PHILIPS Fidelio X2HR Headphone 50mm Drivers

To celebrate my 100 newly acquired Leonard Bernstein CDs (a la ‘The Remastered Leonard Bernstein’ box set) I decided to invest in new headphones.
The old pair (the make of which I’m too embarrassed to publicly admit) must surely have had an inbuilt ear blanket!
All of a sudden I can hear music as I now think it should be heard.
And so, on with Bernstein, and I’ll report back in five years once I’ve resurfaced.

Antes de adquirir estes fones, eu estava usando AKG e SHURE na mesma faixa de preço. Gostava deles, mas agora sinto que o PHILIPS X2hr está num patamar superior em termos de qualidade sonora. A pressão que ele exerce na cabeça torna-o um pouco menos confortável de usar que o AKG e o SHURE, mas isso é plenamente compensado pela qualidade sonora superior. Quem aprecia boa música, principalmente música clássica, não vai se arrepender de adquirir esse produto.

Great set of headphones, especially at their current price. The only thing they lack is deep bass, for my ears, BUT that allows the listener to hear the rest of the curve better. Crystal clear listening for little coin!

I’m only going to briefly refer to these headphones half-way down this review, they just weren’t for me. If you want an in-depth review of the X2HR’s I can’t provide it, but I did own two pairs of the X2HR’s, both returned (so a 3 star rating is quite generous); maybe read through and see what I chose instead…

Mainly from the point of view of studio work and on-the-road mixing/mastering/performing, though also with a nod to home listening pleasure, this is comparative review of the following closed-back headphones (that can be driven without an additional amp!)…

Yamaha HPH-MT5
Yamaha HPH-MT8
Beyerdynamic DT770 80ohm
Audio Technica ATH-A990Z

& two sets that I wont refer to much, due not to any manufacturing fault but to inadequate sonic quality for my purposes…

Philips Fidelio X2HR (the only open-back here)
AKG K550 MkIII

/

SUMMERY

To quickly list my preferred headphones in terms of purpose :

MONITORING : (here forward treble is useful to check hiss and sibilance, and forward bass for stage thumps, etc)
1. MT8 (extra brilliance reveals hiss, mics rubbing on clothing, high-freq accurate syncing of instruments etc)
2. DT770 (emphasises sibilance – which so can be avoided before recording, recessive mids an issue -vocals sound distant – though when recording asking your vocals to be closer to the mic is not usually a bad thing).

MASTERING : (here a flat freq response or slightly hi-fi speaker colouration of EQ is useful)
1. MT5 (most monitor-speaker like though a dip in the mid-highs, great for mastering and listening, lacks some microscope clarity, may result in a brighter mix)
2. MT8 (critical and open, lacks some bass though overall v.useful flat freq response, highs a tad too forward for enjoyable listening, may result in a darker mix with over generous bass)
3. DT770 (critical, high freq bump at sibilance freq may result in flatter mastering of voice details)

LISTENING : (depends on the sound signature that gives you pleasure, generally non-fatiguing and full)
1. MT5 (slightly darker than A990Z – yet more powerful and detailed, mids can shout, portable)
2. A990Z (open soundstage perfect for classical music, mids can shout, somewhat confusing, not portable)
3. X2HR (open soundstage, enjoyable, forgiving, not portable)
4. DT770 (may need a headphone amp, sibilance issue will be fatiguing, can bridge the gap between the studio and listening pleasure, not portable)
5. MT8 (detailed and bright, portable)

Depending on which way you look at this :

The MT8’s are a flatter freq response more analytical version of the DT770’s, the DT770’s are a more open soundscape version of the MT8’s but with a loss of mid presence and a sibilance freq bump. MT8 : “I dissect”, DT770 “I reveal”.

The A990Z’a are a more distant, softer, open soundscape version of the MT5’s. The MT5’s are a more powerfully defined, faster, ‘aggressive’ and closer sounding version of the A990Z’s. A990Z : “I sit back”, MT5 : “I’m there”.

