Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Fostex TH900 Impressions & Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fostex TH900 Impressions & Discussion Thread - Page 75

post #1111 of 7949

And also, in terms of price, to my ears, they don't need a  (usually $2-300+) aftermarket cable. The captive cable works just fine. I think the HD800s and Audezes do need a better cable than the stock one.

post #1112 of 7949
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

And also, in terms of price, to my ears, they don't need a  (usually $2-300+) aftermarket cable. The captive cable works just fine. I think the HD800s and Audezes do need a better cable than the stock one.

 

I'd agree with that, and I prefer the stock LCD-3 to the stock HD 800. I'd love to try the TH 900 - hopefully it'll be available in the UK soon. beyersmile.png

post #1113 of 7949
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

By the way,

B&H did the same  offer-but-not-in-stock thing with the T1s when they first came out a few years back. You had to wait months for them.

 

Yes, it's also part of the quest, patience. Some people send their HP-1000 to be upgraded to Joseph Grado, it took him up to 6 months to do it, but it was always worth it in the end, when the headphone returned, improved.

 

... or give your money to phantoms (customs).

 

You also need patience (combined with determination and satiety) to save up money when you live on lower incomes.

 

 

MuppetFace by saying "hunt" it's true that I make it sound like us collector's duty but I meant more something like (everyone's personal) "quest" to audio/audiophile satisfaction.


Edited by devouringone3 - 6/24/12 at 12:02am
post #1114 of 7949
Thread Starter 

The R10 is overhyped. There. I said it.

 

It is however a very, very good headphone. In the mids through the highs they're exquisite, and there's an emotional depth present there that make these stand apart from most other headphones. I can hear what people mean by glassiness, but it's not problematic, and I'm not detecting much in the way of unnatural harshness or unpleasantness. Overall there's a lovely warmth in the mids and highs. I think the midrange however is where the R10 really trumps the TH900: by comparison that slight "scooped" quality in the lower mids is made much more apparent, and it does bother me somewhat with certain tracks if I'm focusing on it. In terms of highs the R10 is also smoother to my ears, though no less detailed.

 

There are two areas where I feel the TH900 trumps the R10 on the other hand. First is bass response. Now I don't just mean quantity, as obviously that's one of the biggest variable points from one R10 to another, but in terms of quality and control and finesse. Down below the TH900 is just stellar. Secondly is spatial presentation: the TH900 simply images better and has a better sense of dimensionality to my ears.

 

Overall I honestly feel the TH900 is close enough to compete with the R10. It comes up short in some respects, but so does the R10 if we're being brutally honest. Also let's consider the expense and the fact that age really hasn't (nor will continue to be) kind on these headphones. If you're craving that R10 goodness but aren't a crazy collector like I am, then just get a TH900 and enjoy the leftover money and peace of mind. I'm not saying the TH900 is an "R10 killer," nor am I saying they're a lot alike despite there being definite similarities. I am however saying that the TH900 is just as satisfying.


Edited by MuppetFace - 8/31/12 at 3:15am
post #1115 of 7949

r10 mythbuster! i appreciate your candour. biggrin.gif so would you describe the th900's mids as recessed per se or just in comparison to the r10?


Edited by shimmer n roar - 6/28/12 at 5:35am
post #1116 of 7949

Hey Muppetface

 

Which one's neutral sounding of the two?

 

Thanks...

post #1117 of 7949

I must've heard the bass heavy version, because my impressions compared to the TH900's were almost exactly opposite of yours as I thought their lower frequency response out shined the higher quite a bit.  

 

Starting to feel like I'm the only person who doesn't mind the mid scoop :/ I can hear it, especially compared to the 334's, yeah, but the level of detail present makes it a nonissue for me.  I actually think the recession contributes to their imaging. 

post #1118 of 7949
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by driver 8 View Post

I must've heard the bass heavy version, because my impressions compared to the TH900's were almost exactly opposite of yours as I thought their lower frequency response out shined the higher quite a bit.  

 

Starting to feel like I'm the only person who doesn't mind the mid scoop :/ I can hear it, especially compared to the 334's, yeah, but the level of detail present makes it a nonissue for me.  I actually think the recession contributes to their imaging. 

 

The R10 had several different drivers over its lifespan, and some of the older sets will have differing levels of deterioration, so it's a crap shoot. You may end up with a pair of R10s with decent bass presence and slam, or you may end up with one with no bass at all. Mine is somewhere in the middle, though on the lighter side of things.

 

Regarding the midrange of the TH900, in general listening the scoop doesn't bother me, and I think it's not glaringly obvious or problematic, but it's definitely there if I focus on it. Especially coming from something more forward.

 

It's only even a problem for me with certain material, in which case the scooped out quality kind of reminds me of needing to yawn to clean the pressure in one's ears.


Edited by MuppetFace - 6/28/12 at 6:53am
post #1119 of 7949

i have to ask even if it is the wrong thread, how does the r10 compare to your hp1000 at this early stage?

post #1120 of 7949

As for the midrange scoop discussed here, my biggest problem with headphone sound is the shout factor, usually smack in the middle of the midrange, or a bit higher, especially with vocals on CDs.

