Drop Dan Clark Audio Aeon Closed X

[Jimbob54]

What a surprise. This game is a minefield of choices as it is, I'll never understand brands' constant model tinkering and use of unfathomable nomenclature.

I'm pretty sure the Mk2 models are all out with my budget, so at least I can forget those.

If buying new, I assume I can add 20% UK import tax to the price shown on Drop's site?

Correct. From either DCA or Drop you will cop for a (not huge for Drop) shipping cost, a customs handling charge and VAT. Id work on roughly 25% of the converted $ to £ Inc shipping costs to pay somewhere after the purchase.

 

[Snoopy]

Correct. From either DCA or Drop you will cop for a (not huge for Drop) shipping cost, a customs handling charge and VAT. Id work on roughly 25% of the converted $ to £ Inc shipping costs to pay somewhere after the purchase.

One of the reasons I went with the aeon noire (open box). They came with a balanced cable.. and with all the fees that you pay for importing from drop it wasn't "that" much more expensive.

 

[Jimbob54]

One of the reasons I went with the aeon noire (open box). They came with a balanced cable.. and with all the fees that you pay for importing from drop it wasn't "that" much more expensive.

I should point out too that if you buy the Aeon RT versions from DCA there are cable options (some free) you don't get with the Drop versions.

 

[Deleted member 23424]

Correct. From either DCA or Drop you will cop for a (not huge for Drop) shipping cost, a customs handling charge and VAT. Id work on roughly 25% of the converted $ to £ Inc shipping costs to pay somewhere after the purchase.

Well, the good news, I suppose, is I can now remove all Aeon Closed iterations from my list, due to budget.

Sundara looking more and more like the only option to tick enough boxes within price range, but: Hifiman QC issues.

The search continues.

 

[Robbo99999]

Can put a lot of the sonic characteristics of her early work down to Steve Albini's production. Or, probably more accurately, down to her insistence on working with him. There's a lot of what you describe on the Big Black LPs of the time.

Oh, and check the recently released England Shake Demos LP. Very interesting to hear how she built said rhythms using some very leftfield samples.

Anyway, I digress....

Closed back Aeons: Firmly on my radar. Are there any major differences between the Drop and non drop, X, XS, Ghia, Vanden Plas and GTi versions?

Oratory measures the Aeon RT and the Closed X as being different headphones, and you can see the difference in his measured frequency response:

Dan Clark Audio Aeon Closed RT.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Dan Clark Audio Aeon X Closed.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

I'm of the opinion that they're different regardless of what the reps have said. You'd hope the differences seen are not just due unit to unit variation, as Dan Clarke make a point of providing low unit to unit variation.

 

[JanesJr1]

Can put a lot of the sonic characteristics of her early work down to Steve Albini's production. Or, probably more accurately, down to her insistence on working with him. There's a lot of what you describe on the Big Black LPs of the time.

Oh, and check the recently released England Shake Demos LP. Very interesting to hear how she built said rhythms using some very leftfield samples.

Anyway, I digress....

Closed back Aeons: Firmly on my radar. Are there any major differences between the Drop and non drop, X, XS, Ghia, Vanden Plas and GTi versions?

I never heard the LP versions. (I have hundreds of LP's but kind of gave up on them in the 90's.)

I'm not familiar, either, with those variants of the Aeon's. I've only seen the Drop Closed X, the Closed RT, the Aeon 2 Closed (more expensive) and the Noire closed (more expensive); but none of the other versions you mention, on their website or in any of the various review websites I visited. The ASR threads on the Drop Closed X and the regular RT shows that the Drop version seems to be tuned to a FR that is closer to the Harman curve, if that is what you like. If you're comparing the Drop vs the RT versions (variants of the same 'phones), it may be that the $499 RT via DCA comes with balanced Vivo headphone cable (or it could be selected at one point), whereas the Drop Closed X version only comes with an unbalanced cable. Also the Drop version often lists at $479 but periodically drops to $379 if you watch it. Another ASR forum member mentioned a nice balanced cable at Hart Audio Cables for a lot less than the DCA's Vivo cables, and I bought those.

