Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 October 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, October 2022

I measured the Beyerdynamic Xelento Remote earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The earphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amplifier. Except as noted, I used the supplied medium-sized silicone tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the Xelento Remotes’ frequency response. Hey, I said these were unusual! There’s a substantial bass bump below 200Hz; a very uncommon (but mild) boost in the midrange around 1.4kHz; some very narrow peaks centered at 5.2 and 7.2kHz; and an overall downward tilt to the tonal balance. From hearing them, I’d never have thought this is the way they’d measure.

This chart shows how the Xelento Remotes’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance source, such as a cheap laptop, some tube amps, or some professional headphone amps. There’s no difference that the human ear could pick up.

This chart shows the Xelento Remotes’ right-channel response compared with various earphones, including the AKG N5005s, which are said to be the passive earphones that come closest to the Harman curve. All the other models have a peak in the 2-to-4kHz range, like most headphones and earphones do. The Xelento Remotes do not. I’d finish this paragraph by holding down the question-mark key for several seconds, followed by a couple more seconds on the exclamation-point key, but the SoundStage! editors would just take them out.

The Xelento Remotes’ spectral-decay plot looks unusual, too. There’s some kind of apparent resonance in the bass, probably having to do with that big bump in the frequency response. There are also some super-high-Q resonances at about 2.5, 3.7, and 4.4kHz; they’re so narrow you’d never hear them, but they are yet another clue as to these earphones’ singular nature.

Very, very, very low distortion here—so yet again, unusual!

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. In the 43AG ear/cheek simulator, the Xelento Remote earphones, to my surprise, given their compact size, achieved extraordinary levels of isolation, especially when I used the foam tips. This would make them great for frequent flyers who don’t like noise canceling.

The impedance curve of the Xelento Remotes is pretty flat, averaging about 19 ohms, although both the magnitude and phase response rise at high frequencies.

Sensitivity, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 16 ohms rated impedance, is 112.1dB, which means the Xelento Remotes will play loudly from any source device.

Bottom line: There earphones seem very well made, with robust drivers, but the frequency response is quite unusual. If you read the review, you know I liked the sound, but this is one of those audio products that’s best tried before purchased—unless you’re a well-heeled audio enthusiast in search of something out of the ordinary.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 10 October 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, October 2022

I measured the Edifier NeoBuds S earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. I used a Reiyin WT-HD06 Bluetooth transmitter to get signals into the earphones. I used the supplied medium silicone tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that I’m unable to do spectral-decay measurements on most true wireless earphones due to the latency. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the NeoBuds’ frequency response with ANC on in the default EQ mode (Classic). This is a very standard, typical response, similar to the Harman curve.

This chart shows how the NeoBuds’ tonal balance changes when ANC is switched on and off. These will sound substantially softer with the ANC switched on—a situation that’s getting to be a bit old-school, because the DSP available in today’s true wireless earphones has allowed many manufacturers to get a near-perfect match in response whether ANC is on or off.

This chart shows the NeoBuds’ right-channel response (again, in ANC mode, and Classic EQ mode) compared with various earphones—including the KEF Mu3 earphones, which stick close to the Harman curve. In one way, the NeoBuds S earphones come closer to the Harman curve than the Mu3s do; they don’t have as much upper bass energy, which can make headphones and earphones sound muddy.

The NeoBuds’ distortion is shown here at the loud level of 90dBA (measured with pink noise), and the crazy-loud level of 97dBA. (I’d normally measure at 100dBA, but these earphones won’t play that loud.) At 97dBA, there’s a distortion peak of 3.7% THD at around 4.5kHz, a range in which the ear is pretty sensitive, but it’s a high-Q (i.e., narrow) peak, so it probably won’t be noticeable, or aggravated all that much unless you’re playing music with a lot of high-frequency content.

Here we can see the differences among the NeoBuds’ noise-canceling modes: ANC on and off, and Ambient. The red line represents the 85dB SPL baseline for the measurement; the lower the curve goes below that line, the better the isolation. This is about how these modes should be expected to perform.

Here’s a comparison of the noise-canceling capabilities of the NeoBuds, the new Bose QC Earbuds IIs (soon to be reviewed), the new Apple AirPods Pro 2s, and the LG Tone Free T90Qs. The Edifiers can’t beat the Bose earphones (I doubt any earphones currently on the market can), but they deliver a respectable and useful amount of noise canceling nonetheless.

Latency with the NeoBuds was typically about 310ms with the Reiyin transmitter, which is typical for true wireless earphones. Unfortunately, I don’t know of a way to test the earphones’ low-latency gaming mode.

