Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Review: Commandos Monster Closed Headphone Test #2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: Commandos Monster Closed Headphone Test #2 - Page 3

post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1967cutlass
that seems about right but as with all speakers a good EQ can help a lot.
You just uttered the Acronym that Shall Not be Named. If your cans can't reproduce the sound you want with a flat signal, then it's time for a new can. Having to go to a processed sound to get what you want is not indicative of what the original source has to share, and is a shoddy stopgap IMHO. If you look at most people's rigs on head-fi, an EQ is definitely not in the signal chain.
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahn
You just uttered the Acronym that Shall Not be Named. If your cans can't reproduce the sound you want with a flat signal, then it's time for a new can. Having to go to a processed sound to get what you want is not indicative of what the original source has to share, and is a shoddy stopgap IMHO. If you look at most people's rigs on head-fi, an EQ is definitely not in the signal chain.
hmm... it just seems like a better way to me. in car audio SQ competitions, pro audio, studio recording, high end home theater, and many other applications, EQ's are used. if you can use an RTA or something in conjunction with a signal generator, there are no cons to EQing the system to flat. although it is changing the origional source, the headphones change it back so it is indeed indicative of what the origional source has to share.

IF you do a GOOD job adjusting the settings, it could save you a lot of money since you wouldnt need to upgrade the headphones.
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahn
You just uttered the Acronym that Shall Not be Named. If your cans can't reproduce the sound you want with a flat signal, then it's time for a new can. Having to go to a processed sound to get what you want is not indicative of what the original source has to share, and is a shoddy stopgap IMHO. If you look at most people's rigs on head-fi, an EQ is definitely not in the signal chain.
...digital eq....
If I could afford a transport, a dac and a digital eq, I'd get it

commando: very nice review and finally somebody points out the harsh highs on the CD3000 (at least for some ears) in an extensive review.
post #34 of 54
Thanks, one of the best reviews i've ever read.
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earwax
Great review, but I have to take issue with your comment about the 280s' bass extension. You aren't the only person to report good bass extension, but I just don't hear it that way, to me they sound just like this chart from headroom shows http://www.headphone.com/layout.php?...tID=0020080280
the bass is significantly rolled off.
I don't think they're getting a good enough seal on their test dummy because those things are deep bass monsters!
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by commando
Cd3Ks just aren't my cup of tea. A900s with the PPA is very nice to my ears. It's probably possible to improve on it, but it'd not be that easy. I wonder how the A1000s sound...

Do these other amps use opamps, or are they discrete transistor based?

Edit - for the first time in a while i'm very happy with my headphone rig. Now everyone leave me alone for a while to enjoy the music so I can avoid upgraditits!
FWIW... I think almost all Audio Technica headphones above A900 gets very picky about their source & amp matching, and excels at one particular genre while not being so good at another. Overall CD3000 is the upgrade of choice over the A900 rather than any higher level Audio Technica products, not that they're not good, just they're too finicky.

So A900 is where I found that I should just stop with the Audio Technica line... hehehee...
post #37 of 54
Great review commando! One of the better reviews Ive seen since I've been here.
post #38 of 54
"280 - I can't recommend these to anyone."
Commando, you said this about the senn 280 in a thread in april.You can find this quote on the 93rd page of the forum archive under the thread entitled 555/280/a500/, something like that. Anyway, whats up with the contradiction.Dou you recommend them or not?
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
Yes, I thought it was a bit better than the stock EMU, but that was using the EMU as a transport. It didn't sound as good using the Chaintech. I found the Sostenudo to be quite transport-dependent, it sounded worse than the Sonica using the Sonica as a transport.
When you say transport what are you exactly referring to? I thought the transport was the mechanical part of the player.....so IMO when you say using the sonica, or chaintech as transports what exactly that means?
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by nierika
I don't think they're getting a good enough seal on their test dummy because those things are deep bass monsters!
That sounds like my argument in favor of the PX200, in fact I get more realistic sounding bass out of the PX200s than from the HD280. I don't really see where the seal could be going wrong on the 280s but clearly they don't mesh with my ears the right way
post #41 of 54
Thread Starter 
Ok, here goes my attempts to answer all those questions...

