Dekameter
New Head-Fier
It's nearly 4 AM, but I'm finding myself restless, so I may as well write up about what I feel like is a contender (or at least tied) for my new favorite headphone with the Ananda Nano. This write up will compare the Nano to the Ananda Stealth V2 and Ananda Stealth V3. It's the sort of comprehensive comparison I was hoping someone else would have done by now, but it seems like everyone else is waiting for somebody else to jump ship. The comparisons here were done via the Schiit Bifrost Multibit fed into the Schiit Jotunheim 1 (XLR) and the Schiit Lyr+, as well as run off an xDuoo Link2 Bal.
For the past 5 years, I relied on mainly Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro's for everyday use between music and gaming. Those were only ever sounded listenable (but also exceptional) on a Valhalla 2. Any other source I had tried, particularly solid state, would just be unbearable with that treble peak. Unfortunately, a few months ago my roommate's new dog had gotten into them and showed what no amount of build quality could survive. Ever since then, I've been back on the audiophile journey looking for a replacement.
Ananda Stealth V2:
Having good things about the Ananda series and not wanting to step "down" from the dt1990, I ordered the Ananda Stealth from Amazon. This was back in April, where there was only mentions of a V2 in the wild, and the weight and impedance suggested what I'd be getting was the V2. What I had received was clearly the V2 given the 440 gram weight and the impedance reading something like 25 ohms on the box. Comparing the Ananda Stealth V2 to the dt1990 (from memory), my experience was rather mixed. The clamp wasn't tight enough to where tilting my head about be enough the flop the headband forward; both of the notches scratched readily when adjusted; one side (always the same side, but at this point I don't remember which anymore) would always seem to magically slip a notch in the same of sitting on my desk and me putting them back on; more worringly, the left side connector didn't seemed to be clamped enough, causing the sound the cut in-and-out with the slightest shift and touch and the connector. I had gotten a Hart cable in hopes that it would fix my issues, but that didn't change the effect.
Sound-wise it was very surprisingly middle-of-the-road and disappointing, too. I don't remember being at all impressed, where my initial impression is that it lacked clarity and sounded a bit muffled. The bass was muddy and it bled into the mids, and the treble was peaky in a harsh in way. For context, I find that I'm more sensitive to lower-treble than mid-treble, so in a way the HD 560S was more fatiguing to me than the DT 1990; this was much in the same way. Ultimately, I was afraid the connector was going to fail on me, but at the time I wasn't as sure about the sound quality as I am now. I returned the Ananda Stealth V2 for a replacement, but what I got back surprised me. I thought there must have been some mistake, because both the impedance and weight on the box were different. An extensive google search only showed a single Reddit post someone asking about this same question, but the conclusion then was that this must have been some sort of printing error, and that there was in fact only ever one Ananda Stealth. However, I just so happened to weigh both the earlier V2 and the V3--there was a clear difference. The first was definitely 440 grams, and the latter was just under 400 grams.
Ananda Stealth V3:
Right off the bat, there was much improvement. Before I thought the V2 was a bit uncomfortable while lacking a strong enough clamp, but here the clamp definitely tighter (in a good way), and the weight was a prominent enough difference that it felt way better on the head. This time, too, the sound quality jumped up a notch. I can't say if there was any discernible difference in resolution, but the imaging and staging was clearer. There was more depth and layering in front of me, and vocals had this strange effect that sounded immediate and intimate in a way that stood out more than even my HD 6xx. At first I didn't like it being so strange, but I've since come to miss that effect. The stage overall I'd describe as "pill-shaped," where there's lots of depth both in front and behind me, but everything on my left and right ears were extremely close (but still with depth). The tuning was the other prominent change. The bass sounded fuller, warmer, but also cleaner and more distinct from the rest of the frequency range. Honestly, I regret not writing about this here sooner to give people a more informative frame of reference on the V2 vs. V3 back in May. Even at the time of this writing, I don't know if there actually has been anyone else I've seen that's had both the V2 and V3 to compare.
