Introduction

 
Like my DT880, and for almost as long, the SRH440 has been a trusty companion, in its case pulling double duty as my portable headphone and as my "plug-it-in-real-quick" set. Therefore it's only fair it gets a proper review as well.
 
Back in 2009, Shure released a new line of closed-back, full-sized headphones, which included the SRH240, SRH440, and SRH840. The latter two received a lot of interest, though the flagship (at the time) got the lion's share of that. Essentially, Shure had managed to achieve the impossible, which was to make a closed back headphone that actually sounded good and whose name didn't contain the letter M or the number 5. And some of us who've owned both might say we should drop that qualifier entirely. 
 
It's funny how people forgot about that once all the shiny new headphones started coming out, though, and the SRH440 especially seems to be entirely abandoned. I'm here to try and turn the tide back in favor of this headphone because I think it's criminally underrated. Is it a giant killer? Probably not, as it's not even better than my humble DT880, but it's a damn good set of headphones for less than $100 these days.
 

Overall Summary

 
As usual, here's the shortened version: the SRH440 is a neutral headphone, leaning slightly toward brightness, with an average-sized soundstage, good imaging, punchy but not terribly extended bass, well-textured and balanced mids, and slightly leading treble with good extension for a closed design. It's not particularly comfortable stock, unfortunately, but can be slightly modified (see the relevant section) to improve comfort considerably. Also, do not replace its pads with the SRH840 ones as is commonly suggested, at least until after you've read my special section about that.
 

What's in the box, Build, Comfort, Ergo, etc.

 
The box doesn't come with a whole lot in it apart from the headphones, but that's not a big deal. You get the SRH440 itself, a 1/4" adapter, a quick guide/specifications book, a black pleather carrying pouch, and an orange warranty card. The cable also comes separate in the box (if I remember correctly)--yes, if you didn't already know, all the SRHx40 models apart from the SRH240 have a detachable cable. It's coiled, though a straight cable is available from Shure (for $20, last time I checked).
 
One place where the SRH440 doesn't impress me so much is in the build quality. The structure creaks a fair bit, and the plastics, while they've held up fine for almost two years of fairly constant abuse, feel a bit on the cheap side. The structure also feels a bit hollow, and in some places firm pressure can actually flex some of the plastic pieces. On the other hand, it lacks the utterly asinine hinge system of the old Sony V700 (which was copied, apparently down to the brittle plastics, in the SRH940), so the entire structure is more sound than this description might make it appear. Like I said, it managed to survive some pretty rough handling without a scratch, so I can't complain too much. I still expected more from Shure, though.
 
Comfort is initially sub par, on account of a bizarre design choice (or perhaps, more cynically, an example of built in upselling): the pads are quite shallow, and the material attached to the back of them that's meant to protect the driver from dirt and earwax is so thin it may as well not be there. The upshot is that the hard plastic driver guard installed to protect the driver from accidental puncture jams right up against the ear and becomes painful in under half an hour. The SRH840 pads have much thicker material (almost like cloth) attached to the back of their pads, so the driver guards on their respective model presumably don't cause this problem. Also, the headband on the SRH440 (and from what I've read, the SRH840 as well) digs uncomfortably into many people's heads.
 
I've solved both these problems, the first by placing a felt circle on top of each driver guard (I punched out holes for the bass reflex ports), and the second by using a piece from a velcro roll to stick some foam under the headband. With these modifications comfort is actually quite good. I can wear them for hours without any issues. As I said, I "fixed" Shure's mistakes, which I don't feel I should have had to do, given how these issues should have shown up in any reasonable product testing.
 
Rant over. Ergonomically I'll point out that, like several Sony monitor headphones I know of, there's only one correct way to wear the SRH440. In other words, you can't swap channels by flipping the headphone around. They seem to have a reasonable range of cup motion, so overall fit shouldn't be a problem, but I just thought I'd point out the orientation thing.
 

Sound

 

Tonal Balance

 
The overall balance is neutral leaning toward slightly bright. Their treble peaks aren't as tall as those of the DT880, but the overall treble level is actually slightly elevated over that of the DT880, believe it or not. Therefore, while overall they don't come across as quite as bright as the DT880, part of their EQ calibration curve (see the relevant section) involves shelving down everything above 10kHz by 3 dB.
 
