Dan Clark ÆON CORE Headphone Review

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

Also there is no shame in preferring less or more bass than what Harman research found to be the most preferred level at a certain listening SPL.

Yup, loudness function on amps was there for a reason.

 

[Dk33145]

Am I understanding this correctly? DC got rid of the AMTS and you can see the effect of this with the 10k phase cancellation (when you account for the scale) and passed on the cost savings? Also seems to be some cost savings in the materials used as well? Curiously on Maiky's measurement, the pre EQ score of Noire X is quite a bit better than the Core but once eq'd Core actually scored a little better than Noire X. Probably fair to say that overall build of Noire X is a little better while the drivers for Core is a little better (but more poorly tuned out of the box - which I wonder how much is deliberate vs how much from dampening).

 

[amirm]

IMO it is completely fine to have opinions on the sound and then give explanations for that based on the frequency response—especially when those conclusions are the result of blind testing comparing the two (which mine is).

Blind? You tested two headphones without knowing which is which? How did you get over how they feel different on your head? And did you repeat the trials and perform statistical analysis to rule out chance? Do you have the protocol write up you can present?

I would appreciate it if you didn’t try to oversimplify and handwave away what I think is a fairly uncontroversial—if yes, individual—judgement on the sound quality as I receive it.

What is uncontroversial according to science, is to dismiss your writings as random statements that cannot be proven. This is especially so in the way you described and justified them.

To be sure, you can think whatever you want about the sound of any headphone. But the moment you ask us to believe it, then in this forum, we ask that you provide reliable proof according to how controlled listening tests are performed.

I’m just saying there are reasons that a relatively steep SPL change between bass and low midrange can have an effect that, for some (surely not all), will produce a less than satisfactory result re: bass reproduction or what many incorrectly call “dynamics” or “slam.”

And I am telling you that terms like "slam" are made up, non scientific terms. The moment you resort to it, it shows that you have no use for proper evaluation of sound and just repeating stuff you read in subjectivists reviews.

 

[amirm]

Dan himself has made similar claims but about a slightly different coloration (adding more mid-bass around 150 Hz on top of the Harman target) being responsible for “slam,” and… well for one I don’t think he would’ve received the same reaction for doing so because he’s Dan and he seems to get quite a lot of love here (reasonably so).

Dan's observations are just that. His subjective observations. On every new headphone they design, I get pre-production samples and provide feedback. Dan shares what he thinks about their sound but they don't enter my equation in that regard.

My assessment starts with measurements and then, I create filters to change the deviations from target. This method provides much more reliable data than random listening comments you are throwing out.

If I copied what you are doing, everyone is entitled to criticize me just the same. Indeed, I think without methodology, it is impossible to make reliable subjective remarks about a headphone. It is for this reason that you see me silent on comparisons of Core against the others. I simply do not have reliable information to provide. Listening to one headphone, and then later to another, makes for random data, not anything usable.

 

[Dk33145]

Help me out here guys, I have the Noire X. I purchased it believing that the AMTS technology was some breakthrough tech that improved the upper frequency response, or improved standing waves, distortion levels etc. so I was happy to see something semi-affordable that would work for my office needs and it has been a fine headphone. However looking at the reviews of all of these Aeon based headphones (Aeon 2 Noire, Noire X, Core etc.) now seeing this review shows an improvement in distortion level over both the original Noire and Noire X, the reviews also show the Core as maybe having a more agreeable tuning with less peaks. What exactly then were the benefits of choosing the Noire X with AMTS? and what then would be the point of upgrading to the E3? (Outside of driver size) and perceptive soundstage and different tuning?

I guess I am just a little confused, some clarification would help.

You're not the only one. But one thing I know is that amts is not snake oil. DC has very clean low internal reflections for planars. Now some folks like solderdude will tell you to just use some felt and that does work and it may be what they did here to save cost but you can still see the 10k phase cancellation that is quite a bit more than the cans with amts. As you mentioned though the drivers are likely better overall with less distortion and hence the nice results after EQ. One thing is the stock tuning is actually worse, you can see it with Maiky's measurements also where Noire X had more sub bass than the standard, this actually has less, so if one was to.purchase this over the Noire X, EQ is more necessary.

 

[listener650]

Blind? You tested two headphones without knowing which is which? How did you get over how they feel different on your head? And did you repeat the trials and perform statistical analysis to rule out chance? Do you have the protocol write up you can present?

Tests were not about specific headphones, but about preferred frequency response. They were conducted blind in three runs, two tests done on two different acoustically-open headphones, and the last on a closed back headphone. I wasn't swapping between the headphones in the same test; each test was one headphone, I just did three different entire runs of all of the following stages, one for each headphone.

