I think this should be the case. Besides the build quality, the drivers use a silicone suspension instead of a rubber one. I donāt remember exactly where I read the benefits, but silicone holds its elasticity for much longer than rubber. If I am not mistaken, the source where I read this from even stated the statistics and/or properties of siliconeās benefits. The diaphragm is also made of bio-cellulose instead of average materials.
This headphone is simply different. From sound to technology/materials used, itās just different.
Interesting, didnāt know these properties of silicone.
Iām listening to the Phoenix and the SR2 back and forth today
and think Iād need a switch to instantly A/B them.
Honestly the Phoenix doesnāt seem soo far offā¦
ā¦a bit warmer, maybe some small weird things going on in the mids/lower trebble?
Having a hard time telling differences in technicalities tbh., but Iām not trained.
Still under the impression the Sivgas are just damn good.
I prefer the iBasso SR2 of course, but honestly if there were concern about moneys,
I could totally lay back with the Phoenix and not feel like Iām completely missing out on great sound.
Been wondering for a while if Crinacle received a broken pair of iBasso SR2 or made some mistakes.
The measurements & comments on it is (even considering subjective preferences),
so very far away from what Iām hearing & what everyone else measured.
Wanted to use the graph tool to compare some headphones, but this way itās not possible.
I was also surprised and skeptical about his ranking of the SR2.
I found my experience the complete opposite end of what he wrote under his ranking list, and I didnāt hear the qualities that he mentioned. I have to agree with you that it is quite unusual as to how different his experience is from everybody elseās.
Itās much deeper than just tonal preferences, it goes all the way to the biology. Because our ear structure can greatly differ across different ethical groups ā and thus the sound perception can greatly differ just based on ethical groups.
In other words, with different ear structures, we hear differently. Now, this can play a major role when you are tuning your product.
I heard somewhere that there are companies who do special tuning for a specific region/continent (e.g. one product but it is offered in Asian tuning in Asia, European tuning in Europe, American tuning in America).
Combine biological difference with subjective preference, and you can see how great the difference of sound perception can be.
Already noticed he made a mistake, the diaphragm is not carbon fiber, but bio-cellulose.
I personally cannot see these as relaxed, because they offer the perfect amount of sparkle and upper-end, but when I think of relaxed, I automatically think of āwarmā and Dekoni Audio Blueās ā these are not warm by any means.
But I can relate that these let you enjoy music. If thatās what relaxed means, then I agree. Once you put them on, you canāt take them off. This still remains the headphone that made me listen to music the most.
Glad that more attention will be paid to them after Zeosās review.
I actually put in an order for them. I seem to love Biocellulose drivers. Headphones that just gets out of the way of the music is what Iām after. I like the HD650 and Nighthawk for this reason.
By the way, on some sites they are actually advertised as having a carbon fibre diaphragm. HiFiGo comes to mind. Itās strange because I cannot find the SR2 on iBassos own websiteā¦
I think that thatās where the confusion comes from. I mean on the box and the little booklet that you get, it clearly says bio-cellulose.
I am pretty sure there is a reason for this, though I understand that it is strange. I always wondered why itās not on the website, but I never asked Paul. Perhaps this was a dealerās exclusive? I donāt know. But I know that iBasso products are usually quite limited and very often sold-out.
As expressed under this thread, and as you could judge for yourself based on whatās out there on the internet, everybodyās experience is highly contrary to what Crinacle said to say and to his measurements.
Whether he got a malfunction pair (which I highly doubt), or whether he had a faulty measuring system and based his opinion around that, I donāt know, but I do know that I wrote my whole review (posted both on here and on Head-Fi) with 100% honesty and with 0% influence from anybody (including the manufacturer).
Thanks. Itās strange though because I trust Crin to be clear headed enough to not let his measurement influence his listening impressions. Maybe Iām wrong. Maybe he didnāt do any listening at all and just trusted his measurements which seems faulty?
He literally says itās bright, shouty & shrill and lacking bass heft in his ranking notes.
Iām not sure what happened with that Crinacle review. I personally do not follow him, nor do I praise him. I just know he does reviews and measurements, thatās about it.
I cannot see how they lack in bass when they are well capable of deep and intense rumble. This makes me question whether a balanced headphone would be bad to Crinacle just because they donāt behave like a sub-woofer.
Regarding the comparison to the HD650, I cannot comment. I have the HD6XX (not mine), so if that helps, I can take both headphones and tell you what I notice.
Yes please, the HD6XX is based on the HD650 and sounds 99,5% similar.
As much information as possible is appreciated.
Pay close attention to treble peaks and roughness when you compare.
Treble linearity is one strength of the HD650, but it is a weakness of most biocellulose headphones.
Alright, did a very quick and short comparison of the two. Wasnāt exactly easy because I had to change the Gain on the iBasso DX300 (Low for the SR2, High for the HD6XX).
What I can immediately notice is that the SR2 has more depth in the lower region, it reached deeper frequencies, and that the upper-range (high-frequency range) is also more extended on the SR2.
The HD6XX is quite balanced and relaxing I would say ā doesnāt necessarily have a specific boost in any range. This being said, the SR2 has more sparkle and edge in the upper-range, which is something I personally prefer. However, the SR2 is not peaky or shouty in any way, it just has more quality and depth in the upper-range.
But both of these headphone are spectacular. Both are a must-have in my opinion.
I listened to the āStop Trying To be Godā by Travis Scott. Thatās the track I used to listen for any inconsistency or piercingness in the treble region, while I used Daft Punkās āAdagio for TRONā for the lower-frequency response.
You didnāt touch on staging though which is a weak point of the HD650. It has this 3-blob stage as you may know already know where notes seem to be pushed to the very far left or right, if it is not in the very middle. There is very little happening inbetween. Imaging is also a weak point, though separation is stellar.
When it comes to staging on the SR2, I remember it being top-notch, the same as separation. You can pin-point where each instrument is, and other elements in the mix do not eat it up.
āDogsā by Pink Floyd features among the most extreme staging/imaging moments with the drums. If you read my review, you can see that I pin-pointed where each drum was located. So it is definitely not far left/right and middle. It is highly audible that each drum takes place in a space of its own.
Edit: I should clarify, I am using some EQ with these. Bass shelf is mandatory. So far I am only able to use them through the 3.5mm headphone jack on my iPad, and holy god am I impressed. Iām waiting on replacement Audioquest Mackenzie silver XLR cables so that I can connect my Bifrost 2 DAC to my RNHP amp.
