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 393

post #5881 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtim6 View Post

Hi all, I've owned the TH900 for over one year now - this phones never cease to induce maximum pleasure from the music. Must say a good h/p amp makes a difference as they scale up very well.

 

That's because you have a Bakoon and a Leben, you lucky sod!! =P

post #5882 of 7595
I'm using the Leben for my zu speakers _ the bakoon is my favorite h/p amp so far with th900 - your right I feel pretty lucky. Don't think I will change the bakoon
post #5883 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post
 

I just got my TH-900. My other closed headphones are the ATH-W3000ANV. Here's how they compare:

 

TH-900 Advantages:

(-) More comfortable. They surround the ears, while the W3000ANV press on the ears.

(-) Bigger soundstage

(-) More impactful bass, but it can intrude too much

 

W3000ANV Advantages:

(-) More detailed sound

(-) Better midrange. The midrange is noticeably recessed on the TH-900.

(-) Better vocals - on the TH-900, vocals sound somewhat distant.

(-) Somewhat better isolation. The TH-900 isolate less than I expected.

 

The bottom line is that I prefer the sound of the W3000ANV, but I can't really use them for sessions longer than 1-2 hours due to comfort issues (particularly when wearing my glasses).

Thanks for the comparison. Actually I'm thinking of getting a pair of TH900 to replace my W3000ANV. But I really enjoy vocals with the W3000ANV, seems it's not really an upgrade if I go for TH900? Heard the TH900 is easier to drive than the W3000ANV ... 

post #5884 of 7595
also own both cans and don't agree with visualguy about the th900's sound. he posted the same thing in the w3000anv appreciation thread and i replied there. dunno if it's an upgrade to the w3000anv - depends on your preferences i guess. both cans are easy to drive but the th900 has lower impedance.
Edited by up late - 12/9/13 at 9:19pm
post #5885 of 7595
I've not owned the 3000anv, but did have a loaner pair for a bit more than a week. No, they're not more detailed. It's not even close, to be frank. They just give the impression of being more detailed thanks to the more forward midrange, particularly on vocal tracks. The whole "recessed midrange" thing for the TH900 is overblown. Yes, it's recessed, but sounds nothing like that dip you see in FR graphs.

The 3000anv is, in many ways, similar to the LCD-XC I recently auditioned. They offer more centered, everything-in-front-of-you presentations. That's partly because of the midrange hump, and partly a side-effect of their smallish soundstages (compared to the TH900). The LCD-XC uses it's treble to give a sense of being more detailed, but take some time to adjust your brain and you'll realize it's not really that much more resolving than a decent LCD-2. That's pretty much the same case with the 3000anv.

The TH900 offers a more enveloping type of sound - more stuff going on around you - so it takes a while for the brain to lock-on to details that were previously laid in front of you on headphones like the 3000anv and LCD-XC. Once you get used to it, the detail is all there for the taking. You have to let your brain burn-in to the bass presentation first though. If you do quick A/B'ing with more neutral headphones, you'll get the impression that the bass is smearing the midrange, though it's clearly not. Again, I go back to the enveloping sound I was talking about. It's like subwoofers during a movie with an earthquake scene. You tend to feel the lows first and foremost, so the mind gets distracted and misses out on what the characters are saying initially.
Edited by kurochin - 12/9/13 at 10:57pm
post #5886 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post

I've not owned the 3000anv, but did have a loaner pair for a bit more than a week. No, they're not more detailed. It's not even close, to be frank. They just give the impression of being more detailed thanks to the more forward midrange, particularly on vocal tracks. The whole "recessed midrange" thing for the TH900 is overblown. Yes, it's recessed, but sounds nothing like that dip you see in FR graphs...
Well said Kurochin, it's nice to have the XC put in context with both the TH900's and W3000's.
post #5887 of 7595
just throwing in my 2 cents. i hear the th900 as more resolving than the w3000anv. details come out of a black background with the th900. W3000anv doesn't have that clarity. th900's mids are only slightly recessed - vocals don't sound distant or thin to me. W3000anv's mids are more forward but they're also colored. th900 has amazing bass - more weight and extension when needed than the w3000anv can deliver. personally feel that the w3000anv borders on bass lite.
post #5888 of 7595

When people say TH900's mids are recessed, everybody should note that this is in a relative sense.

post #5889 of 7595
not just in a relative sense - measurements show they're recessed too.
Edited by up late - 12/10/13 at 6:11pm
post #5890 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Jester View Post


Well said Kurochin, it's nice to have the XC put in context with both the TH900's and W3000's.