Even the Audezes suffer from this, despite their general impression of warmth. So, perhaps because of some sort of scoop pattern,  that is why I like the TH900s so much, as they seem not to suffer from this shout factor as so many other phones do.

Maybe this scoop compensates for this common fault of CD sound.

 

All the R10s I owned (in the 400, 500, and 750 serial # range) were especially shouty on a variety of expensive tube and solid state amps, mostly in the upper midrange, and therefore fatiguing to the point of being unacceptable to me.

I wonder, Muppet Face, do you hear what I hear?


Edited by rgs9200m - 6/28/12 at 6:49pm
post #1121 of 7949

Really helpful post for me as well as many others I can imagine, thanks for that MuppetFace.

This post finally made me decide to put the over-expensive and ageing R10 out of my mind.

Actually, I haven't been listening much to headphones lately.

The weather is improving so my free time is mostly spent on bike-rides in the evenings and weekends.

post #1122 of 7949

i'm impressed that she didn't let the new headphone syndrome color her impartial description of the R10's.   I have really never gotten it.  Every time i have heard them i have just walked away after a few minutes just plain shaking my head.  Others have told me at meets that they don't get it either but i know that some of you guys hear something that i am not.confused_face.gif  Either way, all fun and a nice collectors item, i am sure muppetface will enjoy them when they hit the rotation.wink.gif

post #1123 of 7949
Thread Starter 

Some more impressions on the TH900 and R10:

 

For classical music, the R10 is definitely preferable to me compared to the TH900. It just has a more satisfying and convincing tonality with strings. For acoustic folk however it's more of a toss up, depending on the track. With other genres (rock, pop, metal, jazz, hip hop, electronica) I'm giving the nod to the TH900. Here's a summary of my thoughts thus far:

 

- Vocals on the R10 sound slightly less synthetic, which isn't to say that the TH900 sounds artificial, but that the R10 is just absolutely stunning when it comes to rendering the human voice. For instance a female voice will sound exceptionally clear and detailed, to the point where I hear the subtle hesitation in her singing--- ie the movement of air in a somewhat hesitant exhalation--- and the slickness of salivation as her lips smack, yet it's never artificial and retains a smooth quality I'd say the R10 is the only dynamic that can best the TH900 in this regard, excluding the W3000ANV (which is more a matter of taste given its colored nature). With the TH900, vocals are relatively more closed-in compared to the R10 which sounds slightly more open in the midrange.

 

-Both have an amazingly organic and clear midrange, however the mids on the R10 sound more forward and slightly warmer / smoother compared to the TH900. The transition to the highs is also smoother on the R10, but they seem a tad brighter than the TH900's. I'm not sure if the R10 is actually brighter, or if its just accentuated more by the lack of bottom-end presence relative to the TH900. There's a certain "glassy" quality to the mids and highs of the R10, and part of that is what I've taken to call the combination of smoothness and [non-harsh] brightness. It's most apparent on Appalachian guitar work and vocals.

 

-The lows are superior on the TH900 as far as I'm concerned. Again, I have one of the "bass light" R10s, and we're talking about a 20+ year old headphone, so there could be a bit of degradation of materials inside the cups that is accentuating this. Going by memory of the "bass heavy" R10 however I'm still compelled to give the nod to the TH900, but I'm not going to say for sure as I don't trust auditory memory much. Suffice to say the R10 sounds thinner overall compared to the TH900 which has a fuller sound. This plays a big role in the above-mentioned genre preferences.

 

-Imaging on both headphones is very impressive, but I'm getting the sense that the TH900 has an edge here. In terms of spatial simulation, curiously the R10 portrays the sounds of a room amazingly well, and so it's probably more dependent on the recording in question. For example the R10 can make a piano sound like it's in the room more convincingly compared to the TH900, but the actual location of that piano will be a bit more vague on the R10, whereas I can spatially identify it more easily on the TH900. Similarly the R10 can sound absolutely grand with the right material, but on other material can sound very constrained and mostly "within" the cups. In comparison the TH900 gives a more consistent out-of-head experience but isn't quite as enjoyable with large-scale symphonic pieces compared to the R10.

post #1124 of 7949
Thread Starter 

Oh, and both isolate about the same. Ie. not well.

 

I find the TH900 more comfortable. The adjustment mechanism on the R10 is iffy to me and seems like it would be prone to breaking over time.

post #1125 of 7949

Thanks Muppet Face for everything !

 

So, about I read, the R10 is still "one of the best" headphones. 

 

And something impressive is the R10 is  more than twenty years old and it can be still one of the best, and can be compared to a high end 2012 dynamic headphones.

 

So, that is just an amazing tour de force.

 

Anyway, the TH900 seems to be not the R10 killer I waited, especially considering i am listening classical around 80% of time.. 

 

I am still waiting to read a review about  dynamic headphones where lot of people will write the same sentence : these headphones are BETTER than R10 on every plans. :)


Edited by Modwright01 - 6/29/12 at 7:03am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Fostex TH900 Impressions & Discussion Thread