Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the HarmonicDyne G200 on a set of two artificial ears complete with soft-molded human ears and a couple of different adapters acting as the top of the head. This has been mounted on a tripod, which also showcases how headphones would look on a human head, with the artificial ears spaced ~20 cm apart. As with all headphones, getting a good fit and seal is crucial, make sure to properly use the pivot points and headband and ear-cup height adjustability. This section is mostly a summary of points expanded upon in more detail on the previous page. The first photo is that of the headphones with the lambskin pads fit in an ideal scenario, and the second photo illustrates the issues with pivot points and the carbon fiber headband able to twist itself without you easily realizing it, and this time I have the flannel pads installed. This results in one side being slightly lifted up relative to the other, but there still being a difference in the pad pressure inward that can make the already less-than-universally-applicable headband design worse, as far as a good, comfortable seal over your ears is concerned. Angled pads that are thicker on the top than the bottom would have been nice here, but it's dependent on the individual. I achieved a decent seal with the stock pads, but it was not the most comfortable or secure feeling. Doing all this meant I was taking more time making sure the headphones were on the right way as opposed to simply using them as intended, which is never a great thing. The HarmonicDyne G200 also weighs 480 g without the cables, and this also results in a more downward pressure as opposed to inward onto and around the ears. The ear pad opening is large enough to accommodate most ears I'd say, although oval openings would have helped ensure the same for everyone.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

I previously mentioned how HarmonicDyne is using a 102 mm planar magnetic transducer that it claims is custom, uses a "nanocomposite diaphragm", with the actual material composition not detailed, instead claimed to have been chosen for "enhanced responsiveness", which usually translates to a fast driver with low inertia. This is paired with a double-sided magnet array with a dense coil arrangement as visible from one side above, and the goal is for the traces on the diaphragm to respond to the magnetic flux generated to then move the entire diaphragm back and forth uniformly and consistently. The basic principle is no different from any other planar magnetic drivers thus, and further explanation on this is available here for those interested. There are also wave guides integrated on the outside, at least on the ear pad side, and no doubt the ear cup design accounts for this too. The goal here is to act as an internal damping system to reduce undesired resonances in upper frequencies, and provide a smooth sound signature combined with ultra-low distortion to make the headphones viable with EQ profiles. These all combine for a set of headphones that is interestingly similar to dynamic driver headphones to drive than a typical set of planar magnetic headphones, with a relatively high impedance of 64 Ω and a similarly high sensitivity of 100 dB/mW—or so I presume anyway in the absence of proper units, backed by my own findings. It's not particularly hard to drive and ends up not being as current-demanding as you might think, either way, a decent source such as the those previously linked are plenty to run this set comfortably with headroom to spare.

Frequency Response Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm-neutral signature emphasizing a slightly elevated bass and smooth treble range with detailed mids and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our current headphones test setup uses a set of two custom in-ear microphones for the two channels. These microphones which closely adhere to the IEC711 class, but have been tweaked to be more reliable in the >10 kHz frequency range that was the issue with my previous setup that is still very good and will continue to be used for IEMs and earphones. Two soft silicone pinnae are installed on the sides, separated by a distance matching my head, and multiple "height" adapters have been 3D-printed for further customization based on fit and head size and shape. Each set of microphones has an XLR output I separately adapted to 3.5 mm. I used a transparent source—the JDS Labs Element II—for measurements, after confirming it was not a bottleneck in any way.

This artificial head simulator feeds the microphone lines into a reference USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW software running. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/12th setting, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. The default tuning was used for testing, and no app or program-based EQ settings were chosen unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts, to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. The raw data is then compensated based on a custom curve created after having worked with Crinacle from In-Ear Fidelity to get measurements with this setup on par with a GRAS 043AG industry-standard measurement rig, especially by accounting for the slightly different pinna gain compared to the KEMAR anthrophometric pinna there.


As per usual, you can find my headphone frequency response measurements on VSG.squig.link, along with all the earphone measurements. Scroll to the bottom and choose different targets there, including two from Harman Kardon developed after years of R&D. The Harman 2018 over-ear target in particular is a reference curve many headphone makers aim for now, but I find it too bass-boosted. As such, I am opting for the Harman 2018 curve with the bass target from the Harman 2013 curve, which is what is being referred to here as the "Harman Combined" target.