Each test begins with the headphone being equalized to the subject's Diffuse Field HRTF as measured at their Ear Entrance point. Following that, the subject is able to adjust the sound for 3 different pieces of music in 4 stages:
- Stage 1: a flat tilt from 20-20000 Hz, adjustable in ±0.5dB steps, can call this "Tilt A"
- Stage 2: a high shelf at 500 Hz aiming to mimic the behavior of Toole's in-room speaker target/the rising DI behavior of typical good monopole speakers, adjustable in ±0.5dB steps, can call this "Tilt B"
- Stage 3: A "contrast" adjustment of the preferred result in Stage 1 with proportional low/high shelves (adding or cutting equal amounts of bass and treble simultaneously), adjustable in ±0.5dB steps, can call this "Tilt + Contrast A"
- Stage 4: The same "contrast" adjustment but affecting the preferred result in Stage 2, can call this "Tilt + Contrast B"

After identifying the preferred adjustment in the above 4 tests for all 3 pieces of music, a MUSHRA test where the subject compares and ranks the results arrived at in the above tests, along with un-adjusted Diffuse Field (low anchor) and Diffuse Field with the approximate Harman's 2018 filter adjustments (hidden reference), ranking them in order of preference for each piece of music.

Following this MUSHRA step, there's another round of MoA where the highest rated choice in the MUSHRA test for each piece of music is allowed to be altered once more with Harman-like adjustments (105 Hz Q: 0.707 low shelf, 2500 Hz Q: 0.4 high shelf, 3000 Hz Q: 2.0 ear-gain peaking filter) to see if this preferred result can be improved further re: the subject's preference.

Finally, there is one more MUSHRA test where the results of the previous MoA stage is tested against the same low anchor, hidden reference, and Stage 1/2/3/4 results from the prior MUSHRA test (to see if the newly adjusted response is actually better than the others).

The final result that is ranked highest for each piece of music in this final MUSHRA test is, of course, the most preferred response able to be achieved in this test for that subject and that piece of music, but we also get a ranking of how all of the included curves are received by the subject.

This whole process is then repeated for two other headphones to see if the differences in acoustic openness/noise floor/good ol' run variation results in drastically different results.

For one, my results were generally very consistent across runs; roughly the same bass-to-treble delta for each piece of music across the three tests was preferred, within a small margin of bass to treble delta... but importantly, the "Harman filtered Diffuse Field" hidden reference always, 100% of the time, scored second to last, only ahead of the low anchor (un-adjusted Diffuse Field). I would call this curve scoring second to last in all 18 blind MUSHRA tests (3 songs, 2 MUSHRA tests for each headphone) statistically significant.

And as completely subjective commentary on why this was the case (that you can feel free to discard): it was always the bass shelf & how it integrated with the midrange that made it sound obviously wrong/not preferable to me. How it colored transients of bass drums (too much fundamental/early overtone energy) and snare drums (too little fundamental energy to match the tone color of the bass) created a meaningful disconnect in how each instrument was presented, such that they felt like they are given unequal attention/emphasis by the headphone's tuning.

It's totally fair to ask these questions, skepticism is welcome. I hope that explains it sufficiently enough, but feel free to ask further questions if you'd like.

What is uncontroversial according to science, is to dismiss your writings as random statements that cannot be proven. This is especially so in the way you described and justified them.

To be sure, you can think whatever you want about the sound of any headphone. But the moment you ask us to believe it, then in this forum, we ask that you provide reliable proof according to how controlled listening tests are performed.

Considering there are scientific—in this case meaning "evidence-based"—explanations for my writings in this thread, I wouldn't call them random nor would I say they should be so easily dismissed.

To be clear, I'm not the one so often calling them "undynamic" as... well this word is pretty useless for actually explaining things & has no consistent meaning. I'm just using all of the information available to offer a guess (and potentially even an explanation) for what people using this language are actually referring to with the terms they're using. Considering my main issue is how it colors the core transient elements of the music (drums), I think it's at least somewhat likely these are (some of) the frequency response elements people are actually referring to when speaking erroneously about DCA's designs lacking "punch and slam." (Not "erroneously" in that their subjective experience is wrong/invalid, but rather that using language like this is vastly inferior to using frequency response to explain one's issues with the sound.)

And I am telling you that terms like "slam" are made up, non scientific terms. The moment you resort to it, it shows that you have no use for proper evaluation of sound and just repeating stuff you read in subjectivists reviews.

