[WildStyle-R11]

Generaly I like 400i's I do wish they would have a sort of musicality that the AD2000x has with instruments and vocals, but most importantly I miss that low end punch, it's there and you can hear it, but you can't feel it. Simply put I want my speakers attached to my head. I have Cerwin-Vega XLS 215, You would think they would sound horrible, but surprisingly enough they do sound quite amazing, sort of the kinda sound that I like. Fairly neutral/natural in my opinion Fast, surprisingly detailed, dynamic and energetic. I'm not sure but they do sound somewhat smooth even trough I might be wrong. But the bass is what gets me, somehow it can manage to be very powerful or gentle, depending on the song and it is so accurate!

The problem with me is that I listen to all music genres and I hate swapping headphones. Basically If I obtain a headphone for some music genres I am happy, but only for a short amount of time, until I switch the genre and then it is like wah? That is why I can live with 400i since they can reproduce everything and anything, just don't particularly stand out in what I like about few certain things. Like Instruments and vocals to stand out, I just love it and that so much needed low end kick to the music that require it...I have EQ them in the past, but switching back and forth they seem to lose certain detail.

Thank You!

 

[SeaWo|f]

There are headphones that offer what you want, after all the arguable goal of a hifi headphone is to recreate the hifi speaker effect.

BUT to have your cake and eat to.. So to speak, is Spendy. As you move up the ropes in both price and quality of cans the compromises are fewer and much smaller, and perhaps with some cans maybe non existent. YMMV.

Oh and to extract that from those types of headphones generally require totl audio chains to back them up.

With a some what reasonable price if I were you I would probably look at the lcd-x.

To me they were what you like, good bass impact, neutral, fast and detailed.

There are headphones that offer more but the prices star doubling. And I haven't heard all of them. But of the totl cans I have demoed, lcd3f, lcdx, hek..

The lcd3f is not neutral, and the hek does not lack bass to me but it's just not that impactful to me.

I have yet to hear the ether, hex, lcd4 or abyss.

Oh I left out dynamic cans because to me orthos present closer to speakers down low. And stax because even the omega7 doesn't have impactful bass.

 

[milosingh]

HD 800. Though I'm not sure whether the bass will be enough for you.

 

[sling5s]

Grado gh-1, ps1000e

 

[PinkyPowers]

The Audeze LCD-2 has a remarkably flat frequency response, and yet manages to be supremely smooth, fast, detailed, and bass-y. It might not be as airy as you want, since they lean towards a warmer sound. But I find decent air, and great instrument separation and imaging.

I've read a number of posts by people with the HE400i moving over to the LCD-2 because of its superior sub frequencies. You simply have to be okay with a less bright-sounding headphone.

 

[milosingh]

The Audeze LCD-2 has a remarkably flat frequency response, and yet manages to be supremely smooth, fast, detailed, and bass-y. It might not be as airy as you want, since they lean towards a warmer sound. But I find decent air, and great instrument separation and imaging.

I've read a number of posts by people with the HE400i moving over to the LCD-2 because of its superior sub frequencies. You simply have to be okay with a less bright-sounding headphone.

It is a dark brassy phone. Far from flat.

 

[PinkyPowers]

It is a dark brassy phone. Far from flat.

It's one of the flattest phones around. Every graph of every unit is functionally identical to this:

 

[Me x3]

Have you tried the Fidelio X2?
That might be a good starting point based on your preferences.
 
A Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro driven with the right setup, something like the Beyerdynamic A20 or even a good sounding receiver (with slightly high output impedance) might be even better than the Fidelio X2.
 
I've enjoyed my DT990 Pro plugged into a Yamaha A-S500 in the past, and with the right recordings the bass was visceral, combined with the big soundstage and very clear and extended treble, the surrounding experience was very enjoyable. Tons of WOW factor.
 
Plug DT990 Pro into an ipod and you'll be disappointed.
 
If you really want to spend your money, you should consider the Fostex TH-900

 

[WildStyle-R11]

There are headphones that offer what you want, after all the arguable goal of a hifi headphone is to recreate the hifi speaker effect.

BUT to have your cake and eat to.. So to speak, is Spendy. As you move up the ropes in both price and quality of cans the compromises are fewer and much smaller, and perhaps with some cans maybe non existent. YMMV.

Oh and to extract that from those types of headphones generally require totl audio chains to back them up.

With a some what reasonable price if I were you I would probably look at the lcd-x.

To me they were what you like, good bass impact, neutral, fast and detailed.

There are headphones that offer more but the prices star doubling. And I haven't heard all of them. But of the totl cans I have demoed, lcd3f, lcdx, hek..

The lcd3f is not neutral, and the hek does not lack bass to me but it's just not that impactful to me.

I have yet to hear the ether, hex, lcd4 or abyss.

Oh I left out dynamic cans because to me orthos present closer to speakers down low. And stax because even the omega7 doesn't have impactful bass.

Orthos is just insanity. Too much to deal with. I will definitely look at LCD-x. I am just now looking to upgrade my amp, figured it is a good time to have a look at headphones I might be getting. Feeling like Oppo HA-1.
 

HD 800. Though I'm not sure whether the bass will be enough for you.

Bass might be on the light side.
 

Grado gh-1, ps1000e

Last time I checked horrible as an all around headphones.
 

