Massdrop "x" & Drop (Audiophile) - Official Thread

[mshenay]

Let me start by thanking Drop for giving me the chance to review headphone. This is a Dan Clark Audio Aeon Flow Open tuned by the Drop Team, so it’s a collaboration! Having not heard the original tho I can’t say what they’ve changed. Price is at $499 via Drop. I did receive this just before launch on a temporary in home demo with the understanding that I share my thoughts of my own accord without any compensation. Moving forward tho I’ll be shortening the Aeon Open X by Dan Clark Audio & Drop to just simply AFO-X.

Build

Overall AFO-Xs build quality is consistent with what we’ve seen and come to expect from Dan Clark Audio. Even the packing is identical to the original AFO except for the labeling which identifies it as the Aeon Flow Open X Drop Collaboration with Dan Clark Audio.

Tuning pads are included with the White 1 Notch Filter pre-installed, best of all the original Mr.Speakers headphone carrying case is also included!

Sound Overview

Overall I find headphone to have a thicker tonality with a beautifully natural mid-range and lots of detail. However it’s tonal balance is a bit off and with really any piece of music consisting of more than 2 instruments the overall coherency tends to break apart. I’ll also add the pre-installed 1 notch White filters didn’t add anything worthwhile to my ears as they only smoothed the top end and further proved a detriment to the already warm tonal balance.

So all of my listening was done without them.

For this review I choose to stick with the SMSL SP200 for it’s transparent presentation and truly colorless amplification. Given how much personality and character headphone brings I found it performed best with a clean powerful amp. I did try a couple of Hybrid Tubes and each had more drawbacks than real worthwhile benefits. Namely they overemphasized problem area’s with AFO-X’s response and presentation.

Specifics

All listening for this review was done offline with 16/44.1, 24/96 or 24/192 offline lossless recordings, track list is as follows

• Hotel California - Eagles [Hell Freezes Over] (Simply Vinyl 180g Rip)
• Guess I’m Doing Fine - Beck [Sea Change] (MoFi UDCD 780)
• Good Man - Ne Yo [Good Man] (Motown Records Deluxe Edition)
• Drum Kit Dynamic Range Uncompressed: Test - Dr. Chesky [The Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disc]
• 7: Gigue - Eugene Drucker [J.S Bach - Sonata & Partitas for Solo Violin]

I don’t have a definite opinion on “burn in” however I respect those of you that do and I do run about 5 days of 24/7 pink noise before I do any listening. I also like to spend a full day just exploring music before I start comparisons and any critical listening with the playlist listed above.

Regarding EQ I avoid it for reviews, as correcting frequency response doesn’t change more important aspects to me like envelope and dynamic contrast. If heavy EQ is needed another product may be better or needed for your tastes/wants imo,

Bass

• Synthesized low frequencies presented with both speed an authority.
• Both natural acoustic instruments and electric stringed instruments sound stuffy, sluggish and ill defined.
  • serious lack of definition and an overabundance harmonic overtones
• Ultimately sounds some what flat or with smashed/squashed tonality.

So the bass lines in songs like the Hotel California and Beck’s “Guess I’m Doing Fine” has insufficient texture or definition, how ever the powerful deep kicks on Ne Yo’s “Good Man” had genuine speed and authority. An getting back to this idea of simplified less complicated and populated mixs, I did enjoy a few simply drumming tracks with headphone.

Mid-Range

• Sense of warm naturalness but with insane speed, definition and presence.
• Tonality an overall balance kinda poor relative to the rest of spectrum

Highs

• little hot and splashy up top,
  • often bleed into the upper mids resulting in some emphasis on breathing and mouthy noise from singers in addition to an oddly dry or weirdly aggressive presentation.

I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to enjoying this presentation with a few specific tracks, but for long term use I wasn’t really too impressed.

Detail and Dynamics

The mid-range was in particular exceptionally detailed with headphone, almost shockingly so, how ever problems with an excess in the lows often de-emphasized some of this detail. Which made it detail difficult to perceive but never impossible to find. Still as detailed as it is the overall dynamics or presentation of quite and loud sounds overlapping and within the same space was extremely damped or muted. Sadly AFO-Xs does not do much to truthfully present the full dynamic range of even well recorded and mastered passages of music.

Staging & Image

Despite everything I was surprised at how precise the image headphone presented was, movement both vertically and lateral was easily discernible. However, there was still this unpleasant boxy sound to it all. Not to mention if there was a kick drum in the mix it’s sound alone ate up around half the audible space presented. Still my critical listening tracks are split between a Drum & Bell, just Vocals and a “Shaker Test” and while I respect it’s technical performance within these given Test Tracks that technical prowess does not translate well beyond very simple straight forward compositions and music.

Comparisons

LCD 2 PreFazor

Let’s start with it’s strengths, compared to my PreFazor LCD 2.2 AFO-X is;

• More open or spacious with regards to the “width” or the perceived space
  • Only when there isn’t any low bass spectra in the mix
• A bit more natural with Spoken word and some vocals
  • Assuming the vocalist doesn’t have a deep voice

Watching a few TV shows with AFO-X wasn’t bad, more often than not vocals sounded more correct with AFO-X than PreFazor LCD 2.2

An that’s pretty much about it, AFO-X is and can be spacious but it’s loose ill defined and overly forward yet still flat bass really kills the perception of “space” and air for me.