/

DETAILED REVIEW

In a subjective realm I’ve tried to be objective as possible – which does require lengthy descriptions, this may be more information than you require but in terms of describing these headphones I hope it helps. It does though depend on what you require and if you believe – unrealistically – there is an ideal headphone out there!

Mainly in order of preference…

1:
MT5 : good for : Mastering, Monitoring and Listening. Overall frequency signature similar to the A990Z’s. The closest to the overall presentation of my Neumann K120 studio-monitor speakers, though with a couple of minor dips.

HIGHS : detailed, calm, not elevated or gratingly ‘hi-fi’ / ‘club-fi’. Have a slightly woody quality, won’t cause you any pain – so you can turn them up, not fatiguing at all. Actually the closest to my studio-monitor speakers. In terms of final mastering as the highs are a touch dark – almost like you’ve connected them to a tube amp – but not soft in any way, just less clinically up-front (and less clashy) than others here. They may not reach far enough up to analyse recorded hiss, over 10kHz they start to fall away (while the MT8’s are reaching their peak) – but otherwise very even and clear. Mastered result are good though may contain hiss. If you value slightly over-present sizzling highs in a headphone, these may not be the ticket for you. Actually the A990Z highs are best placed of this whole group – though don’t have the detail of the MT8’s.

HIGH-MIDS : as well as not quite reaching far enough up to analyse recorded hiss there is a dip in the ‘low-highs’ or ‘high-mids’ around 4kHz. That said the highs don’t seem odd in any way, they are just slightly dark as a result – but still v.fast and detailed.

MIDS : forward and detailed. There is a downside to forward mids in a closed-back headphone,
they can shout / project resonation at high volumes, if fact I almost enjoy it – it energises the cartilage in my nose – really does! Thus there is a slight W shape to the freq response, raised at the ends and the centre – and with corresponding dips between (but don’t let this worry you, it’s fairly healthy, far better than a V shape).

LOWS : v.powerful, defined and tight, might even say these have the most satisfactory bass of this group. Aggressive thwacks hit v.powerfully and cleanly, impressive.

V.LOW : present though under 50Hz they dip just below the strength of the mids, while the MT8’s keep sub-bass just above.

SOUNDSTAGE : the least open of this group (not by much), though have immense detail and stereo width. NB large soundstage does not help in the studio, it weakens the presence and inspection of instruments (hence the large soundstage A990Z is not useful in the studio but makes enjoyable listening).

They have the most ‘hit’ and power in all freqs of all the ‘phones here, they vibrate your bones more than any of the others – in all frequencies – I’m not a bass head but the ability to affect the vibrational mental space with these ‘phones is notable.

They have a really enjoyable ‘pushy’ personality – which in a headphone is what I want and a real achievement – to be fast and super direct in all frequencies, visceral, nose vibrating. Very well judged Yamaha!

A closer, faster and more mid-centric version of the A990Z’s. A real favourite of mine, and a bargain for an ‘in the bag’ monitor headphone, I can’t see how anyone could be disappointed unless you want a very open, or brash sound.

DESIGN : 3m detachable cable, twist-lock. Neat, relatively compact, solid construction. Portable (the cans are connected to the headband with a free hanging wire – so need some care, like the DT770’s), light weight (MT8’s are on the heavy side).

2:
MT8 : good for : Monitoring, Mastering. Overall frequency signature similar to the DT770’s – but the MT8’s are flatter. The MT8 are close to my Neumann studio-monitor speakers, though with less lows and greater high-mids / highs.

HIGHS : if you need super-clarity in the highs, there’s no sibilance here but they are analytical and gradually elevate towards 10.5kHz. I’m critical of harsh highs – these are not abrasive unless your mix is poor (many commercial recordings are BTW!). They have the fastest highs of this group – revealing, breathy, airy and open, not metallic or grainy. Compared to the MT5 it’s like a sonic door has opened (sometimes too far), highs can be overbearing and swamp a mix for some recordings, certainly more forward than the DT770 though actually rise more smoothly and predictably – no noticeable sudden peaks or troughs (unlike the big problem 8kHz spike of the DT770’s).

