instruments are the most realistic, transparent sounds this headphone produces I think. The bass performance is truly elite, and it transitions into the mid range excellently with no flaws to my ears. There is no evident mid bass hump to obscure the mids, like so many other closed back warmer headphones.


Mids and Treble
The mids are lovely. They sound quite linear to my ears, yet musical the entire time. Both male and vocals tend to take a slight forward presence just compared to the rest of the midrange, and both male and female vocals are highly immersive. Transition to treble is seamless, and there is absolutely nothing in the treble that bothers me. No harshness, sibilance, not with all bass ports open or just one closed at least. This all changes drastically depending on how many bass ports you seal.

With one bass port sealed, the balance and overall response is so well balanced when used with a neutral amp. The Lyr 3 with a Raytheon VT-231 6SN7 tube provides so much bass slam, the most lively sub-bass I've heard of any headphone, but the bass doesn't bleed over and obscure the mids like basshead (V-shaped frequency response) headphones. The Blackwood does every genre justice, even classical! Seriously, after all my headphone experience, from the Audio Technica ATH-M30X all the way up to the Sennheiser Orpheus HE-1, I've never encountered another closed back headphone that can both deliver this quality and quantity of bass, and play a complex classical track while giving every instrument and row their own properly separated space. Mind blowing performance, while sounding accurate the entire time. Every instrument sounds accurate.

It's incredible how the Blackwood is never strident or harsh anywhere, when powered by the Lyr 3 and with one or none of the bass ports plugged. One of my favorite songs to test is Sledgehammer; Rihanna's voice sounds strident on most headphone setups including the HD 6XX, but not this one. Not only that but this is a very busy song and the Blackwood separates the instruments and sounds better than a lot of open back headphones.

The detail retrieval in the mids and treble is also good especially for a closed back headphone. The Blackwood doesn't even sound closed back... imaging is solid, sound stage doesn't extend outwards much but nor does it sound enclosed to me. It shows how incredible a job Zach does with the damping of the Blackwood! Truly impressive stuff here.

It's also incredible how fast and realistic the decay of this headphone is. I'd never expect this type of performance from a closed-back, non-electrostatic headphone.

Genres
What genres do the ZMF Blackwood excel at? I would say it excels at every genre that doesn't demand the biggest sound stage, namely large classical ensembles. So everything aside from that? Sounds about right to me. Remember, this is coming from a PICKY listener. This headphone is that good. It's capable of doing justice to a greater amount of genres than 99% of headphones I've listened to, and I've listened to tons. Zach from ZMF just found the ticket to a very ideal sound signature with his headphones.

Bass Port Impressions

The Blackwood has three bass ports on each cup, which you can plug with the many included rubber seals (it includes plenty of extras). I find that plugging one bass port CLEARLY results in the best overall sound when using a good and neutral amp. As a result I didn't spend as much time testing the other configurations since it was so clear cut to me.

All bass ports unsealed - The bassiest sound, but the mid bass starts to sound relatively loose and uncontrolled compared to the other configurations. More laid back sound, a bit less treble response. Best suited for strident/bright/harsh amps as this configuration will help to balance it out, might also be best if used with an amp/device that cannot sufficiently power the headphone. Also, for songs that have more sub-bass than mid-bass (rap in particular), some may prefer this configuration even with a well matched amp.

One bass port sealed - This leads to my listening impressions above, this is how I listen to the Blackwood most of the time. Excellent balance, bass tightens up compared to all ports opened although some sub-bass impact is lost (not noticeable the vast majority of the time, only really sub-bass heavy songs will make this noticeable, I've only noticed it in rap). I wouldn't call the Blackwood laid back or lush with one bass port sealed.

Two bass ports sealed - Detail retrieval becomes a bit more clear and it sounds more neutral, but it starts to sound artificial and harsh in the mids and treble, aka like most "neutral Hi-Fi headphones." A fatiguing listen, but one most of you are accustomed to as so many other high end headphones sound like this.

All bass ports sealed - I really didn't test this much since it sounded so artificial, harsh, and fake to me. Very fatiguing.


The ZMF Blackwood was a blind purchase, but what a purchase it was! It exceeds my expectations, mostly due to the treble performance for which I have no complaints. Unexpected from a T50 based headphone. It isn't as hard to drive as you might expect, it sounds great just with my Chord Mojo (though it's no more than 80% of what I get with the Lyr 3).