Technically my 2012 PreFazor LCD 2.2 is;

• More detailed
  • So it’s easier to hear and discern transits
• Presented a cleaner envelope
• Sharper more distinct dynamics
  • Both Macro and Micro An tonally;
• Even more power in the lows without any loss in detail/texture or definition
• Thick rich mid range with good presence and “bite”
• Dark or recessed top end yet still presents a more natural sounding extension

Now oddly enough with vocal heavy Music PreFazor LCD 2.2 sounds fine, just spoken word like what we find on TV for some reason comes across a bit odd on it.

Granted, not every one will be able to find an equivalent sounding PreFazor LCD 2.2. Non the less, I just don’t feel AFO-X really measures up to my personal standard for how an “organic” or “natural” tuned headphone should sound.

HD 600

Simply put I found HD 600 to be simply better across the board, while not as spacious in terms of width the image it presented was more cohesive with better precision. HD 600 had far more detail, transient response is incredibly vivid and dynamic contrast was vastly improved.

Tonally even tho HD 600 is rolled off it presented more detail and texture in the low frequencies, relative to about 40 hrz. There was and is just a sense of clarity, precision and naturalness with HD 600 that is lacking in AFO-X.

Compared to AFO-X, I found HD 600 presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• More textured an detailed within limits of response
• Vivid
• Rolled off
  • Only obvious and problematic with deeper synth bass lines

I’d say the only genre of music where AFO-X excels and HD 600 falls short is EDM that feature a lot of heavy deep bass lines.

Compared to AFO-X, I found HD 600 presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Lively without a lack of naturalness
• Vocals have a more defined body and place within the recorded space
• Textured with a clean envelope
  • Slight upper mid-range forwardness adds presence and texture without being detrimental
• Slightly drier
  • Or lacking added warmth/wetness

Compared to AFO-X, I found HD 600 presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Well extended without added emphasis

Sadly the only thing preventing HD 600 from being hands down a better buy is it’s lack of low bass extension as the roll off can really be a detriment to some genres of music. However with all acoustic music and anything above about 40 Hz I do feel HD 600 is better.

An I’ll also add that HD 6XX/650 will likely compare similarly except it’ll have that slightly wetter/richer mid range and improved low bass response.

AFO-X vs ESP 95X

I’ll start by admitting the overall tuning goals here are different, AFO-X is characterized by it’s engaging warmth and body where as the Koss 95X is more or less dis-engaging or tuned to by far more linear and transparent. That as a listener I find myself more engaged while listening when my system as a whole has less emphasize. 95X certainly embodies that mindset tho quite a few who have heard it don’t quite agree and find it “boring.” That said;

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Not as rich or sweet
• Equally as detailed
• Resolved a little more depth within a given stage/acoustic space
• Never stuffy
  • There where times while listening with AFO-X that singers in particular sounded incredibly boxy. 95X had NONE of this boxy or stuffy sound

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Recessed
• More vividly detailed and textured
  • AFO-X simply lacks detail, resolve and texture in the lows for many stringed instruments

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Not as forward or in your face
• Better extension or more balanced/resolving envelope
  • Clean, Clear and well defined leading edges and decay from that initial attack
  • Vivid sustain and exceptional clarity when presenting the trailing edge of high frequencies
• Drier
  • As in not as “wet” sounding

Overall technically and for my personal tastes I found 95X to be superior overall, the only Genre where AFO-X was more enjoyable was EDM given it’s fuller and more prominent sub bass response.

AFO-X vs HE 4XX

With these two there are tonal differences but I find the Mid Range to be the strength of each with each bringing a richer or wetter presentation to mid range frequencies.

I am happy to admit that technically the HE 4XX doesn’t quite compete with AFO-X. AFO-X has better resolve and provides a more spacious and precise image. Tho I do prefer the overall tonality of HE 4XX more so, so I perceive a lot more detail with HE 4XX where as I do have to listen for it on AFO-X. An indeed when I’m listening more critically it is apparent that AFO-X is technically better.

Compared to AFO-X, I found HE 4XXs presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• A touch emphasized
  • But not as boomy
• Better tonality
  • With Texture proving easier to perceive

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Not Quite as Tactile
• More even or correct timbre without being drier or lacking warmth/wetness
• Not quite as detailed or resolving

Compared to AFO-X, I found 95Xs presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Touch more forward
• Not quite as detailed

Staging tho is a bit… flat compared to AFO-X, HE 4XX often lacks a real sense of defined space. Things that are in front can come across as above, where as AFO-X does a better job at preserving and presenting a more three dimensional sense of space. The Chesky Binarual Disc is a nice listen for this kind of presentation and thankfully most of the time with actual Music AFO-X translates this precision.

AFO-X vs LCD 2 Classic

Now these two headphones do share a some what similar warm thick presentation. Both even share a similar price and topology!

Compared to AFO-X, I found LCD 2Cs presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Weighty when needed
  • Never too excessive or boomy
• Thicker with Synth Basslines
• More resolving,
  • With better detail and power!