Bottom line: Solid performance here all-around.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 01 October 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, October 2022

I measured the Meze Audio 109 Pro headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. For most measurements, the headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amplifier; I used a Schiit Magnius amplifier for distortion measurements. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the 109 Pros’ frequency response. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy here, it looks pretty typical for an open-back model—more or less flat below 1kHz, with a typical peak in the 3kHz range.

Here we can see the difference in the headphones’ response when a high-impedance (75 ohms) source is substituted for a typical low-impedance source (5 ohms). With the high-impedance source, the bass is boosted by about 1dB between 40 and 150Hz, which will be an audible but subtle difference.

This chart shows the 109 Pros’ right-channel response compared with a few other open-back models (including the Dan Clark Audio Æon 2s with perfed pads, which are the open-back headphones I’ve found come closest to the Harman curve). The 109 Pros seem well within the ballpark of normal.

Just for fun, I did a comparison of all the high-end Meze models in one chart. Interestingly, the 109 Pros seem to have bass that’s similar to the Empyreans, with treble that’s similar to the Elites.

The 190 Pros’ spectral decay is surprisingly clean for an open-back model; there’s a little bit of the super-high-Q midrange hash I’m used to seeing with these types of headphones, but much less than usual, which suggests that either the driver is well-damped or there’s some sort of acoustical damping going on, perhaps surrounding the driver on the ear side of the baffle.

Here’s the THD vs. frequency chart, measured at 90dBA and 100dBA, both levels set with pink noise. (Apologies for using 50% as the max value on the distortion scale; I usually use 20%.) Distortion in the bass is a little high, at roughly 5% at 20Hz; strangely, the distortion increased only marginally with the higher-level signal. Anyway, bass distortion is much less audible than midrange distortion, because the distortion harmonics fall mostly outside the ear’s most sensitive range, so I don’t expect this to be much of a problem.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. The 109 Pros’ isolation is surprisingly low for a design based on a 50mm driver; this means these headphones may have a somewhat more open sound than most dynamic-driver open-back models, although they won’t block a significant amount of external sound.

The impedance of the 109 Pros mostly averages around 43 ohms, with a mild bump and corresponding phase shift in the bass that’s pretty common for dynamic drivers. This suggests there’ll be a very slight, and possibly inaudible, difference in bass response when you go from a low-impedance source to a high-impedance one.

Sensitivity of the 109 Pros, calculated for 40 ohms impedance and averaged from 300Hz to 3kHz, is 110.4dB; I can’t imagine there’s a source device that couldn’t get these cranking loud.

Bottom line: The Pros include safe’n’sane frequency response, very low resonance, and awesomely high sensitivity. The only con I can see is that the distortion’s a little high, but as I stated, given the frequency band where the distortion occurs, I doubt you’ll notice it. I didn’t.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 September 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2022

I measured the LG Tone Free T90Q earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. I used a Reiyin WT-HD06 Bluetooth transmitter to get signals into the earphones. I used the supplied medium silicone tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that I’m unable to do spectral-decay measurements on most true wireless earphones due to the latency. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the Tone Free T90Qs’ frequency response with ANC on. It’s similar to the Harman curve, but with a few dB more energy in the upper bass and lower midrange.

This chart shows how the Tone Free T90Qs’ tonal balance changes when ANC is switched on and off, and in the wired mode, where an analog source is connected to the case and the case transmits to the earphones. The difference with ANC on and off is within the range of error for the measurement—so, basically nothing. The sound is different in wired mode, but not radically so; there’s more bass and a bigger dip in the mids, but it doesn’t seem like a radical departure from the standard response.

This chart shows the Tone Free T90Qs’ right-channel response (again, in ANC mode) compared with various earphones—including the KEF Mu3s and AKG N5005s, both of which stick close to the Harman curve. You can see how “normal” the T90Qs’ response looks, although there’s a few dB less energy between 10 and 14kHz, which suggests the sound may not be as airy or spacious as with the other models compared here.

The Tone Free T90Qs’ distortion is inaudible at the loud level of 90dBA (measured with pink noise). However, I could only get them to play about 1dB louder, so I couldn’t include my usual 100dBA measurement here.

Here we can see the differences among the T90Qs’ four noise-canceling modes: ANC on and off, Ambient Listening and Ambient Conversation. The red line represents the 85dB SPL baseline for the measurement; the lower the curve goes below that line, the better the isolation. There’s not much difference. I repeated this measurement several times to make sure.

Here’s a comparison of the noise-canceling capabilities of the T90Qs, the Bose QC Earbuds, the new Soundcore Space A40s (not yet reviewed), and a set of passive earphones, the TinHiFi T3 Pluses. Obviously, the T90Qs greatly underperform the class leaders on this test, and they can’t even beat a set of passive earphones without noise canceling.

