[markl]

INTRO
This post is a collection of the various comments I have made about my experience with the Audio Technica W2002. This review was assembled from a number of different threads and edited together into a more coherent narrative.
In general, this review is a comparison of the W2002 with the Sony MDR-R10, the world's best dynamic headphone. There is still much controversy regarding whether or not it is even fair to compare the $700 ATH-W2002 to the $4K Sony R10.
To see what the W2002 were up against, please see my comprehensive review of the R10s:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...&highlight=r10
Keep in mind that my criticisms of the W2002 are made in comparison to the "perfect" Sony R10, so please take them in that context. Although it may not always seem like it, I am very fond of the W2002, and feel that they represent a benchmark for what is possible at the $700 level.

OPENING THOUGHTS
The W2002 is a limited edition (only 1000 units) headphone, released to celebrate AT's 40th anniversary. It is the most expensive headphone AT has ever released, and we can presume that it represents their highest achievement to date in terms of sound quality. The W2002 was targeted primarily at the Japanese market, but thanks to the efforts of some intrepid Head-Fiers, a few of us in the West got the chance to own them. As of now, AT is officially sold out, so your chances of getting a pair are greatly reduced. You will likely have to look to the used market.
In a lot of ways, it appears that Audio Technica had the Sony R10 in their cross-hairs when they began designing their wooden phones. They openly, almost brazenly adopted many of the innovations of the Sony R10, especially on this latest model, the W2002, which even shares the R10's lambskin ear cushions. AT has released five models of wooden headphones in all, with 4 models preceding the W2002. They've had five shots at beating the R10-- have they succeeded? Was that even their goal?
The way I see it, the W2002 is the result of 4 successive product development experiences with "high-end" wooden phones, so I expect that the W2002 is probably as close to a state of the art dynamic headphone as exists today. What would the R10 sound like after four more product iterations? Is this even a fair comparison? Perhaps sound/design/marketing goals were fundamentally different? From this side of the ocean, it's hard to really know.
True, The ATH W2002 is priced well-below the Sony R10, although you will recall that the R10 originally came out in 1989 when the relationship of yen to dollar was very different. I wonder how the price of the R10 and the ATH W2002 would really compare in today's dollars?
Why am I hung up on that? I THINK it's valid to do a head-to-head with these phones, but I'm not sure. In any case, that's how I'm going to proceed.

ASSOCIATED EQIPMENT
Melos SHA-Gold headphone amp
Sony SCD-333ES SACD changer with extensive tweaks and mods from Modwright

THE BOX
The carrying case is a very handsome and macho-looking box that appears to be made of plastic with maybe aluminum trim. Though the box is designed to look somewhat like a Haliburton case, let's just say, it's not quite as rugged. More for show, but that's fine, I am not hung up on cases, but I know some of you freaks are.
When you open the box, you immediately get a big grin. The W2002 is buried in a red-satiny shiny material that drapes randomly all over like the backgound to those nude Marilyn Monroe photos. The effect is somewhat gaudy, almost bawdy and pornographic. Nestled deep inside all this material is Marilyn-- I mean the W2002, and I am immediately struck by their size--they are definitely smaller than the R10s.
Verdict: Nod must go to Sony's absurdly posh leather box and hard-bound book. (What, no hardcover book on the development of the W2002? AS IF!)