No disagreement here, but IMO we can only lead people to evidence-based explanations of the terms they're wrongfully using by actually connecting it to evidence in the frequency response... which entails using the word they're using in the explanation so they can understand how incomplete/imprecise the word alone is at actually explaining anything.

Nobody is going to have their mind changed re: using meaningless subjective language without being offered a better alternative, and it would be pretty difficult to explain a term well enough to change minds without saying the term itself, yk?

Dan's observations are just that. His subjective observations. On every new headphone they design, I get pre-production samples and provide feedback. Dan shares what he thinks about their sound but they don't enter my equation in that regard.

This is an interesting piece of information I wasn't aware of. Do you feel that what you describe—what seems like a pretty close working relationship like this—biases you at all when doing your final evaluation? I would assume not, but I know if I were given input on a product before release and I chose to review it, I would always want to disclose that in the body of the review so people could make up their own mind about how that may or may not bias the review. Not to say you're hiding it of course, you were very forthcoming with that information just now, I just don't remember ever seeing you mention it prior in the body of one of your DCA reviews.

My assessment starts with measurements and then, I create filters to change the deviations from target. This method provides much more reliable data than random listening comments you are throwing out.

This doesn't actually provide much data that readers couldn't get from just looking at the measurement vs. the target, and if anything I would actually argue that looking at data from that fixture alone is not sufficient evidentiary basis to bolster subjective impressions.

We know the fixture isn't relevant to the target used, we know Dan's headphones are fairly load-sensitive, and we know that none of us are the measurement fixture ourselves. One could argue trying to connect a subjective impression to a measurement/target methodology with issues such as these would produce high likelihood for error/disconnect.

And as mentioned, my comments aren't random, they're based on blind listening tests.

If I copied what you are doing, everyone is entitled to criticize me just the same. Indeed, I think without methodology, it is impossible to make reliable subjective remarks about a headphone. It is for this reason that you see me silent on comparisons of Core against the others. I simply do not have reliable information to provide. Listening to one headphone, and then later to another, makes for random data, not anything usable.

I'm not asking you to copy what I'm doing, I'm just asking that you hesitate to assume you're the only one with defensible methodology. I get that you and the other reviewers at my firm have had disagreements, but I'm not them and I'd appreciate you not carrying their baggage into making assumptions about me or my methodological rigor. I care deeply about laying threadbare the uselessness of subjective language, and I am actively working towards this goal in a way I feel is pragmatic and sensible.

As said, IMO the best way to unhammer the nail of nonsense in subjective language is not by refusing to engage with it, or by saying "I'm doing it right and you're doing it wrong" because that doesn't actually help or convince anyone... especially when any of the existing methodologies used by reviewers I'm aware of can be shown to have clear issues. We choose to use a variety of data in hopes it maximizes potential relevance to the consumers of the content, in order to hopefully show what about the sonic event—as described through frequency response—is likely contributing to the effect people are trying to describe with the subjective language.

On a completely different, much more relevant to the thread note: I finally got to hear the Aeon CORE today. Had the same issues with the bass/low-midrange that I usually have, but with a resonance issue I don't usually get on Dan's designs around 5 kHz. Upper midrange was excellent though, probably Dan's best upper midrange tuning for me.

 

[rat_sigma]

I'm just curious - since this is slated to replace the 2 Noire, how do they compare audibly? I...am a Noire 2 holdout...and I do prioritize portability - but I wonder if they are a sonic upgrade to the a2n or if people that have held onto theirs should just ignore these

 

[listener650]

I'm just curious - since this is slated to replace the 2 Noire, how do they compare audibly? I...am a Noire 2 holdout...and I do prioritize portability - but I wonder if they are a sonic upgrade to the a2n or if people that have held onto theirs should just ignore these

I'd say the main differences between the two is that CORE is more comfortable physically for me, with more control in the 3 kHz and ~10-12 kHz areas (though CORE still has a bit of excess 10-12kHz for me, I assume the average person will not have quite the same issues as I do up there due to interpersonal variation).

 

[mishachakir]

Sales of the Dan Clark Audio AEON Core headphones have just started in Japan, but the price is exactly the same as that of the Fostex TH1000RPs on display in the store. Does anyone have experience with Fostex headphones? Which ones would you choose?

 

[mishachakir]

Dan Clark Audio AEON CORE Review — Headfonics

Marcus reviews the Dan Clark Audio AEON CORE, the company's latest entry-level closed-back planar driver headphones priced at $899.00.

headfonics.com

 

[HalSF]

That Headfonics review is mostly very positive and certainly exhaustive, comparing the Aeon Core head-to-head with many previous DCA headphones and running it via a wide range of DAC/amps and digital audio players, but with no original measurements or EQ (apart from using “a bit of minor DSP“ on the highs at one point) involved. I found all the subtle subjective claims of sonic flavors and differences attributed to different amps and even cables (!) somewhat frustrating and distracting and less than convincingly credible.