I like the Closed X a lot. Using my HD6XX's as a basis for comparison, I have the Sennheisers tuned to sound very lively (with plenty of amp power, higher bass EQ, a little less mid/bass bloom, and a less veiled treble). Those HD6XX's subjectively have good "slam" and a pretty satisfying overall sound, even though the bass can be a little rough with volume. I have just started to experiment with the Closed X phones, and by comparison with the HD6XX's, they have much more resolution, very clean bass with a smooth transition from bass to mid's. They are just very refined and tight, by comparison. However, they initially seemed to have less slam (on material like PJ harvey); but I am not ready yet to conclude that they are more dampened than the Senn's or whether it is due to EQ or level-matching. (For example, drum-thwacks sound less percussive on my Closed X's, but I also notice that the whole sonic tonality of the drums is thinner, as though there is an EQ difference.) I've just been away from home and haven't had a chance to experiment very much yet.

 

[doug2761]

I have just started to experiment with the Closed X phones, and by comparison with the HD6XX's, they have much more resolution, very clean bass with a smooth transition from bass to mid's. They are just very refined and tight, by comparison.

I have both of these headphones too. I use EQ when listening and run both with the respective Oratory's settings or with Robo's S2 settings for AeonX. My perceptions largely match yours. I disagree a little bit with the resolution distinctions. For me, both provide excellent detail and tonality end to end with some differences in the my perception of bass detail. The HD6XX is less isolating with its open design and I wonder if that influences my the perception resolution. Both are really good. Totally agree that the AeonX are refined and tight. They seem to do a better job for me with nuance tones in the bass region.

 

[JanesJr1]

I have both of these headphones too. I use EQ when listening and run both with the respective Oratory's settings or with Robo's S2 settings for AeonX. My perceptions largely match yours. I disagree a little bit with the resolution distinctions. For me, both provide excellent detail and tonality end to end with some differences in the my perception of bass detail. The HD6XX is less isolating with its open design and I wonder if that influences my the perception resolution. Both are really good. Totally agree that the AeonX are refined and tight. They seem to do a better job for me with nuance tones in the bass region.

I actually had very mixed feelings about the HD6XX's out of the box. After a lot of experimentation, and upgrading my amp, I became happy with them. But I am also conditioned by the much higher resolution from my Etymotic IEM's, which I use as mobile phones. There simply is no comparison on detail and separation, although the Ety's have their own problems and on balance, I like the HD6XX's better, despite the softer resolution and separation. The Aeon Closed X's I think match the Ety's on detail and, for me, exceed the HD6XX's on detail and separation. However, I haven't settled down yet on the Closed X EQ settings, although I'm using the same reference settings you are.

That all said, I still really like the HD6XX's for very smooth mids. And with EQ, I was able to get treble that seems more detailed but not at all harsh, compared to the way it was out of the box. It made subjective resolution better and satisfying, if not equal to the Aeons or Ety's. And I thought the lower mid's were a bit soft or tubby, and that was easy to fix. Finally, I do now really like the bass tonality, despite what sounds like residual roughness or distortion. I fiddled a long time with bass EQ, and as mentioned, upped the amp power: the HD6XX's did scale up, as they say. Like so many have said before, you can find a lot of things about the HD6XX's where there are other phones that can do this or that better; but still, the overall presentation of the EQ'd HD6XX's does feel like home. I started out liking the mids and vocals; now I also like rock on the Senn's just as much.

 

[JanesJr1]

I actually had very mixed feelings about the HD6XX's out of the box. After a lot of experimentation, and upgrading my amp, I became happy with them. But I am also conditioned by the much higher resolution from my Etymotic IEM's, which I use as mobile phones. There simply is no comparison on detail and separation, although the Ety's have their own problems and on balance, I like the HD6XX's better, despite the softer resolution and separation. The Aeon Closed X's I think match the Ety's on detail and, for me, exceed the HD6XX's on detail and separation. However, I haven't settled down yet on the Closed X EQ settings, although I'm using the same reference settings you are.