FIT AND FINISH
Every bit as pretty as the R10, but not as substantial. The R10s are BIG and comfy and snuggle the head perfectly. There's plenty of room within the R10's earcup for your ears, but not the W2002. They don't quite fit as well or as comfortably as the Sony R10's over my (admittedly large) ears.
W2002 does not have as much cushioning as the ultra-comfy R10s. Nevertheless, the W2002 is very, very comfortable in its own right-- no big red flags there.
On my head, the W2002 is not as snug as the R10s and are probably closer in snugness to the somewhat loosey-goosey Sony CD3000. W2002 feels somewhat heavier on your head than the R10s, but they are not heavy. One advantage of the W2002 over the R10's is in my ability to put my head back on my comfy chair. The R10s portrude way out in the back (baby got back!) and so they sometimes collide with the cushion in an uncomfortable way, forcing the headphones forward, if you can picture that. I do not have this problem with the slimmer W2002 and that's a good thing.
As far as build quality goes-- the wooden enclosures are indeed very beautiful. The assembly itself is not as rugged or sturdy as the R10. Of course, they are two completely different designs, but the magnesium R10s convey stability, while the W2002 has a plastic-y frame that emphasizes flexibility. This may be a deliberate design choice that I will come to appreciate over time, it may be a limitation of the design, or a limitation of the materials they had available to use for their construction. In any case, W2002 is not as substantial in places where they pivot as the R10. Those two thin "rails" that circumnavigate the head are not especially sturdy, but maybe they don't need to be. There are two independently moving pads that rest on top of the head. They have lots of moving pieces that allow them to conform to your head, but they are constructed of somewhat thin pieces of plastic.
The cord is very nice, but not as thick and supple as the r10s. The plug on the W2002 is SWEET. Really buff, beefy, heavy, and pretty.
Verdict: Nod goes to Sony R10 in terms of comfort and in terms of (apparent) build quality. That said, the W2002 is extremely attractive and very well-built. It's only in comparison to the R10 that it could possibly come up short. ATH W2002 is probably more comfortable than the Sony CD3000 or HD600, although its been months since I've had either of them.

BREAK-IN
Many AT owners have noted a larger (and longer) than average break-in period. I also found that the W2002 required around 100 hours of heavy break-in to sound their best. These headphones definitely benefited from burn-in, but I think that a lot of that was mental. Bass, however, just got better and better. The W2002 is not AFRAID of any recording. I just could not drive them into clip through my Melos no matter how hard I pushed them. You could end up listening to these headphones at much too high a volume.

FULL DISCLOSURE
Without my realizing it, the Sony R10 has burned itself into my brain as the "reference" for what headphone sound can be. I had trouble appreciating the W2002 in its own terms. I got a natural contact high upon first hearing the R10's ("oh, yeah, that's what its supposed to sound like") that I didn't get with the W2002, although I absolutely recognize they are excellent headphones.
In the end, I found it came up short of the R10 in virtually every area except one (bass). That said, I can offer you this: I think the W2002 will please at least as many people that like Senn 600, Sony CD3000, Grado RS1, and/or Etymotic ER4S. I'm convinced they're *at least* in their league, and offer another alternative. Sadly, I no longer have any of these other headphones on hand to do a direct comparison, but my true gut feeling is that the W2002 is appreciably better than those other phones.