At this point I’m not quite sure if the focus on the supposedly subpar bass in various reviews — this one says the Aeon Core lacks “low-end gusto” — is a valid informed consensus or a symptom of head-fi (and basshead) groupthink. I haven’t seem anyone reviewing the headphone’s bass critically attempt to apply EQ or assess whether EQ settings make a positive difference in the Aeon Core’s alleged bass shortcomings. In this review this grudging assessment of the bass adds to the whiff of disappointment and lack of enthusiasm hovering around the review despite praise and high ratings.

Of course my bias is that I straight up love the way this headphone sounds, including its reproduction of bass frequencies!

 

[justus]

Long time reader, first post.
After losing access to my former studio some years ago, which had a great sounding room and a beautiful Amphion/Neumann Sub monitor setup, I never had the chance to listen to my mixes and music in general the way I could when I was still there. Every headphone I have tried lacked something, with the Neumann NDH-30 beeing the only headphone coming close to be usable for mixing.
After deliberating on buying the Moondrop Para for some months I have read this review just in time and bought the Aeon Core instead. What can I say, it's a great joy to listen to. Everything sounds exactly like it should, the tuning is perfect for me without any EQ, just so natural and still so damn tasty. I didn't mix anything on them so far but I am sure these headphones are gonna be a delight to work with.
Thank you, you have made me very happy.

 

[dfuller]

That Headfonics review is mostly very positive and certainly exhaustive, comparing the Aeon Core head-to-head with many previous DCA headphones and running it via a wide range of DAC/amps and digital audio players, but with no original measurements or EQ (apart from using “a bit of minor DSP“ on the highs at one point) involved. I found all the subtle subjective claims of sonic flavors and differences attributed to different amps and even cables (!) somewhat frustrating and distracting and less than convincingly credible.

At this point I’m not quite sure if the focus on the supposedly subpar bass in various reviews — this one says the Aeon Core lacks “low-end gusto” — is a valid informed consensus or a symptom of head-fi (and basshead) groupthink. I haven’t seem anyone reviewing the headphone’s bass critically attempt to apply EQ or assess whether EQ settings make a positive difference in the Aeon Core’s alleged bass shortcomings. In this review this grudging assessment of the bass adds to the whiff of disappointment and lack of enthusiasm hovering around the review despite praise and high ratings.

Of course my bias is that I straight up love the way this headphone sounds, including its reproduction of bass frequencies!

I've spoken to @listener650 about this a fair bit; they believe it's down to the comparatively scooped out upper bass/low mids. You probably could cure this with some minor EQ based on on-head measurements.

 

[Feelas]

These Aeon Cores caught my eye, maybe it'll be a good idea to wait out and see if in a few months those get into distribution anywhere near my location. Targeting either those or HD 480 Pro (though I believe HD 480 Pro might be a more, uuuuuh, "reasonable" one...)

At this point I’m not quite sure if the focus on the supposedly subpar bass in various reviews — this one says the Aeon Core lacks “low-end gusto” — is a valid informed consensus or a symptom of head-fi (and basshead) groupthink. I haven’t seem anyone reviewing the headphone’s bass critically attempt to apply EQ or assess whether EQ settings make a positive difference in the Aeon Core’s alleged bass shortcomings. In this review this grudging assessment of the bass adds to the whiff of disappointment and lack of enthusiasm hovering around the review despite praise and high ratings.

This seems like a very likely occurence, given that (based on Amir's measurements) subbass is recessed ~3dB w/ regards to 60-200Hz range; that gets you out of the oomph region, I believe mostly to appeal to people who are not very much into Harman ideas. In describable terms, less kick drum pop & subbass/room interaction in what you hear, more lower bass rhythm section emphasis, I'd assume.

 

[HalSF]

These Aeon Cores caught my eye, maybe it'll be a good idea to wait out and see if in a few months those get into distribution anywhere near my location. Targeting either those or HD 480 Pro (though I believe HD 480 Pro might be a more, uuuuuh, "reasonable" one...)


This seems like a very likely occurence, given that (based on Amir's measurements) subbass is recessed ~3dB w/ regards to 60-200Hz range; that gets you out of the oomph region, I believe mostly to appeal to people who are not very much into Harman ideas. In describable terms, less kick drum pop & subbass/room interaction in what you hear, more lower bass rhythm section emphasis, I'd assume.

