$9 Headphone Review: Sony MDR-ZX110

[Saidera]

Yep, every post on the last few pages makes the most sense out of the entire thread. For me, (and probably I wrote it elsewhere already) these were just the first pair of headphones I ever bought, just as the RP-TCM125 was the first pair of earphones I ever bought. And the first are never the last. ZX110 are often highly uncomfortable when clamped on listener's heads. As I wrote a year ago, they are a good choice for outdoor/travel use, as any damage, loss etc does not matter, nor does sound quality on a bus - although wireless noise cancelling provides a better experience.

 

[PeteL]

Yep, every post on the last few pages makes the most sense out of the entire thread. For me, (and probably I wrote it elsewhere already) these were just the first pair of headphones I ever bought, just as the RP-TCM125 was the first pair of earphones I ever bought. And the first are never the last. ZX110 are often highly uncomfortable when clamped on listener's heads. As I wrote a year ago, they are a good choice for outdoor/travel use, as any damage, loss etc does not matter, nor does sound quality on a bus - although wireless noise cancelling provides a better experience.

Sound quality matter to me on a bus too.

 

[asrUser]

So the new budget TOTL is a 50$ IEM?

 

[Saidera]

Anyway, times change, and ZX110 was better value in the old days...

 

[oversky]

RTINGS.com has a review of ZX110NC.
Comparing to HD 800S on the right,
its on-ear design may result in poor frequency consistency,
which means it is sensitive to how you wear it.
This can be rectified by playing a test tone (I use 7040 Hz).
Move the can and put it where the test tone reaches maximized loudness on each ear.

Headphones Side-by-Side Comparison Tool

Headphones Side-by-Side Comparison Tool

bit.ly

 

[krabapple]

Personally I come here more for the measurments than for Amir’s subjective evaluation, no need to « engage in the substance of what Amir’s reported » I don’t have an opinion on this I haven’t tried it. But, if proper blind test methodology don’t matter to you, and visibly, measurments don’t matter much neither since these measure objectively horribl

LOL. Ok, cowboy. You know me well, visibly.

y, then are the subjective listening test the only valid point to be taken from these reviews? In all case, no doubt this EQ will help these headphones sound better, yes that (Eq/Bypass) can certainly be quite conclusive blind. But preference to different headphones, there would be too much bias to have any results that are more conclusive than sighted, and bias is not only one direction you know.

As I mentioned, there is a rigorous way to compare headphones blind. But hey, go tell Sean Olive 'your doin it all rong'.

And the rest of you, hey, by all means keep find reasons why 'these can't sound good' after the objectivist who created the AudioScienceReview forum already posted this (concerning both comfort and sound):

The three other peaking filters were as the frequency response instructed (eyeballed by me and optimized by ear).

I must say, I was not prepared for the transformation that these four filters made. The result was an extremely accurate and audiophile headphone! If I performed a blind test, I am pretty sure many people would think this is a high-end headphone. It certainly beats out majority of speakers out there. I was most impressed with detail, clarity and spatial effects. The latter was also a surprise. Maybe the drivers sit an angle and provide for better results there. While you don't have a huge soundstage, the instrument separation is quite good and satisfying.

This thing sounded so good and was so comfortable that I kept listening to it last night and still doing it this morning! Here are a couple of example tracks that make your jaw drop with this headphone and EQ: Mercedes Sosa - Misa Criolla (track: Kyrie)

 

[PeteL]

LOL. Ok, cowboy. You know me well, visibly.




As I mentioned, there is a rigorous way to compare headphones blind. But hey, go tell Sean Olive 'your doin it all rong'.

And the rest of you, hey, by all means keep find reasons why 'these can't sound good' after the objectivist who created the AudioScienceReview forum already posted this (concerning both comfort and sound):

Can you point me to some reading material on Sean Olive methodology? I am interrested on how he proceeded in removing bias in comparing headphones that have different fit and are easily recognizable like this.