So just better, while AFO-X presented Synth Basslines with more speed and didn’t quite capture the fullness or warm tone that ole school Dub Step often has. Again the Dub being in reference to Dub Music an offshoot of Reggae which saw a heavy use of round wound stung bass guitars which often had a warm cozy bass line. AFO-X was sometimes too punchy so kinda off to my ears. Ironically tho with actual Bass Guitars AFO-X consistently lacked punch comparatively and sounded TOO warm and cozy…

Compared to AFO-X, I found LCD 2Cs presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Slightly recessed
• Not as rich nor as full
• Lacking a little texture/edge
• Presented with better depth relative to the acoustic space

Compared to AFO-X, I found LCD 2Cs presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Slightly recessed
• Equivalent extension and detail

Now what I like about LCD 2C is it takes quite nicely to amplification like the Schiit Lyr 3, and such a pairing maintains a lot of LCD 2C’s strong points but add’s a little richness without a massive loss in texture or edge. Where as with AFO-X anything outside of a clean solid state will only further detriment it!

AFO-X vs Mr. Speakers and Dan Clark Audio Family of Cans

Right off the bat I’ll start by saying I don’t feel AFO-X is in even the same league as the new Dan Clark Audio Aeon 2 Closed. A2C has a tiny smidge of warmth and fullness but provides a significantly cleaner, more nuanced and resolved presentation. It’s both technically and tonally better in every regard to my ears.

Original AFC and Ether CX prove to be better comparisons, with CX proving to be subjectively about as Open as AFO-X to my ears. While AFO-X has a nice open airy sound at times, it’s overly forward ill-defined bass stifles any perception of “spaciousness.”

Where as with CX there isn’t quite the same openness but there’s also not this constant stifling boxy low end either. I also felt CX was equally as detailed in the mid-range with better top and bottom end resolve and more or less equivalent dynamics. An while CX is not as rich as AFO-X it isn’t too lean by comparison to my ears.

Compared to AFO-X, I found Ether CX’s presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Not as forward or powerful
• More detailed & textured
• Cleaner audible extension
• Not “flat” sounding

Compared to AFO-X, I found Ether CX’s presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Still rich but more balanced
  • Not as “thick” or “syrupy”
• Without audible stuffiness
  • does NOT sound like it’s coming from within a box or small cramp space
• More detailed

Compared to AFO-X, I found Ether CX’s presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Slightly recessed but with cleaner more audible extension
• Not as wet or splashy

AFC on the other hand is quite different in terms of presentation from AFO-X. I felt AFC was never quite as “open” sounding as AFO-X could be however, AFC had better precision and cohesion within the audible space.

Compared to AFO-X, I found AFC’s presentation of Low Frequencies to be;

• Recessed
• Cleaner sense of power and extension
• More detailed/textured
• Not flat sounding

Compared to AFO-X, I found AFC’s presentation of Mid-Range Frequencies to be;

• Noticeably drier
• Presented with a more vivid vibrato
  • For both vocalists and horns especially
• More detailed

Compared to AFO-X, I found AFC’s presentation of High Frequencies to be;

• Equally extended
• Similarly wet or splashy
• Not as open or airy

Overall I still prefer AFC at this given price point despite it being a closed back.

Conclusion

Again given it’s many many flaws I can’t quite say AFO-X gets my recommendation. It may have brought improvements over it’s 1st gen counterpart but I don’t feel it’s competitive enough in today’s market to merit my recommendation. You may be able to correct some of it’s tonal imbalance with EQ but that excessive harmonic emphasis in the lows will be difficult to correct as will the lack of dynamics.

[ValentineLuke]

Nice review. Although not quite there yet, it’s nice to hear that they’re progressing the line.

[mshenay]

Well I think Aeon 2 Open is likely better, based on the drastic improvements I hear in the A2C vs AFC

[ValentineLuke]

Yeah, I read that you hadn’t heard the original. I based my speculation on your comparison of other DC/Mr.S models. I should’ve noted that in my comments!

[prfallon69]

Excellent review. And wow, it’s also very detailed. I can see lots of time and effort went into it too. One of the most detailed I’ve read. I really appreciate any review anyone does. I find them quite difficult to put together myself and dont find it an easy process. Mind you I haven’t done many but take my hat off to you guys that do them frequently.

[Rena]

Koss ESP 95x Impressions - Thanks to r/headphonelibrary for loaning me this unit

Accessories

The Koss ESP 95x comes with an e/90x energizer and AC Adapter, 3ft RCA to RCA cable, 2ft 3.5mm to 3.5mm cable and 6ft extension cable.

Fit and Comfort

Comfort wise, I say these are probably the most comfortable headphones I ever tried. It just feels so light on the top headband and does not create any hot spots. The clamp force is a bit light though which I do not mind but at the same time it falls off my head if I am not in an upright position. The pads have a stiffer foam material but not to the point where it could cause comfort issues.

Build

The build for the most part is pretty much plastic from what I can tell besides the part that controls the headband’s extension. It really reminds me of Stax ear speakers I used to own but the build quality on the Koss I would say is better and more held together. I do not have much of an issue with this as you do get a light, comfortable headphone which I can not say many other headphones are anywhere near as comfortable. I do like that you can easily take this apart and replace the headband if needed. The energizer itself is pretty compact as well being about 6”x4.5”x3” and feels light. Also seems to just be plastic and the knob does have an option to change the volume from the left channel and right channel. I think this can be useful as electro stats can sometimes have one side going quieter over time when not properly taken care of.

I also did not notice any creaking noise while I did use this. So that was not really much of an issue for me.

Sound Leakage:

Tried to volume match to what my other headphones I have, and I would say the sound leakage is above average in terms of how much everyone can hear around you. Something like an HD 6xx series or HD 800 would leak less than this, but it is not as bad as a Stax lambda or Ananda.