-BASS-
 
Extension is somewhat lacking, but the midbass is pleasantly punchy and is very slightly bumped up. The overall character of the bass is tight, punchy, and exquisitely textured. There's a certain heft and grunt to the SRH440 bass that I find highly enjoyable.
 
-MIDRANGE-
 
Decently transparent and clear, and neither recessed nor forward. Guitars and vocals have a nice, crisp presentation, and the timbre is very natural. If I had to find a very slight fault it's that the upper mids on rare occasions can be a little shouty, but I honestly can't remember definitively the last time I experienced this. Mostly it's just an energetic, poised presentation that reminds me a lot of a nice pair of mini-monitors.
 
-TREBLE & EQ-
 
Definitely tipped up a little in overall volume, the treble is nonetheless impressively free of grain for being so prominent. Like the midrange, it carries a lot of energy and never leaves me wanting for sparkle. It also helps highlight detail without being excessive. All this said, EQ'ing out my resonance peak (6 dB at 7.6kHz), shelving down everything above 10kHz by 3 dB, and addressing a few shallow peaks at around 5.4kHz and 14kHz satisfies the perfectionist in me and achieves, to my ears, a wonderfully smooth response. Even without EQ the treble is acceptable, but it has a tendency to be edgy.
 

Presentation - Macro

 
As ever, we'll discuss soundstage, imaging, and transparency. Soundstage is one area where the SRH440 is a noticeable step down from the DT880 (since their tonal balances are quite similar). It's not horrible in absolute terms, but it's that typical "tubular" soundstage common to closed headphones: decent width, anemic depth, and no real sense of height. The effect of switching between my DT880 and SRH440 is akin to taking off your current prescription glasses and putting on the ones you used to wear one prescription ago--everything is still mostly there in the same proportions, but there's the sense that something's subtly wrong, which goes away once you've spent a little while adjusting.
 
Imaging is similarly very slightly lacking compared to the DT880, perhaps merely because the SRH440 has less raw space in which to distribute sonic elements. Directional cues are still obvious, but layering is noticeably less sophisticated and there's this unshakable feeling that the edges of elements are slightly blurry, compared to the razor sharp delineations the DT880 produces. Overall it's not a deal breaking step back, but it's obvious in direct comparison.
 
Transparency continues in the same mold. Direct comparison reveals a slight lack of refinement on the part of the SRH440 when compared with the DT880, but it's not noticeable in isolation. The SRH440 is still impressively transparent for a sub-$100 closed headphone. Veil of any kind is nonexistent.
 

Presentation - Micro

 
Detail and texture are well appointed in the SRH440. In fact, I'd say the SRH440 gets the upper hand on the DT880 here in one respect--it manages to texture its entire range, whereas the DT880 loses some texture as you descend through its bass extension. Bass in particular is very enjoyable on the SRH440 as a result of this. Detail-wise, the DT880 expectedly wins out, but it's closer than it ought to be. Both render minute artifacts and tiny details well, but the DT880 pulls ahead with its uncanny ability to convey ambiance and space around the instruments. The SRH440, perhaps being a closed design, just can't reproduce this information.
 

A note about the SRH840 pads

 
Don't do it. Easy, right? Of course I'm going to tell you why. Very simply, they change the sound quite noticeably, and not for the better, IMO. I'm also confused by the numerous claims that they somehow tame the treble, since for me they do the exact opposite. In fact, they seem to add a 5dB shelf above 5 kHz or so, a bump somewhere between 2.5kHz and 3kHz which makes vocals and guitars barky and shrill, and a mid-to-upper bass bump that muddies up the bass and makes it sound like somebody just turned on the MegaXXXXXXtraBass function on a cheap mini-system. How can pads do all this? Simple. They change the size of the acoustic chamber between the driver and your ear canal, which can have all sorts of nasty effects (see above). The SRH440 was voiced with its own pads in mind, and uncomfortable and impractical as they might be, you should leave them on there. Try the felt mod I mentioned earlier in the review. I swear it works wonders.
 

Conclusion

 
Overall, the SRH440 is an often overlooked/overshadowed headphone. Its biggest threat is probably the M50, which monopolizes all the attention whenever reasonably priced closed headphones are discussed. I've owned them both. The M50 got returned. The SRH440 is still here after two years. That doesn't mean, of course, that your preference will fall the same way. But these two headphones both deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, and in the same recommendation thread responses. They both do a lot of things right, and they pursue slightly different tonal balances (the M50 being more focused on mid- and sub bass and less focused on midrange than the SRH440). Ultimately, the M50 had too much bass for me. If you've ever felt the same way, but otherwise liked the detail, transparency, and basic presentation of the M50, the SRH440 might be right for you.

