Hifiman Ananda Nano Headphone Review

[anphex]

Who still gave this a "not terrible", please explain why. I see no excuse at this price point for putting in a little more effort. There a sub 100 € headphones that perform better.

 

[AdamG]

Who still gave this a "not terrible", please explain why. I see no excuse at this price point for putting in a little more effort. There a sub 100 € headphones that perform better.

With this amount of THD & Distortion this is a Headless Panther. It doesn’t conform to any preference curve and you can’t EQ it without having to deal with all that existing distortion. These poor qualities depreciate the value here far below the asking price.

Thanks for another great Review Amir. I am starting to think that your conciseness has merged with the AP and you are now some form of Borg mutant. If the Borg were into Scientific Measurements. Someone please create a new Meme for the Audio Precision Borg Organic Unit!

 

[solderdude]

The thing is that something like "Stealth Magnets" seem to be doing really good on the HE400se and, of course, on the Dan Clarks (I don't know how similar the technology really is beyond the name):

It's just how he named the headphone. Dan uses the word 'flow'.

But the "neo supernano" of the Edition XS and the "nano" on this Ananda seem to be there, as you said, just for marketing reasons. Regarding THD they are an absolute joke, if not an insult to the buyer.

I would like to see how the H6se V2 performs. Did they destroy that model also? Is the issue only present in the oval models? It is caused by resonances induced by the form factor? Is there any formal statement by Hifiman regarding their pathetic performance when it comes to THD?

EDIT: I found this, I don't know how reliable this website is:

The HE6SE is absolutely great regarding distortion, an improvement over HE6.

 

[CedarX]

The diaphragms may well be many nano meters thick, the traces on it are not and weigh a lot more than the thin and extremely fragile membranes.
When one realizes that T50RP drivers use 1000x thicker membranes (flexible PCB material) and with some EQ these already sound nice one wonders what the thin membranes are about. If it were electrostatic it would be a really light membrane.

Given the sound quality of the HE-6, which have a much thicker diaphragm one may indeed ask themselves what the benefit is other than the claim of thinner membranes.
'Fastness' in music is in the 6-10kHz range which most headphones can do. It looks like it is more of a gimmick and trying to suggest the thinner the better.

I have built electrostatic speakers (about 35 years ago) and experimented with mylar of various thickness but never could hear (nor measure) any differences between the membranes. Of course the limiting factor here were the transformers....
In the end something in between was easiest to use (make conductive and tension it)

I did not know about the traces weighting more than the membranes themselves. Do you get any benefit in sensitivity / efficiency with lower (membrane + traces) weight?
Also, I believe how much "tension" you set these membranes to is an important design parameter for planars: any benefit from thinner membranes?

 

[CedarX]

I kinda like headphones sounding different and have never really understood why folks equalise their cans to the same response. Why not just keep one and be done with it? (I know…even after equalisation they don’t necessarily sound the same..but to me that’s like switching up forks at the dinner table in order to heighten the taste)
If I’m having fish for dinner, I’m not seasoning it like a steak and expecting a great big muuuh on my tastebuds.

[Off-topic, sorry!] - I don't EQ at first either--as "let's try to understand what the manufacturer wants me to hear...". But almost immediately after, I go: "would it sound better with some EQ?"--as can it taste better with the right mix of salt, pepper, and hot sauce? The overwhelming answer: yes, it doe sound better for me after EQ... and I don't get what the manufacturer was trying to do.

 

[marcom22]

The HE6 is objectively better. And yes You are right .. incredibly inefficient . It is my daily driver BTW. One of the best deal in high quality non IEM ear-speakers.

Peace.

Sundara is more better

 

[FrantzM]

Sundara is more better

 

[marcom22]

View attachment 361381



View attachment 361382

More heavy and least sensitive

 

[solderdude]

I did not know about the traces weighting more than the membranes themselves. Do you get any benefit in sensitivity / efficiency with lower (membrane + traces) weight?
Also, I believe how much "tension" you set these membranes to is an important design parameter for planars: any benefit from thinner membranes?

Sensitivity is determined by the magnetic field strength (so magnet force, both of the windings and magnets + distance of magnets opposite the traces).
Current through the traces and amount of traces. The weight of the membrane is not of importance, at least not until its weight starts to play a role.
This, of course does have a frequency component in it as well as amplitude. One could reason that lowest weight ensures that the membrane weight will not play a role in the max frequency. Acoustic damping force will be dominant. When you try to move something very light in a fast way in air it encounters resistance which is much higher than the weight of the membrane.