The sound:

I guess if I were to summarize the sound, I would say recessed sub-bass, recessed lower mids, slightly shouty upper mids, but warm on the treble.

Sources:

I ended up using SDAC-Balanced ->E/90x energizer on foobar2000 with flac files.

Bass

So, this follows a similar feeling in the sub-bass to what most electro stats sound like. I tried some sub-bass tests such as A1 2019, and massive attack angel, and for the most part the sub-bass sections were whisper quiet and there was not much of sense of rumble. I tried to EQ in sub-bass and happy to say it does EQ well, but the amount of EQ it needs for my taste is a bit more than I would be comfortable using. I would say in the +10db range to somewhat get a sense of rumble in these songs and towards my preference. The mid-bass to upper bass has a bit more body in comparison but I still sort of find it a bit recessed. The decay on the bass is fast as well. Overall, really what you expect out of an electro stat but maybe a bit better than Stax’s offerings in this range.

Mids

The mids on the other hand seem a bit more balanced than the other Stax products in this price range. The lower mids do seem a bit recessed where I would be EQing in a few db in to give it more body, usually I prefer more emphasized lower mids. The other part is that the upper mids can be a bit shouty but not anywhere near as bad as stax lambdas can be. I find the part to be well done by Koss versus Stax’s lambdas as they maintained a somewhat inoffensive and relatively balanced signature. I did not really need to tweak the upper mids too much versus but a few db down on 1.5k were nice to have.

Treble

So, I believe my favorite part of this headphone would be the treble as it can be mostly warm and easy to listen to. The treble is pretty much warm throughout it all. I did have an L700 and it just sounded so bright in comparison, the ESP 95x really makes it a lot nicer to listen to. I did notice that were some peaks on 9k, 11k and 13k and made it sound just a bit airier than what I am normally used to. Although to me it does not feel extreme, I just lowered those parts by a bit.

Dynamics:

So, like most electro stats I heard, the macro dynamics are just really compressed sounding, especially in the bass. I would say these are about as compressed as the L700 I had. If macro dynamics are important to you, I would avoid these. It might also not be helping the amount of sub-bass presence this headphone has as I did have to overcompensate to get rumble and better extension.

Detail

Detail wise, I feel these are just about right for their price point. At the time of writing this review, they are on sale for $390 on Drop, although already out of stock for anyone with 120V. I find them a decent offering in this aspect. Just comparing it to my HD 650 which is about $220 if you Drops version, it is getting out resolved by the 95x. Although it is not a groundbreaking amount of more detail you are getting with the 95x. It sounds about right for the price difference.

Separation

Separation wise, it is pretty good as the HD 650 seems to be suffering in this regard in comparison. The 95x easily comes out on top in terms of separating instruments and making it seem less congested in busier songs. From memory, I believe the amount of separation is closer to an Elex but I am not completely sure as it has been a year since I listened to those.

Soundstage and imaging

I would say the soundstage is a bit above average, being bigger than the HD 650 easily, and being a bit bigger than the elex was. Imaging wise, I feel it is pretty well on the left right and back sides, but the front image is a bit hazy feeling. But it is somewhat there just not as defined as it could be.

Comparisons:

Sennheiser HD 650:

Both seem to share a bit more of a warmer signature, with the Koss seeming to have a bit more energy in the upper treble and less energy in the bass. I can see the 95x being an upgrade in terms of separation, soundstage, imaging, and detail retrieval. Although I believe the 650 still does macro dynamics better. The Koss is more suited to some one not really relying on dynamics or intense amounts of bass. The 650 is a good bit nicer with its timbre though.

Focal Elex:

Memory is a bit hazy on this one. But I do remember the macro dynamics being exceedingly well for the price and blowing out the 95x in this aspect. Detail retrieval wise, I feel the elex might be a tinge better but it is not a groundbreaking amount, mostly just in the amount of clarity the Elex has over the 95x. Soundstage wise the 95x is better, and comfort in my opinion is better on the Koss as well. I do find the elex to be a bit more offensive in the upper treble though and shout over the Koss though.

Would I buy it?

I think the Koss ESP 95x is great system for anyone interested in getting in the electrostat sphere. For the price I would easily take this over the L300 + 252s but if you do value detail and only that, I would consider the L300 instead. The 95x is so much nicer tuned than the lambdas Stax has currently on offer, that makes m turn to the Koss instead. Stax’s lambda series can be offensive in the shout and the treble can be leaning towards the bright side.

[gtjwolf]

A while back I had both the Ether CX and Ether C Flow on hand and did a short write up comparing the two units and figured I would share my observations here too:

Here’s a photo album and my review notes to give perspective on the differences in build for both of the models.