HIGH-MIDS : the dip noticed in the MT5’s is reversed here, I’d say there’s even a slight peak here, which provides fantastic detail in this information rich region of the freq range. If the MT5’s are an autumn afternoon, these are a spring morning. They will test the quality of a mix like no other, if a mix is good and tight, these have the best highs of this group – otherwise they can seem high centric – which can be too forward and fatiguing for long periods of listening pleasure.

MIDS : Presence and detail is amazing, superlative, similar to the MT5’s though with a flatter response (the MT5 mid resonance is not often felt here).

LOWS : tight, accurate, has drive but not over-emphasised. On the whole the lows can sound recessive if you expect pounding bass (these ‘phones are not about that). The A990Z have more bass warmth but not more hit (‘thwack’). The MT5’s have more more power and more hit in the 70-200Hz range, possibly the DT770’s have slightly more power through not as much hit. The recessive nature of the bass, is in part relative to the forward highs, the ‘phones can’t be turned up too far to reveal the full bass glory – as the highs then become too loud.

V.LOW : sub-bass if present in a recording is surprisingly powerful, more so than the DT770 and even the A990Z – reaching lower and with more detail (and also as previously mentioned, the powerful bass-ready MT5’s are not as present under 50Hz). This is a strong point of these headphones, the natural bass spread, which introduces powerful sub-bass without confusing it with middle bass frequencies – this is actually rare in a headphone, sub-bass seems to come from nowhere as an instrument in itself. If your like all bass to sound like sub-bass these headphones are not for you, sub-bass is powerful only when present in the recording, which including all genres, below 40Hz is actually quite rare.

SOUNDSTAGE : slightly more open than the MT5’s, probably due to the general extra speed and clarity especially in the highs, though not as open as the DT770 and A990Z.

Below 4kHz they are the fastest most flat headphone I’ve used, above 4kHz highs are elevated – revealing – which used as a tool in the studio is valuable, less so for listening. If you’re here just for listening pleasure, these headphones may come across as too harsh and not ideal for old recordings (esp analogue transferred to digital / CD), which generally are mid and high biased and may have issues in those areas.

The MT8 emphasis on clarity in the highs is useful prior to and during recording; due to compensation, mastered results from the MT8’s can lack high/treble presence, whereas from the MT5 possibly mastered highs can be overdone slightly. The ideal headphone would be a mix of the best parts of the MT5 and the MT8. That said, the MT8’s are the best judged and most useful studio headphones I’ve ever used.

DESIGN : v.soft pads, may result in pressure from the driver-grill on your ears – esp if you have satellite-dish ears (the MT5’s have firmer, deeper pads), both the MT8 and MT5 have a neat ear-cup size and shape though some may wish the aperture was slightly larger. 3m detachable cable + detachable coiled cable, twist-lock. Foldable, neat, relatively compact and solid. Portable though on the heavy side.

3:
DT770 80ohm : good for : Monitoring and maybe Mastering. Listening – very good, if your music has no hint of sibilant type sounds. Overall frequency signature most similar to the MT8’s, in many ways I’d place them both joint 2nd place.

The DT770 80ohm version, has deeper bass and less sibilant treble than the 32ohm or 250ohm versions (which personally I’d avoid). The 80ohm has thicker winding wires and a long-throw driver – capable of higher volumes though a tad slower), the 250ohm has a short throw-driver (faster though more bright). BTW there is also the semi-open DT880 (bass light) and the open DT990 (bass ok, sub-bass light, v.sibilant & highs emphasised).