First, to the people that said "I found that can xyz sounds like this". Like I said to start with, your mileage might vary. Everyone has different hearing, plus different sources and amps make them sound different. I have a pretty good collection of cans here and i'm comparing them with one another, unless you've done the same your comments are really relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka Zulu
Thanks, one of the best reviews i've ever read.
Cheers, I appreciate that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nak Man
Commando, why ?? =) I was very happy with my 271s ... now I'm hearing it a bit 'veiled' with noticably less detail than the Senns. But I'd like to add that 271 is very neutral and relaxing to hear, everything is in good balance with no particular part of music trying to grab your attention.

Good review ! Would be nice if you can comment on build quality as well. Is the A900 as sturdy as 271? I heard complaints on the pivots.
1) That's not how I hear them.
2) CD3K seems like they're a bit flimsy, the rest should last a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Distroyed
One, after seeing how detestable you found the cd3k's harsh high's and bass to be in most instances, how could you rate them as the best sounding in the tests? Judging from the tests, I would have concluded the a900's and senn280's to have tied for top dog.
I didn't realise I had said CD3Ks were best.CD3ks are still the king of detail, and I love detail. My favorite cans are obviously the A900s, but the CD3ks are also very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson
Commando, didn't you used to rate the 280's rather poorly? If so, I'm glad you came around to team 280 :-) Maybe they just took this long to finally burn in
Yes. They burned in and stretched, and now I consider them a great value set of cans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earwax
Great review, but I have to take issue with your comment about the 280s' bass extension. You aren't the only person to report good bass extension, but I just don't hear it that way, to me they sound just like this chart from headroom shows http://www.headphone.com/layout.php?...tID=0020080280
the bass is significantly rolled off.
Graphs don't tell the full story, and YMMV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigD
Nice job commando!
I guess cd3k will go first. Then k271 next. And maybe hd280...
What's you next upgrade if you get rid of all 3 phones mentioned above?
It looks like a900 are keeper, but other 3 phones are NOT...
CD3K is already for sale, 271 is under negotiation. A900 and 280s are keepers - A900 for music at work, 280s for my digital piano at home and occasionally music. If I find myself wanting more I don't know what i'd do. I need closed cans beacuse I listen at work, and i've had most of the ones that people rate well. It might have to be some limited edition ATH ones, but for now i'm happy with the A900s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka Zulu
"280 - I can't recommend these to anyone."
Commando, you said this about the senn 280 in a thread in april.You can find this quote on the 93rd page of the forum archive under the thread entitled 555/280/a500/, something like that. Anyway, whats up with the contradiction.Dou you recommend them or not?
Well that was months ago and this is now. What do you think? They burned in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller
When you say transport what are you exactly referring to? I thought the transport was the mechanical part of the player.....so IMO when you say using the sonica, or chaintech as transports what exactly that means?
By transport I mean the bit that takes the digital audio off the CD and converts it to SPDIF. The DAC then does the D/A conversion.

I hope that answers all your questions
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by commando

By transport I mean the bit that takes the digital audio off the CD and converts it to SPDIF. The DAC then does the D/A conversion.

I hope that answers all your questions
At least mine.....BTW if you like that much the AT sound why not trying after you sell a few of the other cans, the more expensive high end ATs, why not evne the leatherhead....you have an arsenal of cans for sale....LOL...
post #43 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller
At least mine.....BTW if you like that much the AT sound why not trying after you sell a few of the other cans, the more expensive high end ATs, why not evne the leatherhead....you have an arsenal of cans for sale....LOL...
Nah i'm happy with the A900s for now (i'm going to keep repeating that to myself)
post #44 of 54

closed cup + LF roll off = flat ?

Quote:
Great review, but I have to take issue with your comment about the 280s' bass extension. You aren't the only person to report good bass extension, but I just don't hear it that way, to me they sound just like this chart from headroom shows http://www.headphone.com/layout.php...ctID=0020080280
the bass is significantly rolled off.
Earmax, if I compare headroom's charts for various closed cans that are said to have good bass extension, most share same 'early roll off' low freq traits. While the one that shows flatter LF like 25/25sp sound very bass heavy. Seems like those closed cups affecting the sound so that at the end what we hear is, a more natural flat LF. All I can say this chart conforms my experience on both closed and open models:

Closed vs Open Cans
post #45 of 54
I kicked this one upstairs to the stickies....hope that you don't mind.

Nice work...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Review: Commandos Monster Closed Headphone Test #2