[Album] Ether C Flow vs Ether CX comparison

Review Notes:

• Stock pads used on each, stock black foam installed on CX)
• All testing was done with a Topping D90/iFi Zen Can while streaming Tidal hi-fi through Roon

Ether C Flow Notes:

• Tighter weave of carbon fiber on the earcups
• Pivoting gimbal feels very sturdy
• Significantly improved sub-bass when played back to back against Ether CX
• Much stronger bass slam than the CX in stock form
• Moderately lighter clamp force
• Leather headband is slightly higher quality – stitched edges and smoother finish under the band
• Adjustment mechanism same as CX – very good
• Well worn pads are much better on the C Flow than CX
• Stock pads of flow are angled – feels like real leather
• Ears are cushioned by the foam dampening of the driver vs hard surface of the CX
• Isolation is just as strong as the CX
• Retrieves just as much detail as the CX, but smoother delivery
• Ports at the top of the earcups can be covered by the 1.1 upgrade, I preferred to leave them fully open as it allowed for more sub-bass to come through

Ether CX Notes:

• Neutral sound signature, mid bass is similar to C Flow but the sub bass difference is very noticeable when testing side by side
• Upper frequency of treble is almost harsh with just the stock black foam tuning
• Great analytical closed back, the reduced sub bass contributes to strong detail retrieval across the spectrum
• Clean separation of instruments and vocals
• Marginally stronger clamp force than the C Flow
• Still very comfortable despite less positioning adjustments – flat pads vs angled of the C Flow also
• Vocals a little more prominent when listening across several tracks

Other Notes:

• Stock pads of the CX need more material around the lip of the earcup to form a more consistent seal, over months of ownership I had to clean out hair that managed to get behind the pads
• Both headphones respond extremely well to EQ adjustments
• Recommend aftermarket pads pads for both of these headphones.
• I personally recommend ZMF Universe Lambskin to pair with both of these
• Improves the seal, sub-bass, and adds some more ‘air’ to the sound slightly. More lively and less clinical sounding
• The ear insert can still support the CX tuning foams

Final Thoughts:
They are both fantastic headphones and should be on the radar for anyone considering closed back headphones. They are both light for planars and exceptionally comfortable. The CX delivers a more neutral signature across the board, and perfect clarity + detail retrieval, great for critical listening and the foams to allow people to adjust the signature to their taste. The C Flow feels like a further refinement, and smooths out some of the rough edges and introduces a slight U-shaped sound.

Both of them benefit significantly from a pad upgrade, although I still found them both enjoyable with the stock pads. Also, they both respond exceptionally well to software EQ, they can provide a serious amount of bass slam without distorting and overpowering the rest of the range. I personally feel the stock tuning really holds back how impressive both of these headphones are in terms of their capability. Looking at retail, the CX’s value is really impressive.

[prfallon69]

Great review @Rena. At $390 its a bargain.

[pwjazz]

Opinions about ASR aside, I tried Amir’s HE400i EQ settings with the HE4XX and dang do they sound good! The haze and tizzyness are gone, and the bass gains weight without bloat. With proper EQ, the HE4XX sounds like a higher tier headphone and it’s tough to believe I only paid $130 for these.

Hifiman HE400i Review (planar headphone)

[Tchoupitoulas]

That’s pretty cool. I had the 400i a while back and liked many things about it but not the plasticky timbre or the haze and tizzyness, which were more problematic, so it’s good to hear these EQ settings fix the latter two problems.

I avoid pricier HiFiMan headphones because of the poor build quality - at the original msrp of $500, I wouldn’t have purchased the 400i - but at $130, these are a great option, especially as they don’t need special amplification. My Fulla 2 drove them perfectly well.

It’d be fun to hear them EQ’d (and to do an A/B comparison!)

[AudioTool]

ARGH! I’ve just been informed by Drop customer support that they are not planning to replenish their stock of Koss ESP 95X. And I sent mine back because there was a bass response issue in the left transducer. I could have had Koss repair them instead if I’d known!

[SenyorC]

At the risk of being repetitive, my review is also available in Spanish (and English) on my Blog, link in my profile, and also in Spanish on YouTube: Ep.43 - Drop Cavali Tube Hybrid

The (Mass)Drop Cavalli Tube Hybrid is an amplifier that was launched as a joint venture between Alex Cavalli and the company (Mass)Drop. For those of you who are not familiar with (Mass)Drop, I included a basic background of the company in my review of the Sennheiser HD6XX which you can find here: Review - Sennheiser HD6XX.

This amplifier is supposedly based on the original Compact Tube Hybrid, an amplifier that was introduced many years ago by Alex Cavalli as a DIY project. I have never had the possibility of trying out the original DIY version but my understanding is that the current Drop Cavalli Tube Hybrid (which I will now refer to as CTH) is very different.

I have owned the CTH now for about a year and it has become a stable part of my listening set up. Although I have tried a couple of other hybrid tube amplifiers, the only two that I have kept in my possession are the CTH and the Loxjie P20. While there are differences between these two amplifiers, I will make a few comparisons between the two. If you would like to see my full review of the Loxjie P20, you can find it here: Review - Loxjie P20.

Intro…

As the CTH (and the P20) can be considered an entry level hybrid amplifier, therefore it does appeal to many starting out in the headphone world, I will give a brief explanation of what a hybrid tube amplifier is. If you are someone who is already involved in the headphone world, you should probably just skip this part and move on to the real part of the review.

A hybrid amplifier, or rather a hybrid tube amplifier, is an amplifier that uses both tubes and solid state circuits in order to create the final output. While it is not always the case, the majority of hybrid tube amplifiers use tubes in the preamplification stage and then use solid state amplification for the actual power.

The idea behind this is to have the benefits of solid state amplification while still being able to include a little of the “tube flavour” that is so famous in the HiFi world. This is not something that is limited to just the HiFi or headphone world however, it is also very common in guitar and bass amplifiers, attempting to recreate the same sound as a tube amplifier but without the issues that come with tubes (such as output load matching etc.). In the case of guitar and bass amplifiers, the “tube effect” is usually much more pronounced and is very noticeable (for better or for worse) whereas the HiFi world is much more subtle and will probably even go unnoticed by many people who aren’t aware of what to look for.