However, I still didn't feel quite satisfied with the lack of resolution upgrade coming from the dt1990. The Aurorus Borealis had been on my radar for the past couple of years as a potential upgrade path coming from the dt1990. In the end, I had decided to jump up to the Bori and returned the Ananda Stealth V3. After a few months, I couldn't help but feel like I missed what the Stealth V3 did, and there was the newly released Nano to consider. The biggest thing that stood out to me was the new nanometer diaphragm carried over from the HE1000V2. There was also some hope that maybe if I liked it enough, it could replace the Bori and I could sell it for a net gain in cash. So I ended up giving the Ananda one last chance with the Nano, and boy am I glad I did.
Ananda Nano:
I'm not gonna lie, right off the bat I was immediately blown away with it. When it comes to metal/rock, it's way more fun, engaging, and dynamic than the Stealth variants ever were. A word that grabs out to me is "addicting". It's so captivating that I found it hard to put the headphone down and switch back to anything else for a while there. There's hardly a single quality that I could say the Stealth variants did better than the Nano. The tuning on the bass makes it punch and slam harder than before in ways that remind me of the dt1990. In a way, admittedly, it might almost be pushed too far if you're looking for something that's more neutral or reference, but in my experience it balances out against the treble. For the most part. I'd describe the signature as a subtle V-shape, something that is warm-bright. From memory, this does mean the mids are pulled back a bit relative to both the V2 and the V3. This also leads to the one quality I mentioned missing earlier, which is the vocal forwardness. Vocal clarity is still very strong, but I remember vocals straight-up in my face with the V3, whereas here it's backed to being "normal" or maybe even recessed some.
The soundstage is improved in some ways in my opinion, too. Before, the V3 was pill-shaped. Here with the Nano, I'd describe it as more of an oval. It's easily the widest sounding between the V2, V3, and Nano. Imaging, in terms of the positioning of things, is improved overall, too, though maybe not dramatically so. Instrument separation is probably the weakest improvement, so much so that it's very likely they're the same between the V3 and Nano. Here I wish the instrument separation and layering were even clearer, but you'd probably have to go north of $1k+ for a notable enough improvement here. Timbre is also a subtle quality that may or may not have improved slightly, though this is a quality I would really need to A/B compare to know for sure. Regardless, timbre is probably one of the weaker qualities, but still not bad for the price and not really "plasticky" as some people describe planars. It's just indescribably "off" in a way that the Borealis and Sennheiser HD 6xx aren't. Part of that I think is in the transients and room information, where it gets cut off too short with the Nano. Maybe it's a price to be paid for its intense speed?
One worry that's come back is that the right connector has a similar issue I mentioned with the V2's left connector, in that this time it's slightly loose in a way that has me worrying about its longevity. Also, again, the right notches will slip once regardless of the position I rest my headphones in. These seem to be prevailing issues with the Ananda lineup and something to consider.
Comparing with the Aurorus Borealis:
In terms of subjective enjoyment, I'd say the Nano and Bori are just about neck-and-neck, mainly depending on what you're listening to and what you're listening with. More objectively, the Bori is still a straight up better headphone in more qualities. The Bori has near neutral tuning and edges the line of being inoffensive, safe vs. detailed. Bori's bass is more visceral and tactile in a way I've never heard any headphone pull off so far. It's incredibly textured. With the Nano, it is more punchy, tight, rounded off, but also smoothed over. I actually like both really well, so it depends on what I'm looking for. With the Bori, it shines best with orchestral music. You get what you pay for in microdetail, hearing the bristles and "scratchiness" of cellos & contrabasses glide their bows. Violins and pianos shine in a pristine, in-your-face way.
