Best Mid Range Over The Ear Headphones. If you want to enjoy music on the move and don't like in-ear headphones then a compact closed-back over-head model is the obvious alternative. But just how well do they perform?
Much as we espouse a purist approach to hi-fi at HFN we are not insensitive to the fact that many people today don't have the time or the space – or perhaps the wherewithal – to realise the archetypal vision of enjoying a pair of loudspeakers and a separates electronics system from the comfort of an optimally positioned armchair.
For a large number of music enthusiasts listening time is mostly restricted to car journeys or to the use of mobile devices. In the latter case you'll want a headphone that is compact enough to carry around but sacrifi ces little in ultimate sound quality so that, ideally, it can cut the mustard if occasionally hooked up to a proper hi-fi system.
Given that requirement, your eyes might well alight on the headphones we've assembled for this group test. All fi ve make plain their intention for use with portable music sources by having short connecting leads and closed-back capsules to block out ambient sound. But all are costly enough – and have received plaudits of suffi cient enthusiasm – to be expected to eliver high quality sound whatever the context they are used in.
Four of the models we've assembled come from headphone manufacturers of long standing – Audio-Technica, Beyerdynamic, Philips and Sennheiser – and use supra-aural ('on-ear') capsules to help reduce size. But they are nothing like the supra-aural capsules of the iconic Sennheiser HD414 with earpads of open-cell foam. To exclude external sounds these supra-aurals don't just have closed-back capsules, they have conventional squishy earpads, albeit of small enough size to rest on the ear rather than around it. This can pose sealing problems that affect bass response.
DIFFERENT GENES
Our fifth headphone, by contrast, is from a relative newcomer to headphone manufacture – B&W – whose reputation was of course established making loudspeakers. Aside from this different set of genes, B&W's offering also opts for larger earpads that, if our ears are small, are just big enough to be circumaural rather than supra-aural.
Whatever its intended usage, any headphone reveals its ultimate capability only when driven by a top-quality headphone amplifi er. So I used a Teac HA-501 for the listening tests – the best headphone amplifier I've heard to date. It was fed analogue signals from a Chord Electronics QuteHD DAC, and digital signals via S/PDIF from a TC Electronic Digital Konnekt x32 FireWire interface downstream of a Mac mini running Windows XP and JRiver Media Center v17.
MUSIC CHOICES
Four disparate pieces were chosen for the listening comparisons: the 24-bit/96kHz download of Daft Punk's disco tribute Lose ourself To Dance'; the 'Miller's Wife's Dance' from Falla's Three Cornered Hat – the classic Ansermet/Decca – a 24-bit/ 88.2kHz conversion from a rip of the Japanese import SACD; 'Hold Your Head Up' ripped from Argent's All Together Now; and 'Dreaming', from the CD Duo by Wesseltoft and Schwarz.
Audio-Technica ATH-ES88 (Sound Quality: 80%)
Audio-Technica claims a sensitivity of 103dB per milliwatt for the ATH-ES88, equivalent to 117.7dB per volt at the specified impedance of 34ohm. We measured 120.6dB at 1kHz, so the spec. is conservative. Over the audible range (20Hz-20kHz) the impedance varied from 35.2-40.4ohm, equivalent to negligible frequency response changes of 0.3dB/0.5dB with a 10ohm/30ohm source impedance. Little if any carry-over of sound from the left to the right capsule was heard on the impedance test but in he frequency response measurements the ATH-ES88 proved very sensitive to positioning on the artifi cial ear. Despite this, capsule matching error was good at ±3.3dB. The diffuse-field corrected frequency response [black trace] is one of the flattest here but bass roll-off begins at 100Hz.
 |
| Audio-Technica ATH-ES88 |
Bowers and Wilkins (B&W) P7 (Sound Quality: 74%)
B&W claims a sensitivity of 111dB per volt at 1kHz for the P7 but we measured a much more competitive 117.6dB. Impedance is specifi ed at 22ohm, with a range of 21.4-26.3ohm measured on the left capsule (20Hz-20kHz). This is suffi cient to introduce frequency response changes of 0.5dB on a 10ohm source or 1.0dB on a 30ohm source. Clear carry-over of sound from the active to the inactive capsule was heard. The small circumaural earpads proved their worth on the artifi cial ear by keeping the LF response very consistent but disparities at higher frequency gave rise to a capsule matching error of ±7.0dB (40Hz-10kHz) – a typical fi gure for a headphone. Diffuse-fi eld corrected frequency response [black trace, below] is pretty good from 300Hz upwards but below that the bass shelves up by around 6dB.
