|
|
发表于 2010-4-13 21:59:11
|
显示全部楼层
轉篇Head-fi的文，我對T1+A1的聽感比較接近MAD EAR＋這一邊
T1 and O2Mk1: Some Impressions
I've decided to post comparative impressions of two similarly priced headphone systems: the new Beyerdynamic T1 fed by the highly regarded SPL Auditor, versus the Stax Omega 2 Mark 1 fed by a Minivan-built Exstata solid-state amplifier. For the most part, it will not be a systematic comparison, but rather a series of personal and slightly random impressions (as well as a bit of personal T1 history).
This is my first attempt at writing something for head-fi. I've been into headphones seriously for a couple of years only and, while I've heard and owned quite a few headphones in that time, my source and amplifier experience is quite limited, so most of my comments here regarding the capabilities of the headphones under consideration should be understood only in relation to the amps and source I have at hand.
In this case both can and amp combinations are being fed by a Metric Halo Mobile I/O ULN2. Both the DAC and ADC components of this unit are well regarded in the mobile recording community, the DAC being on similar quality level to Lavry and Benchmark offerings. It is a firewire device and, in this instance, fed by an iMac playing Apple lossless files.
Build Quality
I will keep these comments - and most of my comments - brief. Both the T1 and O2Mk1 are very well built. The T1 is extremely solid, with its metal cups and beautiful herringbone struts (not sure if that is the correct term here, but you know what I mean). The struts are very strong, noticeably tougher and thicker than those of the DT800/900 that I've handled. It is a beautiful, classic design that one feels proud to own. It also imparts a sense of confidence in its longevity. The O2Mk1, on the other hand, though cleverly built and of high quality, has an ever-so-slight clunky feel. This is due to the many moving parts: the earpads swivel, as does the outer cup, allowing fine adjustments for finding the perfect seal according to head shape. This is not really a gripe as these mechanisms seem to work well and I have no fear of the O2 falling apart on me.
Comfort
Some people care about comfort, while others say they don't (hello hard-core Gradoites). Suffice to say, for those that care, both the T1 and O2Mk1 are very comfortable headphones. The O2 has the edge however. Their thick pleather pads distribute headband pressure and overall weight on a larger surface area making for a slightly more comfy feel. The T1, however is no slouch and one can happily wear them for long periods without fatigue.
T1 Odyssey
I have owned the T1 for five or six weeks and have been 90% satisfied with their sound (which is saying a lot). They were clearly the overall winner of the best headphones I have owned award, besting the MS-Pro, SR200/HP1000, AD2000, AD1000, SR-Lambda, SR-Lambda Signature, K701 and MD5000. In my opinion they also best the other heavyweights I have had the chance to listen to briefly, including the W5000, DT900 (600 ohm), RS-2 (these last two get honourable mentions), and HD650. They have the best soundstage and imaging of all these, the best bass presentation (for my tastes) and detail, the best and most realistic midrange of them all (apart from the SR200/HP1000 which brought voices to life better than any dynamic I have heard), and the sweetest and most detailed treble (albeit - I thought - a bit understated). The Lambdas had a slight edge in clarity and detail, but the T1, while the most clear and detailed dynamic I have heard, is only slightly less clear (from memory) than the SR-Lambda, and is a whole lot more engaging to listen to with certain genres of music.
This was the best compromise I had heard between electrostatic clarity/detail, and dynamic musicality and punch. The only thing I felt it needed was the warmer musicality and intimacy of tubes.
Enter the Mapletree Audio MAD EAR+ Purist.
Alex, a local head-fier, very kindly allowed me to try out his MAD EAR+ Purist amplifier over the space of four days. This was real blessing, as the MAD is hard to come by in Australia, and was being praised as a great match for the T1. At the time, I was thinking hard about selling the Auditor and acquiring one unheard. Thanks again, Alex, for your generosity.
Well, the MAD had its good points and its not-so-good points in relation to the T1. It had the wonderful effect of fleshing out and giving greater body and weight to instruments and voices, but at the expense (I felt) of acoustic detail. The Auditor was better at re-creating a sense of acoustic space. It had a wider soundstage. When listening to orchestral music, one could more clearly hear the room (we're talking minimalist mic recordings such as Telarc and Chesky offerings). With the MAD, instruments would pop out of the blackness and sound beautiful; while with the Auditor, one had the sense of the musician already sitting there quietly until his part came up. It painted a bigger picture on a broader canvas and one could see the brush-strokes more vividly. In terms of rock, the MAD made guitars chug a bit more, snare drums had slightly more 'thump' and less ‘crack’, and voices were brought slightly more to the fore, with greater realism. However, the MAD seemed to smudge detail ever so slightly, which was a bit frustrating. Different tubes may have remedied this, so I have no intention of slurring the MAD in any way, shape or form. This is simply what I heard with the equipment and tubes available to me. I am sure if I had never heard the Auditor, I would be very happy with the MAD driving the T1. Even having heard the Auditor, a clear case could be made for choosing the MAD. Further, with different tubes than those I heard - which seemed quite nice to me - the MAD might even equal the Auditor in terms of detail retrieval and clarity... however, I cannot answer for this.