By contrast, Nano sounds smoothed over in these sorts of details that I miss. What you gain with the Nano instead are in the staging qualities. Bori's stage can sound diffuse and ill-defined in some ways that I wasn't expecting, whereas Nano has a clearly distinct, but wide, boundary in a way I subjectively prefer. This might be me being corrupted from using the dt1990 for so many years. The layers and columns of instruments are better defined, which I find suits the best with something big & grandiose, like in The Lord of the Rings soundtracks. With small orchestra down to quartets is where the Bori and its timbre shines the most. Somewhere in-between, "medium-sized" orchestras or depending on the soundtrack it can be a toss-up depending if you're looking for the timbre & microdetail or if you're looking to pick part instruments more clearly. For rock/metal, it's been a toss up in what's more enjoyable. If those are your primary genres, I would decide based on both your tolerance for treble and whether you want something pure neutral (Bori) vs. something more bass & treble forward (Nano).
Treble is another stark difference. As said with the Bori, it rides the line of trying not to be offensive or harsh while also trying to min-max the detail it can bring. With the Nano, it arguably pushes it north of that line, depending who you are or what frequency ranges you're most sensitive to. For me, it's hardly been offensive or wince-worthy save for some few songs in some specific moments, but neither the Bori nor the Nano never been outright sibilant in way that the dt1990's could be. One flaw I have with the Bori is its lack of air, whereas arguably the Nano might have too much air, possibly being a contributing factor to the timbre not being in the same league.
One of the final reasons I had decided to change with the Ananda Nano was gaming. I play FPSes competitively, and I really appreciate the ability to pinpoint any single sound around you in a 3D bubble around you. This was a quality that the Bori sort of lacked and I missed with the dt1990. Technically you can still do this with any headphone to any reasonably degree, even the HD 6xx, but it's that spherical and an immediacy that's necessary to someone behind you at exactly 7 o'clock vs. 5 o'clock that might mean hitting a shot or missing. This a quality that I can tangibly and measurably show a difference with the Audiospatial 8 test on Aimlabs, of which before I've ranked top 50 with the dt1990. It's less about whether or not you can pinpoint a sound surrounding you, and more about the reaction time of how quick your brain can realize exactly where something is vs. the hesitation it takes with a measurable difference. I'm happy to say that the Nano is on par with the dt1990 in this sort of quality, which translates to immersive gaming as well. The Bori isn't necessarily bad in this regard (to the point I'd describe as average), but sounds bleed together more and the soundscape is more wide than deep in a way that can be registered as confusing and less immersive.
I've exhausted everything that's come to mind, but feel free to ask any other questions for anything I might have missed!
For the past 5 years, I relied on mainly Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro's for everyday use between music and gaming. Those were only ever sounded listenable (but also exceptional) on a Valhalla 2. Any other source I had tried, particularly solid state, would just be unbearable with that treble peak. Unfortunately, a few months ago my roommate's new dog had gotten into them and showed what no amount of build quality could survive. Ever since then, I've been back on the audiophile journey looking for a replacement.
Ananda Stealth V2:
Having good things about the Ananda series and not wanting to step "down" from the dt1990, I ordered the Ananda Stealth from Amazon. This was back in April, where there was only mentions of a V2 in the wild, and the weight and impedance suggested what I'd be getting was the V2. What I had received was clearly the V2 given the 440 gram weight and the impedance reading something like 25 ohms on the box. Comparing the Ananda Stealth V2 to the dt1990 (from memory), my experience was rather mixed. The clamp wasn't tight enough to where tilting my head about be enough the flop the headband forward; both of the notches scratched readily when adjusted; one side (always the same side, but at this point I don't remember which anymore) would always seem to magically slip a notch in the same of sitting on my desk and me putting them back on; more worringly, the left side connector didn't seemed to be clamped enough, causing the sound the cut in-and-out with the slightest shift and touch and the connector. I had gotten a Hart cable in hopes that it would fix my issues, but that didn't change the effect.