Update 06/08/18 - I am now in possession of a top of the line amp, the Pure BiPolar/Dynalo Mk2 from spritzer, with a Norne Solvine balanced cable and a Chord Hugo 2 DAC for good reference. The Hugo 2 alone drives the Blackwood as well as the Hugo 2 + the Lyr 3 (sounds the same either way), but the Blackwood did scale up a bit more with the new amp. It became a bit more transparent, bass impact and body and detail improved further as did instrument separation and imaging slightly. Quite the experience.

 
The AKG K7xx is one of the most popular headphones around right now.  In this review you'll see some explanations as to why that is, and how it stacks up to a revered classic in the Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro.
 
I am a 21 year old audiophile who sticks to headphones primarily.  So my impressions may differ from many of yours due to my age.  I'm not nearly as treble sensitive as most audiophiles.  Throughout my childhood me and one of my brothers dabbled quite a bit in acoustic music reproduction (him more so), although these days I just listen.  I had owned the Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro for several months leading up to this review, so the K7xx is the more recent addition.
 
When it comes to headphone performance, transparency is of utmost importance to me, but I also prefer a highly detailed and three dimensional sound, and neutral tonality although I am open to some slight deviation from true neutrality.  I want a (mostly) true to life sound, and I demand accurate representation of acoustic instruments of all kinds, and I also demand engaging vocals.  I am partial to electrostatic headphones.  For reference, the best headphone I've ever heard in my opinion is the Stax SR-009.
 
Both the K7xx and DT 880 Pro (250 Ohm) were tested with my upgraded Maverick Audio Tubemagic D1 (swapped both opamps for LT1364s) which served as the DAC and amplifier.  This is a slightly smooth sounding device, especially with the opamp changes.  It is the older version of the D1, although from what I gather the newer one isn't much different and both are rated for 1W into 32 Ohm.  The D1 was connected to my computer via optical TOSLINK, and Foobar2000 with ASIO4ALL drivers was used for media playback.  I did my best to volume match both headphones although it is worth noting that on this amp, the DT 880 Pro can sound somewhat distorted at lower volume levels.  I generally listen at much lower volume levels than others, so distortion due to driving them too loudly was not a problem.
 
A variety of music was tested; from sub 320 Kb/s MP3 to high bitrate uncompressed FLAC.  Genres tested include classical/orchestral, metal (prog and melodeath), rock (mostly acoustic), and a small amount of electronica mostly for testing purposes (electronica is not something I typically listen to).  Both headphones were burned in for this test.
 
So, let's get right into it.
 
The build quality between both headphones is several leagues apart.  The K7xx is pretty much all plastic, the exceptions being the obvious (pads and suspension headband strap).  Even the grills are plastic, which I didn't think was a thing anymore.  Pictures are deceiving, it's not as sturdy as it looks.  
 
It is lighter than the DT 880 and significantly wider.  The ear cups are huge in comparison, and as a result the pads are larger in diameter.  The pads are memory foam, the suspension headband strap is leather which is a rarity among $200 headphones (or even sub $1000 headphones).  It features a straight, detachable cable unlike the DT 880 Pro, although the cable retains a small amount of bending.  The cable terminates with a gold plated 3.5mm jack, with a 6.35mm adapter screwed on.  The cable's plug-in design is sturdy and easy to use, just keep in mind it's very stiff to push in, but once it's in it's not going anywhere.
 
The Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro on the other hand is almost all metal, except for the black part on the ear cups which is solid plastic (seemingly thicker and sturdier plastic).  It is semi-open opposed to the fully open K7xx.  The pads are very soft velour, softer than the K7xx's memory foam pads but also smaller in circumference and diameter.  The headband is thickly wrapped in pleather.  The DT 880 makes the K7xx feel like a toy.  However, the DT 880's cable is fixed and coiled, although also thicker than that of the K7xx.  Like the K7xx, the cable terminates with a 3.5mm jack and 6.35mm adapter.
 
Both headphones lack portability.  They don't fold much at all.  The DT 880's ear cups swivel a bit more.  It's worth noting that every K7xx is serialized (on the inner left side), although the DT 880 has its serial number on the box.  In conclusion, the K7xx is pretty flimsy compared to the tank-like DT 880, which is better built than numerous $1000+ headphones.
 
Winner: Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro by a landslide.
 