 

[dzerig]

Especially because distortion in the 2 khz -3 khz region is where human ears are most sensistive.

 

[IXOYE]

I have owned the previous Stealth model, I thought it sounded really good, one of the better sounding HiFiman headphones I've heard, but the comfort and build quality was terrible so I sending them back.

 

[Maiky76]

This is a review, listening tests, equalization and detailed measurements of the Hifiman Ananda Nano headphone. It was kindly purchased by a member for testing and costs US $499.
View attachment 361210
The Nano looks attractive although the feel is not that of luxury. It is a bit light. The forward part of the pad is quite a bit thinner and I had a bit of difficulty mounting it on my GRAS 45CA test fixture. The suspension headband is not adjustable but was comfortable enough for me. But again, causes some difficulty in measuring as it would not let the cups go lower.

Hifiman Ananda Nano Headphone Measurements
Let's start with our usual headphone frequency response tests and comparison with our desired target:
View attachment 361211
As noted, we have good compliance over an important range of frequencies. Above and below we have some deficiencies. There is quite a bit of wiggliness in the response. Relative response shows variations that should be relatively easy to EQ:
View attachment 361212

Distortion response is disappointing especially for a headphone with such large drivers. It should be cruising but it is not due to many resonances:
View attachment 361213
We have seen this type of problem in Hifiman Ananda as well but it is worse here. Company really needs to start measuring this and find and fix the source of these. I think some don't see these issues because they apply too much smoothing in frequency response and distortion tests which hides much of the problems here. Absolute distortion measurements despite being smoothed more, still is problematic:
View attachment 361214

We could tolerate bass distortion but having lower treble distortion could cause more more audible issues.

Group delay is not pretty, likely due to those internal resonances:
View attachment 361215

Impedance is low and flat:
View attachment 361216

Sensitivity is better than average, making the Nano an easy headphone to drive:
View attachment 361217

Hifiman Ananda Nano Listening Tests and Equalization
Immediate impression of the headphone is one of rather flat sounding with some exaggeration of high frequencies. Definitely listenable but substantial improvements can be had with EQ:
View attachment 361218
That bit of bass boost really balances the response, taking the headphone from cold sounding to pretty nice. The other filters are also critical in opening up the spatial qualities while taking away some of the high frequency harshness. Is the distortion audible? I don't have the reliably way to determine that subjectively. I can tell you that the highs really stand out. Is this harmonic distortion? My Dan Clark E3 daily headphone had much more tamed high frequencies. This could be due to lack of distortion, better frequency response, or both.

Power handling was excellent and I could get the headphones quite loud with my RME ADI-2 Pro at quite attenuated volume positions. Cranking up the levels momentarily, didn't result in any clipping or odd behavior. I think this is due to good low frequency distortion measurements.

Spatial qualities were quite good. I would give them B+.

Conclusions
Out of the box, the Nano is not to my liking as someone who wants to hear and feel low frequencies. These large drivers have incredibly ability to deliver on that but they keep getting released with flat bass response. Combine this with some uneven high frequency response and you have the makings of something I would not buy. A bit of EQ nicely transformed the sound, creating impressively fidelity across my list of reference tracks.

Per above, I can't recommend the Hifiman Ananda Nano as is. With EQ, it becomes a good headphone, albeit with potentially some impact from high distortion/resonances in high frequencies.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

Notes about the EQ design:

• The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
• The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
• A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
• The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constrains) with a fixed complexity.
  This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score, start your journey here or there. There is a presentation by S. Olive here.
  It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral.
• The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
• The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
• I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
• With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
• Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regard to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
• I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-5#post-989169
• https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-6#post-992119
• NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted.

Great L/R match.

I have generated two EQ, the APO config files are attached.