That all said, I still really like the HD6XX's for very smooth mids. And with EQ, I was able to get treble that seems more detailed but not at all harsh, compared to the way it was out of the box. It made subjective resolution better and satisfying, if not equal to the Aeons or Ety's. And I thought the lower mid's were a bit soft or tubby, and that was easy to fix. Finally, I do now really like the bass tonality, despite what sounds like residual roughness or distortion. I fiddled a long time with bass EQ, and as mentioned, upped the amp power: the HD6XX's did scale up, as they say. Like so many have said before, you can find a lot of things about the HD6XX's where there are other phones that can do this or that better; but still, the overall presentation of the EQ'd HD6XX's does feel like home. I started out liking the mids and vocals; now I also like rock on the Senn's just as much.

A high-contrast comparison of HD6XX to DCA Closed X. Compare, say, the drum thwacks on the first two cuts of "Who's Next" on the Senn to the Closed X. To make it more scientific, maybe use the Oratory EQ on the Senn phones in comparison to the most neutral EQ you've got for the DCA phones.... If you've got the DCA Closed RT, there is an Oratory EQ for it.

But the comparison is so dramatic, and so immune to fiddling with EQ settings to try to close the gap, that exact EQ matches may not be necessary. The DCA (which I like) has a VERY different tonality for drums (at least) and probably also a different "slam" -- much thinner. The Senn is more "in your face", the drums are forward, the guitars are there, too. The DCA's are a little more spacious, the guitars are forward, but the drums are thin and recessed by comparison with the Senn's. This is probably going on in the 100-300 Hz region for drum fundamentals, and the differences don't disappear if I increase the low mids/upper bass on the DCA phones.

The same thing shows up on other recordings with a fair amount of percussion. I'm not sure which EQ is more neutral. But if my comparison is valid, I do find the HD6XX's more fun for rock, and wish I could close the gap a bit. I'd prefer not to burn in a stereotype like "DCA for classical, Senn for rock". Unless it's valid, I guess.

 

[hoverdonkey]

My Closed Xs arrived today. Hurrah!

 

[Phoney]

A high-contrast comparison of HD6XX to DCA Closed X. Compare, say, the drum thwacks on the first two cuts of "Who's Next" on the Senn to the Closed X. To make it more scientific, maybe use the Oratory EQ on the Senn phones in comparison to the most neutral EQ you've got for the DCA phones.... If you've got the DCA Closed RT, there is an Oratory EQ for it.

But the comparison is so dramatic, and so immune to fiddling with EQ settings to try to close the gap, that exact EQ matches may not be necessary. The DCA (which I like) has a VERY different tonality for drums (at least) and probably also a different "slam" -- much thinner. The Senn is more "in your face", the drums are forward, the guitars are there, too. The DCA's are a little more spacious, the guitars are forward, but the drums are thin and recessed by comparison with the Senn's. This is probably going on in the 100-300 Hz region for drum fundamentals, and the differences don't disappear if I increase the low mids/upper bass on the DCA phones.

The same thing shows up on other recordings with a fair amount of percussion. I'm not sure which EQ is more neutral. But if my comparison is valid, I do find the HD6XX's more fun for rock, and wish I could close the gap a bit. I'd prefer not to burn in a stereotype like "DCA for classical, Senn for rock". Unless it's valid, I guess.

This is a strange phenomenon also on the RT. Me and several others has talked about how they seem pretty thin despite measuring well in the bass regions, and EQ somehow struggles to fix it despite measurments showing that they should respond well to EQ. I've had to lower all the higher frequencies quite a bit and boost the bass by 4-6db just to hear slightly more bass in general.

 

[JanesJr1]

This is a strange phenomenon also on the RT. Me and several others has talked about how they seem pretty thin despite measuring well in the bass regions, and EQ somehow struggles to fix it despite measurments showing that they should respond well to EQ. I've had to lower all the higher frequencies quite a bit and boost the bass by 4-6db just to hear slightly more bass in general.