HIGHS : in presence and control between the MT5’s and MT8, so very forward. Well balanced though there’s a big big but – unfortunately there’s an isolated problem spike at the sibilance freq, around 8kHz, it’s harsh, you can accept it and use it when monitoring & recording to avoid it in your tracks – but it probably does rule these ‘phones out for listening – unless you like a lot of sssss and zzzzz in your highs, female vocals sound clashy and fatiguing. As it’s a large spike, the ear and the mind cannot adapt it’s disparity to the surrounding high frequencies, and so it sounds unnatural, sizzling and annoying – it never ‘goes away’. For mastering, this can lead to too dull a result, especially in vocal clarity. Though the MT5’s are ‘darker’ they have more edge and they have no sudden freq peaks.

HIGH-MIDS : similar to the MT8’s, fantastic detail and presence, I say it’s the strongest point of these headphones and of this whole group – the immersive realism in this freq. realm. It’s basically the sweet spot between the elevated peak in the highs and the recessed mids…

MIDS : detailed yet noticeably recessed. A positive of this V shape [recessed mids] is that it does prevent mid-freq ‘closed-back resonance’ (the MT5’s have a W shape, more so than the MT8’s). Vocals and acoustic instruments can sound rather thin and distant.

LOWS : wide, powerful and enjoyable, not as detailed as it could be – more fruity and less thwack than the MT5.

V.LOW : sub-bass present but slightly soggy. (Sub-bass frequencies can reveal a rattle, the diaphragms are slightly sticky and hair can get trapped, it’s a common problem, search for ‘DT770 buzz rattle’. Only noticeable with loud very particular frequencies around 148Hz. The cans can be dismantled but it’s a delicate procedure. One of my drivers have this issue now).

SOUNDSTAGE : very open, helped by the small bass-port (which does leak sound).

DESIGN : on the limit of needing an amp to drive them, on a MacBook Pro I’m often at 100% – while on my music interface there is power to spare. There is the DT770 32ohm version, though while more efficient it doesn’t doesn’t mean better (too efficient and the power isn’t delivered to tightly control the speaker coil, also the diaphragm is designed to be more flexible / floppy). Cable hard-wired. The cans are connected to the headband with a free hanging wire – so need some care. If you are generally not using an external amp, I’d probably pass on these, for less than loud mixes they simply may not be loud enough. Construction, very good. Hard-wired 3m cable. Not portable (unless your bag has generous room to spare).

4:
A990Z : good for : 2nd check Mastering and Listening. Overall frequency signature most similar to the MT5’s.

Overall v.similar to the MT5 but with a more open soundscape, a tad more highs, less present mids. Soundscape while on a par with the DT770 in its openness, but can sound distant. You could not rely on this headphone for critical mastering – though I do use them as a ‘speaker check’ when I’m away from my studio.

HIGHS : similar to the MT5 though with a tad more highs and better defined. Forgiving of poor recordings. While good for all genres the A990Z would be my pick for listening to classical music – due to the soundstage and the highs not as emphasised at the DT770 or MT8’s, though with the MT5’s darker highs I can listen to them for longer with more varied material.

HIGH-MIDS : have a slightly aggressive brittle grate, nothing to be too concerned about, it’s not sibilance, more of a metallic electronic squeal, which seems to confuse the highs and slightly divorce them from reality. The large 53mm driver of the A990Z seems at times to struggle to achieve fast definition.

MIDS : mids very slightly recessive which widens the soundscape though you may notice a slight lack of body and presence to the mids – especially compared to the MT5, MT8’s and monitor speakers; that said the DT770’s have the most V shape freq response. There is some shouting resonance to the mids, not dissimilar to the MT5’s.

LOWS : v.large, open, bouncy, fruity, warm. A tad too emphasised, slow & loose – lacking some detail & drive, overall some muddiness, can get a bit heavy going and bloated, I prefer the more defined MT5 and spacious DT770 bass.

V.LOW : present, enjoyable, soft. Sub-bass though is confused with the emphasised general bass, the result is the MT8 has greater sub power, detail and more overall bass separation (though less general bass) …whereas the A990Z can sound bloated and lack separation.