In the end, owing to its greater transparency, my vote went to the Auditor over the MAD, and I was happy I did not have to fork over cash and undergo a 6-week wait for a new amp.
Having made this judgement, I should state my intuition that the Auditor does not have perfect synergy with the T1. It is a good sounding combination indeed, but slightly analytical, with a very slight vocal recession. I will always wonder how the T1 might have sounded with the DNA Sonett. If anyone cares to give detailed impressions of this combination, I would be grateful.
Enter the O2
Another local fellow head-fier, in a madness of generosity, loaned me one incarnation of his O2 system: the Stax Omega 2 Mark 1 driven by an Exstata solid state amp. I've had this system side-by-side with the T1/Auditor combo for a week now. Thanks so much Minh, it has been a real help!
As I've read elsewhere in this forum, upon first hearing the O2, one is struck by the bass weight and the amazing smoothness of these phones. The treble is a bit recessed, even more so than on the T1, which sounds quite bright in comparison (which was a shock to me). But O2 treble is presented in such a smooth and perfectly integrated manner that one can almost forgive the fact that it does lack that last bit of air. With some recordings, however, it can be a bit stifling.
The mids on the O2 are beautiful. That is the best word for it. Many head-fi chiches come immediately to mind: warm, lush, natural, realistic, smooth. This headphone gives the most realistic and musical presentation of acoustic instruments I have heard. Strings, brass and woodwinds are right there in their natural glory. Voices are spookily real. It is seductive and gives the impression that 'this is how things sound'. Simple. One wants to go on listening.
In comparison, the T1 mids, while still lovely, sound slightly desiccated and dry. Not quite as realistic, natural or immediate. Though if one were ever only to hear the T1, and perhaps to hear it with a high quality tube amplifier, one might imagine this to be the nicest mid-band one had heard, and perhaps it would be. I find it difficult to believe however that the T1, even with perfectly synergised amplification, could scale to the level of the O2. This is pure conjecture, of course.
Part of this O2 'immediacy' is, I believe, associated with its narrow soundstage. It offers a more intimate, front-row type of presentation (not quite Grado-like, but not far off), while the Beyers have a comparatively bigger, but still fairly intimate presentation, putting one a couple of rows further back. In fact, taken as such, I prefer the soundstage of the T1 over the O2. The T1 has a wonderful separation instruments, with greater space between, and is perhaps slightly more 3-D sounding.
Bass
The bass of the O2Mk1 is deep, authoritative, textured and packs a punch. It is kind of bouncy and flexible, like the skin of a giant drum (if that makes sense to any bar me, I would be surprised). The bass drum hits at the beginning of the main theme from Star Trek (Telarc's Ultimate Movie Collection) are massively deep and, in line with the rest of the O2's general character, very smooth, rounded and yet detailed. The bass hits on the T1 are all there too, but the presentation is drier and less lush, perhaps not quite as deep.
General impressions
Both headphones are highly competent with acoustic and orchestral music, the O2 again having the edge in terms of absolute detail and the realism of instruments and voices. The O2 also has a bassier, lusher quality that some will appreciate, but that will perhaps turn others off. I am somewhat on the fence about this characteristic. I have a feeling it could become oppressive after a while.
Enter Sandman
How about rock? The T1 already has the reputation, albeit new, as a good rock headphone. I concur with this view more or less. In addition to its great detail, it is punchy and lively. I have to admit, however, that for most of my rock collection, I prefer the presentation of my TripleFi10 Pro even though it is less detailed, more rolled off in the treble and simply more mid-fi. This makes me wonder greatly (and it's a bit of a stretch, I know) if in fact the JH13 Pro may be the best rock headphone out there. My fancy says it is so, but I do not know.
But does the O2 rock?
Yep.
In contradistinction to the SR-Lambda I used to own, which presented rock music very clearly in all its frequencies, but without any life whatsoever, the O2 thumps. I was a bit sceptical about this before I heard them, but have become a believer since. Not as hard hitting as various Grados or the T1 itself, the O2 remains a very involving rock headphone. The bass moves far more air than other electrostatic offerings I've heard. And its overall clarity and realism make for a fun experience. Electric guitars, bass, drums and keys are all present in vivid detail and somehow sound 'as they should.' The bass is deep, visceral and detailed. Vocals sound as natural as the mixing and mastering engineers made them - at least it seems that way.
I keep coming back to it however: maybe this phone is just a little too lush with not quite enough treble energy, at least in this configuration. Could it be that the KGSS or KGBH make a significant difference here? I hope so, but that would be pushing into a price category well above the T1/Auditor combo. Perhaps a different source? Interconnects? In general however, the O2 sounds so good, one wishes to forgive its perceived deficiencies. I fear, however, that over time, it might become a niggle. Perhaps after all it is as the wise say: there is no perfect headphone.
Overall, I give the prize to the O2Mk1/Exstata over the T1/Auditor. This setup seems to be in a higher sonic league with better clarity, detail, realism, deeper bass and a more natural overall feel, albeit a bit lush. The T1/Auditor team take the prize for best soundstage and imaging (by a nose), and get extra points for having a more extended treble region and - perhaps - a more even bass balance. |
|