There are many reasons why someone would want to opt for a hybrid option rather than just a full blown tube amp, one of the most mentioned is due to the output impedance which can interact in undesired ways with low impedance headphones and especially planars. However, some people do actually like the results of that interaction.

But I digress, so let’s just get on with the review!

Presentation…

I’m afraid that the box that the CTH arrived in is in storage somewhere, behind far too many other boxes, but it was pretty simple anyway.

A plain cardboard box with the Drop logo inside which we find the amplifier, the tube and the power supply, which is a wall wart.

Build an aesthetics…

The amplifier case is similar to so many other Drop offerings, a plain black box with a small tube protruding from the top of the amplifier.

On the front there is a nice large volume knob, a power switch (push button), a power LED, a 6.35mm TRS output and a 4 pin XLR output. Note that this is not a balanced amplifier and the 4 pin XLR is solely for commodity when using headphones with a balanced wire ending in an XLR4, the output is still unbalanced and there is absolutely no difference between using the XLR or the TRS.

On the back of the unit we find the RCA input connectors and the power input, nothing more.

All in all the aesthetics are simple and functional. It is not going to become a piece that is the center of attention but at the same time it will blend in pretty well in any set up.

The build quality is decent, with no obvious issues, and the volume wheel is very smooth and responsive. There is a bit of channel imbalance at very low levels but way below the level I would ever listen at. The P20 uses a digital potentiometer for volume, with a display, which avoids channel imbalance and gives a better visual reference, however, I personally prefer the volume control on the CTH.

Functionality…

With one input, one output (ok 2, but they are the same) and a volume wheel, there really isn’t much to explain as far as functionality.

When you turn on the amplifier, you do have to wait for the unit to “warm up”, during which time the power LED stays red, switching to white once the unit is ready for operation. In reality, it is not actually warming up, it is just in a protection mode to prevent pops and other unwanted issues like rushes of current etc. Even if the amplifier is warm (i.e: in use), if you turn it off and back on again, you will need to wait for it to go through the same procedure.

There is a protection circuit in the amplifier to protect against shorts when connecting and disconnecting the TRS connector. If you plug in or remove the TRS while the amplifier is on and volume is turned up, it will go into protection mode (the LED goes red) and you will need to wait for it to go back to the “ready” status before getting any sound. To avoid this, make sure to turn the volume down before inserting/removing a TRS. You can also power off the amplifier to insert/remove but when you turn it back on, you will need to wait for the amplifier to go back to “ready” status again.

Other than that, just adjust volume level to taste.

Main differences between CTH and P20 (on paper)…

Before continuing, I want to point out that I am using the CTH in it’s stock form, with the original Electro-Harmonix 6922 tube and the included power supply. I do have a couple of tubes I want to try out with this amplifier and I have also heard that a linear power supply does improve the CTH but I have not yet tried either. The P20, currently has triple mica Reflector OTK 6N3P-E tubes, which are ones that I am currently liking after trying a few others.

Another thing to factor in is that the Loxjie P20 retails for around 100€ and the current tubes cost around 30€. The Drop CTH is currently out of stock but cost me (including shipping) around $190 plus import fees, so probably around 200€, meaning that the Loxjie (with the tube swap) is at least 70€ cheaper. We also need to consider that the P20 is a fully balanced amplifier that has both balanced and unbalanced inputs and outputs, however, the unbalanced outputs leave a lot to be desired, so I only really use the amplifier in balanced mode.

The CTH is quite a powerful amplifier, with 1 watt per channel (actually measured to have more), which is more than sufficient for most headphones owned by people considering this amplifier. In comparison, the P20 specs 665mW at maximum output but that is still sufficient for the majority of headphones.

I think that covers most of the differences in specs.

Sound…

Now comes the part that I hate about reviewing amplifiers, trying to explain the sound. I end up using a bunch of words that aren’t even relative to sound but that is the nature of these reviews.

First let me say that if you are expecting the warm, gooey, smooth sound signature that you read about in tube amp reviews, neither of these amps is going to give you that. The sound is different to a strictly solid state amplifier, or at least a clean solid state amplifier, but the differences are marginal.

In comparison to say my JDS Labs Atom, which I use as a reference point for most of my reviews, the CTH smooths out the edges slightly, making things a little less direct, not quite as sharp.

The bass of the CTH is smooth but well defined, giving the bass slightly more presence but without it seeming boosted or bloated, it remains tight. The P20 does put a little more emphasis on the bass but that is also related to the much higher output impedance of the P20 (47 Ohms against 0.5 Ohms of the CTH).

When using the Sennheiser HD6XX with both amplifiers, the P20 seems to put the focus more on the low end, with more warmth in the higher bass and lower mid regions, whereas the CTH makes the focus shift more towards the upper mids, giving them a slightly more euphonic touch.

The treble is decent on both amplifiers, both present it in a way that doesn’t seem to be lacking and is clean, although I would probably give the edge to the P20 for cleanliness in the treble.

The two main differences between these amplifiers are that the P20 is a much cleaner amplifier, whereas the CTH has a much better output impedance. The P20 has zero background noise no matter what headphones are used, even sensitive IEMs have no background noise, whereas the CTH does make audible noise on some IEMs. On the other hand, due to the high impedance output of the P20, this affects the lower end of many IEMs and low impedance headphones, resulting in a bass that is not always preferable.

