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.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.
It's just how he named the headphone. Dan uses the word 'flow'.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):
The HE6SE is absolutely great regarding distortion, an improvement over HE6.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:
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?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)
[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.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.
Sundara is more betterThe 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.
More heavy and least sensitive
Sensitivity is determined by the magnetic field strength (so magnet force, both of the windings and magnets + distance of magnets opposite the traces).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?
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/
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
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
Did he beat the computer finally?Score no EQ: 89.0
Score Amirm: 90.3
Score with EQ: 89.8
What you mean finally? I beat it once before.Did he beat the computer finally?
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 machineWhat you mean finally? I beat it once before.![]()
All correct.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!!! :Daudiosciencereview.com
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?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.
It was on a miniDSP rig, with flesh like silicon cheeks.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?
Yeah, that happens by accident from time to time and I hate it when it does.Just twang one of the bars with your finger nail and listen.