Technical Performance
The soundstage is quite wide and deep with the Peacock, allowing a nice spacious staging performance. In addition, stereo imaging is also precise and clean. So those two aspects are good with the flagship Sendy. The precise imaging provides a nice focus, and you can track down every element of a song easily. However, since the mid-range is not clean/transparent enough, the air and space are not on a high level in that particular area.
The balance of the headphone is not ideal for reference listeners. It instead has a fun signature as I mentioned above. So coherency is not a strong point of the Peacock. The transition from the mid-range to the treble area is one of the problems. The mids sound a bit veiled, whilst the treble area is splashy and crispy. The result is an unbalanced presentation and congested mid-range. So coherency-wise the Peacock is not the best choice. But it’s certainly fun-oriented.
One strong aspect of the headphone is the excellent detail retrieval. With a sufficient desktop setup, every nuance and every detail is easily audible in a precise manner. Since the overall resolution is good, the combined imaging performance is fabulous. I wish the mid-range clarity would’ve been better.
Sendy Audio Peacock
Comparisons
The HD800 series is a legendary lineup from Sennheiser, and the HD800S is my favourite one. It’s a dynamic driver headphone of course, but with a similar price level. Comfort-wise it’s lighter than the Peacock by a margin, so it’s suitable for long sessions. Build quality is simply better with the Peacock, and it has a very authentic hand-made design which is much more attractive.
Sound-wise the Sennheiser HD800S has much more space, air, and breath. They both have good imaging and staging but the Sennheiser is more precise with better dynamism and pace. It also has more resolution and a more refined signature. The Peacock is much more fun, but the HD800S is simply closer to the audiophile tuning with better coherency.
Sendy Audio Peacock
The LCD-X is an all-time popular planar magnetic headphone from Audeze. It doesn’t have the design elements of Sendy Audio. It instead is professional and serious looking, with a signature Audeze look. Comfort-wise I think the Peacock is a bit more comfortable, but they both become heavy on the head after half an hour or so.
The LCD-X has resolving mids and a cleaner presentation with better transparency. It’s more linear with a close to a reference signature. It’s flatter, more cohesive, and more refined. It might be a bit boring for some, and that’s where the Peacock comes in. It’s a very different presentation with the Peacock, a unique one with a fun approach. It’s warmer, darker, and more splashy in the treble with more bass quantity. It depends on where you’re coming from but the LCD-X is simply the more audiophile headphone in terms of presentation to me.
The prices for this one have become more affordable in recent years. A “creator package” LCD-X sets you back 1199$, actually cheaper than the Peacock. The “premium package” costs 1699$. If you want a closed headphone, there’s the LCD-XC as well, for 1299$ and 1799$ depending on the same package plan.
Sendy Audio Peacock
Conclusion
The Sendy Audio Peacock is a fantastic-looking headphone with a very chic and premium design and materials. It has excellent build quality as well. And that cable they supply it with? It’s awesome, I hope more manufacturers can do that. It’s also comfortable for heavy planar magnetic headphones.
The sound is a new perspective on the planar headphone concept from the brand. However, I think the sound needs more refinement and air, with better transparency and PRaT. Other than that, the sound stage and imaging are excellent, as well as bass quality. The timbre is awesome too, but the mid-range resolution and inconsistency in the treble set it back slightly.
Still, I think their approach is suitable in terms of market demands for design, build quality, and accessories. I’m sure the sound tuning will be improved.
Page 1: Info, Package, Design, Build, Comfort
Page 2: Sound Quality
MadMex
Would it kill you to post a photo of these bad boys on your head? For scale? Come on man. Nonetheless, nice write up.
Berkhan
Thanks 🙂
Hanesbeef
Can I ask why you give it 5 out of 5 stars, if it needs improvement?
Hanesbeef
Sorry! Just realized the 5 stars are a reader’s rating! My mistake!
Berkhan
🙂 No problem.
Steve Jones
When you grade the sound you say it has, and I quote “since it has great PRaT, decay, and extension”. Yet in the conclusions you say it needs, Quote ” better transparency and PRaT”. You have totally contradicted yourself. You also said they sounded a bit metallic. Could it have been the solid state amplifier with which I am not familiar? I have listened to them on my Schiit Ragnarok and my tubed Mk VIII SE and found them to be excellent with not a hint of metallic sound. In fact using High Resolution .flac files and a good DAC, Pink Floyd, Diane Schuur, Rickie Lee Jones and Roger Waters have never sounded better and I am coming from Senheisser HD-650’s and Denon AH-5000’s. What’s up with that? Maybe you just needed a better source and more power?
Berkhan
I loved the bass response but the rest doesn’t have great quickness and energy.
It’s OK you find your headphone very good. Enjoy it and put it to good use. We’re not supposed to think the same.