One other negative issue is that the unbalanced output of the P20 is much inferior to the balanced output, meaning that balanced cabling is needed for headphones and IEMs.

Conclusion…

The CTH is a decent low cost hybrid tube amp that delivers plenty of power and gives things a slight hint of tubes. I enjoy having the CTH available for when I want to sit back and relax but it is not an amplifier that I would really miss if I didn’t have it.

The bass response is probably one of the parts that I most enjoy about the CTH and it also works well with the Ananda, smoothing things a little, but to be honest, the cleanliness and detail of the Ananda is what I love about it, so if I feel like a smoother sound, I would just opt to use a different headphone.

The P20 is a different beast and while the “tubeyness” is still only slight, I think that the high impedance adds to the flavour, making me feel like it does more than it actually does. I enjoy using the HD6XX on both amplifiers and I also modified the DT1990 to balance to use with the P20.

I currently keep both as one lives on my desk at work while the other stays at home. If I had to choose one of the 2, I would probably opt for the CTH and then replace the P20 with a full blown tube amp, because if I need to deal with output impedance issues, then I might as well go OTL.

My next step is to try a few new tubes in the CTH and also a linear power supply, I am interested in what the results might be.

So, at the end of the day, if you are looking for a first hybrid amp, then I would say go with the CTH unless you are sure that you will be using high impedance headphones and that you can run them balanced.

[generic]

@SenyorC

The two main differences between these amplifiers are that the P20 is a much cleaner amplifier, whereas the CTH has a much better output impedance. The P20 has zero background noise no matter what headphones are used, even sensitive IEMs have no background noise, whereas the CTH does make audible noise on some IEMs.

@SenyorC

I enjoy having the CTH available for when I want to sit back and relax but it is not an amplifier that I would really miss if I didn’t have it.

Yes. I concur with your analysis but reached the opposite conclusion. I owned both at the same time but the hiss and treble issues of the CTH pushed me away. I sold the CTH but kept the P20 largely because it works very well with the often noisy HD600. Many other headphone models are more forgiving of the amp.

For me,

• HD600 + any balanced amp = relaxed ears
• HD600 + many singled-ended amps = hissy treble and unpleasant

For all-around use I’d choose a SS amp or higher-grade tube hybrid.

[SenyorC]

To he honest, I don’t have any issues with the treble, although the P20 is a little cleaner. The background noise is audible on some IEMs but not on the HD6XX or DT1990, or even on the Ananda.

[NickZ]

I don’t have as much experience as you guys but for me the CTH was so similar to an ss amp that it didn’t make sense to have both.

To me the cheaper (in USA) Vali 2+ with the same 6922 tube has a clear tube spaciousness that makes a good compliment to a ss amp.

[Tchoupitoulas]

Great review, @SenyorC. I’ve had my MCTH for just under three years and still love it. Mine forms part of a Massdrop stack, with the Airist RDAC. That’a a great little setup for my Focal Clear (it’s also decent for the HD 6XX). In fact, it’s really quite impressive, for the price, in driving the Clear. There’s a slight degree of treble hardness - a kind of crystalline, or glass-like quality - to the top end, but otherwise the MCTH plays to the Clear’s strengths, and its bass is well extended, too.

I got to try this setup recently with the Jot 2 in place of the MCTH in what was otherwise the same chain, and while the Jot 2 was marginally better in almost every way, I was surprised to see the MCTH keep up as well as it did.

It’s a pretty versatile little amp, then, working nicely with your planar Anandas and my Clear. At $250, when it first came out, the MCTH was positioned well in the US market. When it was down to $175 recently, it was a great deal. I hope they bring it back.

I’d caution people not to use the MCTH with sensitive IEMs. The volume pot offers very little resistance and can get loud quickly. A bigger issue, though, is the very, very loud pop you’ll get when powering off the amp with IEMs still plugged in. Even with the volume down all the way, the pop can be painfully loud - to the point where I’d fear the danger of damage to the IEM.

[generic]

@NickZ

I don’t have as much experience as you guys but for me the CTH was so similar to an ss amp that it didn’t make sense to have both.

I reached the same conclusion about the CTH. The P20 itself is a mild tube hybrid – I compare it to the clean Drop THX AAA 789 with the sharp edges smoothed (and it has less power). Also, the 47 ohm output impedance is different.

[SenyorC]

@NickZ

I don’t have as much experience as you guys but for me the CTH was so similar to an ss amp that it didn’t make sense to have both.

I agree that the differences are minimal, especially depending on the SS amp. At home I have it at the side of the Schiit Heresy and the differences are noticeable but still not huge.

[Dynamic]

Drop DT 177x Go Impressions

I am editing this a bit due to trying sheepskin pads and some specific comparisons.

This is only the third audiophile level dynamic driver headphone I have heard. The first was ath-r70x, the second was ath-wp900 and now the DT 177x Go. Does it measure up?

The drama

I am in possession of two headphones when I only meant to be in possession of one. This one. The 177x and Ether CX are both available through amazon. I was choosing between them and used 1 click to buy the wrong headphone. I realized maybe 10 minutes later (read the order confirmation e-mail) and tried to cancel. Amazon claimed it couldn’t be cancelled and was preparing for shipping. I bought the 177x as well. And here we are.