Note: this is more of an impression-style review, since I ultimately did not keep this set. I listened to it intensively, however, and feel confident enough to put together a few thoughts. At the end I mention some things I'd like to see from MEElec's next flagship.
 

Introduction

 
The A161P by MEElectronics (hereafter referred to as MEElec) is the company's second single balanced armature-based IEM and the first to include a microphone for use as a smartphone/PC headset. The previous model, the A151, used the Knowles SR (Siren) series armature, whereas the A161 uses the ED series armature. MEElec mentioned on Facebook that they felt that the ED armature would produce smoother treble and less bass rolloff than the popular TWFK armature (used in the Fischer Audio DBA-02/Brainwavz B2, UE700, and Rock-It R-50). Without giving away too much, I can definitively say that smoothness is an overarching theme of the A161P's sound.
 

Summary

 
This section will be a little different this time because I didn't actually keep this IEM, so in addition to a general description of the more detailed sections that follow, I'm also going to summarize how I think the A161P's sound and presentation could be improved in a follow-up model. In a nutshell, the A161P is an extremely smooth, mid-forward earphone. I had some trouble getting a correct fit (the fit kit is quite generous nonetheless) and quite a bit of trouble with source matching (more on that later), but I believe I heard enough to say that the bass isn't emphasized at all. The overall sound is warm, mid-forward, and quite subdued in the treble. MEElec is positioning this earphone as neutral, which I think is off the mark. They are unabashedly sweet and lush, with treble that lacks both harshness and sparkle. Fit wise, though I never quite felt confident I had the best seal, they were quite comfortable once I had them in.
 
I'd like to see MEElec take their sound in a more truly neutral direction with their next flagship and to work out some of the usability issues, such as offering even more tips, working on the cable, and bumping up the impedance.
 

What's in the box, Build, Comfort, Ergo, etc.

 
In the well-appointed box you get the earphones themselves, six sets of tips (S/M/L single flange, double flange, S/L triple flange), a pair of cable guides for over-the-ear wear, several adapters for hooking the set up to various smartphones or your computer, a compact hard shell carrying case, and a handy booklet explaining how to get the best fit and the various wear style options you have. MEElec consistently stuffs their packages with extras, the fit kit in particular being quite extensive in comparison to what many other brands offer. There's absolutely nothing to fault here; MEElec products are almost always an excellent value and this one is no exception.
 
Build quality is solid for the most part. The earpieces are made from shiny, smooth, well-molded plastic with gold-colored metallic collars and nozzles. The nozzles are covered in a non-removable metal mesh screen. The cable is well relieved at both entry and termination. However, it's rather thin and plasticky and doesn't inspire a tremendous amount of confidence. I also felt that the ear guides were a bit stiff and the cable tended to pop out of them, which annoyed me when trying to get a fit.
 
Comfort was quite good once properly inserted. Unfortunately, I had some trouble getting a good seal and none of the stock tips quite felt right. I got on best with the large triple flanges, but I wish there was a medium triple flange, which I feel would have fit better. The double flange felt too large and hurt my ears almost immediately after insertion. It also didn't sound very good. The best sounding tips were the large triple flanges, which is lucky because they provided the best fit and are the ones I used to evaluate the A161P. Another problem I had was that the earphones didn't seem to fit my ears the way the designers intended: for over-the-ear wear the diagrams and pictures showed them almost flush where they enter the ear canal, with a bit of the gold showing. No matter what I did they stuck out of my ears at an odd angle. This might have been why I had so much trouble getting a proper seal and insertion depth, and it also precluded me from using them while sleeping, which was something I was looking forward to trying.
 
An ergonomic note: You can wear these both over-the-ear and cable-down.
 

Sound

 

Tonal Balance

 
As I said in the summary, these are not neutral. They're most certainly mid-forward, but they're quite smooth about it. I never found them shouty or barky or harsh. Overall it's a pleasant sound, with some mild warmth through the lower mids and very relaxed treble. If you're looking for neutrality and an analytical/brighter sound, you'll want to steer far clear of these. If you're looking for booming bass, similarly, these are not for you. If, however, you're after lush, liquid midrange, these may be just the ticket.
 