 
 
Both headphones have a reputation of being comfortable.  The K7xx's pads are larger and deeper, although still not as deep as I like.  The DT 880's pads are slightly softer, but the K7xx's pads are so soft so that it's not a problem.  Furthermore, the K7xx has less clamp and less weight, so it's lighter than the DT 880 Pro in every way.
 
The K7xx has an auto-adjust suspension headband.  The headstrap is leather and not bumpy like other AKG models.  It's installed on rails so to speak so that it slides up, increasing the size of the headphone, depending on how large your head is.  So the K7xx should fit pretty much any grown man well.  However, due to its very wide design, it is not a good fit for many women or younger teenagers.
 
The DT 880 Pro's headband has a more typical adjustment system; the user must pull the headband up on each side.  There are small notches on the frame, so that the adjustment sticks, although it's not a belt loop system which I feel is more reliable.  The DT 880 is a lot smaller on my head than the K7xx.  Those with larger heads will find the DT 880 to be too small and too tight, but on the other hand it can fit most women and younger teenagers well unlike the K7xx.  So we have a sharp contrast here.  Big (headed) guys ought to avoid the DT 880 for comfort problems alone.
 
For me, both headphones are comfortable but the K7xx takes the cake.  The DT 880's ear pads are too shallow and squish my ears slightly, while the K7xx has much larger pads that are a bit deeper, making it more comfortable.  Suspension headband is the way to go for comfort; the DT 880 is already light but the K7xx is a feather.  Less clamp means the K7xx won't be fatiguing for almost everyone.  The K7xx is more comfortable to me, and it would be more comfortable for most of you.
 
Winner: AKG K7xx.
 
Since sound quality is a vague term, I'll be breaking this category down into many subcategories, and try to declare a winner for each one.  I won't attempt to declare an overall winner, since there really isn't one here.  Both headphones have their own strengths and weaknesses.  If I was comparing the Beyer T1 to the DT 880 then that's a different story, since I feel the T1 is a clear cut overall winner, but for this comparison the K7xx and DT 880 are pretty close in overall performance, and it boils down to preferences and priorities.
 
 
I thought I would comment on this.  The Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro is a semi-open headphone, not a fully open headphone like the K7xx.  Despite this, it provides next to no isolation.  It lets as much sound in as a fully open headphone.  However, it leaks noticeably less sound, which can be useful to some.
Transparency is extremely important to me.  It mostly refers to clarity; a sound free of grain and interference so that nothing is between me and the music.  Both headphones are pretty much equal in this regard, and are no more transparent than my previous Audio Technica ATH-A900X.  So, with regard to high quality Mid-Fi headphones, the K7xx and DT 880 seem to be about equal to most others.  That is to say, neither are impressively transparent.  My old little electret Stax SR-30 is more transparent than both of them.  I certainly crave more transparency than what either headphone has to offer.
 
Winner: None, it's a tie.
 
This category isn't going to have a winner, I'll just describe the tonality of each.
 

1. AKG K7xx - Close to neutral, although slightly mid centric with a hint of added warmth.  The mids tend to overtake the treble slightly, but it's far from veiled or lacking in treble extension.  It sounds somewhat smooth, but not blurred and not as smooth as say the Sennheiser HD 600 or HD 650.
2. Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro - Very neutral throughout, but much more "sharp" sounding than the smoother K7xx.  Treble is overall more forward compared to the K7xx.

 
The DT 880 is a great "palette cleanser" for its neutrality.  If your brain is used to a more colored sound, the DT 880 is good for erasing that and getting your brain used to a neutral sound.  Great for evaluating multiple headphones.
 
The DT 880 is known for the detail it provides, but to my surprise the K7xx is the winner here.  Despite being smoother sounding, the K7xx is more detailed.  This is largely due to the faster decay which I'll talk about in a bit.  The DT 880 sounding sharper is almost like it wants to provide the illusion of being highly detailed, but in fact there are far more detailed headphones out there.  Between the two, they are pretty close but the K7xx obviously has the edge here.
 
Winner: AKG K7xx
 
I may as well go into this now since I mentioned it already.  The K7xx's decay is faster and brings out more detail, and can make the background sound blacker.  However, it also leads to it sounding a bit more dry than the DT 880, which is most noticeable in rock and electronica.  It also causes me to reach for the DT 880 first for rock and electronica, and it's a big reason as to why I reach for the K7xx first for larger classical ensembles.  The faster but dryer decay of the K7xx ought to make it hard to choose one for faster, aggressive music since it's a compromise.
 