Sound-wise it was very surprisingly middle-of-the-road and disappointing, too. I don't remember being at all impressed, where my initial impression is that it lacked clarity and sounded a bit muffled. The bass was muddy and it bled into the mids, and the treble was peaky in a harsh in way. For context, I find that I'm more sensitive to lower-treble than mid-treble, so in a way the HD 560S was more fatiguing to me than the DT 1990; this was much in the same way. Ultimately, I was afraid the connector was going to fail on me, but at the time I wasn't as sure about the sound quality as I am now. I returned the Ananda Stealth V2 for a replacement, but what I got back surprised me. I thought there must have been some mistake, because both the impedance and weight on the box were different. An extensive google search only showed a single Reddit post someone asking about this same question, but the conclusion then was that this must have been some sort of printing error, and that there was in fact only ever one Ananda Stealth. However, I just so happened to weigh both the earlier V2 and the V3--there was a clear difference. The first was definitely 440 grams, and the latter was just under 400 grams.
Ananda Stealth V3:
Right off the bat, there was much improvement. Before I thought the V2 was a bit uncomfortable while lacking a strong enough clamp, but here the clamp definitely tighter (in a good way), and the weight was a prominent enough difference that it felt way better on the head. This time, too, the sound quality jumped up a notch. I can't say if there was any discernible difference in resolution, but the imaging and staging was clearer. There was more depth and layering in front of me, and vocals had this strange effect that sounded immediate and intimate in a way that stood out more than even my HD 6xx. At first I didn't like it being so strange, but I've since come to miss that effect. The stage overall I'd describe as "pill-shaped," where there's lots of depth both in front and behind me, but everything on my left and right ears were extremely close (but still with depth). The tuning was the other prominent change. The bass sounded fuller, warmer, but also cleaner and more distinct from the rest of the frequency range. Honestly, I regret not writing about this here sooner to give people a more informative frame of reference on the V2 vs. V3 back in May. Even at the time of this writing, I don't know if there actually has been anyone else I've seen that's had both the V2 and V3 to compare.
However, I still didn't feel quite satisfied with the lack of resolution upgrade coming from the dt1990. The Aurorus Borealis had been on my radar for the past couple of years as a potential upgrade path coming from the dt1990. In the end, I had decided to jump up to the Bori and returned the Ananda Stealth V3. After a few months, I couldn't help but feel like I missed what the Stealth V3 did, and there was the newly released Nano to consider. The biggest thing that stood out to me was the new nanometer diaphragm carried over from the HE1000V2. There was also some hope that maybe if I liked it enough, it could replace the Bori and I could sell it for a net gain in cash. So I ended up giving the Ananda one last chance with the Nano, and boy am I glad I did.
Ananda Nano:
I'm not gonna lie, right off the bat I was immediately blown away with it. When it comes to metal/rock, it's way more fun, engaging, and dynamic than the Stealth variants ever were. A word that grabs out to me is "addicting". It's so captivating that I found it hard to put the headphone down and switch back to anything else for a while there. There's hardly a single quality that I could say the Stealth variants did better than the Nano. The tuning on the bass makes it punch and slam harder than before in ways that remind me of the dt1990. In a way, admittedly, it might almost be pushed too far if you're looking for something that's more neutral or reference, but in my experience it balances out against the treble. For the most part. I'd describe the signature as a subtle V-shape, something that is warm-bright. From memory, this does mean the mids are pulled back a bit relative to both the V2 and the V3. This also leads to the one quality I mentioned missing earlier, which is the vocal forwardness. Vocal clarity is still very strong, but I remember vocals straight-up in my face with the V3, whereas here it's backed to being "normal" or maybe even recessed some.
The soundstage is improved in some ways in my opinion, too. Before, the V3 was pill-shaped. Here with the Nano, I'd describe it as more of an oval. It's easily the widest sounding between the V2, V3, and Nano. Imaging, in terms of the positioning of things, is improved overall, too, though maybe not dramatically so. Instrument separation is probably the weakest improvement, so much so that it's very likely they're the same between the V3 and Nano. Here I wish the instrument separation and layering were even clearer, but you'd probably have to go north of $1k+ for a notable enough improvement here. Timbre is also a subtle quality that may or may not have improved slightly, though this is a quality I would really need to A/B compare to know for sure. Regardless, timbre is probably one of the weaker qualities, but still not bad for the price and not really "plasticky" as some people describe planars. It's just indescribably "off" in a way that the Borealis and Sennheiser HD 6xx aren't. Part of that I think is in the transients and room information, where it gets cut off too short with the Nano. Maybe it's a price to be paid for its intense speed?