-BASS-
 
The chart they print on the box (and which Tyll at InnerFidelity can corroborate) suggests these will have impressive sub bass extension. I didn't actually hear much of this, though maybe I wasn't listening properly. In fact, when I was done listening to the A161P the DT880 sounded quite bassy in an immediate comparison, which is kind of amusing. There's some mid bass, and there's some overall warmth, and that's about as much as I heard from this part of the spectrum. The bass tends toward neither punchy nor boomy, but instead has a softer, smoother attack. Speed is decently quick but texture is somewhat lacking for my taste, which might be a symptom of using a single BA.
 
-MIDRANGE-
 
Without a doubt, both the A161P's greatest strength and its Achilles' Heel. The midrange is forward, smooth, and sweet. It is always the dominant feature in the presentation and tends to push the bass and especially the treble back in the mix. There is no harshness and very little grain (which can be eliminated entirely by EQ'ing away a single spike that occurs at ~5.1kHz). It's thick and warm and not entirely transparent, but it's always pleasant. It never gets shouty or barky, but it also ensures that the signature can never be mistaken for a neutral one. This throws off the timbre of a lot of instruments (snare drums in particular) and upsets the neutrality demon in me.
 
-TREBLE-
 
Continuing the theme established by the rest of the range, treble is very smooth. It's also quite laid back in the mix. Harshness and sibilance are almost completely absent (with the 5.1kHz spike and your individual resonance peak notched out, it's completely gone), but extension and presence suffer. There's virtually no sparkle and, IMO, the sense of energy is lacking. Still, if a non-fatiguing and relentlessly smooth sound are the order of the day, the A161P definitely delivers on that front. I just wish the treble baseline was higher, but I believe MEElec got everything out of this driver that they could when they tuned it. Adding a high shelf simply makes the sound harsher without noticeably increasing the treble presence, indicating to me that these armatures are giving everything they can and are at the upper limits of their extension and presence.
 

Presentation - Macro

 
The usual suspects of soundstage, imaging, and transparency are on the plate. First off, I was quite surprised by the soundstage. I had been led to believe that it would be quite small and confined, but that didn't turn out to the case. It's not large by any means, but there's a surprising sense of openness that belies the particular tonal balance MEElec selected. It's still wider than it is deep, but it's not a stifling presentation by any means.
 
Imaging is quite nice. Cues are presented clearly, and layering is better than I expected but still not on the level of my full-sized headphones. That's probably an unfair comparison, and for what they are, the A161P dissect a mix very nicely. I never felt like they were getting bogged down or overwhelmed.
 
Transparency is slightly lacking due to the tuning. That said, it's still quite decent for a mid-forward sound. It's more apparent when you're sitting and not doing anything than when you're active, which is a definite minus for my usage--I feel like I'm missing out on detail and straining a little to hear when I'm moving around.
 

Presentation - Micro

 
Texture is slightly smoothed over in favor of ultimate smoothness and lack of fatigue, but it's still there, just slightly softer and less in your face. Detail is similarly subdued, but listen closely and you'll find most of it. Unfortunately, the relaxed treble doesn't help in either case, making certain things like the popping in and out of tape hiss in a heavily overdubbed section of a song impossible to detect. Perhaps it seems a bit odd to want to hear defects like this, but these things are my benchmarks--my full-sized headphones both reveal these with ease, which means they render fine detail with similar ease. The A161P seems ultimately limited by the bandwidth and resolution of its single armature, as bass in particular lacks texture and sounds simplified, for lack of a better word.
 

Source Matching

 
Here's an issue I've never had before: the A161P sounded noticeably different on all four of the sources I plugged them into. It also hissed on three out of four and was completely unusable on two of them (both were computer outputs, including the one that didn't hiss). The main thing that changed was the amount of bass and lower midrange, but there were also swings in certain lower treble bands as well. My guess is that the low impedance (16 ohms) wasn't a good choice for an armature design, as armatures tend to have wild impedance swings which, when improperly damped, can wreak havoc on the tonal balance. What I got out of my iPod and my amp was, I believe, what these are actually supposed to sound like, though even there I heard a difference in bass and lower midrange output.
 
The low impedance, coupled with the relatively high sensitivity (110 dB), is responsible for the hiss, and an inline impedance adapter should fix both this and the source matching issues, at the expense of decreased sensitivity.
 

