Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the MIRPH-1 placed on a mannequin head, to help show how these headphones would look on the human head. Note that the head is slightly under average sized, so account for the discrepancies accordingly. As with all headphones, getting a good fit and seal is crucial, so use the ample sizing options in addition to the generous ear cup rotation and swivel to get the best fit around your ears. The ear pads are quite roomy and slightly contoured meaning you can rotate them to ensure there is no gap between the ear pad contact surface and your head either. The headband is also quite wide and comfortable, as are the ear pads, resulting in average clamp force combined with one of the most comfortable user experiences. I was surprised to find out the MIRPH-1 weighs 405 grams thus, it sure wears that weight very well. Chalk one for German engineering then, as this industrial design with retro aesthetics works quite well. The cable also naturally directs away from your body, and overall I have no complaints in this section. Given the MIRPH-1 is an open-back set, it's best used in a quiet environment without others in the vicinity.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

I mentioned before how MIRPH Design does not shy away from crediting others for the various parts that come together to make the MIRPH-1. This includes the drivers themselves, with it making far more sense for DIYers to use a good aftermarket dynamic driver from a manufacturer known for stringent quality control. In this case, the MIRPH-1 uses a 50 mm Peerless driver from Tymphany—probably the same Peerless HPD-50N25PR00-32 full-range paper composite diaphragm driver that's found its way into other DIY headphones recently. It's a well-tuned driver that most people use with minimal back dampening and positioned closer to the ear, so the MIRPH-1 already distinguishes itself from its immediate peers by having the back grille and also having the driver be so far away from the ears. The felt ring no doubt helps with the overall tuning as does the ear pad chosen, and the end result is a set of headphones that is fairly easy to drive with its low rated impedance of 32 Ω and sensitivity of 100 dB/mW (at 1 kHz). You can certainly get the MIRPH-1 plenty loud off a decent portable DAC/amp, including the tiny pocketable ones, although there are some caveats in the sub-bass and distortion levels that make me suggest using a more capable source for optimal performance.

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 closely adhere to the IEC711 class, but have been tweaked to be more reliable in the >10 kHz frequency range, the precise issue with my previous setup, that is otherwise 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, 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 FiiO K19—for measurements, although I also used a DAP, as seen above, to confirm it was no different for this purpose. 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 running. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, FFT to test for headphone seal, 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, netting a good balance of detail and signal-to-noise ratio. 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 measured at least thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the individual measurements for statistical accuracy.


As before, 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 some 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—especially for open-back sets. As such, I am opting for the Harman 2018 curve with the bass target from the Harman 2013 curve, which is what is referred to as the "Harman Combined" target. Before we get talking about the sound signature of the MIRPH-1, I want to briefly talk about the channel balance achieved here. I think a single look at the measurements above can confirm the excellent driver matching on my set, and this is all the more impressive when you realize Homero is doing this in his free time and matching the two sides so rigorously by hand. I understand he also has a measurement setup, which will no doubt aid in the process, but this is the personal touch to expect with such products that larger brands can ill afford in the price range the MIRPH-1 operates in.

The MIRPH-1 is tuned warm-neutral to my ears, and measurements indicate as much. You will notice not only no dip in the bass here, which is fairly typical of open-back dynamic driver headphones, but also we instead get a positive slope going from 1 kHz down, with the smallest of drops in the sub-bass that is barely felt. MIRPH Design has certainly pushed the drivers hard here, perhaps a touch too much though. Depending on your listening volume, the sub-bass and mid-bass may feel less clean sounding. Distortion measurements indicate there isn't too much room for EQ here, although you can certainly cut things down—which is what I'd do here anyway. Going with a less powerful source can make this more obvious in the ears as well, which is why I was suggesting going for a more capable amplifier, even if it's still on the portable side. I'd personally cut the mid-bass ~3 dB at 150-200 Hz, which makes for a far cleaner sound to my ears. Doing so also makes the MIRPH-1 extremely neutral sounding to my ears, which adds to the overall smooth sound it already has. Yet this is not for everyone, and I dare say many will appreciate the MIRPH-1 as-is.