One worry that's come back is that the right connector has a similar issue I mentioned with the V2's left connector, in that this time it's slightly loose in a way that has me worrying about its longevity. Also, again, the right notches will slip once regardless of the position I rest my headphones in. These seem to be prevailing issues with the Ananda lineup and something to consider.
Comparing with the Aurorus Borealis:
In terms of subjective enjoyment, I'd say the Nano and Bori are just about neck-and-neck, mainly depending on what you're listening to and what you're listening with. More objectively, the Bori is still a straight up better headphone in more qualities. The Bori has near neutral tuning and edges the line of being inoffensive, safe vs. detailed. Bori's bass is more visceral and tactile in a way I've never heard any headphone pull off so far. It's incredibly textured. With the Nano, it is more punchy, tight, rounded off, but also smoothed over. I actually like both really well, so it depends on what I'm looking for. With the Bori, it shines best with orchestral music. You get what you pay for in microdetail, hearing the bristles and "scratchiness" of cellos & contrabasses glide their bows. Violins and pianos shine in a pristine, in-your-face way.
By contrast, Nano sounds smoothed over in these sorts of details that I miss. What you gain with the Nano instead are in the staging qualities. Bori's stage can sound diffuse and ill-defined in some ways that I wasn't expecting, whereas Nano has a clearly distinct, but wide, boundary in a way I subjectively prefer. This might be me being corrupted from using the dt1990 for so many years. The layers and columns of instruments are better defined, which I find suits the best with something big & grandiose, like in The Lord of the Rings soundtracks. With small orchestra down to quartets is where the Bori and its timbre shines the most. Somewhere in-between, "medium-sized" orchestras or depending on the soundtrack it can be a toss-up depending if you're looking for the timbre & microdetail or if you're looking to pick part instruments more clearly. For rock/metal, it's been a toss up in what's more enjoyable. If those are your primary genres, I would decide based on both your tolerance for treble and whether you want something pure neutral (Bori) vs. something more bass & treble forward (Nano).
Treble is another stark difference. As said with the Bori, it rides the line of trying not to be offensive or harsh while also trying to min-max the detail it can bring. With the Nano, it arguably pushes it north of that line, depending who you are or what frequency ranges you're most sensitive to. For me, it's hardly been offensive or wince-worthy save for some few songs in some specific moments, but neither the Bori nor the Nano never been outright sibilant in way that the dt1990's could be. One flaw I have with the Bori is its lack of air, whereas arguably the Nano might have too much air, possibly being a contributing factor to the timbre not being in the same league.
One of the final reasons I had decided to change with the Ananda Nano was gaming. I play FPSes competitively, and I really appreciate the ability to pinpoint any single sound around you in a 3D bubble around you. This was a quality that the Bori sort of lacked and I missed with the dt1990. Technically you can still do this with any headphone to any reasonably degree, even the HD 6xx, but it's that spherical and an immediacy that's necessary to someone behind you at exactly 7 o'clock vs. 5 o'clock that might mean hitting a shot or missing. This a quality that I can tangibly and measurably show a difference with the Audiospatial 8 test on Aimlabs, of which before I've ranked top 50 with the dt1990. It's less about whether or not you can pinpoint a sound surrounding you, and more about the reaction time of how quick your brain can realize exactly where something is vs. the hesitation it takes with a measurable difference. I'm happy to say that the Nano is on par with the dt1990 in this sort of quality, which translates to immersive gaming as well. The Bori isn't necessarily bad in this regard (to the point I'd describe as average), but sounds bleed together more and the soundscape is more wide than deep in a way that can be registered as confusing and less immersive.
I've exhausted everything that's come to mind, but feel free to ask any other questions for anything I might have missed!