 

[Dunring]

Just got pair of these, mainly because of the review, but also I get a lot of used amplifiers and needed a $10 pair to test them out for the first time without risking anything expensive. These and the $10 VE Monk ear buds are a good value, especially for travel where losing or breaking them wouldn't be a financial hit. Just tried the Autoeq profile for them and it sounds really good too. It's absurd at this price point. I have an Arya and Ananda behind me, and a Beyerdynamic T90 to the left and I'm tinkering with a $10 pair of headphones

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Just got pair of these, mainly because of the review, but also I get a lot of used amplifiers and needed a $10 pair to test them out for the first time without risking anything expensive. These and the $10 VE Monk ear buds are a good value, especially for travel where losing or breaking them wouldn't be a financial hit. Just tried the Autoeq profile for them and it sounds really good too. It's absurd at this price point. I have an Arya and Ananda behind me, and a Beyerdynamic T90 to the left and I'm tinkering with a $10 pair of headphones

I have a pair floating around somewhere and with EQ they do sound good, provided they are kept at moderate listening levels. Anything more and they start to crater due to their limitations. Still worth a try if you have them, but now at ~$22 USD they are not nearly as attractive. But they do fold and are still cheapish.

 

[pdb]

Does the Sony MDR ZX110AN (with mic/ for smartphone) offer the same SQ and features? Thanks. Per

 

[solderdude]

I am interrested on how he proceeded in removing bias in comparing headphones that have different fit and are easily recognizable like this.

He used 1 headphone and EQ'ed those to a few different tonal characters.
Of course this can only partly mimic the tonal character but that's the only aspect they were after at that point and only up to a medium SPL.

You can EQ an MDR ZX110 to a similar tonal balance as an LCD2 and vice versa, but within SPL limits.
That said you cannot turn an MDR ZX110 into an LCD-2 for instance with EQ as there are other aspects that also impact SQ other than FR between 20Hz and 20kHz.
If that were truly the case there wouldn't be any TOTL headphones.

 

[PeteL]

He used 1 headphone and EQ'ed those to a few different tonal characters.
Of course this can only partly mimic the tonal balance but that's the only aspect they were after at that point.

You can EQ a HD558 to the same tonal balance as an LCD2 and vice versa, but within SPL limits.
That said you cannot turn a HD558 into an LCD-2 with EQ as there are other aspects that impact SQ other than FR between 20Hz and 20kHz.
If that were truly the case there wouldn't be any TOTL headphones.
So this was about 'tonal signature' at comfortable levels only.

Thanks. Indeed this is a valid blind test.

 

[GaryH]

Can you point me to some reading material on Sean Olive methodology?

A Virtual Headphone Listening Test Method

Fig. 1 The Harman Headphone Virtualizer App allows listeners to make double-blind comparisons of different headphones through a high...

seanolive.blogspot.com

The already high over-ear headphone virtualization preference rating correlation of 85% (even higher at 98% for IEMs) was actually using EQ based on measurements using the old artificial pinnae before Sean started using Todd Welti's more anthropometric custom pinnae which better simulate leakage on real human heads.

Considering this substantial improvement, the virtualization correlation would probably have since increased significantly higher than the 85% found with the original pinnae, and would likely increase even more with individualized tests which would further control for leakage:

The paper was written in 2013 before Todd Welti developed these pinna that better simulate human leakage. So yes, the more accurate pinna could improve the correlations. Another approach would be to individualize/personalize the virtualization for each listener. Measure the leakage effects of each headphone for each listener and include them in the virtualization. That would create a lot of work but I expect the agreement between actual vs virtualized would go up significantly if the data were analyzed on an individual basis.

This all shows the vast majority of sound quality comes down to frequency response (when distortion isn't at ridiculously high broken levels as it is with the Sony MDR-ZX110 of this review).

Does the Sony MDR ZX110AN (with mic/ for smartphone) offer the same SQ and features? Thanks. Per

Yeah it's equally as bad.