In terms of bass preference, is there any reason to think this recessive dip can’t be easily addressed with EQ as @dfuller suggests above? The lack of an answer to this question in reviews saying the Aeon Core is intrinsically bass-shy is sort of driving me crazy.

 

[Feelas]

In terms of bass preference, is there any reason to think this recessive dip can’t be easily addressed with EQ as @dfuller suggests above? The lack of an answer to this question in reviews saying the Aeon Core is intrinsically bass-shy is sort of driving me crazy.

If we assume that the measured 1.5%THD@114dB SPL (50/60Hz range) top is real, then I think it's perfectly real to do that. +3dB shelf <60dB, I guess? Or a slight high-shelf, to tilt more towards dark (negative EQ).
Obviously, that's given that you even need to do so... With this FR, it begs to think that reviewers are just ragebaiting that those are bass-shy - not basshead level, for sure, but that response would be fairly bassy to anyone used to Audeze/Hifiman bass levels...

Nevertheless, don't take this as Aeon Core recommendation; it just boggles my mind that the general sentiment would be for such FR to be considered bass-shy. Unless they meant to say "not dark & warm, more towards balanced and brighter".

Wish I could test those, anywhere.

 

[Robbo99999]

These Aeon Cores caught my eye, maybe it'll be a good idea to wait out and see if in a few months those get into distribution anywhere near my location. Targeting either those or HD 480 Pro (though I believe HD 480 Pro might be a more, uuuuuh, "reasonable" one...)


This seems like a very likely occurence, given that (based on Amir's measurements) subbass is recessed ~3dB w/ regards to 60-200Hz range; that gets you out of the oomph region, I believe mostly to appeal to people who are not very much into Harman ideas. In describable terms, less kick drum pop & subbass/room interaction in what you hear, more lower bass rhythm section emphasis, I'd assume.

You could just buy the Aeon Core and see what you think. It measures great, and it would be a top end headphone theoretically. If you bought it then I'd see it as the last foray into working out whether or not it makes sense to buy such high end headphones as it should be an end game headphone. In other words if you bought it and thought it's about the same as your Harman EQ'd HD560s (I know from the other thread that you have HD560s), then you could reasonably conclude that you should probably stop searching for the next best headphone, and instead realise you're already there! At that point you could look into things like the Smyth Realiser if you wanted to take it further, but you'd probably be at end game.

 

[Feelas]

You could just buy the Aeon Core and see what you think. It measures great, and it would be a top end headphone theoretically. If you bought it then I'd see it as the last foray into working out whether or not it makes sense to buy such high end headphones as it should be an end game headphone. In other words if you bought it and thought it's about the same as your Harman EQ'd HD560s (I know from the other thread that you have HD560s), then you could reasonably conclude that you should probably stop searching for the next best headphone, and instead realise you're already there! At that point you could look into things like the Smyth Realiser if you wanted to take it further, but you'd probably be at end game.

Exactly the way I see it (esp. with eventual Smyth), especially since in the "rational" realm I consider being in the endgame already. The issue I am having with buying Aeon Core to see is literally a physical issue - my jaw bone structure makes me wonder whether they would seal properly or not. Measuring pad size doesn't really work out.

 

[Robbo99999]

Exactly the way I see it (esp. with eventual Smyth), especially since in the "rational" realm I consider being in the endgame already. The issue I am having with buying Aeon Core to see is literally a physical issue - my jaw bone structure makes me wonder whether they would seal properly or not. Measuring pad size doesn't really work out.

Yep, that is a consideration to make re the jawbone thing. You're talking about directly under your ear on your jawbone & if it's gonna make a gap? I don't know how likely it is that your anatomy there will be a problem. For me my HD800 is the only one that flirts with the idea of that area becoming a problem but they're still ok for me seal wise. I don't know if you can say which headphone models cause you problems there already & then maybe it's possible to predict with current owners whether you'd have such problems with the Aeon Core??

 

[Feelas]

Yep, that is a consideration to make re the jawbone thing. You're talking about directly under your ear on your jawbone & if it's gonna make a gap? I don't know how likely it is that your anatomy there will be a problem. For me my HD800 is the only one that flirts with the idea of that area becoming a problem but they're still ok for me seal wise. I don't know if you can say which headphone models cause you problems there already & then maybe it's possible to predict with current owners whether you'd have such problems with the Aeon Core??

I remember that HD560s and K371 are directly on the edge of this being an issue, any higher pads are problematic. Guess it makes sense to wait and see if any official distribution comes our way.