Yes. Just experimentally, I elevated upper bass a LOT to see what would happen. And it was less than you'd think. I'm happy enough with lower bass, but the upper bass was strangely non-responsive to EQ, compared to what would normally happen. It seems like some kind of physical limitation, but I don't have the technical chops to evaluate it. I still like the phones, but they're just different from dynamic-driver phones, and it seems like they're going to stay that way. But I'm open to alternative perspectives that can explain things better than I can.

 

[Phoney]

Yes. Just experimentally, I elevated upper bass a LOT to see what would happen. And it was less than you'd think. I'm happy enough with lower bass, but the upper bass was strangely non-responsive to EQ, compared to what would normally happen. It seems like some kind of physical limitation, but I don't have the technical chops to evaluate it. I still like the phones, but they're just different from dynamics, and it seems like they're going to stay that way. But I'm open to alternative perspectives that can explain things better than I can.

I tried to put a low shelf fitler at 105hz on the RT with 8-10db extra bass and the result barely matched my Hifiman Arya bass levels without EQ, which measures less bass than RT to begin with.. When the RT arrived I noticed the lack of percieved bass, and thought that I could probably fix it anyways.. Ended up being just slightly more bass despite changing the FR drastically towards the darker frequencies with EQ. I thought maybe my unit is defect but I'm seeing others experiencing the same. I wrote about it here

 

[JanesJr1]

I tried to put a low shelf fitler at 105hz on the RT with 8-10db extra bass and the result barely matched my Hifiman Arya bass levels without EQ, which measures less bass than RT to begin with.. When the RT arrived I noticed the lack of percieved bass, and thought that I could probably fix it anyways.. Ended up being just slightly more bass despite changing the FR drastically towards the darker frequencies with EQ. I thought maybe my unit is defect but I'm seeing others experiencing the same. I wrote about it here

The thread here for the Closed X version has a lot of modeling of EQ settings, and many commenters like the "Sample 2" EQ developed by Robbo9999. I'm not saying it would be a match for the RT version, but it has a significant, if not as large, a set of bass increases like yours, albeit at different levels from deep sub-bass to upper bass. I pretty much like it but my phones are new-ish and I am still tinkering.

I hope Robo9999, TheHighContemplator, or JimBob54 pick up on the perception of RT thinness and resistance to EQ.

P.S.: I'm somewhat less worried about the overall bass levels. I find the DCA's sound natural with power in reserve for bass in classical, acoustic, folk, rock and other sources where fidelity to the real world source is important. EDM, metal and electronica sound fine to me but there are no fidelity absolutes there because of the level of synthesized bass. But the subjective "slam" of the Closed X and RT may resemble planar drivers in general, as compared to dynamic drivers.(Some will say that slam is still an EQ issue, and others will say it is a matter of impulse response.) I think there's still an EQ issue, but I'm still trying to narrow it down.

 

[JanesJr1]

This is a strange phenomenon also on the RT. Me and several others has talked about how they seem pretty thin despite measuring well in the bass regions, and EQ somehow struggles to fix it despite measurments showing that they should respond well to EQ. I've had to lower all the higher frequencies quite a bit and boost the bass by 4-6db just to hear slightly more bass in general.

Undoubtedly you've already thought of this, and I hear that the concern with bass is not only yours, but also others'; but to be sure, there may be a dependency on amp current to achieve sufficient bass on the DCA phones. I got a balanced headphone cable so I could take advantage of the supposedly-very-good power/current capability of my Topping A50s amp for low impedence headphones.

 

[Phoney]

The thread here for the Closed X version has a lot of modeling of EQ settings, and many commenters like the "Sample 2" EQ developed by Robbo9999. I'm not saying it would be a match for the RT version, but it has a significant, if not as large, a set of bass increases like yours, albeit at different levels from deep sub-bass to upper bass. I pretty much like it but my phones are new-ish and I am still tinkering.

