Audeze CRBN - Electrostatic Headphone - Official Thread

[Torq]

@adornoWest

How would you compare the CRBN vs SR1a for classical music alone? Would the importance of depth spacialization push you towards the SR1a there (assuming no access to other gear including speakers)?

That would depend on whether the pieces I was listening to the most were recorded in a manner that resulted in depth-wise spatialization even being possible on replay.

I’ve seen orchestras recorded with a single stereo microphone from the conductors position (which will generally result in audible depth-wise spatialization on replay), and sometimes even with a binaural recording head (which works even better).

In those cases, the SR1a would have a considerable imaging advantage.

I’ve also seen recordings done using a separate mic for each section, and sometimes with an additional microphone for that section’s lead as well as individual mics for any soloist(s) and occasionally there are a few “ambient” microphones as well.

The SR1a doesn’t convey any imaging advantage here, as these setups won’t capture the depth-wise information in the first place. Though, they may have a great sense of “scale” to the ambient/venue, which the SR1a does seem to be better able to convey.

Speakers couldn’t do it here, either, incidentally.

In these latter cases, it is common that the lateral imaging (left to right) that is audible is just a function of the mix (e.g. panning for lateral positioning) rather than the recording of the actual acoustic. This can lead to things whole sections seeming to be on the “wrong” side of the image. Or a soloist is in completely the wrong position (allowing for the fact that some soloists - I see it mostly with violin solos, will come up to the conductor’s position for their solo).

That’s a very long way of saying “it depends”.

@elliot

Out of curiosity, why LTD on the verite? Did you actually find that the specific wood you have to be superior to your personal tastes?

There are audible differences between woods, though it is usually quite subtle (and mostly a function of decay/reverb). I’ve owned the Vérité in three different woods (Pheasantwood, Ziricote and Cocobolo), but the reason for the progression was aesthetic not sonic.

But in this case, its mostly just force of habit; I tend to use full-names for products, especially where I own them.

[Swoquix]

Your comment about the multi-miking of orchestras sometimes leading to instrument sections or soloists being in the wrong place answers a question I’ve long had, why does it sound like section x is in the wrong place. Why the mixing engineer would do this is beyond me but at least I know now someone else hears it too and why it might happen. I fear the coming of spatial audio as I’ve heard mixing engineers thrilled for example to be able to put the listener in the middle of the orchestra as though this would be desirable.

[generic]

@Torq

There are audible differences between woods, though it is usually quite subtle (and mostly a function of decay/reverb). I’ve owned the Vérité in three different woods (Pheasantwood, Ziricote and Cocobolo), but the reason for the progression was aesthetic not sonic.

There are fierce debates in the electric guitar community about tone wood, as being audible or not. No one debates that tone wood deeply affects acoustic instruments, be they violins, guitars, or whatnot. Electric guitars are another story, as wood resonates per its density and grain structure but everything is shunted through electric pickups and a long chain of other devices/modifications.

When holding or playing an electric guitar, the wood differences can be obvious (at least to me). To someone listening or playing back a recording, the differences are often not obvious or identifiable at all. Headphones – as an electric sound source – also by necessity push wood, metal, or plastic housings into the background.

[Torq]

I don’t know about “deeply affects” (I know you’re referring to instruments), but with headphones you can measure (and thus see differences) between the harder and softer woods in the impulse response, decay and spectral plots. Be that from resonance of the wood or intensity of internal cup reflections or some combination it’s harder to say (personally I think it has more to do with reflections and the resultant change in decay time and amplitude).

[Torq]

@Swoquix

Why the mixing engineer would do this is beyond me but at least I know now someone else hears it too and why it might happen.

I doubt it is intentional.

I’ve got some doozies in my collection, though. Not just certain sections being in the wrong place, but those places changing during a “performance”.

I suspect that sort of thing is largely due to what makes it to master being an amalgamation of different sessions. Movement one, three and four might be taken from a session on Monday, and movement two may have been taken from a session a few days later.

For more passionate pieces, you can sometimes “tell” which days the conductor, or orchestra, was having an “off” day just by the change in perceived energy in the performance, if what was released to CD (etc.) was from several sessions on different days.

I’ve got some pieces where I am pretty sure that half the what’s on the recording was done on a cooler day and the remainder on a hot day. I’ll have to delve into that a bit and find some specific examples. I have a Ring Cycle production that you can hear the venue’s AC cycling on and off in “Die Walküre”, but not in “Das Rheingold”.

@Swoquix

I fear the coming of spatial audio as I’ve heard mixing engineers thrilled for example to be able to put the listener in the middle of the orchestra as though this would be desirable.

That would be a horror show.

I remember some early multi-channel music masters, back in the days of DVD-A, where on a proper multi-channel system you’d wind up with the drummer or the bass guitarist (etc.) behind you.

Where spatial audio works to allow you to turn your head with the appropriate change in image, while I don’t particularly want that - I can see that it can sometimes make things seem more “natural” or more “speaker like” in terms of the listening experience.

