HiFiMan Ananda (2018) vs beyerdynamic T90 (2012)

The HiFiMan Ananda (2018) is a great Open-Back Headphone for its $699 asking price.

The beyerdynamic T90 (2012), however, is merely passable at its $2021 price point. If you're considering buying a Open-Back Headphone in the $1,400 range, you might want to check out some of its competitors.

Two highly trusted sources that perform well-thought-out in-depth testing consider the HiFiMan Ananda (2018) to be a great product - it earned the "Best for High-End Home Listeners" title from PCmag and "Best Planar Magnetic Headphones" from Rtings in their respective Open-Back Headphone roundups, which is a good indication of it being a notable product.

Taking a look at the beyerdynamic T90 (2012), it got featured in roundups from two reliable sources that conduct their own testing - Head-fi and CNET - but it fell short of earning a top spot in either.

We conducted an analysis of all of the review data that we could find on these two products. First, we focused on sources that tested and rated both of them, like Head-fi, and learned that they all showed a preference for the beyerdynamic T90 (2012).

Then we took a look at the highest review scores that these two Open-Back Headphones received. We found that the HiFiMan Ananda (2018) managed to earn a rating of 10 from PCmag, whereas the beyerdynamic T90 (2012) got its highest, 9.2, score from reviewers at Head-fi.

Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Open-Back Headphones on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Open-Back Headphones being 7.8 out of 10, whereas the HiFiMan Ananda (2018) and beyerdynamic T90 (2012) managed averages of 8.2 and 8.7 points, respectively.

Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct HiFiMan Ananda (2018) vs. beyerdynamic T90 (2012) comparison might not be entirely fair - some sources don't take value for money into account when assigning their scores and therefore have a tendency to rate more premium products better.