SOUNDSTAGE : undeniably good, but wrapped up in other issues. The moment you put them on they sound great, very open, then that impression wears off – they begin to seem too friendly and lack involvement, confused highs and boomy lows. For classical, the fruity openness of the A990Z’s is welcome, though slightly flat in their lack of high separation – similar to the MT5’s in darkness, though the A990Z have a squeal to the highs which can become annoying like a saw – I’m being super critical, the highs are actually well tamed and never painful yet do lack some separation and realism. Soundstage is like large, but like a large ball of wool – you may not notice this – I’m being critical. Stereo width not that impressive.

In all frequencies dynamic hit and power is not great, so less aggressive, less interesting, just a bit too distant and knotted – can get confused with complex layer music – often an issue with large diaphragms. Good for checking what a track will sound like on a ‘normal’ hi-fi system, but they fall short of keeping me engaged.

The A990Z’s have slightly massaged all the frequencies to the extent there’s not enough clarity or speed to be used as a studio headphone (even though they are labeled ‘Art Monitors’). They are forgiving of harsh or poorly mastered recordings, basically they are good at being polite, warm loudspeakers in a room – yet on your head.

DESIGN : comfort – lightweight, no on-ear compression though pressure on upper jaw-bone caused by v.large pads. I’m not an advocate of the overall design. The metal backs of the cans is very thin (and leaks a lot of sound), I dented them the day they arrived by accidentally dropping the heavy metal-body (sharp) headphone-jack on them from maybe 12inch above. Hard-wired 3m cable. Too large and delicate to be portable.

REJECTED HEADPHONES :

5:
X2HR : I respect all of the above headphones for their position in the studio (maybe not the A990Z), the X2HR have zero place in the studio. Having said that I include them here as a listening pleasure headphone – in your comfy chair. The soundstage is wide and open, instrument separation is good. Bass is large and saggy / flabby, loose and lacking detail, highs come and go in an odd way. Wavy frequency EQ – some parts boosted others missing – lots of peaks and troughs throughout. They are not relevant in the studio due to this wavy EQ and sounding like a wet sock – there’s no analysis to be done with these. I didn’t like the ridiculously huge ‘winter earmuff’ pads either. I’d say if you have any inclination to get the Philips X2HR’s and you appreciate a ‘truer’ headphone (yet with generous bass) get the A990Z’s (though personally I’d go another step and get the more immediate MT5’s), on the other hand, if you like a full, open, fruity, forgiving sound, the X2HR’s are a good choice. Their positives are partly due to their open-back design – which is fine but be aware they leak sound like a sieve.

6:
K550 MkIII : I could not like these, I tried, but my hated grew and grew. As many people seem to like these headphones, I’ll detail my observations in full…

HIGHS : prominent, harsh, lack detail, sibilant across a wide range – none of this helped by the large [i.e slow] 50mm drivers – which may have been EQ pushed over the whole high pitch area. There is sizzle and a lot of clashy high freq prominence. Mid-highs are dragged into this region sapping music and voices of depth. I prefer the DT770 highs – even with their elevated 8kHz EQ peak.

HIGH-MIDS : lack detail and separation, they scream and seem to resonant in the small enclosure of the closed-back cans, instruments in this mid to high range grate together and can sound a bit of a mess. Like the highs, crashing and confused.

MIDS : all of the mid range is strangely pushed into upper mids such that overall pitch is raised and generally thin, voices become drained of full-bodied depth and leave only a high-pitch veneer.

LOWS : on the weak side, recessed and very slow – least definition and depth of this group, surprisingly one-dimensional for a 50mm driver – distance between instruments lost. The weak headband clamping force doesn’t help, but the problem is deeper than that.

SOUNDSTAGE : lack of instrument separation, confused, muddles musicality; possibly the small driver chamber doesn’t help. So much of recordings is lost, including much enjoyment. If your musical taste is for simple short-lived tiss-bang-tiss-bang bold instruments these headphones can sound ok, but if your music has complexity and layered instruments it’s like listening to your recordings at 1/2 quality.

