Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sony MDR MA 900 (new release from Sony)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony MDR MA 900 (new release from Sony) - Page 34

post #496 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Yeah like 5hz at -90db probably-- as every headphone.  :P

 

Not the mighty XB700!

 

evil_smiley.gif

post #497 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy528 View Post

The MA900 is said to go from 5Hz - 40kHz according to Sony.

 

The AD700 is said to go from 5Hz - 30 Khz according to Audio Technica  tongue_smile.gif

post #498 of 767

The SA5000 is said to go up to 110Khz. The HD800 looks rather puny and pathetic with only up to 51Khz response tongue.gif

 

Perfect headphones for your pet mouse~

post #499 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenErik View Post

Yea. I haven't found bass roll off to be an issue for what I typically listen to.

 

If you'd like to suggest a few albums where the roll off below the mid bass will detract from the experience, l would be more than happy to check them out and see how I feel about them on my A-T's, which have rather steep roll offs.

 

Hmmm. Well I'm finding I love the MA900 for classical or instrumental music where this doesn't seem a huge problem. But its a bit hard to guess what tracks you might actually like. The two I posted earlier would be an example. Maybe something with an organ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy528 View Post

The MA900 is said to go from 5Hz - 40kHz according to Sony. Does the software you used for the graph go below 20Hz? I know that is beyond human hearing, but it'll be interesting to see the graph. smily_headphones1.gif

 

Ah I din't make the graph. The issue here is that most microphones cannot really pick up information below 20hz effectively (much like the human ear). But Sony's published frequency response ranges are always hocus pocus. Listen to that audiocheck graph HiFiguy, and tell me when you hear the tone start to be audible? I can tell you it won't be at the beginning of the track like a freq response of 5hz - 40khz would suggest lol.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Not the mighty XB700!

 

evil_smiley.gif

 

Are you serious? Does the XB700 actually do this lol?

post #500 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

Are you serious? Does the XB700 actually do this lol?

 

Seriously.  You can feel it pulsate.

 

I'm pretty sure the low end of it's specified FR of 3hz is actually accurate.  My tone gen program doesn't go lower than 5 though.  28kHz on the high end is still utter fantasy.


Edited by maverickronin - 6/13/12 at 4:02pm
post #501 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

Seriously.  You can feel it pulsate.

 

I'm pretty sure the low end of it's specified FR of 3hz is actually accurate.  My tone gen program doesn't go lower than 5 though.  28kHz on the high end is still utter fantasy.

 

That is terrifying and intriguing. So you can feel something at 5hz? I once read that those waves would be so many metres long that they would be impossible to reproduce with such a small driver, though I don't know nothing about that.

post #502 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

That is terrifying and intriguing. So you can feel something at 5hz? I once read that those waves would be so many metres long that they would be impossible to reproduce with such a small driver, though I don't know nothing about that.

 

Headphones don't really make much in the way of propagating waves.  Even 20khz has 17mm wavelength.  They mostly just pressurize the air in your ear canal.

 

A headphone driver is just a fancy motor and there's no reason can't make a motor vibrate, rotate, or cycle at pretty much whatever speed you want.  It's just that most other motors don't have to work at 20rpm, 20Krpm, and everything in between.  They're more commonly optimized or a more narrow range.  The load the motor has to fight against is very uneven too.  The diaphragm and it's acoustic loading can vary considerably with frequency.  It like your car had to deal with it's mass changing as the engine's RPM changed.

 

Having response that low just means that the diaphragm still follows the input signal fairly closely instead of just flopping back and forth of just running out of excursion like typical dynamic headphone drivers do at the frequency.  It moves back and forth, the changes in pressure make it vibrate at a very low frequency, and you can feel it.

 

It's not super special or anything though.  The LCD-2/3 could do that no sweat.  They're rate for 15 full watts at more than 130db with 2.5mm of p-p excursion.  The rest of the spectrum would be so loud that you'd probably make yourself deaf if you actually listen to music at that level though so it's even more of a parlor tick with them.  A lot of Stax might be able to do that too.  They have plenty of extension but max volume is an issue.  You'd probably need at least a KGSS to get enough voltage swing and even if you had all the power in the world I think you could easily run out of excursion first and arc between the diaphragm and the stator, possibly destroying the driver, so I don't recommend any Stax owners test this.  IIRC the very first Lambda has a smaller electrode gap than even the 009.  They went to wider gap for more excursion and max volume and changed to pro bias to get the sensitivity back up.

post #503 of 767

Sounds pretty special to me.  :D  Even the Denons go anemic after 25hz, and other planar drivers like HE-400 and 500.

post #504 of 767
Which headphones is better for rock and instrumental MA900 or Shure SRH1840? Seconds is better overall?
post #505 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by danik97 View Post

Which headphones is better for rock and instrumental MA900 or Shure SRH1840? Seconds is better overall?

 

The Shure will undoubtedly be better for instrumental music and probably rock too. However, you have to understand that the Shure is more than twice as expensive as the Sony and the two do not compete with each other. The Sony probably has more bass quantity however, although I am just basing this on other's impressions.

post #506 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantendo8 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by danik97 View Post

Which headphones is better for rock and instrumental MA900 or Shure SRH1840? Seconds is better overall?

 

The Shure will undoubtedly be better for instrumental music and probably rock too. However, you have to understand that the Shure is more than twice as expensive as the Sony and the two do not compete with each other. The Sony probably has more bass quantity however, although I am just basing this on other's impressions.

 

I agree.  The Sony is better than the 1840.

post #507 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Sounds pretty special to me.  :D  Even the Denons go anemic after 25hz, and other planar drivers like HE-400 and 500.

 

Well, anaemic is one word. But at a normal listening volume the MA900 is literally silent till right before 30hz, and anaemic from 30hz - 60hz. 

 

I've heard the Denon's: the bass was such that I felt like it might actually give me a headache over time. That might be because the closer they get to 20hz, the louder they actually get. (Keep in mind that graph starts at 10hz, so the D2000's roll off appears to start at about 25hz (!).  If you think that the Denon's anaemic after 25hz, this is either because bass around that region actually increasingly becomes inaudible (because it ceases to sound like an audible tone and instead becomes more like a physical vibration) or maybe there was some issue with the seal.

 

I can assure you that the bass of the MA900 does not induce a bass headache lol.

post #508 of 767
Quote:

Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

 

I agree.  The Sony is better than the 1840.

 

Oooh, now them's FIGHTIN words haha. I don't have anything at stake though, I've never heard the 1840. This should be interesting :3 I am suddenly looking very forward to your review swb haha.

post #509 of 767

Eh, it only increases slowly by 3db at 30hz compared to 1000hz. Chances are your ears wouldn't even be able to hear that gradual of a slope-- unless you've already seen the graph and have confirmation bias.  I know when I first listened to the D2000 I heard their bass as dead flat to 30hz (once again going off of energy and not volume)

 

I remember running test tones on my D2000 and the only way to get the proper vibration out of a 20hz tone was to double the volume-- ie boost 20hz by 10db and maybe even more.  Even then it was still not very powerful or seemingly full of distortion-- not something clean and deep like a 15 inch sub.  That little driver in it clearly has its limits. 


Edited by TMRaven - 6/15/12 at 7:33am
post #510 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

I agree.  The Sony is better than the 1840.
Better because MA900 are more bassy?
I think it's not main musically characteristics for comparing headphones rolleyes.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sony MDR MA 900 (new release from Sony)