Latency with the T90Qs was typically about 295ms with the Reiyin transmitter, so depending on the latency of your display, it’s possible you could notice lip-sync problems when watching videos. But this number is not out of the ordinary for true wireless earphones.

Bottom line: Given the frequency response, the Tone Free T90Qs should sound good. However, they don’t play loud—although I would argue they play loud enough, and certainly their lower max volume makes them safer to use. And although I can see that, technically, they do have noise canceling, based on my measurements (and a brief listen), calling these noise-canceling earphones is like calling this 60-year-old reviewer a basketball player. Yeah, technically, I do know how to play basketball . . . but an average 5th-grader could kick my ass.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 10 September 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2022

I measured the Sivga SV023 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. For most measurements, the headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amplifier; I used a Schiit Audio Magnius amplifier for distortion measurements. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the SV023s’ frequency response. This looks pretty straightforward for headphones of this type, with no anomalies that catch my eye.

Here we can see the difference in the headphones’ response when a high-impedance (75 ohms) source is substituted for a typical low-impedance source (5 ohms). There’s almost no difference, just a boost of about 0.5dB below 100Hz. This is rare for dynamic drivers; they’re usually more affected by source impedance.

This chart shows the SV023s’ right-channel response compared with a few other open-back models (including the Dan Clark Audio Æon 2s with perfed pads, which are the planar-magnetic headphones I’ve found come closest to the Harman curve). Again, there’s nothing unusual—at most, slightly less energy in the treble and bass relative to some similar models.

The SV023’s spectral decay is one of the cleanest I can remember seeing, with no significant resonances.

Here’s the THD vs. frequency chart, measured at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise). The distortion here is on the high side, topping out at about 8% THD at 20Hz, although because the distortion is mostly in the bass, it won’t be so audible because the distortion harmonics are low in frequency and mostly outside the most sensitive range of the human ear.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. The SV023s’ isolation is a little better than average for large, open-back headphones, probably because they use a 50mm driver rather than the 100mm drivers common to planar-magnetic models.

The impedance of the SV023s mostly averages around 330 ohms, with a fairly flat phase response (especially for a dynamic driver).

Sensitivity of the SV023s, calculated for 300 ohms impedance and averaged from 300Hz to 3kHz, is 104.2dB, plenty enough to get a useable volume from most source devices.

Bottom line: Other than some bass distortion, which it’s unlikely you’ll notice, the Sivga SV023 headphones’ measurements show nothing to worry about.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 01 September 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2022

I measured the Soundcore Sport X10 earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. I used a Reiyin WT-HD06 Bluetooth transmitter to get signals into the earphones. I used the supplied medium silicone tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that I’m unable to do spectral-decay measurements on most true wireless earphones due to the latency. Due to scheduling issues I wasn’t able to do noise-canceling measurements; we’ll add those at a future date. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the Sport X10s’ frequency response in the default Soundcore Signature EQ mode. It’s obviously pretty bassy. If the bass was toned down by about 6dB, it’d be a lot closer to normal. There’s a little more energy in that 5.5kHz peak than we might normally see, so I suspect these earphones might have a subtly bright top end.

This chart shows how the Sport X10s’ tonal balance changes when ANC is switched on. There’s not much difference, although the sound with ANC on would be noticeably brighter.

This chart shows the Sport X10s’ right-channel response (again, in Soundcore Signature mode) compared with various earphones—including the KEF Mu3 and AKG N5005 earphones, both of which stick pretty close to the Harman curve. Again, you can see the excess bass and the extra little zip in the mid-treble, but there’s no reason a little EQ’ing couldn’t bring these earphones into the range of normal.

Even at the extremely loud level of 100dBA (measured with pink noise), the Sport X10s’ distortion is very low. Some true wireless earphones can’t even reach 100dBA, so that’s impressive.

Bottom line: The Sport X10 eaphones seem well-engineered, even if their EQ at the Soundcore Signature setting is way too bassy.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 August 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, August 2022

I measured the Phiaton 900 Legacy headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. A Reiyin WT-HD06 Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 12 QC to the headphones. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the 900 Legacy headphones’ frequency response with the Bluetooth connection and noise canceling on—the mode I expect they’ll most often be used in. There appears to be a modest surplus of mid-treble (5 to 10kHz) energy relative to the usual peak at about 3kHz, and the bass looks a little pumped-up.

This chart shows the difference in response between the Bluetooth/ANC mode and the wired mode with the power off. In the wired more, there’s not as much bass, and the mids seem muted, but this is not that far off from what I measure with many planar-magnetic audiophile headphones.

