Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (4/8/2015: Full X2 Review update)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (4/8/2015: Full X2 Review update) - Page 1540

post #23086 of 30805

Can any of you tell me how the Audio Technica ATH-A900x's are for gaming?

 

My favorite cans for gaming are still the Denon D2000s. I just got a pair of X1s and haven't been all that impressed with them for gaming, despite the positive attention they get here, so I'm thinking of switching to the A900s ... if you've used them for gaming, how are they in terms of bass and soundstage?

post #23087 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

This is exactly why I say if you want the K712 sound (very close to it) for cheap, just get a standard K702, and order the K12 pads. You'll end up saving around $100. I wouldn't get the Q701 or K702, because they still have the bumped headband.

That being said, the K712's sound IS worth it over the others if you want more warmth, bass, and less upper range fatigue. The standard models sound dry and less musical in comparison.

Now I'm just basically repeating what I said on the guide.

I wouldn't use a standard 7xx as my only headphone if they aren't using the K712 pads which do make a rather significant difference in immersion and fun factor.

 

Yo,

 

I'm inclined to disagree. The K712 sounds almost exactly the same but they are so ever slightly warmer, SLIGHTLY. They are not worth $200 by any means at all. $200 more for a tiny bit of a sound change? Not worth it man, the Q701 is one of the best values out there while the K712 and Anniversary aren't. I have some K712 pads on hand I got from AKG and they honestly make little difference at all. They are a tiny bit more comfortable and they don't change the sound much. They do but I'll say it again, it's very slight, like barely anything.

 

The Anniversary is another variation of the K70* line, it's not much different either and not worth the extra $200-$250 either, not by a long shot. To me it sounds the exact same as the K712, the EXACT same. To say they are worth the extra $200 is ludicrous. Having heard the entire line of variations, I suggest people go for the more affordable option, and at the time being it is the Q701 ($200).

 

I don't know how anyone could justify such a large difference in price for barely any improvements.

post #23088 of 30805
Thread Starter 
To me, saying the Q701 sounds the same as the Annie and K712 is like saying the DT880 sounds like the DT990.


The difference between the Q701/K712 is more noticeable than say the different impedances of the 880 or 990s which have their subtle differences but remain true to their respective sound signatures. Considering you noted the difference between the impedances on those Beyers, I'm actually quite surprised you think the AKGs sound the same. I do agree that $200 is overpricing the differences. That being said, you can't put a price tag on perfecting a headphone.

The Q701, as good as it is, has always been a bit lean on bass, and a bit dry sounding. The K712 and Annie rectified both these nitpicks, and made them more favorable for the general consumers. You may not hear the differences, but to me, it's as plain as day. There's no mistaking the addition of warmth and bass, making the upper mid peak less jarring.


But again, you can easily get a Q701 and spend the $65 or so for the K712 pads and you'll have a makeshift Annie. But like I have said many, many times before, it's worth getting the K702 for $20 more over the Q701instead because the K702 has NO bumps. You still have to contend with the bump discomfort if you bought the Q701.


Hey, at least we're not seeing a massive price jump like going from the LCD2 to the LCD3, which I hear is also a subtle improvement not worth the massive spike in price.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 4/19/14 at 11:21pm
post #23089 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie_X View Post
 

 

Yo,

 

I'm inclined to disagree. The K712 sounds almost exactly the same but they are so ever slightly warmer, SLIGHTLY. They are not worth $200 by any means at all. $200 more for a tiny bit of a sound change? Not worth it man, the Q701 is one of the best values out there while the K712 and Anniversary aren't. I have some K712 pads on hand I got from AKG and they honestly make little difference at all. They are a tiny bit more comfortable and they don't change the sound much. They do but I'll say it again, it's very slight, like barely anything.

 

The Anniversary is another variation of the K70* line, it's not much different either and not worth the extra $200-$250 either, not by a long shot. To me it sounds the exact same as the K712, the EXACT same. To say they are worth the extra $200 is ludicrous. Having heard the entire line of variations, I suggest people go for the more affordable option, and at the time being it is the Q701 ($200).

 

I don't know how anyone could justify such a large difference in price for barely any improvements.

I've heard all of the K7xx line side by side and I thought the K712 was more of a moderate and obvious change from the Q701 personally. It is a bit overpriced compared to the Q701 though, I think it should drop to something around $300 and it would be a more reasonable buy.