But otherwise I’m sure most of it is going to wind up like early 3D movies, where they just find annoying shit to do to show off the technology … like stuff flying out of the screen at you for no particular reason. That, or they’ll find ways to process it in after the fact (like so many of the last wave of “3D” movies) and it’ll just wind up sounding wrong.

[Swoquix]

I fully agree with your comment. Someone on the LCD 5 thread just mentioned this https://smyth-research.com/ the A16 Realiser which claims something similar but at least at the Head-fi forum owners seem highly enthusiastic (though that’s not always an indicator of anything). Have you had any experience with it?

[Torq]

I played with it briefly, not that long after early units were available. It was uncanny in its ability to present spatial audio and render different listening setups. I was a lot more impressed than I expected to be.

But … it is not a capability I actually had any use for.

Didn’t like it at all with stereo source material. I have maybe half a dozen multi-channel music releases (none of which are more compelling than their stereo versions even on an actual multi-channel setup). And I don’t watch movies using headphones. Not that I care much about multi-channel audio with movies (or even sound-quality at all when watching movies, as long as I can make out the dialogue) anyway.

[adornoWest]

Thanks for all the info about recording techniques. That’s really interesting and helps me make sense of some of things I’ve noticed like sometimes the absence of depth entirely and/or the unexpected placement of some sections. Much appreciated.

[pennstac]

@Torq

But otherwise I’m sure most of it is going to wind up like early 3D movies, where they just find annoying shit to do to show off the technology … like stuff flying out of the screen at you for no particular reason. That, or they’ll find ways to process it in after the fact (like so many of the last wave of “3D” movies) and

I love Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein (since it’s coming up on Halloween anyway) in 3D. Warhol’s tongue is firmly in his 3D cheek throughout this movie, and the 3D effects are hilarious. The extended death scene with the actor’s internals on the end of a spear throughout an endless soliloquy had me laughing almost the entire time.

Recommended. And to keep this marginally in the audio topic, I’ll probably run to buy a spatial audio version if it’s ever done.

[Torq]

So, it’s three weeks to the day (technically I suppose that’s three weeks and a day) since I received my set of CRBN.

I am as impressed with them now as I was initially, maybe more so - as they’ve not put a foot wrong across more than 200 hours of diverse, and demanding, listening.

They’ve bested every other headphone I’ve heard (excepting the HE90 in “system form” and HE-1), and that list now includes the LCD-5 (though only very briefly, more about that in a minute), the Aperio (system) and the SGL Jr. and Sr. The only potentially notable/relevant headphone I’ve not been able to compare to is the new SR-X9000, as mine have not arrived yet.

Not everyone is going to feel the same way about them. I’m not saying you should. I can see cases where the SGL Sr. or the Susvara or AB-1266 Phi TC, for a few examples, would be preferable, with some specific (limited) genres or listening preferences.

My feelings about them hold when driven with the Carbon, the BHSE, a KGST and a KGSSHV. And mostly remain the same off the iFi Pro iESL given a suitably nice power amplifier feeding it (Chord Étude, Ultima 5, Audio Research Reference 80S*, AK2200, MA252/MA352*). They’re not necessarily so positive with some other amplifiers, including some very expensive/uncommon units that I’ll talk about later**.

…

I had a brief chance to compare to the LCD-5, and other than the CRBN being more comfortable, they are more tonally similar than not, and trade blows pretty directly in a number of areas. The LCD-5 was very impressive. I should have been less concerned there …

My thoughts here may change once I get my own pair of LCD-5, and can do some protracted listening and comparisons, but at this point, I prefer the CRBN. The CRBN are faster (at least driven off the Carbon and BHSE), more resolving, have better micro and macro dynamics, but perhaps don’t hit/slam quite as hard as the LCD-5 … though there is very little in it and they’re still the hardest-hitting electrostatics I’ve heard this side of the HE-1.

Amazing stuff, especially for a first-entry.

Oh, and for those that think it’s okay to cut and paste my posts onto other sites, it is not. You want to summarize and paraphrase, that’s up to you. If you want to link to them it’s fine, but if I wanted to post verbatim on other sites, I would. Thanks.

---

*These three yielded a slightly more rounded presentation (different degrees for each), which is quite agreeable … in a smoking-jacket-and-camomile-tea manner. Not my preferred presentation; I’d just go with a different headphone, but nice all the same.
**I have not had a chance to take the pictures I need to post those comments. Maybe over the weekend. Lots of other stuff getting in the way.

[ilikebananafudge]

How large is the gap between the KGST and the BHSE and between the Carbon and the KGSSHV? Also, are the KGST and the KGSSHV from Mjolnir Audio?

[Torq]

All of the KG-based amplifiers I am talking about in my comparisons are actual Mjolnir-Audio builds, with the BHSE being built by HeadAmp. Both the BHSE and the Carbon are from the most recent batches (and both are mine).

My friend, Kit, who is the chap that’s the serious electrostatic collector (along with Leica gear, and, oddly enough, pachinko machines) I’ve mentioned is the owner of most of the rest of the gear here, also has a couple of non-Mjolnir-Audio KG-designed builds.