This chart shows the 900 Legacy headphones’ response in Bluetooth mode with ANC on compared with the Bose QC45 and PSB M4U 8 MkII headphones (both with ANC on), and the AKG K371 passive headphones, which are said to be very close to an ideal Harman curve response. Yep, the 900 Legacy headphones do seem a little on the bassy side, but the rolloff starts only slightly above 100Hz, so it’s unlikely these will have that annoying bloated upper-bass sound many headphones have.

The 900 Legacy headphones’ right-channel spectral-decay plot (measured with the wired connection) looks very clean, with no significant resonances.

Here’s the THD vs. frequency, measured using the wired connection at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise). It’s very low, even at the extremely loud 100dBA level.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. This is impressive—the 900 Legacy headphones come close to some of the class leaders in noise-canceling performance, but because they don’t have as abrupt a shift in noise-canceling effect going from 100Hz to 1kHz, they don’t produce as much eardrum suck as some competitors do.

Latency, measured with the Reiyin Bluetooth transmitter in aptX HD mode averaged about 275ms, which is high. So these probably won’t be your first choice for gaming or video watching.

The impedance magnitude, measured in wired mode with the power off, averages about 32 ohms, roughly double the rated 16 ohms.

Sensitivity with the wired connection, calculated for 16 ohms rated impedance, averages 92.2dB from 300Hz to 3kHz, which is about 10dB less than I’d expect. These might not play quite loud enough for you when you plug into the inflight entertainment system on the decrepit airliner you’re flying that doesn’t yet give you free movies on your phone through Wi-Fi.

Bottom line: The Phiaton 900 Legacy headphones’ measured performance is generally excellent. They might be a little on the bassy side for some, but they won’t sound boomy or dull, and their noise-canceling performance is great.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 July 2022

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, July 2022

I measured the Technics EAH-A800 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 12 QC to the headphones. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

This chart shows the EAH-A800s’ frequency response with the Bluetooth connection, noise canceling on, and EQ off—the mode I expect they’ll most often be used in. There’s a lot of bass, and also a little less energy around 3kHz and more energy between 5 and 10kHz than I might normally expect to see.

For this chart, which shows the effects of some of the EQ modes, I switched to a real-time analyzer display with a white-noise signal played from my phone—it’s the only way I could reliably evaluate all the different EQ modes in the app. I also added a measurement of my preferred settings in the Custom mode; obviously I preferred a lot less bass than any of the stock EQ modes offered.

This chart, also produced using Clio’s real-time analyzer with white noise, shows how the response differs with noise canceling on and off, in Ambient mode, and in wired mode. The response is definitely very similar with noise canceling or Ambient on, and very different in the other two modes.

This chart shows the EAH-A800s’ response in Bluetooth mode with NC on and the EQ off, compared with the Bose QC45, the Edifier Stax Spirit S3, and the right-on-Harman-curve AKG K371 headphones. Obviously, the EAH-A800s are very bassy out of the box, and need to be EQ’ed.

The EAH-A800s’ right-channel spectral-decay plot (measured with the wired connection) looks mostly clean, although there’s clearly some resonance in the bass that’s inherent to the acoustics of the headphones.

Here’s the THD vs. frequency, measured using the wired connection at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise). It’s very low, even at the extremely loud 100dBA level.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. We’ll start by showing the differences among the headphones’ different listening modes: noise canceling on and off, and Ambient.

This chart compares the isolation of the EAH-A800s (set for max NC) with three other noise-canceling headphones: the Bose QC45, the Soundcore Life Q35, and the PSB M4U 8 MKII. Clearly the EAH-A800s’ noise canceling is competitive with other top performers.

Latency, measured with the MEE Connect transmitter (which has aptX and aptX Low Latency, but not AAC or LDAC), averaged about 288ms, which is high—more like what we’d expect to see with true wireless earphones, which have extra latency because they have to “talk to” each other. So these won’t be great gaming headphones, but you weren’t going to use them for that, anyway.

The impedance magnitude, measured in wired mode with power off, averages about 17.5 ohms, roughly half the rated 34 ohms—although that’s of no concern, because even 17.5 ohms isn’t tough for a cheap headphone amp chip to drive.

Sensitivity with the wired connection, calculated for 34 ohms rated impedance, averages 104.7dB from 300Hz to 3kHz, so these should play plenty loud even if you’re plugged into the armrest of a beat-up old 737.

Bottom line: The EAH-A800s’ noise canceling is excellent, and none of the more technical measurements reveals any engineering concerns—but there’s no question that they’re tuned to be very bassy out of the box. These headphones seem to be a firmware update away from potential greatness.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com