The Audeze LCD-2 has a remarkably flat frequency response, and yet manages to be supremely smooth, fast, detailed, and bass-y. It might not be as airy as you want, since they lean towards a warmer sound. But I find decent air, and great instrument separation and imaging.

I've read a number of posts by people with the HE400i moving over to the LCD-2 because of its superior sub frequencies. You simply have to be okay with a less bright-sounding headphone.

 
 

It is a dark brassy phone. Far from flat.

 
 

It's one of the flattest phones around. Every graph of every unit is functionally identical to this:

Graphs and what you hear is two completely different things.
 

  Have you tried the Fidelio X2?
That might be a good starting point based on your preferences.
 
A Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro driven with the right setup, something like the Beyerdynamic A20 or even a good sounding receiver (with slightly high output impedance) might be even better than the Fidelio X2.
 
I've enjoyed my DT990 Pro plugged into a Yamaha A-S500 in the past, and with the right recordings the bass was visceral, combined with the big soundstage and very clear and extended treble, the surrounding experience was very enjoyable. Tons of WOW factor.
 
Plug DT990 Pro into an ipod and you'll be disappointed.
 
If you really want to spend your money, you should consider the Fostex TH-900

There is too much wrong with X2 for me to enjoy it, besides it misses quite few of my preferences.
I have eyerolled the DT990 a couple of times, but every time I think about it the word Grainy comes to mind.
TH-900 I got nothing against closed back headphones, I prefer open backed, but worth a look.


Now onto Warm and dark sound signatures, for whatever reason to me they sound muffled or as if the whole mid and treble range fell into a pit and disappeared. Nothing against the headphones, I can't help it.

First things first My next upgrade will be the amp, I'm looking at Oppo HA-1, because I like it. But that can change depending on the headphones I pick as my hopefully last ones. But we all know how that goes.

Will look into TH-900 and LCD-X.

Thanks, for the replies guys! keep em coming if ya got something.

 

[PinkyPowers]

Graphs and what you hear is two completely different things.

Words and language have meaning. When I write "The Audeze LCD-2 has a remarkably flat frequency response" I'm speaking in terms of graphs and what can be measured. In that same sentence I go on to qualify: "and yet manages to be supremely smooth, fast, detailed, and bass-y". That last part is about what you hear, and how surprising it may be given the "flat frequency response".

The LCD-2 is one of the very most flat/neutral headphones you can buy, and yet somehow manages to be wonderfully warm and smooth, without emphasizing any particular range.

These are facts, people. Except them and move on.

 

[fjrabon]

 
Orthos is just insanity. Too much to deal with. I will definitely look at LCD-x. I am just now looking to upgrade my amp, figured it is a good time to have a look at headphones I might be getting. Feeling like Oppo HA-1.

The LCDX are orthos though?  Orthodynamic and planarmagnetic are two names for the same technology.  

 

[Me x3]

  There is too much wrong with X2 for me to enjoy it, besides it misses quite few of my preferences.
I have eyerolled the DT990 a couple of times, but every time I think about it the word Grainy comes to mind.
TH-900 I got nothing against closed back headphones, I prefer open backed, but worth a look.

Thanks, for the replies guys! keep em coming if ya got something.

Well, yeah, the X2 lacks refinament.
 
What do you mean by Grainy?

 

[fjrabon]

  Well, yeah, the X2 lacks refinament.
 
What do you mean by Grainy?

usually "grainy" means a combination of bright, higher order harmonics in the THD breakdown and quick decay.  

 

[Me x3]

 
usually "grainy" means a combination of bright, higher order harmonics in the THD breakdown and quick decay.  

Yeah, I ask because 'grain' is one of those words explaining sound that different people use with slightly (or even vastly) different meanings.
For instance, some people refer to the HD600 as grainy although it has a very smooth and far from bright response, some other people refer to the Grados as grainy, you know.
 
DT990 is bright and can be sharp with bright recordings/wrong amplifier but it's also very clear and transparent in terms of treble micro detail.

 

[fjrabon]

  Yeah, I ask because 'grain' is one of those words explaining sound that different people use with slightly (or even vastly) different meanings.
For instance, some people refer to the HD600 as grainy although it has a very smooth and far from bright response, some other people refer to the Grados as grainy, you know.
 
DT990 is bright and can be sharp with bright recordings/wrong amplifier but it's also very clear and transparent in terms of treble micro detail.

yeah, I hate the term grainy because almost nobody uses it the same way.  Also, it's confusing because it's really a summation of two separate concepts working together (decay and THD subcomponents).  Some people's grainy focuses almost entirely on one aspect or the other, and you never really know which, and that's just considering the people who are at least in the ballpark of using it correctly.  Many people use it when they really mean glare or just general brightness.  
 
I have never seen the HD600 called grainy, that seems insane to me that somebody would say that.  I believe the HD600 is bright (due to its 4kHz peak) but certainly not grainy.  I definitely agree that Grados are grainy, due to their quick decay and relatively high levels of harmonic distortion.  I found the DT990 to be fairly grainy when I had it, as the brightness accentuated its kind of ugly distortion pattern, especially with a mediocre solid state amp.  Tube amps "fixed" it somewhat, as it slowed the decay a bit and added in low order harmonic tube-ness.  However, this generally came at the expense of its treble micro detail, which become "mushy" with tubes (obviously varying dependent on the tube).