On the Oppo PM-3: "Never discount the effects of physiology"

Headfier, Armaegis, has just published the newest review of Oppo's fantastic PM-3 headphone, with a heavy proviso: 

“There’s something in the sound that bugs me. The sound is smooth and clean, but lacks clarity? no that’s the wrong word. Everything sounds... a bit wet. String and metallic percussive sounds lack shimmer and air (probably that treble dip). I guess I could say it sounds polite, but this changes when I use it on the go.

I really like it as a portable; seal and comfort improves a lot with slight movement and the PM-3 settles in without that puckering feeling. In this state the sound is really good. The midrange is still nice and clean, but bass has more energy, and that top end no longer has the wet feeling. Never discount the effects of physiology guys, especially with sealed headphones.”

Armaegis's PM-3 review is well-worth the read, especially as the PM-3's pads aren't easily user-replaceable, and may, or may not, fit your physiological needs.

Ocharaku Donguri-Keyaki - Good Wood

At long last, my review of the Ocharaku Donguri-Keyaki is up at Headfonia. It is a good wood. 

Inner Fidelity's measurements of the Oppo PM-3

Speaking of hans030390, his measurements track well enough with Inner Fidelity's results. When I joined headfi in 2006, objective-slanted reviews were few and far between. Today, they are on the rise. This is good news.

Inner Fidelity: Oppo PM-3 Headphone Measurements (PDF)
Headfi: OPPO PM-3 - Great Closed, On-The-Go Planar

OPPO PM-3 - Great Closed, On-The-Go Planar

Headfi user, hans030390's review of the Oppo PM-3 is the best review I've seen of the headphone. Neither my review, nor John Darko's review-and-factory-tour, is even close. Reviews of this calibre hitting headfi in the last few days are true triumphs of our community. 

Hans030390's review is as richly illustrated with subjective listening impressions as it is with objective measurements. Bravo.

“In fact, the PM-3 actually has some improvements over the PM-1 and 2 to my ears regardless of having a more “fun” sound or not. For one, it seems to have more clarity across the frequency spectrum than its predecessors do. Transients seem faster and cleaner. Low-level details aren’t quite as masked. The PM-1 and 2 just have an inherently slower sound in comparison. No doubt, the PM-3’s frequency response plays into this perception, but I think it has some genuine improvements outside of that. For one, distortion seems better on the PM-3, but I’ll get into this in a bit. The PM-3 just seems to sound a bit cleaner and clearer in most ways than the PM-1 or 2. Snappier, if you will. Simple as that.

All in all, I think OPPO came close to nailing what they were aiming for. The PM-3 is not inherently meant to be the most neutral headphone ever, and that’s fine. It has a really engaging sound and seems to make some technical strides over the PM-1 and 2. Ideally, I think the treble response could be evened out a bit more so it’s not quite as bright sounding, and the mids could sound a bit thicker and better integrated, but I’m really nitpicking and don’t have much room to complain when you’re already getting so much at $400.”

Especially interesting to me is the fact that Hans uses an in-ear microphone rather than a dummy head or other simulative measurement device. 

Read the entire review, it's worth it: OPPO PM-3 - Great Closed, On-The-Go Planar

Vibrating plastic, or the quality of Sound Guys LH Labs Verb review

Kris takes a look at the LH Labs Verb earbuds. At only $39, they're worth a look even if you've already got a pair of earbuds you love.

In light of Cymbacavum's scathing reports, among many others, I think it objective to call Sound Guys's review of the LH Labs Verb what it is: vibrating plastic. 

And in that vein, SoliLama's trillingly excited review of the Verb? vibrating plastic. 

Have Aurender fixed the FLOW's remote functionality?

Seeing no mention of the FLOW's duffy remote controls in Headphone Guru's review of the Aurender FLOW, I am led to believe that track forward now means track forward. Barring that, it's obvious: audiophile reviewers really only care about how something looks and sounds; more specifically, that we dig song-specific subjective analyses, which Eric Neff does pretty well.

The thing is: until audiophile reviewers get good at reviewing gear, not just sound, the gear vomited out by unscrupulous vendors will only proliferate, reaching critical mass, where shit becomes normal as long as it sounds good.

Aurender FLOW is an awesome performer, but its hardware interface is duff, and should be crapped on in CONS lists of all reliable review sites. 

Disclaimer: I reckon my take on the Aurender FLOW is the best out there.