Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Beyerdynamic T90 :D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beyerdynamic T90 :D - Page 37

post #541 of 2530

Looking forward to more impressions on the T90. Congrats to those who have picked them up. Let us know what you think of them and what you're comparing them against.

post #542 of 2530

Most of the comparisons to the T90 are with other Beyers. Unfortunately I don't have any experience with Beyer. 

 

I hope to see more comparisons with Sennheiser, or Hifiman, or even Ultrasone!

post #543 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAnAngel 
The way I hear my T90 has nothing to do with what you just said, not even close. Not about mids, and definitely not about highs. Not any of the comparisons you made to DT990 stand with my own experience.
+1
I'm still convinced about brutal transparency of the T90's telling the truth about the signal reaching their transducers.
post #544 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by majkel View Post


+1
I'm still convinced about brutal transparency of the T90's telling the truth about the signal reaching their transducers.

Could not agree more.

 

I recently upgraded already very good USB input of Arcam rDAC by replacing it with Musical Fidelity V-LINK192 and AudioQuest VDM-3 Digital Coax cable, and added some finishing power-related touches (installed Ethereal Power Center just for computer audio gear and replaced Beyerdynamic A1 power cord with Pangea Audio AC-14SE).

 

This made quite a difference in terms of overall transparency, resolution, and brought up 3D-like sound, where on some tracks I felt like I was sitting in a middle of an orchestra. Also, bass had become very tight, accurate, and extremely weel controlled.

 

My experience shows that T90 has enough potential to be very demanding on everything - from the music to interconnects and power, meaning it will present exactly what the rest of the system is capable of.

 

For example, I used to keep my music as ALAC, but T90 had clearly revealed that AIFF sounded better -  microdetails were missing from ALAC, and there was much less air in the sound - so now I only use AIFF.    I know, technically this should have being exactly the same, but it did sound different. I even googled it and found some similar observations expressed by some reviewers from either Stereophile or What HiFi, I don't remember.

 

Another interesting observation that I made was when switching to DT990 on the same system. Overall, DT990 immediately shows as being thinner sounding. Regarding to the accuracy, with all my love to DT990, somehow I just cannot listen to the same music on the same system as the difference gets so very obvious to the point of being unacceptable. So I do keep a completely separate and different system only for DT990 (Musical Fidelity M1HPA, AudioQuest Big Sur RCA, and (on order) Meridian Explorer (was Musical Fidelity V-DAC II, which is a great DAC but was an overkill for my intended purpose, IMHO). 

 

I know many of the above things above are probably kind of extreme, but all things do add up, and as a whole they do make a difference evil_smiley.gif

post #545 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voohoo View Post

Most of the comparisons to the T90 are with other Beyers. Unfortunately I don't have any experience with Beyer. 

 

I hope to see more comparisons with Sennheiser, or Hifiman, or even Ultrasone!

I really wanted to pickup HD650 (music direct has a great deal on them) but I am slightly concerned that they will not be a good match for me as I am highly biased toward Beyers and am very happy with T90.

 

I do like Sennheisers and if HD650 were different enough, it would work for me just fine. My problem is that I don't know that smily_headphones1.gif

 

If I do decide to do it anyway, I will definitely share some experience.

post #546 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAnAngel View Post

For example, I used to keep my music as ALAC, but T90 had clearly revealed that AIFF sounded better -  microdetails were missing from ALAC, and there was much less air in the sound - so now I only use AIFF.    I know, technically this should have being exactly the same, but it did sound different. I even googled it and found some similar observations expressed by some reviewers from either Stereophile or What HiFi, I don't remember.

 

Yeah I think the only way that could happen is if your D to A converter wasn't quite working as it should. If you were to analyze the digital stream being produced by an ALAC vs AIFF comressed from the same WAV you'd find them to be *exactly* the same unless your DAC isn't doing its job properly. To each his own, you have your right to your opinion and your experience and I'm sure that you are informed and know what you're talking about and what you're hearing but what you're saying here is like saying an image compressed into a ZIP file and then uncompressed is sharper than the same image compressed with RAR and then uncompressed. It simply doesn't work that way. Computer science (i.e. math) proves that that theory is incorrect.

 

Edit: Now that I think about it, your DAC would be getting an identical stream either way. Its the ALAC/AIFF decoder that would have to be working improperly to produce a different stream between an ALAC and AIFF created from the same PCM source.


Edited by devhen - 3/28/13 at 3:27pm
post #547 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by devhen View Post

 

Edit: Now that I think about it, your DAC would be getting an identical stream either way. Its the ALAC/AIFF decoder that would have to be working improperly to produce a different stream between an ALAC and AIFF created from the same PCM source.

Right, something does not always work properly somewhere. My simplest guess is that occasionally expansion does not happen *on time*, and due to a nature of USB audio streaming something gets lost, gets transmitted late, or who knows what. 

 

BTW, I use Audirvana Plus, and some others who mentioned this phenomenon were using some other players. 

 

So I am just not taking any chances - hard drive space is cheap, and AIFF works right every time for me. Similarly, WAV worked great as well (I could not hear any differences), only I am on Mac.

 

Regardless, doing your own listening tests and seeing how it works in your own environment is probably the best I could think of.

 

I guess I should stop stealing the thread go back to T90 now :-)

post #548 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAnAngel View Post

Right, something does not always work properly somewhere. My simplest guess is that occasionally expansion does not happen *on time*, and due to a nature of USB audio streaming something gets lost, gets transmitted late, or who knows what. 

 

BTW, I use Audirvana Plus, and some others who mentioned this phenomenon were using some other players. 

 

So I am just not taking any chances - hard drive space is cheap, and AIFF works right every time for me. Similarly, WAV worked great as well (I could not hear any differences), only I am on Mac.