Conclusion

 
Overall, the A161P is a smooth, mid-forward IEM that makes for a pleasant but not neutral listen. Ultimately whether you'll enjoy them or not hinges on the signature. If you like your midrange lush and sweet, these might be your ideal set. If you're looking for balance and treble energy, you'll definitely want to look elsewhere. The fit kit is comprehensive, and yet I still had some trouble fitting these. They're comfortable and well-made, though the cable is a bit thin and plasticky for my taste. The overall accessory kit makes these a great value, as MEElec stuff usually is. I truly feel bad giving these up, but unfortunately the sonic signature just didn't work for me, and the fit never felt quite right. Hopefully MEElec will come out with another flagship that will better fit my sonic preferences (and my ears!). I'd love to test it if they do. 
 

Suggestions to MEElec for the next flagship

 
In MEElec's next flagship I'd like to see them shoot for a brighter, flatter, less midrange-focused balance. I imagine a good place to start might be the TWFK armature, though it doesn't really matter which armature(s) they use so long as they tune the end result well. I'm looking for something that sounds like my DT880 and SRH440 in balance, but with better sub bass extension than both. I'd also like to see them work on the cable, which on the A161P is a bit thin and plasticky, and maybe develop a medium-sized triple flange tip to slot between their small and large triple flanges. Finally, I'd very much like to see them design the set with a higher impedance (at least 32 ohms) so as to counteract the source matching issues.

Introduction

 
This isn't going to be my usual sort of review because just the existence of a write-up for the V700 on my usual scale is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, given the reputation these have. However, I did own not one but two pairs of them before I discovered proper hi-fi, and you could say that I technically still have two pairs of them. We'll get to that in a moment, but as a general statement the V700DJ isn't counted among the great triumphs of hi-fi. However, it was a very successful DJ headphone, and in that context its sonic signature makes some sense. I'm not exactly sure when it was first offered, but I know that in early 2012 it was discontinued. Perhaps its infamous durability problems (made even worse in later production runs) contributed, but I think it's more likely Sony simply wanted to update its lineup with better overall performers.
 

Summary

 
As usual, here's the Cliff's Notes version. The V700DJ (hereafter referred to as the V700) was the flagship headphone in Sony's Vx00 lineup, and one of two DJ headphones (the V500 being the other). It's not a particularly good headphone by hi-fi standards, as its frequency response is obviously colored. Out of the box they have boosted, somewhat muddy bass, forward, aggressive midrange, and subdued, grainy treble. This isn't a bad response for a DJ headphone, since it emphasizes bass and bass drum and snare drum cracks but rolls off the treble so they can be listened to at high volume without fatigue. On all other technical fronts they fall flat (in the case of the soundstage quite literally), comfort is lacking, and durability is appalling. I haven't personally heard any of them, but I imagine there are DJ headphones out there that don't suffer from these problems.
 
However, there is one fascinating thing about the V700 which makes me just shake my head in amusement. The plastic in the joint mechanism inevitably cracks, and as it does it gradually loosens the fit. Bass and lower midrange quantity are heavily dependent on a tight fit, so over time the V700 gradually loses bass quantity until it has less bass than a DT880. That's right, a DJ headphone that ends up with less bass than an airhead can--whatever next?
 

What's in the box, Build Quality, Comfort, Ergo, etc.

 
The V700 used to come in a fairly standard cardboard box. I remember it had teal print and a picture of the headphones on it. You got the headphones themselves, a shimmery off-white neoprene carrying pouch, a 1/4" adapter, and an instruction/specifications booklet.
 
Build quality, as alluded above, is abysmal. Both times I got them they broke within a year. The plastic used is brittle and cannot handle the strain caused by the tight fit, so cracks appear throughout the structure, usually around the swivel joints. The headband eventually loses its shape as well, and in my second pair the rubbery covering on the cable started flaking off after a few years and the plastic part around the jack separated and began travelling up the cable, strain relief and all. The cable is nine feet and coiled, though the second unit's coiling is very loosely wound and has almost completely lost its shape. The pads are pleather-coated fabric, and like all pleather pads they eventually dry out and begin cracking and flaking. The only part of these that remains intact is the cups themselves, which are fashioned out of seemingly tougher plastics and which are covered with metal caps.
 
Notice I keep talking about my second pair. That's because my first pair broke unrecoverably after just a year and a half. My second pair broke as well, but, luckily, it broke in different enough places that I was able to substitute parts from the first one in order to keep the second one going for a little over five years. This is not a shimmering endorsement, to say the least.
 