I hope Robo9999, TheHighContemplator, or JimBob54 pick up on the perception of RT thinness and resistance to EQ.

P.S.: I'm somewhat less worried about the overall bass levels. I find the DCA's sound natural with power in reserve for bass in classical, acoustic, folk, rock and other sources where fidelity to the real world source is important. EDM, metal and electronica sound fine to me but there are no fidelity absolutes there because of the level of synthesized bass. But the subjective "slam" of the Closed X and RT may resemble planar drivers in general, as compared to dynamic drivers.(Some will say that slam is still an EQ issue, and others will say it is a matter of impulse response.) I think there's still an EQ issue, but I'm still trying to narrow it down.

Well, most planars that I have tried has been easy to EQ, also in the bass. I know planar bass sounds different, but the bass should still be able to get pretty loud, especially with this FR. Arya is an open back planar, I use a +3db boost which should match the bass levels of RT out of the box, and that small boost provides great bass from the Aryas. About the amp, I have tried with both Jotunheim 2 and A30 Pro which are both very powerful. Just a bit disappointing because I really want to be able to listen at lower volumes while still being able to actually hear the bass pretty well. On higher volumes the bass is okay with a big boost, but that gets fatigueing pretty fast with the higher frequencies. The bass on the RT measures about the same as the Drop X version I believe.

 

[JanesJr1]

Well, most planars that I have tried has been easy to EQ, also in the bass. I know planar bass sounds different, but the bass should still be able to get pretty loud, especially with this FR. Arya is an open back planar, I use a +3db boost which should match the bass levels of RT out of the box, and that small boost provides great bass from the Aryas. About the amp, I have tried with both Jotunheim 2 and A30 Pro which are both very powerful. Just a bit disappointing because I really want to be able to listen at lower volumes while still being able to actually hear the bass pretty well. On higher volumes the bass is okay with a big boost, but that gets fatigueing pretty fast with the higher frequencies. The bass on the RT measures about the same as the Drop X version I believe.

My concern is with upper bass thinness, and I'm not sure how much of that is slam vs. FR. I share your concern there. I listened to many sources yesterday, and while the "Who's Next" example I mentioned earlier is a clear case of it for me, I found the effect seemed to vary with other material. Sometimes the effect seemed to reduce or disappear where I would have expected it to appear. I also found material where the rhythmic power of the DCA's was pretty darn good. I tried A/B'ing transducers to prevent my ear from just accommodating to the DCA sound. The effect was still real but not always pronounced.

I don't have as much experience with different headphones and equipment as you have. I hope you can sort out a pattern here. Meanwhile, I still like the DCA's on whole.

With bass <100 Hz, I count bass response as a clear plus for the Closed X's on my system. Clean, tight, less spillover onto other instruments or frequencies. Again, this is subjective, but the bass sounds more organic to me, more integrated with the tonal sound picture, with plenty of volume (for me) but less "pop-out" of a thick bass line in relation to other instruments.

(This all made me wonder how much of the lower bass content on my bass-EQ'd HD6XX's is simply distortion (harmonics and resonances), which Amir always says will subjectively sound more like signal than distortion in the lowest frequencies. Does the DCA's lower bass pop-out less because it is, um, cleaner?)

 

[JanesJr1]

My Closed Xs arrived today. Hurrah!

Congrats. I bellyache a bit here about the slam and upper bass, but I love the sound overall. Be interested to hear what you think!

 

[Phoney]

My concern is with upper bass thinness, and I'm not sure how much of that is slam vs. FR. I share your concern there. I listened to many sources yesterday, and while the "Who's Next" example I mentioned earlier is a clear case of it for me, I found the effect seemed to vary with other material. Sometimes the effect seemed to reduce or disappear where I would have expected it to appear. I also found material where the rhythmic power of the DCA's was pretty darn good. I tried A/B'ing transducers to prevent my ear from just accommodating to the DCA sound. The effect was still real but not always pronounced.

