Fostex TH900 Impressions & Discussion Thread - Page 147

 

LOL! ;-)

 

I guess so... even though the Signature Pro seems to be an Ultrasone flagship, I don't know if it is comparable to other $1k+ flagships out there... I really want to try: HD800s, LCD2rev2, TH900, Stax and try to discern differences in detail extraction, speed, attack, etc. If I don't deem the differences palpable enough, I can then call stop calling the Sig Pros mid-fi ;-)

 

 

P.S. Still have not received shipping notice for my Signature DJs nor the Sony MDR-1Rs... :-(

 

I had used my TH900 with Lyr several months ago. I was scared at first too, but as long as you don't turn the volume knob high it's completely safe. The sound quality was okay, too.

Whereas the TH900 is definitely Fostex's flagship, I would not say that the SIg Pro or DJ Pro is the Ultrasone Flagship, they have two models that out price them, why would they sell their flagship at a lower price?  Not saying that i would want the Ed10 but those probably would be what they call their flagship even with it's low reviews.....i haven't heard them but not rushing to find a pair to put on my head(nor am i actually looking for the Sig Pros).  The Fostex on the other hand is pretty amazing, i really enjoyed hearing them thru my Zana Deux, just lovely.

Do you prefer TH900 over Audeze LCD3 ?

Edited by Audio-Omega - 11/4/12 at 7:46am

 

I do, but it depends on your taste. Here are some quick comparisons.

 

Compared to the LCD-3, the TH900 is much more comfortable, isolates better (because it is a closed headphone), is more neutral-sounding overall (although I wouldn't call the TH900 neutral in the strict sense), and works well with a broader range of genres. Heck, it is good with virtually all genres of music. It clearly has superior imaging capabilities too. On a side note, the TH900 also has the most open and widest soundstage I've heard from a closed headphone. The mids sound relatively laid-back, and although laid-back doesn't necessarily mean anything bad, I personally wish it were a tad more forward.

 

The LCD-3, on the other hand, is not neutral but a warm and dark sounding headphone. As David Solomon noted, it is the king of bass among all headphones, the epitome of how a dark sounding headphone should sound. The LCD-3 generally works well with many genres too, but it is the perfect headphone for music that emphasizes bass. Compared to the LCD-2, the LCD-3 has a more open, wide soundstage, and is a bit more comfortable too, although it's nowhere as comfortable as the TH900.

 

So if you listen to a wide array of genres, considers comfort to be an important factor, needs isolation, prefers more neutral sound, the TH900 is your choice. On the other hand, if you are a basshead, love warm and dark sound, primarily listens to music with lots of bass emphasis, and can tolerate some discomfort around your head, go for the LCD-3.

 

P.S. The TH900 is a much more sensitivity headphone than the LCD-3, so it tends to be less picky about amps. I won't say the LCD-3 has low sensitivity, but it still demands greater amplification than the TH900 does. However, this could also mean that the LCD-3 has higher scalability, in other words more room for improvement, if you drive it with a proper high-end amp. The LCD-3 can also be further upgraded by using an aftermarket headphone cable as its stock cable is detachable, whereas the TH900 isn't. The TH900's stock cable is still very good quality stuff, unlike the LCD-3's which I think is just lame.

Yes without a second blink of an eye. The sparkle of th900 is too good to give up.

 

Which LCD3's are you referring to? The veiled, the RMA'd, or the RMA'd becoming veiled over time?

Without hesitation.

Quote:

Nope. For me, a properly driven LCD3 is still the best I have heard so far. What some people describe as the TH900's sparkle I would describe as over-emphasized treble, which combines with over-emphasized bass. The LCD3 goes lower, but it's the TH900 that has more of it.

 

Now, we're talking about high-end cans so they're both great in their own way, and for my taste the choice is clear but I don't think you can't really go wrong with either. I think being easier to drive and a modicum of isolation (vs. none whatsoever) may favor the TH900 on a more practical level. I never found the LCD3 to be uncomfortable but the TH900 is certainly lighter and one of the most comfortable headphones I've worn.

Edited by TheGrumpyOldMan - 11/4/12 at 12:04pm

On a similar note, if you had to choose (for now), what would be your preference: the TH900 or the Audio Technica W3000 ANV? Obviously this is a Fostex thread, but I know a number of people here also enjoy the AT. What would you choose, and why? Thanks.

Thanks for the excellent response, MuppetFace. Especially the poetic description at the end

My experience is similar to MF's sans metaphors. The TH900 also provides a more visceral listening experience, whereas the W3000ANV is more polite, less dynamic IMO.

Edit: In answer to your question Arcamera, if I had to choose between the two then I'd pick the TH900. Although I regard both phones as having unique colourations, I can envisage tiring of the W3000ANV's sooner. The TH900 is also supremely comfortable for me.
Edited by unspool - 11/5/12 at 3:53am

I am looking forward to this week.  My TH-900s should arrive and I'll be able to compare them to the LCD-3 and LCD-2 r2.  I've also owned the D7000s, so looking forward to how these improve upon that design and experience.  Recent post from you guys has only served to increase my anxiousness.