While I prefer the TH900s to my (now sold) W3000s, I can certainly understand why so many still love the W3000s. I would actually put the LCD-XC ahead of the TH-900s if one is looking for a more natural sound and one not as coloured as either the TH-900s or W3000ANVs. I actually feel kinda relieved that I can listen to a pair of closed headphones and not have to sacrifice a natural sound for a coloured one. 

 

If one is looking for MOAR bass, very open and quick sounding closed headphones, then the TH-900s are the way to go...if one wants a luxurious mid-range, then the W3000ANVs would fit the bill. But if you're looking for a fantastic natural sounding pair of headphones that have ruler flat bass down to 10Hz, great mids and very smooth treble, then I'd go with the LCD-XCs. I prefer the Audeze headphones overall, but that said, my TH-900s ain't going anywhere.

post #5891 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

While I prefer the TH900s to my (now sold) W3000s, I can certainly understand why so many still love the W3000s. I would actually put the LCD-XC ahead of the TH-900s if one is looking for a more natural sound and one not as coloured as either the TH-900s or W3000ANVs. I actually feel kinda relieved that I can listen to a pair of closed headphones and not have to sacrifice a natural sound for a coloured one. 

If one is looking for MOAR bass, very open and quick sounding closed headphones, then the TH-900s are the way to go...if one wants a luxurious mid-range, then the W3000ANVs would fit the bill. But if you're looking for a fantastic natural sounding pair of headphones that have ruler flat bass down to 10Hz, great mids and very smooth treble, then I'd go with the LCD-XCs. I prefer the Audeze headphones overall, but that said, my TH-900s ain't going anywhere.
Thanks MH.
post #5892 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

While I prefer the TH900s to my (now sold) W3000s, I can certainly understand why so many still love the W3000s. I would actually put the LCD-XC ahead of the TH-900s if one is looking for a more natural sound and one not as coloured as either the TH-900s or W3000ANVs. I actually feel kinda relieved that I can listen to a pair of closed headphones and not have to sacrifice a natural sound for a coloured one. 

 

If one is looking for MOAR bass, very open and quick sounding closed headphones, then the TH-900s are the way to go...if one wants a luxurious mid-range, then the W3000ANVs would fit the bill. But if you're looking for a fantastic natural sounding pair of headphones that have ruler flat bass down to 10Hz, great mids and very smooth treble, then I'd go with the LCD-XCs. I prefer the Audeze headphones overall, but that said, my TH-900s ain't going anywhere.

Mac,

 

To my ears, the "quantity" of bass on the TH 900 is more than in the XC but the XC's bass is more natural and the quality seems to be a tad better. It almost seems (to me) that the 900 is trying to pump in more bass than needed (but obviously a lot more fun because of it). Does this make sense to you ?

post #5893 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by kothganesh View Post
 

Mac,

 

To my ears, the "quantity" of bass on the TH 900 is more than in the XC but the XC's bass is more natural and the quality seems to be a tad better. It almost seems (to me) that the 900 is trying to pump in more bass than needed (but obviously a lot more fun because of it). Does this make sense to you ?

Yep...makes sense to me. :smile: 

post #5894 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by kothganesh View Post
 

Mac,

 

To my ears, the "quantity" of bass on the TH 900 is more than in the XC but the XC's bass is more natural and the quality seems to be a tad better. It almost seems (to me) that the 900 is trying to pump in more bass than needed (but obviously a lot more fun because of it). Does this make sense to you ?

I would imagine that the sensation of extra bass is the result of the closed design rather than TH "pumping" more bass into their headphones. Pro or con depending on your tastes.

post #5895 of 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post
 

I would imagine that the sensation of extra bass is the result of the closed design rather than TH "pumping" more bass into their headphones. Pro or con depending on your tastes.

True. But the XC is also closed, so ..........

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