Comfort is initially sorely lacking. These are one of only two pairs of headphones I've ever owned that have caused me physical pain (a Grado SR225i was the other), and both of them, incidentally, were supraaural. That said, the main culprit here is the clamping force. I could wear the V700 for only about half an hour before the pain set in. The headband never gave me any trouble, however, and is actually more comfortable than that on my SRH440. As time goes on, the fit loosens, not because the headband conforms to your head, but because the plastic parts of the band begin breaking. Even completely broken (in) the fit never feels particularly secure despite still being uncomfortably (but not skull-crushingly) tight.
 

Sound

 

Tonal Balance

 
As mentioned above, the V700 has a sculpted frequency response. Or, it would, if it didn't break. It actually undergoes a fascinating transformation in which, in the end, tonally it actually sounds like a Grado with some added treble tizz. Imagine that! I'll evaluate its pre-broken (in) sound first, then describe how it "evolves."
 
-BASS-
 
Every stereotype you've ever read about "fart cannon" bass is true of the V700 to some extent. There isn't much extension, but there's a healthy bump in the mid- and upper bass department, enough to impart warmth on the lower mids. Its not particularly tight and tends toward boomy. Texture isn't anything to write home about, and impact is woolly.
 
-MIDRANGE-
 
Very forward, and not in the tasteful way of some mid-forward hi-fi sets. The V700's midrange can be shouty and it lacks transparency. There's also quite a bit of grain, which carries over into the treble. I remember my first impression was that it made all my classical recordings sound "old." A rather astute observation for a 13 year-old, but nevertheless I still listened to them for another eight years.
 
-TREBLE-
 
Subdued, non-fatiguing, but not entirely smooth. The treble is definitely a complement to the rest of the signature and not a major component. There isn't much extension here, either, and the overall character tends toward tizziness. The V700 in general is not a tremendously detailed set, and a little more treble might have helped here. But, of course, it would have made them more fatiguing at the high volume these are likely to be used at.
 
-"TRANSFORMATION"
 
As the plastic bits break, the bass and lower midrange gradually shift lower in the mix. Eventually they reach a point where they're well below baseline, such that a DT880--that true basshead can --sounds bassy next to them. In this state, the midrange completely monopolizes the balance, and leakage is quite substantial (due to lack of a proper seal). I'm sad to say I probably listened to both pairs like this for the majority of the time I used them on account of their quickness to break. I wish I could do it over again, but time spent listening to crappy headphones is time you can never get back. 
 

Presentation - Macro

 
As usual, I'm separating this into three main categories: soundstage, imaging, and transparency. The V700 does not have a terribly large soundstage, either in width or depth. In fact, pretty much all of my other headphones improve upon its presentation in every respect. The overall presentation manages to escape a feeling of outright confinement, though--I think the word to use here is intimate.
 
Imaging isn't bad overall. In fact, I have yet to come across a headphone with truly bad imaging. I'm not denying such a headphone exists, but even the kiddie phones I found in the storage barn could image competently. As far as the V700 is concerned, it's your typical planar presentation, with everything coming at you from the same (intimate) distance and very little layering. This isn't an offensive presentation, but it's certainly not top shelf.
 
Transparency is sorely lacking. Putting them on again after years without listening to them, they sound like a transistor radio. Granted, that's mostly because the bass has completely disappeared, but that doesn't excuse the inescapable feeling that you're listening to a set of headphones. Good gear disappears in use, and the V700 definitely does not. The graininess contributes to this, but the main culprits are lack of detail and lack of treble. The forward upper mids don't help, either.
 

Presentation - Micro

 
Here we'll talk about detail and texture. The V700 manages to gloss over most of the inherent texture in the track but imparts its own grain onto everything. This makes this section very simple: the V700 is lacking in both detail and texture. Listening to music on them feels like trying to watch the television across the room without wearing my eyeglasses. Back when I was in fifth grade, before I got my first pair, I wasn't aware how sharp and clear the world was to people who had proper vision. I'll never forget the first time I put them on just what a revelation it was. That was how I felt when I first listened to the M50, and going back to the V700 after that was like taking off my glasses and trying to look at the world: it's never the same again once you've seen it properly.
 