I don't have as much experience with different headphones and equipment as you have. I hope you can sort out a pattern here. Meanwhile, I still like the DCA's on whole.

With bass <100 Hz, I count bass response as a clear plus for the Closed X's on my system. Clean, tight, less spillover onto other instruments or frequencies. Again, this is subjective, but the bass sounds more organic to me, more integrated with the tonal sound picture, with plenty of volume (for me) but less "pop-out" of a thick bass line in relation to other instruments.

(This all made me wonder how much of the lower bass content on my HD6XX's is simply distortion (harmonics and resonances), which Amir always says will subjectively sound more like signal than distortion in the lowest frequencies. Does the DCA's lower bass pop-out less because it is, um, cleaner?)

I think maybe you're right, because the sub bass seems okay with certain tracks. Maybe it's the upper bass that makes them so thin. I also found the bass and rhythm to be better with some tracks then others, in contrary to what I experienced with other headphones where the bass was there in all of these tracks, almosy equally as much. I agree that the headphones are okay, but they would be absolutely amazing without this problem, so that's a bit of a shame. However, a fuller sound is very important to me and it feels strange having a closed back that lacks bass.. I find myself opting for my other headphones when wanting to listen to music, and therefore I decided to sell the RTs. Too expensive for rare usage.

 

[Robbo99999]

I tried to put a low shelf fitler at 105hz on the RT with 8-10db extra bass and the result barely matched my Hifiman Arya bass levels without EQ, which measures less bass than RT to begin with.. When the RT arrived I noticed the lack of percieved bass, and thought that I could probably fix it anyways.. Ended up being just slightly more bass despite changing the FR drastically towards the darker frequencies with EQ. I thought maybe my unit is defect but I'm seeing others experiencing the same. I wrote about it here

The thread here for the Closed X version has a lot of modeling of EQ settings, and many commenters like the "Sample 2" EQ developed by Robbo9999. I'm not saying it would be a match for the RT version, but it has a significant, if not as large, a set of bass increases like yours, albeit at different levels from deep sub-bass to upper bass. I pretty much like it but my phones are new-ish and I am still tinkering.

I hope Robo9999, TheHighContemplator, or JimBob54 pick up on the perception of RT thinness and resistance to EQ.

P.S.: I'm somewhat less worried about the overall bass levels. I find the DCA's sound natural with power in reserve for bass in classical, acoustic, folk, rock and other sources where fidelity to the real world source is important. EDM, metal and electronica sound fine to me but there are no fidelity absolutes there because of the level of synthesized bass. But the subjective "slam" of the Closed X and RT may resemble planar drivers in general, as compared to dynamic drivers.(Some will say that slam is still an EQ issue, and others will say it is a matter of impulse response.) I think there's still an EQ issue, but I'm still trying to narrow it down.

With regards to the bass question, there's not much more you can do but make sure you have a good seal, that they're fitting you properly and then use EQ to boost up the bass until it sounds right. If you're boosting the bass a lot and you're not hearing much difference, maybe it's not sealing properly to your head. A Low Shelf at 105Hz with Q0.71 is my choice of tweaking the bass level in a headphone, which is the "Oratory Method".....I've found that all my headphones respond to that tweak, and generally 1dB changes are noticeable.....I've got a planar HE4XX and various dynamic headphones (see my sig) and they all respond in the same way in terms of you can hear the effect of the EQ, so I don't think it's a "planar" problem.

I will add one more of my own subjective observations.....to me it seems that with all my headphones, if I've worn them longer in one session and the headphone is properly warmed up by my head and perhaps the pads mould closer during a listening session as they spend longer on your head.....then I've found a perception of more bass in contrast to how they sound as soon as I put the headphone on for the listening session - so you might want to wear the headphone for a reasonable length of time in that session before you start tweaking the bass (I mean you could also just wear them without any music playing until they've warmed up and moulded to your head closer as you do other stuff on your PC or whatever). How much of this is psychological or an actual effect related to the temperature of the drivers and the seal getting better during the listening session then I don't know!