I know where there's a FR graph but I don't know how accurate it is. in fact,i wanted to ask on here how accurate it is because there seems to be some contradictions.
first,it's a long link but here's how to find the graph: google.com--->search for: ad900x headphones.reviewed.com--->(it should be the first page you find,..click page)--->then click: the science(on right).
second,here's where it gets interesting. everyone on here and their grandmother who owns the ad900x and have compared it to the ad900 always say the same thing,that the difference between them is that the ad900x has (noticeably) more bass and also has the treble slightly lower for less sibilance.
..but here's the problem. if you read that review carefully and study the graph,basically what he's telling you is that the bass is not really different,that the real difference is across the treble and also the upper mids but especially that there are two dips that make the biggest difference,one at 2-4kHz and another at 5-7kHz(although I don't see this second dip in the graph shown,just generally lower dB). although,he does mention that there's also a bass roll-off(but I see that in the ad900 as well in the graph). he also strongly implies that the ad900 is more neutral,easier to EQ and that he prefers the ad900(that the difference on the ad900x suck).
i'm assuming the gray lines(that he uses for comparison) is for the ad900.
this is interesting because it's not what everyone here describes. no one here has said,so far,that the difference between them is simply less upper mids and treble with two dips. they all seem to say the same thing.more bass(ad900x) and slightly less treble(ad900x) and any possible sibilance. I think that's quite a difference to what is seen on that graph.
so which one is it? who is correct? I really want to know.
could it be that the graph is correct but to the ears it simply has the affect as having more bass? could it be that his readings are totally off for some reason and one should not pay attention to that graph at all?