Winner: AKG K7xx
Both have similar bass quantity although the K7xx has a bit more in vocals (most noticeable in male vocals obviously).  They have very similar quality too, with regards to body/fullness and tightness/control.  The DT 880 Pro's bass extends down to right about 20 Hz to my ears, while the K7xx is super close but a tiny bit less extended.  This was tested using the bass test listed in the link at the bottom of the page.  In addition, the DT 880 Pro has a little bit more bass impact/slam, but both have very little, and note I've never bass modded my K7xx.  Neither are basshead cans, they're meant to be more accurate.  The bass is pretty accurate on both, so ultimately the superior extension crowns the DT 880 here.
 
One thing of note is that the DT 880's bass can sound very harsh and shrill on some really bad recordings, like its treble.  Everyone knows its treble can sound this way depending on the recording, but the bass sounding this way took me by surprise.  The bass never gets like this on the K7xx.  This is more of a fault of the music recording than the headphone in my opinion.
 
Quantity: A tiny bit more impact/slam with the DT 880 Pro, a tiny bit more forwardness/presence in vocals with the K7xx, otherwise a tie.
Quality: DT 880 Pro wins slightly in extension, otherwise it's a tie.
 
Mid range performance is extremely important to me, as it is for most of us.  Again, both headphones perform similarly here overall.  The K7xx has a tiny bit more warmth; hardly noticeable unless you go back and forth between each headphone like I did.  Still, it's not enough warmth to classify the K7xx as a warm sounding headphone, at least not on my Maverick Audio Tubemagic D1.
 
The upper mid range sounds a bit more linear on the DT 880 to my ears.  I think this has to do with a peak at the very top of the mid range and bottom of the treble on the K7xx.  It can make the transition between upper mids and lower treble sound a bit less authentic and somewhat uneven compared to the DT 880.  
 
But aside from this, the mid range performance is close, with the K7xx sounding a tad more dry and detailed because of its general characteristics.  Interestingly enough, on some tracks the K7xx puts acoustic instruments somewhat in front of vocals, but the DT 880 is always consistent with vocals being a tiny bit more forward than the instruments.  Also worth noting is that a few times, when a female vocalist is singing and a guitar is playing at the same time, the two overlap too much on the K7xx and it becomes very hard to focus on the guitar.
 
Ultimately, the more linear upper mid range of the DT 880 led to my decision here.  Although owning the two made me appreciate the hint of warmth provided by the K7xx.
 
Winner: Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro
 
In my opinion, the vast majority of headphones have an imperfect treble presentation.  In fact, the only headphone I've heard with what I consider to be a flawless treble presentation is the Stax SR-009.  I think treble is just something electrostats tend to do better than non-electrostats, although the HiFiMan HE1000's treble sounded very well articulated, more than any other non-electrostat.  But I digress.
 
The K7xx does not want to overwhelm you with treble.  As such, it's usually slightly behind the mid range, but without being strongly recessed and without being rolled off.  Using the treble test linked to at the bottom of the page, I can hear the treble extend to around 19 KHz, which seems to be the limit of my hearing.
 
Likewise, the DT 880 Pro's treble extends to 19 KHz, further showing where my hearing limit is.  The DT 880's treble is overall more forward, and the DT 880's general sharper sounding characteristics are noticeable in the treble presentation.  As a result, the DT 880 is less forgiving with bad recordings.  The K7xx is not perfectly forgiving and can still sound slightly harsh and sibilant, but usually not as harsh as the DT 880 on some awful recordings.
 
Despite the overall more forward treble on the DT 880, it is the K7xx that reached the record high "peakiness" between the two.  I'm less treble sensitive than many other audiophiles (I can handle the DT 880's treble on anything), but the K7xx at its worst is actually piercing for my ears and too much.  I've only heard it sound like this once or twice and I don't remember which tracks specifically, but I think it was a poorly recorded classical track.
 
Both headphones sound about equally airy.  That is to say, neither are particularly airy.
 
The DT 880's treble sounds more linear to my ears.  The K7xx seems to have some peaks and/or dips that make it sound less natural at times.  The treble on both overall lacks the body and realism you'll hear on top tier electrostats.  Both have a flawed treble presentation, but the K7xx is more flawed for being less linear in my opinion.
 
Quantity: DT 880 Pro overall more forward, although the K7xx at its worst was more piercing than the DT 880 at its worst.
Quality: DT 880 is more sharp, but overall cleaner and more linear, so the DT 880 wins here.
Sibilance: Somewhat present on certain terrible recordings for both.
 