The best way I can describe the sound from the MIRPH-1 is by saying it feels like a good tube amp is already in the chain. You get a warm and smooth sound, it's not the most resolving and you also get an extremely wide soundstage that may be from the upper mids dip. Imaging isn't the most precise either, and some higher order harmonics feel quite emphasized to where the upper mids actually come off more present in the measurements may indicate. This is a unique implementation of that same Peerless 50 mm driver I've heard in other headphones, and quite possibly is the result of how the driver is placed so far away from the ear with both front and back damping used. Think of the sound coming from a cone, with your ears on the larger opening. Without anything to control this, the sound from the smaller opening may feel shrill and too loud. Homero has managed to not only curb this, but use it to his advantage by producing a sound signature which no doubt many would refer to as "analog."

The end result is a more musical sounding set that feels way more open sounding than the ear cups may make you feel. Vocals in particular are quite well rendered here, and I can see the MIRPH-1 working nicely for general media consumption too. It's not a set I'd recommend for gaming though, at least where you need to discern noise sources in a wide cone around the ears and in front. Likewise, if you have complex orchestral tracks then the soundstage width may feel slightly artificial at times. Brass instrument timbre feels slightly hot, although I only noticed it after having tried the Sennheiser HD 6XX alongside. Despite all this, more often than not I found myself just losing hours of time simply enjoying my jazz collection. The only other set which brought a similar feeling has been the ZMF Atrium, so if you've heard that before then you get an idea of what to expect here. It's not as laid back as the Atrium in the mid-treble, and actually I'd say even improves in the treble extension to where the added air further creates a more ethereal sound for strings, piano keys, harps, and even opera high notes.


I mentioned before how the MIRPH-1 sounds not exactly how you might think it might, based purely on the measurements. This is why I wanted to first compare the likes of the Aune AR5000 and the Sivga Luan, which also measure very similar and present a warm-leaning sound overall. Yet the differences get obvious when you start listening to the MIRPH-1 alongside these, where Homero's work comes off as a more mature, upgraded take for those who prioritize this sound signature. It leans further into the subjective parameters route, meaning the objective measurements-first folks may actually be surprised overall by the MIRPH-1 sounding so warm and open, and less "clean" in the lows and mids. The MIRPH-1 also has larger ear pads and is more likely to be comfortable for a wider group of people trying it. It costs more than the other two, and yet if you found yourself saying you want the same sound but on steroids, then the MIRPH-1 should be right up your alley.

While I was wrapping up my testing, I was alerted to a big update from Homero. The MIRPH-1 is going to be distributed in the USA and France beginning November 2024, and perhaps even the UK and other countries to follow. This brings with it a price increase too, meaning now the MIRPH-1 goes head-to-head with some of the more established brands on the market. HIFIMAN in particular has been wreaking havoc lately by its aggressive price cuts for so many headphones. Take the Arya Stealth, for example, which released three years ago for $1599 and currently can be purchased for $599! This is partially due to the release of the newer Arya Organic and HE1000 Stealth, yet there's no denying that the Arya Stealth is incredible value now if you like the HIFIMAN sound signature. This gives you an all-black set of headphones with the best HIFIMAN headband, good comfort, and a clean sound which goes more neutral-bright. If you prefer more precise imaging in a tighter soundstage, and more resolution at the expense of potential fatigue/harshness, then the Arya Stealth is the yang to the MIRPH-1's yin. I like the Arya Stealth more than the Arya Organic, which has an extremely bright signature, and yet I appreciate that most people can't handle the high treble energy here and would rather take something smoother with more bass such as the MIRPH-1. Then there's also the Audeze LCD-2 Classic, another planar magnetic set that will now cost slightly more than the MIRPH-1 in a few weeks. The LCD-2 Classic goes for an all metal chassis and comes in a nice carry case, but you end up with a heavy set that will challenge many heads and necks. It goes for a decidedly warm tuning, again to the point of being colored over being accurate, but honestly I think the MIRPH-1 sounds way better—it's more enjoyable to me anyway. I wish I had the Focal Clear (original or otherwise) and Hadenys on hand for direct comparisons too, but perhaps someone else might have that comparison for you.