Conclusion

 
At this point there's not much more I can say. The V700 is certainly a purpose-built tool. However, I can't help but feel that its problems come more from the inherent limitations of its drivers than its sculpted tuning. I imagine other DJ headphones that have been tuned similarly might be able to produce more detail or exhibit better control over their sound. I also imagine that other models will be more comfortable or practical (i.e. circumaural instead of supraaural). And I'm almost certain that none of them has build quality as poor as the V700. This headphone has been retired, and apart from perhaps one person I've come across here on Head-Fi, I don't believe anybody will miss it.

Introduction

 
I've had my DT880 for over two years now, and I figured it's finally time to give it a proper write-up. Of course the DT880 is nothing new. It was introduced into Beyer's Premium lineup in 2003 and got an aesthetic makeover, along with the entire Premium lineup, in 2005. This is the version I have (the 250 ohm variant). It competed with the HD6x0, and later the K70x, as one of the three top dynamic headphones in the world. The DT880 was the bright, airy one out of the bunch. Lots of headphones have come and gone since then, and Beyer itself has released a new (much more expensive) flagship, the T1. What kind of value does the DT880 offer today? Let's find out.
 

General Summary

 
I'll save you reading through the detailed, long-winded part to follow and offer a quick summary of what I'm going to say. The DT880 is a member of the airy, buoyant, neutral class of headphones. It will certainly not satisfy bassheads or those looking for a smooth, thick, euphonic midrange, and those sensitive to treble had best look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for detail, openness, extended treble, texture, transparency, and speed, the DT880 might suit you. It's a comfortable, well-built, and IMO gorgeous headphone, whose understated appearance belies the energetic sound it produces.
 

What's in the box, Build Quality, Comfort, Ergo, etc.

 
The DT880 comes well packaged in a reusable, foam-padded leather carrying case. You get the headphone itself, a 1/4" adapter, and a booklet trumpeting the virtues of Beyerdynamic and attempting to sell you the T1 (thanks, guys ). The case is a nice addition, and while it won't protect the headphones from getting crushed, it's more practical than the aluminum box the original 2003 version used to come in and I've used it many times to transport my DT880 around the house.
 
The build quality is impressive. I like to joke that if I threw my DT880 at the wall, it'd break...the wall. I'm not actually going to do that to find out what would really happen, though. Walls are expensive. Anyway, the DT880 is constructed from mostly metal and tough, matte plastic, with some squishy padding on the headband and soft velour pads. All the seams are tight, nothing creaks, and after over two years of ownership my pair looks brand new. The cable is supple, decently thick, and is well relieved on both entry and termination. It has a 3.5mm mini plug which takes a threaded 1/4" adapter (though you can use a regular adapter as well). It's straight and 10 feet in length.
 
Comfort is exceptional. They truly disappear when I'm wearing them. The velour pads don't retain heat in my experience (though others report this as a mild issue), though they do absorb body oil and require a yearly cleaning in warm water and mild dish soap. The clamping force is just enough to keep the headphone on my head. Though they're of medium weight (290g), that weight is distributed evenly across the headband and pads. My only complaint, from an ergonomic standpoint, is that because of the sheer size of the DT880 and the way its earcup yokes stick out, it's difficult to lie back on a pillow while wearing them.
 

Sound

 

Tonal Balance

 
Overall, the DT880 is a well-balanced headphone, leaning somewhat toward brightness. Reports that it's a treble monster are exaggerated, IMO. The range and extension on either end are both impressive. That said, they won't be rattling your brain with bass or lulling you with forward, smooth midrange. They are accurate, to some perhaps to a fault, and if you've never heard such a sound before you might not like it. Let's do a breakdown:
 
-BASS-
 
Probably the weakest aspect of the sound, but still quite good. Typical of open dynamics of its vintage, the DT880 struggles with absolute sub bass extension. Despite this handicap it does manage to dig quite deep, but it loses texture on the way down and rolls off at the very bottom. The bass character is quick, taut, and even. It tends toward punchy rather than boomy. There might be the slightest hint of upper bass/lower midrange warmth, but it's faint if it's there at all.
 
-MIDRANGE-
 
Contrary to what is usually written about the DT880, I find the midrange the strongest aspect of this headphone. I don't find it recessed at all. There's a slight metallic tinge that comes from the treble (see next section), but this can be eliminated with precision EQ (see the relevant section). Either way, the DT880's midrange is highly revealing and transparent. It adds absolutely nothing to the recording and lacks the euphonic thickness and warmth that a lot of listeners prefer. It's what's known as dry, a term I failed to understand until just recently.
 