 

[MayaTlab]

A Virtual Headphone Listening Test Method

Fig. 1 The Harman Headphone Virtualizer App allows listeners to make double-blind comparisons of different headphones through a high...

seanolive.blogspot.com

The already high over-ear headphone virtualization preference rating correlation of 85% (even higher at 98% for IEMs)

*sigh* you can't compare these numbers as the methodology was radically different between the two studies. I can assist you in actually reading them if you want (my little finger tells me you won't accept this offer, please prove me wrong).

was actually using EQ based on measurements using the old artificial pinnae before Sean started using Todd Welti's more anthropometric custom pinnae which better simulate leakage on real human heads.

Considering this substantial improvement, the virtualization correlation would probably have since increased significantly higher than the 85% found with the original pinnae, and would likely increase even more with individualized virtualization:

That's a presumption that may not end up being realised. One of the six headphones in that study that was prone to leakage issues remains poorly characterised regardless of the pinna used :

For these the regular stiff pinna (blue) is actually a better match for the average human. Although it probably doesn't matter given how much it varies across individuals anyway.

Indeed individualisation is the way to go.

 

[Pickwick]

Just a note; the review index table indicates these are not recommended.

 

[solderdude]

Amir said this about it:

Without EQ, it is acceptable but nothing I would rave about.

It also has HUGE amounts of distortion and poor tonal balance and sound quality in stock form. Build quality is mediocre. Being an on-ear it is also very seal dependent.
The only thing it has going for it is weight and price and that, with parametric EQ, it can sound decent at not too loud levels.

 

[asteroth]

Highly unlikely.
The measurements Amir made show huge amounts of distortion at 94dB already (at the same levels mine did).

I suspect Amir listened to it at background levels only with EQ.
On the other hand the $ 2.5k Raal had similar amounts of distortion and with EQ that one sounded fine to Amir.
Sooooo how important is distortion below a few hundred Hz ?

Anyway.. I did not like it without and EQ nor with EQ and would suggest to buy something else instead for a bit more money.
You simply can't expect to have top tier performance for $ 10 plus some EQ.
It simply does not work that way.

Which one would you recommend for a bit more money?

For example I have a pair of DT770 Pro 250ohms and I don't really like them.

 

[solderdude]

On-ear or over-ear ?
Price range ?
What do you not like about the DT770 ?
Is EQ not an option ?
Must be closed or can be open ?

 

[asteroth]

On-ear or over-ear ?
Price range ?
What do you not like about the DT770 ?
Is EQ not an option ?
Must be closed or can be open ?

Over-ear.
I'd prefer to stay under 300$.
EQ is an option.
I'd prefer them closed if possible.

DT770 have exaggerated highs, you need to listen them to higher volumes, otherwise they sound too tiny, like the sound is coming from the other side of your room(too much cup volume that needs to be filled with sound). I don't find them engaging at all(there is something to their frequency response that makes them sound like a cheap/old radio), compared to Creative Aurvana Live(which sound so much better in the mids and bass, maybe just their highs sound a bit strange).
I tried AutoEQ's from Oratory and targeted HD650/HD800/HE1/LCD5 frequency responses. I like the HE1 target, but there is still this problem that it "works" only at higher volume.
I've also tried to target Creative Aurvana's FR and it transformed them a little bit, but they're still distinguishable by a large margin.
In my opinion, trying to replicate the FR of another headphone, requires at least measuring your exact pair of headphones first. Generic FR's from the internet might not be that close to how your actual pair sounds.
I remember once listening to 2 different pairs of AKG K550(different manufacturing years) and they sounded so different as if they were different models of headphones.

 

[solderdude]

You cannot completely simulate expensive headphones using cheap ones. If that were the case you could turn a HD201 into HE1. There is more than just frequency response even though some believe that is all there is. It is the largest part, but not all.
Also one should not believe headphone measurements are that accurate as some make them out to be. They are merely measured with a specified standard and comply to that standard.

When you find the CAL to sound good but want more comfort or more of where that came from look for the Denon line (2nd hand perhaps), Fostex or Creative ones.