 |
| Bowers and Wilkins (B&W) P7 |
Beyerdynamic T51p (Sound Quality: 76%)
Beyerdynamic offers no specifi cation of sensitivity for the T51p but we measured a competitive 117.3dB for 1V/1kHz. This is achieved without recourse to unusually low impedance: 32ohm is specifi ed and we measured a range of 33.6-53.3ohm (20Hz-20kHz). Still, this is suffi cient to introduce response changes of 0.8dB with a 10ohm source impedance and 1.6dB with a 30ohm source – both on the high side. Earpad sealing proved variable during the response measurements but the ±6.9dB capsule matching error is nothing untoward. However, on the impedance test the T51p had the group's most obvious carry-over of sound from the active to inactive capsule. Diffuse-fi eld corrected frequency response [black trace] shows a ising response below 1kHz followed by early bass roll-off below 100Hz.
 |
| Beyerdynamic T51p |
Philips Fidelio M1 (Sound Quality: 70%)
Philips specifi es 107dB sensitivity for the M1 but not the input. If we assume 1mW then that equates to a high 125dB for 1V at the specifi ed 16ohm impedance and the M1 doesn't fall that far short at a measured 121.8dB at 1kHz. The low impedance explains this, and it's maintained consistently enough at 17.2-19.7ohm (20Hz-20kHz) that frequency response change is 0.4dB for a 10ohm source impedance and 0.8dB for a 30ohm source. Carry-over of sound via the headband from the active to the inactive capsule was obvious and the M1 also proved reluctant to form a reliable seal with the artifi cial ear during response measurement. Capsule matching error was fair at ±5.3dB despite this but it was partly responsible for the diffusefield corrected response tailing off below 120Hz.
 |
| Philips Fidelio M1 |
Sennheiser Momentum (Sound Quality: 60%)
Sennheiser specifi es the Momentum's sensitivity at 112dB for 1V/1kHz, and although we measured better at 113.5dB this is easily the lowest in this group. High impedance would have explained this but we measured a range of 25.0-28.3ohm (20Hz-20kHz) – higher than the specifi ed 18ohm but lower than others here. With a source impedance of 10ohm the resulting frequency response change is 0.3dB, rising to 0.6dB for a 30ohm source. Carry-over of sound from the active to inactive capsule was perceptible but at a low level. The Momentum's earpads didn't seal well to the artifi cial ear but ±7.3dB capsule matching error is down to disparities at high frequencies. Diffuse-fi eld corrected frequency response [black trace] shows a bass shelf that raises output below 100Hz by about 11dB (re. 1kHz).
 |
| Sennheiser Momentum |
Conclusion
I have to say I was hoping for somewhat better from this group of headphones, each of them from a prestigious marque. Although they are all primarily intended for use with handheld music sources, I thought there was a fair chance – not least because of the positive receptions they have achieved elsewhere – that they might also cut it in the listening room. Well, they don't quite.
My advice is to reserve them for their intended use, where their compact dimensions and sound isolation are essential assets, and buy yourself a good circumaural open-back 'phone for use with your hi-fi system: you'll be rewarded with sound that's a notch or two superior.
But let's assume, as we must, that you have these models in your sights because on-the-hoof listening in noisy environments is what you have in mind. Which of them delivers the best inherent sound quality?
First to fall by the wayside for me is the Sennheiser. All these headphones have too much bass to my ears but only one of them takes low frequency excess to a tragi-comic level and that's the Momentum On-Ear. It's passably good in other respects but I can only imagine it appealing to bassobsessed listeners who mistake LF quantity for quality.
While none of the other models here has the bass 'generosity' of the Sennheiser, as 've said they all have over-egged lower frequencies to some degree. This might seem odd in the Philips' case given its measured response but sealing issues on the artifi cial ear probably explain that.
Unquestionably there is a surfeit of LF when you listen to the M1, and it isn't particularly adroit either. This contributes to its somewhat softened, muffled sound but lack of presence band energy is to blame too, and additionally bleeds spaciousness from the imaging.
Deciding between the Beyerdynamic and the B&W I found more diffi cult on the basis of sound quality alone. The Beyerdynamic is disappointingly bass-heavy and has a quality to it that, depending on source material, can make it sound rather closed-in and matter-of-fact, almost bland. (I'm also amazed that it has no channel identifi cation on or about its capsules – you have to refer to the Beyerdynamic script on the headband to be sure to wear it the right way round.)
The B&W P7's bass can also be obtrusive and, like the T51p, it lacks pizzazz. I wouldn't argue if you preferred one or the other on the basis of their sound quality but there's no question that the P7, with its additional weight, undersized circumaural earpads and vice-like head clamping force, is distinctly less comfortable to wear. As it's also considerably more expensive, I would therefore choose the T51p.
FINAL CHOICE
If the Audio-Technica ATH-ES88 wins this test, and it does, it is to an extent by default. It doesn't have the transcendent sound quality of the ATH-AD700 or ATH-A900X but in the context of this group it succeeds by adopting the essence of the Hippocratic Oath. 'Do no harm' seems to be the ES88's guiding principle, and it's enough to secure it victory. But that's not to say that it succeeds in blurring the distinction between compact, portable headphones and larger models intended for the listening room. The best of the latter group – yes, even price-competitive ones – simply deliver more