Overall Sound : clashy, confused, compressed ‘grey’ sounding, bass weak, vocal mids thin, raised the pitch of all tracks. I wish I didn’t have to mention these here, the most ill thought-out and ill-sounding headphone I’ve tried in a long time, the billing that they offer a flat frequency response is mostly a lie and covers a multitude of sins in these cans, flat with clarity ok, but flat and clashy and terribly confused no that’s not fine. Some may hear clashy and think that’s the sound of detail, it isn’t. If they work for you fine, but to me they were a travesty, dressed up to look nice.

If you do think these sound good – and so therefore like a ‘lighter-weight’ sound, you should try the fast, clear, detailed, MT8’s – they are leagues better in every respect (they have more bass as well) yet share some analytical flat sonic signatures of the K550’s.

DESIGN : not only no sonic substance but the very flimsy headband is a joke – a weak thin piece of metal with no spring and little padding (the crown of your head will hurt even with a good head of hair). The clamping force is near zero. The adjusting swivels of the ‘cans’ are very stiff, so the cans need to be manually pressed into your head every-time you wear them to achieve a decent seal and correct angle of the ear-cups; this is kind of ok, but clamping force also maintains the ‘cans’ in a solid stationary position while the drive unit oscillates back and forth. The clamping force is so weak that a noticeable amount of bass is lost due to the cans not being held absolutely stationary – in fact vibrating inversely to the driver movements (applying light pressure to fix the cans in place helps enormously); the designer of the headband should be sacked – and this is after many years of complaints and now a MkIII version with no headband upgrade! Without doubt the weakest and most uncomfortable headband in the history of headphones, if AKG can do this – design it, test it, put it into production, MkI, MkII, MkIII, just wonder how bad the rest of the design is – it really is – and I’m including the sound, the tiny enclosures, arh I could go on for eternity, these headphones make me furious, never AKG for me again, never. The ear-cups are very large – totally over-ear though a downside is sound-focus is variable as they don’t centre in the same place on the ear every time. The pleather coating is very thin and delicate and I doubt would last long in a studio. The cans can swivel 90 degrees on their normal axis so they lay flat – which reduces some bulk when inserting in a bag, but the headband doesn’t fold inwards at an elbow like the Yamaha’s.

/

SCORING

I’ve spent a lot of time & thought weighing-up these scores… days of back and forth fast A/B comparisons, etc, so compare the values carefully – they are not just plucked from the air (though are subjective – to my peculiar critical nature).

1- 10, higher the number the better; though NB I’ve gone higher, 11 indicates where there’s too much, an overdose, so 11 is actually a negative!

1st score : BODY (Power & Presence) / 2nd score : DETAIL (Speed & Accuracy)

Efficiency is how easy they are to drive. ‘5’ is on the limit of laptops and may require an extra headphone amp. Higher efficiency isn’t always a good thing, ‘lower’ efficiency or/and higher ohm resistance will result in a tighter faster response – but require more output sound-card/amp power.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MT5. . . . . . MT8 . . . . . . DT770 . . . . A990Z

High. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 / 9. . . . . .11 / 10 . . . .11 / 8 . . . . . 8 / 7 . . . . . (11 = can be too strong & fatiguing)

High-Mid. . . . . . . . 7 / 8. . . . . . 9 / 9. . . . . . 9 / 10. . . . . 8 / 6

Mid. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 / 8 . . . . . 11 / 9. . . . . 6 / 7 . . . . . . 5 / 7

Low . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 / 8 . . . . 7 / 9. . . . . . 9 / 7. . . . . . 11 / 5 . . . . . (indicative of the bass you will hear)

V.Low. . . . . . . . . . . 8 / 7 . . . . . 9 / 7 . . . . . . 9 / 6. . . . . . 9 / 5 . . . . . . (you wont often hear this frequency <45Hz)

Soundscape . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 8

Stereo width. . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 5

Efficiency. . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 8

Isolation. . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . 5

Portability. . . . . . . .8 . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 3

Comfort. . . . . . . . . .8 . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . .9 . . . . . . . . . 7