TONE, TIMBRE, AND SONIC "FLAVOR"
The W2002 is a very "natural" sounding headphone, although not in the same league as the R10 (but what is?). The W2002 is just slightly on the cold side of neutral, so I would recommend a tube amp to help balance that out.
W2002 reminded me most of the Sony CD3000, in the sense that when you listen to the W2002 and CD3000, you say to yourself, "Wow"--listen to that driver!", whereas with the R10, you say, "Wow--listen to that music!" With the W2002, you never forget you are listening to an approximation of an event, instead of hearing the actual thing. It's a very realistic and high-definition "picture" of the event, but you know it's just an approximation.
I noticed no real anomalies in the frequency response, and the W2002 seems fairly well-balanced across the spectrum, but there's not as much midrange info as produced by the R10. R10 is more "open" sounding and expressive in the middle.
ATH W2002 sounds tighter and plays slightly louder than the R10s. The W2002 has a very strong "grip" on the music, yet at the same time, the driver can sound a bit rubbery, but this is a very minor coloration. I've noticed that the drivers seem to be very springy and athletic. You have a very high awareness of the excursion of the driver relative to the "invisible" Sony R10. This might be distracting to some people. Also, the driver is much closer to the ear on the W2002 than the R10, contributing to this effect.
ATH W2002 has a sort of pinched and reedy nasal quality to the vocals on *some recordings*. It can at times sound like singers are cupping their hands over the mike. These are definitely things that improved with burn-in, but never fully went away on the affected recordings.
Cymbals sound weird on the W2002. They sound somewhat tinny and tend to go "pish!" on the w2002 while the R10 is more appropriately brassy and goes "crashhhh!" with a long sustain. Cymbals sound more realistic on the R10.
Insufficient note decay is one of my major hang-ups with W2002. It does not provide as much decay as R10. I think this is due to the tightness of the W2002's driver which greatly benefits the bass, so its probably a wash.
What the R10 and the W2002 share is the effortless way that sound seems to flow out of them. They have an enticing fluidity and sense of "ease" to the sound. Some will think this presentation "dull" and wish for something more lively. Their loss. Some people enjoy their hash and stridency. That's their right.
The W2002 and R10 are ultra-smooth and liquid-- grit and grain that you didn't even know was there are banished from your system. That said, the W2002 has more bite than the R10, which is still king of buttery, smooth, and effortless presentation.
Consider this: both the R10 and the W2002 cause the least amount of tinnitus or listening fatigue of any phones I've heard, and they do this without truncating highs. They give you pure clean sound. They enable longer and (*gulp*) louder listening. You worry much less about your ears when you use the W2002 and especially the R10, and these are crucial considerations for freaks like us that listen long and listen loud.
HOWEVER, the W2002's have a problem at high volumes that annoys me. The mids stop blooming after a certain point and volume increases highs and lows at a greater rate. You want to keep turning the W2002 up so you can hear the voices more distinctly and you get more bass and treble instead. The R10s are much better at expressing vocals than the W2002. With the R10, you never have to ask yourself: "What did he just say"? That said, W2002 blows other phones away in terms of translating lyrics and making them clear. Just not as good as R10.

IMAGING AND SOUNDSTAGE
W2002 has less air and ambience and soundstage is not as deep as R10. Imaging has more of the "three blobs" effect than the seamless R10 (the imaging champ). The middle blob on the W2002 also seems to be raised up higher than the left and right blobs. The W2002 provides a much closer perspective than the R10, and can sound more "immediate".
W2002 is not as good as the R10 at layering additional instruments and tracks one on top of the other. The W2002 doesn't keep it all together quite as well as the R10.

DETAIL
The R10 roots out and digs up sonic detail you never knew was in your CDs. The W2002 is not quite as refined as the R10 in this department, and not as skilled at pulling up the finer details. However, I doubt anyone would complain about the W2002's extraordinary detail retrieval.

TREBLE
The W2002, like the CD3000 has much more up top than the woolly HD600, so having a full and complete treble response might "overload" your ears until you adjust. That said, I never found the W2002 to be too "bright?", even straight out of the box. If you found the CD3000 too bright, you probably will object to the W2002. Personally, I found W2002 treble response to be extended and grain-free.

