or Connect
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 437

post #6541 of 14235
^ If you have the opportunity, try a Conductor with the Burr Brown PCM1793 DAC chip (as opposed to the standard ESS Sabre chipset). Some would consider it a donwgrade, but to my ears the Burr Brown DAC makes a noticeable difference with the TH900, no EQ needed for me at least. The highs on some material sounds less strident and there's a bit more weight and wetness to the overall sound, though it's probably less resolving.
post #6542 of 14235
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post

Nope. To me, the LCD3 is a bit of a veiled midrangey thing (always preferred the sig of the LCD-2.2), even the supposed non-veiled version. On the other hand, I agree that the TH900 probably lacks that bit of weight at certain vocal frequencies if you're a midrangey person.

I had the LCD2.2s and found the mids veiled while in all honestly felt the entire sound signature veiled to some degree. Everyone always quotes the 900s as lacking in the midrange but that has never been my impression, everyone hears things differently I guess. 

post #6543 of 14235
I totally agree, recessed mids, very little.
post #6544 of 14235
Quote:
Originally Posted by deafanddumb View Post

I feel like I've found the magic formula to my concerns....the th900 takes a little eq beautifully :-) such a relief....I knew it had greatness in it! Actually on the C4 it's a preset called Jazz, which takes some of the upper bass away and enhances the upper mids....not perfect, but the best overall compromise in a headphone I've found. Definitely a better balance with clearer vocals and controlled bass...I'm not sure I'd even swap for LCD 3 now.....

I'm always hesitant when it comes to EQ for example I've played with various EQ setting on the T1's and always end up going back to neutral. The 900s on the other hand are always ran with EQ and I love it. I don't tweak the EQ to favor one section of the sound curve more I simply EQ everything up 1 db. I've tested it with other listeners that are very hesitant when it comes to EQ and they all have agreed that the EQ tweak really improves the 900s. Never heard the LCD 3 but was not a huge fan of the 2.2's...

post #6545 of 14235
x2 whazzup

@denonbeaver - i'm a no eq kinda guy
post #6546 of 14235

up late no eq here either

post #6547 of 14235
I never eq...and normal is known as the best setting on the C4....but not in this case...bringing the mids out a little on the th900 makes it an LCD 3 killer...so I'm happy and I love them like family! ;-)
post #6548 of 14235
@whazzzup the th900's mids sound recessed compared to say the w3000anv but that can is mid-centric and bass lite imo
Edited by up late - 3/14/14 at 5:23pm
post #6549 of 14235
@ up late, again its all in comparison and what you are listening to. The base is true compared to say shure 846 say, that has a base emphasis, and mids recessed some, but I listen to some downbeat or electronic that sends some deep sub base. No can is perfect, which in itself seems strange. Again I'm a neophyte and just feel the th900 is close to an all around listenable sonic representation of what comes off the master board at recording.
Folks swear by lcd3 middle timber C, others like the ultrasone s logic that pushes the mids forward, I just like the th900 as an all purpose can. IMO.
post #6550 of 14235

To me the TH900 lacks the low mids that give the vocals more weight and body.

post #6551 of 14235
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhyar View Post
 

To me the TH900 lacks the low mids that give the vocals more weight and body.

Cant agree but perhaps I am not too picky on those aspect. 

For vocal my reference is FAD VI and TH900 easily out classes the FAD. Perhaps my only hardship with the headphone is the transition from IEM to headphone. IEM will always have a more intimate sound that I am accustom to due to been a predominatley an IEM user. It takes a time to get used to the headphone open sound.

post #6552 of 14235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whazzzup View Post

@ up late, again its all in comparison and what you are listening to. The base is true compared to say shure 846 say, that has a base emphasis, and mids recessed some, but I listen to some downbeat or electronic that sends some deep sub base. No can is perfect, which in itself seems strange. Again I'm a neophyte and just feel the th900 is close to an all around listenable sonic representation of what comes off the master board at recording.
Folks swear by lcd3 middle timber C, others like the ultrasone s logic that pushes the mids forward, I just like the th900 as an all purpose can. IMO.

yep it's all relative. the th900 wows me every time.
post #6553 of 14235
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewbi View Post
 

Cant agree but perhaps I am not too picky on those aspect. 

For vocal my reference is FAD VI and TH900 easily out classes the FAD. Perhaps my only hardship with the headphone is the transition from IEM to headphone. IEM will always have a more intimate sound that I am accustom to due to been a predominatley an IEM user. It takes a time to get used to the headphone open sound.

 

Funny enough, I'm a headphone guy that recently dipped his ears into IEM waters, or CIEMs to be precise.  I've had a FitEar MH335DW for almost two months now, and the more time I spend alternating between both, the more I feel the MH335DW flat-out beats the TH900 in certain aspects, while coming pretty close in others. I don't have enough experience with CIEMs to judge whether I just got lucky and got the ideal custom for my tastes (I did demo a lot of models before ordering this one though), or whether all high-end CIEMs exhibit these qualities. All I can say is while I still love the TH900 immensely, it just might be my last full-sized headphone.

 

Back to the TH900. Yes, both the LCD2 and 3 are veiled in comparison. The LCD2.2 has more balls (bass) than the LCD3, which I prefer, though still not quite as big as the TH-900's balls. Both LCDs have bellies (midrange) that extend more forward than the TH900. In the LCD3's case, his belly is so big that he can't see his balls when he's taking a piss. At the end of the day, it all depends on yourself and the kind of physique you want to see when looking in the mirror.

post #6554 of 14235
I would like to see my balls.lol.
post #6555 of 14235
Quote:
Originally Posted by deafanddumb View Post


Do you feel the th900's lack the intimacy on acoustic and vocals of the 3, due to their midrange Achilles heal?...as I do?

No, I do not. They are very intimate and reach out very well, they just do not shout. And as playitloud says in post 6532, they scale extremely well to good upstream eqpt like a great tube amp that brings out fine midrange texture.

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