Austrian Audio Hi-X15

Austrian Audio Hi-X15

Cheap closed back headphone. Stand out features are the outstanding claims regarding the driver, and the creators are ex-employees of AKG.

All the headphones in AA's lineup use the same drivers. The X15 is cheapest at $120. As you go up the chain you get better material and design, then finally at top is an open-back version (X65).


^ Not my photo. Just for reference to compare X15 to the X65 and X55. Headphone on far right is the Avantone Pro planar (@rhythmdevils please loaner tour).

Positives:
- metal hinges
- pads are hybrids but pleather ear-side for more isolation and sweat
- cheap $120
- medium clamp

Negatives:
- the sound

Sounds like it was created by ex-Beyerdynamic employees. Treble+++ but clean I guess. Sure better transients ... but nauseating like DT770.

Spoiler: hybrid pad

Spoiler: driver info screen shot from site

Rig:
Minidsp EARS (click profile for more info)
Macbook > Eitr > ModiMB > Vali2

edit: Going to disassemble to see the driver.

 

Couldn't take apart. I think I need some very skinny hex drivers.

Spoiler: Dense foam under pads

Spoiler: obscured driver pic

Spoiler: pads clamped into place by screws / baffle

 

Any progress with the drivers?

 

Nope. Lost interest. Returned.

 

Pity. Thanks for the info.

 

https://www.0db.co.kr/REVIEW_0DB/2075035
This is most accurate FR graph.

 

I guess the driver could be awesome if better implented… see their totl models with the same drivers (i havent looked at reviews). Maybe X15 with generous EQ would be okay. Ive Loki+ now. Ill include in future measurements + impressions of headphones a Loki+ EQ setting recommendation.

It doesnt appear overpriced compared to AKG 371 and other budget studio monitors from AT or Sony. Metal hinges! Was hoping the driver would be gold for modding but the treble was too daunting. Overpriced then if sound quality is your metric. Of course its a factor. Its the main factor. But if the headphone creaks like a haunted mansion then thats a deal breaker.

AKG 371 is very balanced except for some slightly metallic highs. The build though was very creaky plastic ime.

Didnt care for ath m40 or m50 sound. Pretty bleh

Sony CD900ST. Owned one 10+ years ago and used as portable for uni library. Remember it sounding flat but rolled top and bottoms. Pleasant sound (without being too fuzzy), strong build, and understated looks. Wouldnt mind buying again for nostalgia and to try improving with padrolling.

 

I also dislike harman target. Just see RAW FR.
They use GRAS.

 

Why do you think like that?

 

In first post you say this graph is most accurate but then in second you say only raw is good. Be more specific and sincere if you want decent responses.

Please make sure to read the rules before posting because they are a bit different from most forums.

 

The article is short and seems to have caused misunderstanding. I'm sorry about that part.

I think that there should be two main reasons for the measurement to be a criterion for judgment.
1. Is the coupler widely used to make a target?
2. Even if the condition of 1 is not satisfied, are there many products measured with a specific coupler?

minidsp is a great manufacturer of measuring microphones. I also use umik-1. But minidsp ears have to be approached differently.

https://twitter.com/seanolive/status/1443643368525889538
This is because the ear canal resonance point is different for each coupler. Of course, I think any coupler is reliable as long as there are enough ears measurements. However, as you know, measuring equipment is largely divided into gras and b&k. Several known targets [DF, HARMAN(OW)] are based on a coupler of a specific company.

Rather, the minidsp ears measurement has to show reference point, and I think it would be fine to show a long-known and predictable product like the hd600 with a dotted line. This can be more predictable that which frequency part was modulated in the hd600.

I think I gave a lot of meaning to the meaning of 'accurate'. I think that accurate is a measure for recognizing the characteristics of a coupler and 'inferring' a certain tonal balance from the graph relatively accurately.

 

@SRise , there's quite a bit of data here using the EARS, including comparisons and compensations. Also using flat-plate couplers. Have a look at these threads:

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...ithub-headphone-frequency-response-data.9679/

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...g-sbaf-compensations-from-minidsp-files.7067/

Edit: We're OT here, so if you want to continue this discussion it'd be better in one of the threads in one of the measurement sub-forums.

 

I like that idea, may use, thanks. I do have a link in my profile to my “mehsurement” rig for some perspective but its pretty disorganized. I need to update.

As you may know there have been slight variations on HD6XX production / build over the years that have changed the frequency response slightly. Ill make sure to note that as well in HD600 measurements.

Thank you for taking some time to explain why you disagree. Im sorry I cant engage further on this subject as I am ill informed. I dont claim accuracy, just mild entertainment and more data. And as you know frequency response is only one facet and can be sometimes misleading. Need distortion, csd, etc but still then its not a complete picture. Need new types of measurements. Until then we have to try and fill in with subjectives and comparisons, ya know.