BASS
If there is one aspect of the W2002's sound that deserves "special recognition", it's their bass response. Bass is very deep and full and more impactful than the R10, but I don't think it's "too much". Supposedly, W2002 was made for SACD applications with their wider dynamic range. I suspect they paid attention to that in the design. Through my Sony SCD-333ES with Modwright mods and Melos Gold amp I got really, really good bass response. It's especially outstanding on electronica music. If you are a fan of electronica but like tight, not flabby bass, I'd say the W2002 is close to Nirvana. Bass sounds "right" in terms of weight and power
The bass of the W2002 is further enhanced by an innovation in headphone bass that I think is only in the W2002, and that's AT's "DADS system". I think I've responded so positively to the W2002's bass not because it goes so incredibly low, although it is as low as any other good headphone I've heard, but because of the way my ears react to the actual physical feeling of the bass. The W2002 provides a sort of "ear massage" with the ultra smooth and effortless, yet energetic bass. The way it resonates is very stimulating and pleasing to the ear.
All this has made me speculate about the true purpose and function of the DADS system. DADS is basically an enclosure within the wooden earcup located behind the diaphragm. I suspect this enclosure is trapping air in some manner and releasing it in a very specific way to create the feeling of impact. This is my theory at least. This adds to the "stimulation" of the ears *as if* they were reacting to *real* low bass sound waves in the open air.
Remember when I said that the R10 is the "Disappearing Headphone", because of the extreme comfort of the phone combined with the "invisibility" of the drivers. Well, I'd say the W2002 goes in the opposite direction and is a very stimulating headphone with a powerful driver closer to the ear than in the R10. Combine that with DADS system, and--pow! impactful, stimulating, present, bass.
Maybe the DADS system is sort of like those weird discs they hawk in HT mags that sit in your chair and vibrate in tune with the bass, so you get more of the bass feeling. I'm not saying DADS is that cheesy, because I actually like the effect and really enjoy my bass-heavy CDs with the W2002. You wouldn't at all think that you'd like the effect based on my description, and if I've made it sound like a silly trick, or a lame "special effect", I'm sorry. It works, though. Its a credible attempt at solving one of the formerly inherent "problems" with headphones.
I don't think the R10 goes any deeper in the bass than the W2002. Yes, tonally the R10 sounds more natural than W2002, but when it comes to bass, tonality ain't the whole ball game. W2002's provide substantial pressure on the ears due to DADS system that feels more like real (amplified) bass notes do in the open air hitting your ears at a concert. I have yet to get a bass headache from this effect and actually find the sensation oddly enjoyable. I'd say bass is the W2002's "secret weapon" that could make some people overlook other flaws.
But you pay a small price for smooth, effortless, substantial bass of W2002. The thing with both the CD3K and the R10 is the superior way they present drum thumps. They sound 3D. W2002 lacks their realness in that area and are somewhat more flat.

CONCLUSIONS
For me, the W2002 is just not in the same class as the R10. I ended up selling my W2002s after this evaluation.
Furthermore, I don't think the differences between the phones are simply a matter of personal taste, i.e. "Well the W2002 is better for rock, while the R10 is better for classical", or "They're clearly in the same class, it's just a matter of personal taste which phone is better". To my ears, and I would guess to at least 80% of anyone else's ears, the R10 are subjectively better than the W2002.
How much of the R10's performance do you get with the W2002? Not really an easy question to answer since they sound so different. The thing both headphones share is a grain-free, flowing liquid sound that set them above the rest. They reek of quality.
However, the R10 stands above the W2002 in terms of tone and timbre, soundstaging, image depth, instrument body, and detail retrieval. The R10 sound more "real" and natural and 3D.
I don't think the W2002 is an "R10 killer". If the HD600 represents the best of what you can buy for $300, then the W2002 is the best you can get at the $700 level (it will certainly trounce the RS-1, for example.) Now, I don't have any of the other headphones I used to own on hand so I'm going by my gut, but my gut tells me the W2002 is superior to the CD3000, RS1, HD600, and ER4S. However, the W2002 is more in the class of those other phones than it is the R10.

markl

 

[Spad]

Markl,

If this is posted with the permanent reviews, I think it should be in the R-10 area, not the Audio Technica. It is absolutely meaningless to anyone who doesn't have access to the R-10.

It's more of the ol' "The Lexus is okay, but the Bentley is better" approach to reviewing. The motive is obviously to extol the virtures of your R-10s, not to inform anyone about the W2002s.

The very idea that you expect it to be treated as a serious W2002 review is, discounting the sheer effrontery, almost amusing in my view.

 

[markl]

First of all, what a dumb post.

"If this is posted with the permanent reviews, I think it should be in the R-10 area, not the Audio Technica. It is absolutely meaningless to anyone who doesn't have access to the R-10."