The first plot above is to show the channel variation by independently testing both channels on the flannel pads. In fact, I have done so for all the ear pads used in this review, and this was appropriate to show how good the channel balance was here. This is HarmonicDyne's first planar magnetic set of headphones, and its most expensive product to date, so this degree of driver matching indicates hand-tested samples which is good to see. The second plot has the average frequency response for the HarmonicDyne G200 with both set of pads, with the target curve for context. HarmonicDyne doesn't mention much about the tonality of the set aside from "tuning has been refined to maximize the extensions at the lowest sub-bass frequencies, as well as the finest ultra-treble frequencies". A flat line would meet these expectations too but sound terrible, and the tuning of the G200 with the stock pads is in need of some work if I say so myself.

Let's start with the positives, and there is indeed excellent bass extension all the way down to 20 Hz (and below). The lambskin pads come off slightly warmer than the flannel pads do, but generally this is also where the extremely competent drivers shine. Indeed, HarmonicDyne talks more about the driver tech used, the technical performance made me a fan, despite the tuning and comfort/fit issues with the rest of the build. This is an extremely resolving set with detail retrieval seemingly unmatched in the price range the HarmonicDyne G200 operates in. It's a fast set with quick decay allowing leading and trailing tones to leave an impact before the next set comes in, and works beautifully for rock music as much as it does for metal or even electronic music. The latter I found accidentally during an EQ session whereby, once I had settled on getting the upper mids and treble tuning to my liking, I started playing around more and see exactly how the claimed ultra-low distortion worked out. Indeed, these handled EQ in the bass and mids (and treble too) like a champion, I was reminded of the Audeze LCD-5 in scalability and resolution. Calling it a baby LCD-5 won't be too far a stretch!

The positives continue in other technical regards, helping the mids too, with good male vocals reproduction and fantastic instrument separation. Imaging is also spot on, and I thought the soundstage was plenty wide and deep alike. It's when I started playing complex instrumental pieces that I realized the main issue, and that comes in the form of there being basically no pinna gain followed by a muffled upper mids and a dark treble response. The flannel pads do better to help with female vocals not sounding completely dead inside as with the lambskin pads, but this is a situation easily needing EQ given no one's HRTF will ask for zero pinna gain. I suppose if you were a fan of the older Audeze-style tuning then this would up appealing to you, but I can't justify this tuning choice in 2022. The upper mids are easily rectified to your preference with 1-2 EQ filters at most, and then the rest of the treble response has to be played by ear—once again giving my baby LCD-5 comparison due credence. There is still enough depth here to sound balanced should you only be listening to, say, harps and cymbals whereby you can just raise the volume, and this is because—if you isolate the treble region in itself—the HarmonicDyne G200 actually sounds balanced in this vacuum. Indeed, I even appreciated the extension going up to 20 kHz, although most people might find this harsh assuming they can hear this high anyway.


There are not too many headphones I have in the price range the HarmonicDyne G200 operates in, so I did go slightly under as well to include four other planar magnetic sets whose frequency response measurements are all taken with their respective leather pads and normalized at 500 Hz to better illustrate the difference in the bass, upper mids, and treble frequencies. Two of those have been reviewed here before, including the Audeze LCD-2 Classic and HIFIMAN Edition XS, both of which are tuned better than the HarmonicDyne G200, I'd certainly recommend the Edition XS at a lower cost any day, if you were not inclined to EQ—or pad swap, as we shall soon see. The ZEPHONE Tiger and Ovidius TX-901 are awaiting their dues here, although I will say that the former still has better tuning and the latter has an extremely aggressive damping system that also necessitates EQ or mods. The G200 has superior build quality than pretty much all of them, except perhaps the LCD-2 Classic, somehow the comfort level is on par/slightly below the other three too. The G200's drivers are certainly more competent than the others though, so with EQ the HarmonicDyne offering would easily best everything here to be my top recommendation.


The stock tuning also reminded me of the Audeze LCD-X (2021), and possibly would be even closer to the previous iteration based on what I have seen reported. Indeed, both get dark and would benefit a lot from EQ, but the G200 is in dire need of it for the upper mids as opposed to the LCD-X which is plenty usable out of the box. I have a strong feeling that HarmonicDyne was targeting the LCD-X with the G200 though, aiming to undercut it by a few hundred dollars, offering a more premium build, and arguably having drivers that can out-perform that of the LCD-X with the exact same tuning. It's a shame thus that HarmonicDyne did not do enough to pair the headband assembly and frame to the stock ear pads provided, followed by compensating for the resulting tuning.