Both the K7xx and DT 880 are known for providing an open sounding, above average sound stage.  However, I was never impressed with the DT 880's sound stage.  It's not bad, but it's a far cry from its big brother, the T1.  I was always intrigued by the sound stage reputation of the AKG K7 series, and the K7xx does not disappoint.  It is noticeably wider, deeper, and taller than that of the DT 880.  I really like a big, three dimensional sound stage, and the K7xx actually satisfies me in this regard unlike the DT 880 Pro.  It is very evident when playing large ensembles.  The DT 880 has decent width and some sense of depth, but the K7xx handily bests it in both regards.
 
Too bad the vast majority of modern music is poorly recorded and doesn't demonstrate the sound stage performance of good headphones like the K7xx very well.  The superior sound stage of the K7xx is also very noticeable in gaming, so the K7xx has definitely taken over as my new gaming headphone for the better immersion and positional awareness it provides.
 
Winner: AKG K7xx
 
Truth be told, the DT 880's imaging never impressed me.  It isn't bad, it's just not great or mind blowing like its big brother, the T1.  Of course, the T1 is also significantly more expensive so that's expected.  The K7xx has superior imaging overall, taking advantage of its larger sound stage and mapping instruments and sounds all around it.  I don't consider the K7xx to be lacking a well defined center stage either.
 
But I do have to mention the overlapping of female vocals and guitars once again.  It doesn't happen always, but sometimes it can be hard to define guitar on the K7xx when a female vocalist is singing over it.  The DT 880 doesn't have this issue.  Still, it's clear to me which one wins overall with regard to imaging.
 
Winner: AKG K7xx
 
 
I was hoping one of these headphones would be clearly superior to the other in most areas, so that I could sell one and downsize, but this did not happen.  I'll have to keep both until I buy the Stax SR-L700, and even then I might keep the K7xx for gaming due to its phenomenal sound stage.
 
Both headphones are equally lacking in transparency, while the DT 880 Pro is the more neutral of the two and the K7xx is more detailed and three dimensional.  The DT 880 is less forgiving, but has a cleaner treble presentation despite sounding sharper.  The K7xx sounds more smooth, but needs parametric EQ more than the DT 880 (I have not done this yet) due to some peaks and dips in the treble region and perhaps upper mid range.  The DT 880 Pro strikes me as slightly more well rounded, due to its more linear tuning.
 
Both headphones are very comfortable, although the K7xx takes the lead here and it would prove more comfortable to most of other audiophiles I believe.  But the DT 880 stomps the K7xx with regard to build quality.
 
Curiously enough, owning both of these headphones has made me less satisfied with both of them.  I really want to get that Stax setup now...
 
Instrument Specific Notes
 
I thought I'd list specific kinds of instruments with which one headphone is noticeably better than the other.  Any instrument type not listed just means the two headphones perform too closely for me to declare one better than the other.
 

1. Piano - AKG K7xx is more realistic here, offering slightly better detail and texture and body.
2. Horns - The DT 880 Pro is shockingly more realistic here.  Maybe it's my amp but horns are just not convincing on the K7xx.
3. Drums - Both headphones are close, but the superior bass extension of the DT 880 Pro makes it better at portraying drums.  Then there's the fact that the DT 880 has a tiny bit more bass slam/impact, although this isn't really significant.
4. Electronic Instruments - DT 880 wins, the dryness of the K7xx is not ideal here.

 
Genre Recommendations
 

1. AKG K7xx - Classical/orchestral, should also be great for pop, although it's not particularly bad for any genre either.
2. Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro - Anything and everything.

 
The following website provided me with bass and treble extension tests:
 
http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php

About Me: I'm just a young man who loves music.  My music taste is quite selective but not limited to one genre: I listen to some acoustic rock, melodeath, classical, and soundtrack music.  I don't really believe in burn-in, and upgrading cables and using power conditioners are secondary to me.  I generally prefer a neutral sound but I'm fine with mid-range warmth, some mid-range forwardness, some darkness, or even slight brightness, as long as there are no extremes.
 
