Here's the reviews with some surprises:
http://www.hifiheadphones.co.uk/for...nheiser-amperior-stereo-headphone-review.html
http://www.hifiheadphones.co.uk/for...nheiser-amperior-stereo-headphone-review.html
Sennheiser Amperior full text review and video link
- Thread starter dalethorn
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I have 96k FLACS but no 96k MP3's. MP3's aren't even 44k as far as I know since the bandwidth gets chopped off below 22k I think.
Edit: I played back the video. The only mention of '96k' was '96k tracks'. 'MP3' was not mentioned.
Edit_2: I did use some MP3's evaluating the Amperior - those were mainly older rock recordings and were a big factor in my text review comments about how great the Amperior is with rock music, new and old.
Last edited:
LazySounds
Active Member
Excellent, well structured, and helpful review.
I'm off to see if I can find a set to Audition today.
I'm off to see if I can find a set to Audition today.
I found the following quote on the PC Advisor U.K. site. My first impression of the headphone was something like this, but PC Advisor's words express that impression more eloquently than mine, so I thought I'd repeat it here.
"...It's as if the Amperior adds extra emphasis between each layer of sound it delivers..."
"...It's as if the Amperior adds extra emphasis between each layer of sound it delivers..."
Why hi-fi is complicated: Comparing the $350 USD Amperior to the $700 Shure 1840, the Amperior has the obvious weight or emphasis in the lower midrange, whereas the 1840 is light enough there to have an almost hollow quality (not really hollow, just by comparison). But while the 1840 has an obvious advantage in soundstage (yes?), the Amperior may sound "bigger" because of the extra weight in the lower mids. I was playing Hazel O'Connor's "Will You", which highlights those differences pretty well. This experiment suggests to me that comparing headphones on soundstage may not be so straightforward as some reviews indicate.