The non-Mjolnir-Audio units he has are based on older circuits/boards (or copies of earlier boards). I don’t do a lot of high-voltage electronics*, but based on a cursory look inside are not things I would plug my own headphones in to. Not even for a brief test. So you won’t see any of my impressions or comparisons being done using those random/DIY builds.

Obviously builds vary by builder … but that’s another topic.

Getting back to your first question …

I’ve not really been comparing the amplifiers in their own right; just how they perform with the CRBN and, where relevant to me at the time, the SR-009S (which is more for assessing the CRBN than the amplifier anyway).

Right now, the best I could say is that I think the BHSE and Carbon are more focused, more resolving and more impactful, versions of the KGST and KGSSHV respectively. Most of the differences are small when taken individually, but I think worthwhile as a whole. And the biggest differences are in terms of authority (much less of an issue with electrostatics), power and impact/slam. Which all favor the higher-end models.

Law of diminishing returns applies.

But I would still take a KGST or KGSSHV driving the CRBN over pretty much anything else, except a Carbon, BHSE, HE90 or HE-1. The BHSE and Carbon just t take them up a notch.

---

*Most of my electronics work is not in audio even, and is focused more on extremely low signal levels and expansive bandwidth at extremely high frequencies.

[ilikebananafudge]

Thanks for your thoughts!

I’m pretty heavily invested in dynamic headphones at the moment (ECP DSHA-3F with Utopias and Verite Closed on the way), but I’m certain that I’ll end up with a CRBN at some point down the line. I had a brief foray with some entry-level electrostatics (Koss ESP/95X and Lambda Normal Bias off of a Mjolnir-refurbished SRM-1 Mk2) and I was impressed with their resolution and speed. I’ve had my eye on the Mjolnir-built KG-designed amps and I’ve always wondered what the sweet spot is in terms of price/performance.

[Torq]

@ilikebananafudge

I’m pretty heavily invested in dynamic headphones at the moment

I’m more invested there (in literal, financial, terms at least), myself, than I am in electrostatics; which are a recent re-exploration that just happens to have hit the right spot this time around.

@ilikebananafudge

ECP DSHA-3F with Utopias

A lovely combination that everyone should be lucky enough to hear. One of the best examples of synergy I’ve heard. Along the lines of DNA/Utopia pairings. Or ZDSE/HD650s etc.

[holotype]

Very compelling. I wonder if Audeze would ever carry b-stocks of these (presuming their return policy still applies given the made-to-order nature), as that would make the acquisition far more palatable. But it sounds like based on these early impressions they’ll be keepers for most.

I’d be interested in comparing the SR1a + Jotunheim-R vs. the CRBN out of a more “modest” electrostatic amplifier (e.g. KGSS/KGST/KGDT/SRX-Plus). The value proposition for electrostatic amplification has always been troublesome given the limited production and lack of mass-market appeal, thus DIY offerings are pretty pricy to offset the material and labor costs involved (with the exception of the super-shady eBay stuff no one should be touching).

But if the CRBN can provide a convincing experience with something like the SRX-Plus I have lying around, vis-à-vis SR1a + Jot-R, that could change my direction entirely. I’m not particularly hopeful based on my memory of how vast the gap between the T2 and BHSE/Carbon sounded to me with the HE90 and SR-Omega (let alone the gap between the latter two and lesser amplifiers), but I’d love to be pleasantly surprised.

[Ciggavelli]

Regarding the italicized part, noted. I’m sure “those people” were just trying to provide information to others and didn’t realize there were forum politics or whatever reason you don’t want us to cite you and then copy & paste your impressions.

Nonetheless, I’m sure those people will respect your wishes in the future

[dncnexus]

@Torq I guess this is a different question, but with your inclination toward the CRBN, and the fact you caveat lots of your impressions with on this side of the HE1, are you still going to try to acquire and HE-1 or do you think you are satisfied with just the CRBN?

[Torq]

It’s not really anything to do with “forum politics”.

Just a personal preference, based on the very different (sometimes highly toxic) behavior of some sub-segments of the audiences on some sites.

[Torq]

That caveat is mostly because the HE-1 is a system, where as the CRBN is just a headphone. And there’s no way to compare just headphone on the HE-1 to the CRBN.

I actually prefer the tonality of the CRBN, even if the HE-1 bests them elsewhere.

---

Yes, I do still intend to buy the HE-1.

I wound up putting it on hold, once I had actually got connected with the appropriate person at Sennheiser, for a couple of reasons:

• First, the lead time was not very specific (and was going to be at least 9 months).

• Second, I was shown a black unit, which instantly killed my interest in the white finish. And then I was told I couldn’t have black anymore. Then I was told I could, but it would be somewhere into 2022. And I was not particularly confident that the situation wouldn’t change again (e.g. getting several months into the order, only to find that black wasn’t going to be available).

So, once the world is a bit saner, and things are more precise, and I’m able to actually start the tour I intend to do, I will buy an HE-1 and it will replace all of my other headphone gear. Assuming I don’t do that anyway when the new speaker rig is finished.