 

Minor things in the sound and comfort can easily make or break a headphone for some people. The changes made to the K712 may be worth it to some people over the Q701.


Edited by kman1211 - 4/19/14 at 11:38pm
post #23090 of 30805
Thread Starter 
Certainly is for me. The Q701 was more of a one trick pony for me (competitive gaming), while the Annie/K712 have an all around signature that I enjoy for all purposes. And yes, I think they'd be worth it for $300. $375 is steep.
post #23091 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Certainly is for me. The Q701 was more of a one trick pony for me (competitive gaming), while the Annie/K712 have an all around signature that I enjoy for all purposes. And yes, I think they'd be worth it for $300. $375 is steep.


I felt like that with the Q701 to a degree, and older K701s moreso. They do become much more suited for more genres on the right system though. I felt the Annies and K712 were good all-rounders too. I do prefer the K612 to either though because it suits my sound signature preferences more despite being slightly less refined. The K6xx series does respond to amplification a bit differently than the K7xx series, so the best amps for the two series will likely be different and which sounds better can depend on the system. Maybe in time the K712 will drop to $300. At least the K712 isn't quite as overpriced as the HD 6xx since Senn started price-fixing them.


Edited by kman1211 - 4/20/14 at 12:05am
post #23092 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post


I felt like that with the Q701 to a degree, and older K701s moreso. They do become much more suited for more genres on the right system though. I felt the Annies and K712 were good all-rounders too. I do prefer the K612 to either though because it suits my sound signature preferences more despite being slightly less refined. The K6xx series does respond to amplification a bit differently than the K7xx series, so the best amps for the two series will likely be different and which sounds better can depend on the system. Maybe in time the K712 will drop to $300. At least the K712 isn't quite as overpriced as the HD 6xx since Senn started price-fixing them.

Exactly. It's all a matter of preference, which is why I own the K612 rather than the more refined latter AKGs I owned before.

I tried to bring it to MLE's attention that his preference is being taken into effect by steering people from buying it at the end of its review.
Edited by Change is Good - 4/20/14 at 12:19am
post #23093 of 30805
Thread Starter 
Even if I do have a preference for the warm and bassier K712, you can't deny that the 712 is more refined than the 612. The Q701/K702 is more refined as well and sells for the same price. The one thing I prefer from the 612 over the Q701 is the sub bass, which extends quite a bit farther down. Otherwise, while I do like the 612 a lot (and you know I do), I would still get a K702 instead which is more refined and has the potential to be upgraded to a makeshift Annie/K712 for a little more.

That's just my opinion and of course people can choose to get a 612 instead and be happy with that. It's a solid headphone, which I rated highly for a reason. I just like the options available out of the K702.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 4/20/14 at 12:30am
post #23094 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Change is Good View Post

Exactly. It's all a matter of preference, which is why I own the K612 rather than the more refined latter AKGs I owned before.

I tried to bring it to MLE's attention that his preference is being taken into effect by steering people from buying it at the end of its review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Even if I do have a preference for the warm and bassier K712, you can't deny that the 712 is more refined than the 612. The Q701/K702 is more refined as well and sells for the same price. The one thing I prefer from the 612 over the Q701 is the sub bass, which extends quite a bit farther down. Otherwise, while I do like the 612 a lot (and you know I do), I would still get a K702 instead which is more refined and has the potential to be upgraded to a makeshift Annie/K712 for a little more.

That's just my opinion and of course people can choose to get a 612 instead and be happy with that. It's a solid headphone, which I rated highly for a reason.

Nobody is denying anything, my friend.

You say people can choose the K612 if that's what they prefer... and that you rate it highly. But... yet... how can they even give it a chance when you basically end the review by telling them to buy something else lol.
post #23095 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Change is Good View Post


Exactly. It's all a matter of preference, which is why I own the K612 rather than the more refined latter AKGs I owned before.

I tried to bring it to MLE's attention that his preference is being taken into effect by steering people from buying it at the end of its review.


More about audio comes down to preference than people sometimes give it credit for. It's like I prefer the K612 with stock pads and you prefer the K612 with K702 pads, just preference. Then there is the whole amplification, listening volume, and genre preferences to take into consideration.