Build & Comfort

It feels pretty good. It has a nice heft and doesn’t feel like they cut massive corners. It’s solid. I say this in every review: I have had pretty much no comfort issues with any over ear headphone I have tried. This one does seem to be particularly easy to wear.

Edit: Same with the sheepskin pads. They feel great, maybe better than the velour.

Packaging

I don’t particularly care about this. But, giving credit where credit is due, this is the most elegantly packed cheap packaging I have seen. A clever cardboard headphone stand inside the box kept the headphone safe. The wire was in the bottom of the “stand” and extra pads along one side.

If you are going to have a cheap packaging, being this clever about it is quite refreshing. This is an excellent job.

What does it sound like?

I am going to highlight some things that stood out to me…

…
…

It’s unremarkable? Perhaps the least offensive headphone I have ever heard? maybe?

Tonality

The overall frequency response sounds quite good to me. I didn’t hear harshness in anything, nothing stood out. It was just some v-shaped balanced sound coming out.

Edit: The sheepskin pads do seem to improve things further.

Bass

It’s present. It’s elevated. But it just isn’t very convincing. I am listening to Madonna - Holiday as I write this, and it is like the bass is empty. I mean, I feel it, I hear it, but it’s almost like it isn’t filled in completely. I just don’t understand what I am hearing. It’s like I am the main character in some zombie movie and my family has been replaced by copies. I know they are copies but I can’t figure out how or why I know. It’s weird.

Edit: The sheepskin pads do seem to even things out a bit tonally. They don’t fix all the missing feeling.

Mids

Yawns are we still talking about this? Right, ok, so again, nothing really stood out. Can I put on another headphone yet?

Let’s just move on to the real problems.

Technical Capabilities

I can not escape this veiled and muddy feeling on these headphones. Let me refer back to the ath-wp900, while it certainly couldn’t compete with the planars I have heard, it never felt congested or muddy. It just had a dynamic sound where notes tend to extend and blur together more than a planar would. On the ath-wp900 it made music sound smoother at times. It also seemed far more forgiving.

The dt 177x go sounds like there is a wall between my ears and the sound. So I did a little experiment. I asked my seven year old son to help me decide which headphone is better. He put the Ether CX on and listened. Then the dt 177x go and not 10 seconds in he said the Ether CX and took them off.

I want to try that with some really good DD (maybe focal clear) and something like the Ether CX. I am curious what my son’s young ears think.

Who is this for?

This is a new section where I want to evaluate who might like this headphone. I seriously considered a snide response of: No one. No one will like this headphone. But, I don’t think that is true. At this point in time, I have not heard a better DD headphone at this price point. At $200 more you can get the ath-wp900 if you can deal with it’s occasional odd bass response (some would consider it a feature, not a bug). But I felt similarly about the ath-r70x at $100 less. At that time I was comparing the ath-r70x to the sundara as literally the first two audiophile headphones I heard. The sundara was so much cleaner and clearer that I went down the planar path for the next bunch of headphones.

I definitely have a predisposition toward planar sound. I would take my mobius over this, which I called “fine” every 3 words in that review. I should probably go find and replace all those fines with great. “It’s great!”. Maybe use fine here.

It is an easy to drive headphone that will sound better than all of the consumer stuff out there. I could see it being a “starter” headphone. If this was the first thing I heard, it would have been perfectly fine. Hell, the sony xm4 impressed me after a very disappointing experience with speakers in my space. Newly minted audiophiles is who this is for. It’s a gateway headphone. The DT 177x Gateway. Fixed It.

Background music

It may be the ultimate “casual listen” headphone. Every time I put it on, my mind automatically turned to whatever task it had on hand. It was like elevator music. It improves the environment and you don’t even think about it when it is there. In that light, it might be an ideal “work” headphone. Gotta see the bright side?

Edit: Comparisons

I specifically compared it in a/b testing with the Ether CX, Zen and Mobius, all of which I have on hand. I am not going to go into details, for each headphone is the layering and separation on the 177x can’t compete with the others. When a song gets busy, the sound becomes mushy. Now, it is more engaging/fun than the ether cx. And it is less “intense” than the Zen which may be a plus for some. As a closed back, it feels a bit less closed in than the Mobius.

I was really expecting to like this headphone more than I did. It just didn’t make the cut for me.

Summary

I feel like I am channeling Zeos here. I have nothing to say about this headphone yet I will still talk for 30 minutes about it. Right? I just wrote a bunch of junk about a headphone of which I have no strong opinion. And that is essentially its benefit. It is safe. Safe. SAFE. Inoffensive sound largely held back by technical capability. And I do not have the experience with DD to say whether the technical ability is appropriate to its price point. If it is, then I need to step up my DD game and hear what they can offer.

Man, I am getting snobby about sound.

Fin

[frkasper]

Great write-up. A few days ago I was watching a couple of YT videos on the 1770/1990 siblings (at 250ohm single ended). Then I found out that only Drop offers a balanced version out of the box on this variance, but at 32ohm.

@Dynamic

I am listening to Madonna - Holiday as I write this, and it is like the bass is empty.

I listen to a lot of 80s songs and never paid attention to bass. I just think it’s a Zeitgeist thing. I should probably have a closer look to your other write-ups.

I’m listening to the same song as I type with the HD660S. Bass is “not there” either. But it aligns with my reference on 80s songs (and the headphones I have, of course). Can you share us a headphone where the bass levels are satisfactory to your taste in this particular song? Just curious.

Cheers.