Do you have Stax Omega? What if I compared the W2002 to that? Would that be "irrelevant"? I seriously doubt it.
Also, considering that we all have different set ups (amps, sources, cables) I guess all our comments on anything is utterly irrelevant to anyone else. We better pack it up and go home.

Even though I don't have a Stereophile editor's mega-buck "reference" component, I am still interested in knowing how a new component compares to it. I haven't heard the reference, but it IS relevant when the reviewer tells me it delivers "80%" of the sound of the "reference". The R10's represent no-holds-barred reference-level headphone listening. Comparing the W2002 to it IS relevant whether you've heard the R10 or not.

I always enjoy it when people do "shoot-out" style reviews, even if I haven't heard all the phones involved. The key here is that this is a COMPARISON, which implies you need to describe what you are comparing a component against. No?

I think a compare/contrast review has MORE relevant info than a review in a vacuum. How do I know where these headphones stand? I put them in context for everyone.

"It's more of the ol' "The Lexus is okay, but the Bentley is better" approach to reviewing. The motive is obviously to extol the virtures of your R-10s, not to inform anyone about the W2002s."

Bull-crap. I'm sick and tired of people impugning my motives. Yeah, I liked the R10s better. That's pretty much the conclusion of my COMPARITIVE, SHOOT-OUT review. You have a knack for spotting the obvious.

And finally:
"The very idea that you expect it to be treated as a serious W2002 review is, discounting the sheer effrontery , almost amusing in my view."

"Effrontery" eh?

Anyone else "effronted" by my very carefully written, information packed review?

markl

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Anyone else "effronted"?

I feel very strongly that audio-technica headphones should be represented in the permanent review section. Both the W100 and the W2002 have shown themselves to be worthy additions. Not only that, but just the fact that people are willing to go to the trouble of importing them says a lot about the loyalty these people have to headphone listening.

As most people know, I am the one that established the connection to have these sent over by an audio-technica employee. Based on my first comments, and assorted rants, other people joined in, and to my happiness also (mostly) appreciated them. Despite it being ME that started all this, I didnt take it personally that Jude didnt include any A/T headphones on the permanent list. Maybe he just didnt think my review style qualified for that position. Whatever. But time has past, and other owners are in a position to write a better review. I still think the W2002 should be represented, but I naturally discounted my own review since, if Jude had thought it good enough, he would have already posted it.

I dont think markl's comments represent a W2002 review. Moreover, he is already selling his, and I for one would not want his comments to be considered to be representitive of me, KurtW, Spad, Uvak, or any of the other satisfied W2002 owners. Markl gave us a reposting of his comparison of the R10 and the W2002. But for him to go on to state openly that they be posted as a W2002 review strikes me as odd in all kinds of ways.

I've already moved beyond being snubbed by Jude, (no matter how much I try to contribute here..) but at least let the W2002 be reviewed by someone who owns them, likes them, and is happy with keeping them. I think Spad, KurtW, or Kelly would be a way better choice.

p.s. As of now there are at least 13 people that bought the W2002 at around $700 a pop, not including duty fee's. Whether its a question of credit or blame I dont know.. but I feel that I was to some small extent responsible for those numbers.

 

[markl]

What is the purpose of the review section??????? To list only overwhelmingly positive reviews that do not in any way compare them to any other headphone for fear of upsetting one of its zealot-like owners????????

Ridiculous.

I thought the idea was to present information to help users make choices.



And for the last time, MRael, I REALLY LIKED THE ATH W2002!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see how anyone could walk away with any other impression from my review unless they had some kind of paranoid delusional persecution complex.

markl

 

[Flumpus]

Quote:

...but at least let the W2002 be reviewed by someone who owns them, likes them, and is happy with keeping them.

Uh, what's the point of a review section if everything in there is positive? We don't wanna be like Stereophile do we?

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by M Rael I've already moved beyond being snubbed by Jude, (no matter how much I try to contribute here..)