Score no EQ: 89.0
Score Amirm: 90.3
Score with EQ: 89.8

Hifiman Ananda Nano APO Score EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz
April052024-110112

Preamp: -4.8 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 27.94 Hz Gain 4.33 dB Q 0.49
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 1039.29 Hz Gain -2.46 dB Q 3.32
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1739.92 Hz Gain 5.00 dB Q 0.93
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3526.03 Hz Gain -1.81 dB Q 5.00
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 7961.00 Hz Gain -2.01 dB Q 5.00
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 12159.30 Hz Gain -7.67 dB Q 5.00

A completly over the top:

Score Amirm: 90.3
Score with EQ: 90.1

Hifiman Ananda Nano APO Score EQ Full Flat@HF 96000Hz
April052024-110001

Preamp: -4.7 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 28.05 Hz Gain 4.34 dB Q 0.49
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 164.03 Hz Gain 1.57 dB Q 4.69
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 326.39 Hz Gain -0.40 dB Q 0.50
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 705.88 Hz Gain 1.41 dB Q 5.00
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1033.72 Hz Gain -2.44 dB Q 2.96
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1749.58 Hz Gain 4.99 dB Q 0.89
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3499.87 Hz Gain -1.94 dB Q 4.61
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7933.98 Hz Gain -2.07 dB Q 5.00
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 12156.80 Hz Gain -7.67 dB Q 5.00

 

[IAtaman]

Score no EQ: 89.0
Score Amirm: 90.3
Score with EQ: 89.8

Did he beat the computer finally?

 

[amirm]

Did he beat the computer finally?

What you mean finally? I beat it once before.

 

[IAtaman]

What you mean finally? I beat it once before.

It was an "estimated" EQ calculated from the digitized graph data that time I think, and when fed the actual data, computer beat you back last time. Pending Maiky76's confirmation, this might be the first official victory of man over machine

SIVGA SV021 Headphone Review

@amirm, there is not data in the review. Oops. Sorry about that. Just added it. Score no EQ: 35.2 Score Amirm: 79.3 Score with EQ: 79.2 I beat the computer! I beat the computer!!! :D

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I am not 100% sure, but I have a hunch.
I had the Edition XS and it suffered from a distortion around the same frequency band. Indeed all Hifiman headphones with similar cups have similar distortion patterns. I suspected the metal grill. Those metal bars can ring line a bell if you give them a pluck.
I nodded Modded mine, and did measure a reduction of distortion around 3kHz.
I no longer have the phones or the results, but that was my findings.

 

[Maiky76]

It was an "estimated" EQ calculated from the digitized graph data that time I think, and when fed the actual data, computer beat you back last time. Pending Maiky76's confirmation, this might be the first official victory of man over machine

SIVGA SV021 Headphone Review

@amirm, there is not data in the review. Oops. Sorry about that. Just added it. Score no EQ: 35.2 Score Amirm: 79.3 Score with EQ: 79.2 I beat the computer! I beat the computer!!! :D

audiosciencereview.com

All correct.
However, the "machine" achieves a better compliance with the target.
It has to do with the regression slope i.e. the machine fully compensates for the LF while the trough at 10kHz remains untouched producing a steeper slope resulting in a marginally lower score.
Anyways the scores are close enough to make no difference but the subjective impressions are likely to be different...

Let me show you how to achieve a better score:
Just remove 2dB from the LF compensation of the first EQ, et voila!
Score: with less bass than the target (the only change) 92.4 from 89.8.

In this instance the trough really is the driving factor so anything that mitigates its impact will result in score improvement, one of the shortcomings of the model IMO.

 

[IAtaman]

I am not 100% sure, but I have a hunch.
I had the Edition XS and it suffered from a distortion around the same frequency band. Indeed all Hifiman headphones with similar cups have similar distortion patterns. I suspected the metal grill. Those metal bars can ring line a bell if you give them a pluck.
I nodded mine, and did measure a reduction of distortion around 3kHz.
I no longer have the phones or the results, but that was my findings.

Did you measure with a measurement rig or in-situ with in-ear mics? I am asking cause I am curious if the distortion is indeed caused by resonances of the grill, maybe human tissue will damp it much better than the measurement rig's metal "cheeks" potentially?

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Did you measure with a measurement rig or in-situ with in-ear mics? I am asking cause I am curious if the distortion is indeed caused by resonances of the grill, maybe human tissue will damp it much better than the measurement rig's metal "cheeks" potentially?

It was on a miniDSP rig, with flesh like silicon cheeks.

EARS

miniDSP EARS brings headphone measurement capability to "the masses" with an extremely affordable measurement rig for headphones and IEMs. Using the same technology as our popular UMIK-1 calibrated measurement microphone, one can easily measure/compare/EQ headphone response.

www.minidsp.com

Anybody with an egg shaped hifiman can test this.
Just twang one of the bars with your finger nail and listen.
A Sundara doesn't do it for example.

 

[IAtaman]

Just twang one of the bars with your finger nail and listen.

Yeah, that happens by accident from time to time and I hate it when it does.