 

Regardless, doing your own listening tests and seeing how it works in your own environment is probably the best I could think of.

 

I guess I should stop stealing the thread go back to T90 now :-)

Ahh your on a Mac, there's ur issue ;3 thjat pissy mac os lol. 

 

Still loving my dt 880 pro 250's and I hear that these have the 880 ish sound. Looking forward to getting a pair of these in the some what distant future... need to save ALL MY MONEY NOW so I can get my own palce as I don't have room for more eletronics in my current house >.>, My land lord has a cow everytime I get a new amp [and I'm up to three[ lol 

post #549 of 2530

I've been using the T90 for a few days now and I really love it. It is positively different from my T70. Mids have more weight, bass is a bit punchier. Awesome sound stage and 3 dimensionality.  Great level of detail and clarity while staying musical, something I couldn't always say of the T70.

 

I find the mid section on the DT990/600 to be a bit thicker and the bass of course is much bigger. Detail wise the T90 is better in all sectors.

 

Overall a lovely headphone, really liking what I hear with a whole lot of genres and I haven't even used any of my OTL amps yet, only Solid States!


Edited by Ultrainferno - 4/2/13 at 7:07am
post #550 of 2530

Congrats U. on the T90. I keep meaning to compare with the HD-800 and HE-500 here, but every time the T90 goes on my head I get lost listening to the music. It pairs very well with the Woo WA7.

post #551 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicbob View Post

Congrats U. on the T90. I keep meaning to compare with the HD-800 and HE-500 here, but every time the T90 goes on my head I get lost listening to the music. It pairs very well with the Woo WA7.

 

thanks! I find it quite different from the HE500 (from memory) I hope to have more time for listening next week

post #552 of 2530

Keep coming back to these since they are decently priced here (530$ vs Sennhesier HD 600 510$ vs 650 550$).  Should probably try the AKG Q701's first (360$) since I can actually return them and don't have to worry about my receiver being able to handle the AKG's.

 

Any thoughts on how these fit vs. the Sennhesier 5+6 series?  I really like the way the HD 555 & PC 360's fit (clamp nicely, don't slide back on my head very much when lying down) vs. my Denon D2000's and Astro A40's.


Edited by MenacingTuba - 4/9/13 at 2:54pm
post #553 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by MenacingTuba View Post

Keep coming back to these since they are decently priced here (530$ vs Sennhesier HD 600 510$ vs 650 550$).  Should probably try the AKG Q701's first (360$) since I can actually return them and don't have to worry about my receiver being able to handle the AKG's.

 

Any thoughts on how these fit vs. the Sennhesier 5+6 series?  I really like the way the HD 555 & PC 360's fit (clamp nicely, don't slide back on my head very much when lying down) vs. my Denon D2000's and Astro A40's.

I cannot comment on higher Sennheisers as I have HD558 only. Comfort wise I like HD558. They clamp more than T90 but I did not find that objectionable. The clamping force would also lessen after wearing them a lot (like the headband plastic had some half-persistent memory; they would go back if I stopped wearing them for some time (days). T90 is always the same from this standpoint.  

 

T90 to me just feels very solid on my head (like they were made to sit there - kind of nice, perfect fit). I listen to them 6-10 hours daily and never noticed I had to stop wearing them becuase of any kind of discomfort or anything like that.

 

I also tried Q701 a few month ago (I had them for three weeks or so) and they felt much bigger and not as precise fitting as T90 (somewhat sloppy sitting, also with stiffer ear padding, but still comfortable otherwise - many hours non stop was not a problem for me). 

post #554 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAnAngel View Post

Thanks for the detailed response.

 

Any thoughts on how the 558, T90 and Q701's compare?  A sentence or two will do biggrin.gif.  I haven't used my D2K's for a few weeks since the hangar screw broke so I can't compare them to the modded HD 555's I'm borrowing.  I listen to classical, trance/techno/dance (a state of trance, M83, Faunts), and tons of different rock genres via my  Denon 1713 receiver (still trying to figure out the headphone jack impedance specs which aren't listed online or in the manual).  


Edited by MenacingTuba - 4/9/13 at 8:00pm
post #555 of 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by MenacingTuba View Post

Thanks for the detailed response.

 

Any thoughts on how the 558, T90 and Q701's compare?  A sentence or two will do biggrin.gif.  I haven't used my D2K's for a few weeks since the hangar screw broke so I can't compare them to the modded HD 555's I'm borrowing.  I listen to classical, trance/techno/dance (a state of trance, M83, Faunts), and tons of different rock genres via my  Denon 1713 receiver (still trying to figure out the headphone jack impedance specs which aren't listed online or in the manual).  

HD558: Very musical and very forgiving to quality of recording. Low resolutions/detail in higher frequencies, not very accurate but that does not show much, also sounding slightly dark, with a typical lower Sennheiser sound. Also, switching from T90, I find mids sounding somewhat flat (not as spacious and full). 

 

Q701: Much improved resolutions/details (compared to HD558), overall much cleaner sound (to the point of being too analytical/boring if not matched correctly to the rest of the system; difficult to drive). I found mids to be too bright to my preferences. Bass was very accurate, but if I had to adjust volume so mids are at a comfortable listening level, bass would disappear. Semi-forgiving to not very good recording. I also found them not being able to reproduce smaller, quiter details as accurately as DT990 (even Q701 driven by Musical Fidelity M1HPA). Overall I thought they were quite good set of cans, but I picked DT990 at the time as I liked everything about them much better. I would try Q701 before T90 so you'd have your own opinion though.  

 

T90: Much more accurate, very controlled bass, very transparent, excellent details/resolution everywhere, well balanced overall. Not forgiving to anything :-) and can easily show any deficiencies in equipment, recording, interconnects, you name it. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Beyerdynamic T90 :D