Give me a break, man. You guys have gone on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on,............

There is life outside the woods!

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by Flumpus Uh, what's the point of a review section if everything in there is positive? We don't wanna be like Stereophile do we?

I honestly dont know what the point of the review section is. I also dont know how Jude (or whomever) decides what to include in it. But from all appearances it seems like a place for quick and permanent review of significant headphones. Beyond that I really dont know.

Markl: to the best of my knowledge you have not once attempted to post full length comments about the W2002 except in relation to the R10. Am I wrong? Theres nothing wrong with that! But I think YOU should allow that happy W2002 owners might not want such comparitive comments to be made part of the permanent record as a 'W2002 review.' I'm not speaking to the value of a comparision.. I'm saying I think the W2002 should be reviewed on its own and made part of the record here.

And by 'happy W2002 owners' I do NOT mean a sugar coated 100% glowing review. I think I told you guys already that I could never write a review like Tomcat. Thats not my style at all. I'm sure the other forum-verbal W2002 owners might be deserving of a chance to get serious and write a full length review. One that maybe Jude would consider posting.

 

[Tomcat]

If Mark posts a review about the W2002 and the R10, I like reading it. Not knowing either headphone, of course I am interested. Why shouldn't Mark be allowed to do this?

Now, the other Mark, that's a different story. He is well known for always misrepresenting facts and hearing things. He has his own agenda. So: we should only read Mark's reviews and disregrad those by Mark. That's what I do. And I sure hope you'll do the same.

However, right now, I have a question for Mark. No, not that Mark, the other one. Not that other one, the other other one. Yes, that one. Or the other one?


markl,

let's try to save this thread and discuss something worthwhile. There seems to be a consensus that the wooden ATs profit a lot from break-in. My W100 approaches 300 hours and is still improving, solomon has had his W100 for more than six months now, and says it still changes (for the better, I hope

).
How do you know that you really gave the W2002 a fair shot with 110 hours of break-in? After all, you compared it to a wooden headphone that has had something like 10 years of break-in. Why did you feel the W2002 wouldn't improve further with more break-in?

 

[markl]

"you guys..."

Please don't include me in that comment. It's getting so I can't post here anymore without sillyness errupting. I get dragged in simply for trying to participate in discussions of my hobby.

markl

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl "you guys..." Please don't include me in that comment. It's getting so I can't post here anymore without sillyness errupting. I get dragged in simply for trying to participate in discussions of my hobby. markl

You're right, MarkL....I apologize, sincerely! It's that other guy.....

 

[markl]

"Markl: to the best of my knowledge you have not once attempted to post full length comments about the W2002 except in relation to the R10. Am I wrong? "

That is correct. So?

I don't see why there can't be multiple reviews of the W2002 up there. I see several reviews AND comparisons of lots of other phones.

Tomcat,
You are certainly right to point out the situation with break-in. Who knows how much more there *could* have been. Nevertheless, even if I allow for the greater than average effects of break-in on the ATs, there's still not nearly enough margin there to make them eclipse the R10.

Also, my R10s, although probably manufactured around '91/'92, was not purchased until '98 and the previous owner claims they had only 500 hours of break-in when he sold to me.

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by RickG It's that other guy...

RickG.. you never seem to appear in a thread I'm on except to say negative things about me. You never say more than a sentence or two, usually on a topic you have nothing to do with, and then split. Go **** yourself man. I dont like you either.

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by M Rael Go **** yourself man. I dont like you either.

Now this is the guy we want to reveiw headphones here at Head-Fi? Personally, I think we can do better than this.....

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl That is correct. So?

I think you are as much of a zealot (to use your word) as me in all of this. I compared the R10 and the W2002 merely as a fluke, while you seem hell bent on making them appropriate for a side by side comparison. Not just once, but continually.
For my part I changed my avatar days ago to reflect my appreciation of the HP1000 as the coolest portable headphone on earth. I dont have a death grip on the W2002!