 

Something interesting I noticed with amplification. I got my K612s treble grain tamed, it was a simple matter of rolling tubes, I can crank the volume far higher(where the volume is uncomfortable) now without being assaulted with treble grain and sibilance as the treble is very smooth now and it's on what I consider my most neutral and transparent tubes with the most well-extended treble. What's interesting not all my headphones respond the same to the tubes, my DT 990s treble became peakier and harsher on the same tubes. The K612 sounded harsher in the treble on the tubes the DT 990 was silky smooth in the highs.


Edited by kman1211 - 4/20/14 at 12:46am
post #23096 of 30805
Chico helped point out mine, which were used near-mint.

IMO the Q isn't a one trick pony, I believe Mad used to have it listed as one of his top-5 all/rounders for a while before the X1 and MA900. And though the mids of the MA900 were nice (& well prominent in front of the treble and sub-bass), IMO that was more of a gaming-only headphone (like the AD700, but of a darker, kinda warmer character).

I dunno, I just haven't been " Done wrong" yet by an AKG.
post #23097 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evshrug View Post

Chico helped point out mine, which were used near-mint.

IMO the Q isn't a one trick pony, I believe Mad used to have it listed as one of his top-5 all/rounders for a while before the X1 and MA900. And though the mids of the MA900 were nice (& well prominent in front of the treble and sub-bass), IMO that was more of a gaming-only headphone (like the AD700, but of a darker, kinda warmer character).

I dunno, I just haven't been " Done wrong" yet by an AKG.

I love the MA900 for music on the go. I mean it's smooth, it's musical. Not great for reference listening but great for casual one.
The K612 is more technically advanced and better suited for gaming imo but if your gear does not tame the treble sibilance well it's a very fatiguing headphone.
MA900 and K612 are two very different headphones and both have their place here. They get equal footing from me and obviously get different usage.
post #23098 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by kman1211 View Post


More about audio comes down to preference than people sometimes give it credit for. It's like I prefer the K612 with stock pads and you prefer the K612 with K702 pads, just preference. Then there is the whole amplification, listening volume, and genre preferences to take into consideration.

Very true... and is my whole point...

MLE has no idea how much of an influence his preference is on people... and the newbies (majority of visitors) have no idea how much preference needs to be taken into effect in what they read on headfi. They find this thread as any other gamer does, by googling "best gaming headphone."
post #23099 of 30805
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquerator2 View Post


I love the MA900 for music on the go. I mean it's smooth, it's musical. Not great for reference listening but great for casual one.
The K612 is more technically advanced and better suited for gaming imo but if your gear does not tame the treble sibilance well it's a very fatiguing headphone.
MA900 and K612 are two very different headphones and both have their place here. They get equal footing from me and obviously get different usage.

I had issues with fatigue on the MA900 oddly on everything I plugged it into, some odd grain in the upper mids and lower treble that really wore me out and it became worse the more often I used the headphone, it's why I ultimately gave the headphone away. The only time the K612 was fatiguing to me was on the amps or tubes it didn't like. I have heard other people complain fatigue on the MA900 too. Quite interesting how different headphones effect different people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Change is Good View Post


Very true... and is my whole point...

MLE has no idea how much of an influence his preference is on people... and the newbies (majority of visitors) have no idea how much preference needs to be taken into effect in what they read on headfi. They find this thread as any other gamer does, by googling "best gaming headphone."

 

That is true. It's why there is so much debate about what flagship headphones to get. Some will swear by a headphone and others will absolutely hate the same headphone on the same setup. Every reviewer has their biases, no matter how unbiased they try to be. The problem with getting into high-end audio is that it's so much about trail and error finding what you want, this is basically what we call the audiophile journey. Sometimes experiencing something new in audio may completely shatter your long-held beliefs about something and go against what you read about something or even previous experience with something.


Edited by kman1211 - 4/20/14 at 1:10am
post #23100 of 30805
Thread Starter 
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

People always want comparisons. Now if i make comparisons and have a bias towards one, it will come off as the other one not being worth listening to.

Perhaps I'll remove comparisons and just stick to just reviewing the headphones, without any other mention to other headphones. Then you guys can decide what you prefer. I'll leave my choice for my recommendations list and that's it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games Discussion
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (4/8/2015: Full X2 Review update)