/

CONCLUSION

I’m torn between the Yamaha MT5 and the MT8, they have similarities though are significantly different. For no fatigue ‘listening-mastering’ the MT5 (and being lighter are more portable ideal if you need to mix/master on the road), for ‘critical inspectional mastering’ the MT8. I can work with either, but if you are studio pro I suggest you get the MT8’s for their greater clarity (studio pro’s need, accept and adapt to emphasised clarity, whereas ‘semi-pro-enthusiasts’ might not – in which case MT5). The MT5 could be the same price as the MT8’s, there’s nothing cheap about them – including the detail, power and speed of the sound, they just offer a different (and less fatiguing) view.

If you are searching for the best overall headphones, …they don’t exist. There are excellent ‘phones that vary in their sound and are optimised / useful for different purposes. You can pay around £/$1000 for a set of headphones, but they will still have a slant to their sound, and you might even find they don’t do the job you hoped. In the end, for professional studio use, you’ll need two or three difference headphones to balance your sound between, though if you use monitor speakers you will appreciate the Yamaha HPH-MT5 and the brighter MT8 – they are from my experience as close as I can reasonably get to a full and exact rendition in a simple, no frills, portable and strong headphone.

EXTRA NUGGETS

Never choose headphones based on manufacturers’ quoted frequency ranges, as this doesn’t tell you the amplitude at those frequency extremes (i.e. they may reproduce 20Hz – but at a low volume and bass dependant on how close to your ear the driver is). There’s much more to rating headphones than frequency graphs – which do show amplitude at various frequencies but don’t reveal response speed, detail, timbre, depth, soundstage, instrument separation, etc. Most good headphones can reproduce a wide range of frequencies, sometimes those frequencies will be +6db above the 0db centre-line or even +10db, sometimes -6db below but even then you will still hear them and if presented with clarity may sound more present than 0db in another headphone. Just be careful of stated responses. If I say ‘over 10kHz starts to fall away’, don’t be too alarmed, 15-20kHz will still be present and maybe super detailed; the spectrum doesn’t just end. I know you’ll still read manufacturer frequency response ranges, they may give a rough indication or they may be measurement manipulation for tactical sales.

For when your new headphones arrive…

Audio processor sampling frequency : v.important – set to the Hz of your computer’s output to the same as the source (or double for less high-freq filtration – more treble), so if the source is CD/YouTube use 44.1kHz (or 88.2kHZ for greater clarity), if film use 48kHz (or 96kHz for greater clarity). Bit depth, I recommend 24bit or if you have it, 32 bit float.

RUNNING-IN : I just purchased a second set of MT5’s, so I had the luxury to directly compare brand-new for ‘burnt-in’. The burnt-in MT5’s are noticeably more open, fast and reveal more high freq detail, brand new MT5’s may sound recessive in the highs, when burnt in for sure the highs while still slightly dark, brighten up and are near perfect.

I know this is debatable but these physically moving components need to work in, and I know this is even more debatable but even electrons need to temper the copper cables (even if it’s oxygen-free and directional). Sound is physical even at the microscopic level. Yep I listen at 32bit 96+kHz – that’s music I generate at those rates not just elevated DAC rates of inferior source rates.

AudioQuest recommends 150 hours burn-in for their headphones (they probably know what they are talking about!), in any case for most headphones I’d give them around 50hrs (yes that really is 12hrs per day for 4 days – or 6hrs per day for a week, at highish volume).

Place the cans either side of a pillow or turn outward so pressure waves are not fighting against each other, play at high-ish volume, long YouTube ‘psybient mixes’ will do the trick!

I would not critically evaluate any headphone until 50hrs of burn in, changes are not dramatic, but are noticeable and in the direction of improvement. If you hate a brand-new headphone – perhaps you will still hate it after burn in, though detail, space and freq response will improve, anyone who says this is untrue I personally would not trust their evaluations. Sonically they will change even though you might not want to believe it – actually even after 20hrs.