-TREBLE-
 
Here's where the trouble starts. The treble is nicely extended and is certainly not shy. However, the tuning has a few issues. There is a very prominent spike at around 5.8kHz (my measurements indicate ~7.5 dB) and a few smaller (3 dB) ones above 10kHz. The former especially is responsible for the DT880's reputation as a bright headphone and manifests itself as a grainy sort of glare that overlays everything. In addition, because of the relatively strong baseline level, my resonance peak (for me it's 6 dB at 7.6kHz) tends to exaggerate sibilance and make cymbals and other treble elements sound overly shimmery. Depending on your preferred genres, these might not be detriments, since they add perceived clarity. For me, though, it can be too much sometimes. Thankfully, there is an answer.
 
-EQ-
 
Those who know me from around the forums know I'm a strong proponent of properly applied precision EQ. This is not the same thing as loading up a 10-band graphic EQ and playing with the sliders willy-nilly. There's a technique involved, one which is designed to produce repeatable results. I've linked the thread in my signature, but here's a link to it anyway. Basically, after notching out the 5.8kHz peak, the 7.6kHz one that's intrinsic to my hearing and which I perceive in all headphones, and the two small ones above 10kHz, the treble goes from peaky to merely energetic and well extended.
 
The remainder of the review is judged using my calibration curve, but since it's about the presentation it holds true regardless of whether or not EQ is applied.
 

Presentation - Macro

 
The three basic tenets of presentation are soundstage, imaging, and transparency. Of course there are lots of ways to describe sound, but these are the three I'm going to concentrate on in this section. Some folks also separate out the terms soundstage and headstage, which I don't bother doing since I've never quite understood the distinction.
 
The DT880 has a well-rounded soundstage. It's not the widest in the world, I'm sure, nor is it the deepest. It's well balanced, however, and gives a nice sense of both width and depth. It even manages to convey some height, which is rare. Sonic cues are well-distributed within the soundstage and layered nicely. The DT880 is adept at separating background from foreground and can even indicate when an element is in a state of transition from one to the other (e.g. an instrument steps forward in the mix and plays a solo, then retreats to the background).
 
Imaging is excellent. There's no doubt where sonic cues are coming from, and as mentioned before, layering is a strong suit of the presentation. Musical elements separate out cleanly and it's easy to follow any one or several elements as you like. My only criticism is that it's sometimes difficult to quite find the center image, though part of the problem for me is that I have a slight bias toward my left ear so everything is shifted in that direction.
 
The DT880 is a transparent headphone. Perhaps due to its lack of midrange warmth or sweetness, it doesn't feel like there's anything separating the listener from the music. Especially after EQ, the headphone completely disappears. Some folks like their headphone to add some color to the sound, and from what I understand, well-designed colored headphones can be transparent as well. I think there's an advantage, however, to starting with a neutral balance, and the DT880 certainly does just that.
 

Presentation - Micro

 
In both texturing and detail retrieval, I find the DT880 mostly excellent. Nothing is glossed over or lost, and even when a lot is happening at once the DT880 manages to separate it all out and deliver fine detail. The midrange in particular is well-textured, with detailed and realistic renderings of instruments and vocals.
 
All this said, the bass definitely loses some texturing on the way down, which isn't surprising for an early 2000s-era open dynamic. A look at the distortion figures shows a rising baseline below 100Hz, indicating a driver that is having difficulty controlling its output at those frequencies. Nonetheless, there's enough information returned from the bass to pick out different kinds of bass instruments.
 

Final Thoughts

 
Some might say that the DT880 has outlived its useful life, what with the flurry of new headphones that have come out after it and the raising of the bar (or the price, say the cynical) for flagship performance. To those people I can only point to DavidMahler's epic thread, in which he compares over 50 flagships and former flagships. Among the best headphones in the world, he places the DT880 at #25 out of 56 and gives it one of only four A+ value ratings. He's just one guy, yes, but he has access to the best of the best, and he says a lot of the same things I've touched on in this review.
 
The DT880 might be an older model, and with the DT770 being replaced by the Tesla-based T70 and the new T90 coming out, the writing seems to be on the wall for the eventual discontinuation of the entire Premium line. However, I still believe it's an excellent choice for those who would like a headphone with a neutral, airy, and detailed sound, all in a well-built and supremely comfortable design.