My System:
 

1. Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD sound card - Features a PCM1794 DAC and no amplifier.  I only used stock opamps: JRC211D on the I/V stage, and LME49710NA on the buffer stage.  For music listening I would disable game optimizations, set it to Audio Creation Mode, and listen through Foobar2000 using Creative ASIO and bit-matched playback.
2. Audio Technica ATH-A900X headphones

 
I purchased the Maverick Audio Tubemagic D1 from the manufacturer on Ebay, for a mere $130 brand new although the shipping cost was $25.  Still, that is an amazing price for a solid state amplifier, DAC, and a tube preamp.  My review will focus only on the DAC and headphone amplifier, I don't have worthy active speakers to evaluate its preamp performance. 
 
The build quality is pretty much all metal, the buttons and knobs feel sturdy.  There are two knobs on the front: a volume knob which feels like it uses a stepped attenuator, and a source selection knob, letting you choose between Coaxial, Optical (TOSLINK), USB, Analog, and Line-in.  Line-in refers to a 1/4" headphone jack right next to the source knob, which is appropriately labeled Line-in.  There is another 1/4" jack right next to it which is a headphone output.  Aside from the 1/4" Line-in, all inputs are on the back.  The D1 comes with a really short AC cable (too short for my needs), a USB cable which also looked short, and a 1/8" to 1/4" cable.
 
Setting up the D1 is easy.  There are no drivers so it's just plug and play, unless USB mode requires it but I wouldn't expect very good USB performance out of this thing.  Maverick Audio recommends the newer D1 models if you want to use USB.  
 
At first I was only using the D1's amplifier, connecting it to my sound card with dual RCA connectors using the sound card's line outputs and setting the D1's source to Analog.  Even with stock opamps there were some noticeable improvements, such as:
 

1. Goodbye sibilance!  My favorite change for sure.
2. Lower noise floor, but still far from completely quiet.
3. Slightly improved instrument separation.
4. Ever so slightly improved bass extension.
5. A tiny bit more air around instruments.

 
The sound also became slightly more smooth and buttery, but nothing major.  The A900X is extremely efficient after all, it doesn't beg for amplification. Overall the changes are nice and more than welcome.  In addition, using the D1 like this with my sound card does not take away any of the sound card's gaming features, for those who were wondering (I play PC games using X-Fi CMSS-3D and bass boost). 
 
Things became interesting when I got my optical cable to use the D1 as both a DAC and amp, using ASIO4all drivers with Foobar2000.  I wasn't expecting any improvement over my sound card's DAC, in fact I was simply hoping it wouldn't be a downgrade.  But some improvements were there, such as:
 

1. Improved sound stage depth.
2. Slightly wider sound stage.
3. Better decay?  It seriously sounds that way to me.

 
I didn't expect this, especially since I'm still only using stock opamps.  The improved depth is really helpful when it comes to immersing myself in the music, and so is the improved decay combined with the lower noise floor from the amp.  Let's not forget the added air and superior instrument separation mentioned earlier; all of this makes for a much better experience than using my headphones straight out of my sound card.  
 
Based on these characteristics I have come to the conclusion that as a DAC/amp, the Maverick Audio Tubemagic D1 is neutral, smooth, but slightly forward sounding.  However the smoothness seems to hide some of the texture detail from strings and percussion instruments, which is an unfortunate change.  
 
Note that using the D1 as an optical DAC and amp, along with my sound card, doesn't prevent me from using my sound card's gaming features like X-Fi CMSS-3D and EAX.  In Windows I simply have to keep my default sound device set to "Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)" instead of "SPDIF Out (Creative SB X-Fi)" and I have to enable "Play Stereo Mix Using Digital Output" in my sound card's software control panel.  Using SPDIF Out as the default sound device bypasses all sound card functions; I actually switch to this when listening to music.  
 
I recently replaced the two opamps with LT1364s.  Upgrading the unit is a bit of an annoyance; the chassis really does not want to come out and there's nothing to hold on to, so it really has to be pried off.  Replacing the opamp near the tube requires more caution since there are capacitors all around it, in close proximity.  My new listening impressions are as follows:
 

1. Slightly wider and deeper sound stage
2. Slightly improved instrument separation.
3. More neutral sound, slightly more tamed highs.
4. Slightly less forward sound presentation (again, more neutral I guess since my A900X is rather forward).
5. A tiny bit more detail in the lower mids and maybe in the bass (hard to tell with the latter).

 
Not a huge upgrade, but I will probably try a different opamp in the buffer stage eventually.  I look forward to trying this with other headphones, I'm thinking the AKG K712 Pro might be next which should be about as close to dead neutral as I can get.