[KurtW]

There are many threads discussing the W2002, even many different threads by the same author, so I appreciate that Markl has taken the time to consolidate some of his comments into one post. Trying to get information via searching can be tedious. He did say up front that "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." It does read more like a comparison review than a product review and probably should have been titled as such, but I happen to think comparison reviews are very useful. When Markl did his R10 review he compared it with the Sony 3000 and several other phones, but he didn't have the W2002 then. This most recent post completes the picture. As this review would be valuable to people interested in either the W2002 or the R10, I think it would best serve everyone if it was posted as a review of the "Audio Technica ATH-W2002 compared to the Sony MDR-R10", which is what it is.

I don't think there is any rule against having several reviews by different authors on the same piece of equipment. I think its a good idea and I see that Jude is doing exactly that in the more formal Head-Fi reviews on the main page.

 

[Mumrik]

I'm not going to comment on the merits of Markl's work, but I am going to comment on the behaviour of some of you guys, and yes, this especially concerns Markl and M Rael (to a certain degree Rick G too, I read that other thread...). I am not going to side with any of you two but as the youngest person replying to this thread I will say what I feel a moderator should have told you some time ago: Both/all of you, grow up!

You both have interesting things to say and are able to (and do) contribute in a good way to this forum, but don't make me have to constantly read these hostilities when I go here, it seems you guys can't post in the same thread without roughing it out - please take your personal fights elsewhere (e-mail?) for the good of the rest of us...
Maybe Mark & Mark should just make an effort not to communicate with each other?


I do not want to make enemies of you people, please take my words for what they are...


I recommend this thread be closed or "castrated"... (perhaps we need a bit stronger moderation?)

 

[M Rael]

What?

I dont have a problem with markl or his comparison. I said I dont think its a review of the W2002, thats all. And in another thread I started (about allowing the W2002 to have a review posted), markl suggested that his comparison might hopefully be posted up as a permanent review of the W2002. You need to let that soak in. Thats what was happening. If you read Spad's reply to markl (have you??) then you will see that another W2002 owner didnt think markl's post represented a W2002 review either. Maybe it was a small misunderstanding.. maybe silly even.. but thats what happened.

As for RickG, I already told him what I think of his approach.

I wouldnt mind at all if RickG's comments and my replies to him were deleted.

 

[Mumrik]

From the outside, it looks like you and markl have a problem with each other...

Don't you think the tone gets unnessesarily harsh in most of the threads you both post in?

 

[markl]

I have tried and tried to be friendly and forgiving toward MRael, both here and in private. Just when he seems like he's going to chill, he's at it again. I give up!

Mumrik,
I have never asked for any of this. But when I am repeatedly attacked personally and constantly having my character questioned, I have a right and and obligation to stand up for myself, and I don't need the moderator's (or your) kind permission to do so.

What would you do if it happened to virtually ALL your threads. It's no fun at all.
I worked damn hard putting that information together for the community's benefit. What a drag.

markl

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mumrik Don't you think the tone gets unnessesarily harsh in most of the threads you both post in?

Sometimes.. yeah... but only lately. Theres been a lot going on and a LOT of money being spent on headphones recently. Its been a lilttle bit of charged atmosphere, but markl has a great way of seeing past my.. how shall I say this.. my 'exhuberances'

And dont think I dont notice that. He's a great guy, and when he was trying to sell his W2002's I was quick to help him in the small way that I could. I think markl thought I was saying I didnt think his comparison was accurate or whatever.. but thats not it at all. I dont even care about that.

............................

markl: What can I say? Spad was THE FIRST person to disagree with using your comparison as a review, and I agreed with him. I still do. Whats the big deal with that?

 

[Mumrik]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Mumrik, I have never asked for any of this. But when I am repeatedly attacked personally and constantly having my character questioned, I have a right and and obligation to stand up for myself, and I don't need the moderator's (or your) kind permission to do so.

That's why I call for the moderators to take a more active part... (personal attacks are stricktly forbidden in most forums I know - to the point of banishment)

M Rael: It would seem you two have a personality incompatibility

 

[Blighty]

I think both Marks need to refrain from posting W2002 messages for a while. A little controversy is good but it seems that every time a conflicting opinion is raised, the fireworks ignite quite literally. In markl's defense, he has never made bad analogies comparing the W2002 to the Jamaican bobsled team nor a pair of $20 DJ headphones and in fact finds them the best for their price range and down. He has sampled a good selection of headphones so I find that a compliment if nothing else for the W2002. Bias will always be a part of opinion and as such exist in all reviews. I should hope that readers can read between the lines and extract what accurate information there is from the several existing reviews and impressions of the W2002. Remember, overly positive reviews are probably as inaccurate as overly negative ones. The truth is often somewhere in the middle from personal observation.

 

[markl]

Well I tried to change the title of the thread, but it wouldn't let me.

Moderator- can you change the thread title to more accurately reflect the content of the review? My choice is:

"Audio Technica ATH-W2002 vs. Sony MDR-R10: NOW IT CAN BE TOLD! "

Maybe that will make everyone happy.

markl

 

[Neruda]

ask and ye shall receive!

 

[pigmode]

Imagine what the old AKG 501 threads would have been like if they had been worth $800?

 

[Flumpus]

The W2002 is a very interesting headphone... that's all I can say right now. More to come.

 

[Spad]

Markl,

I know you aren't a fool, so I have to believe you're simply being disingenuous.

What percentage of Head-Fiers do you suppose have heard R10s? You seem to be a reasonably educated man, so surely you know that for comparisons to work, at least one of the items being compared must be known to the reader. If the reader has never heard the W2002--and pitifully few have--does comparing it to another headphone that few have heard really make sense?

Does it serve any purpose for me to tell you that gnosny tastes very much like tlotsky? Of course not. And the reason is that you aren't familiar with either dish. But suppose I said gnosny tastes like chicken soup? Might that not be at least slightly more informative?

Now suppose, as a standard for comparison, we pick a phone such as the HD580/600 Sennheiser, a headphone that a good many Head-Fiers are familiar with and one of sufficient quality to serve as a reference. Try substituting "HD600" for every occurrence of "R10" in your "review," assuming the statements were accurate. Would that not convey a great deal more information to the typical Head-Fier?

Another little experiment: Switch every occurrence of "W2002" for "R10." Assuming all the statements to be true, would the result be acceptable to you as an R10 review? The question is rhetorical and you needn't answer, but be honest with yourself.

The fact that you find the R10s superior to the ATs means no more to me than if you made the same claims for the R10s' stablemate, the V600. Neither claim would upset me in the least. My point is simply that this doesn't strike me as a bona fide W2002 review. If others think otherwise, that's fine with me.

As I've said elsewhere, the quality of the W2002 is a well settled issue for me. I'm delighted with mine and let me repeat--I wouldn't sell them for three times the price I paid. And without a careful, personally conducted comparison, I wouldn't make an even swap for a new R10, assuming I had to keep them.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl First of all, what a dumb post. 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

What exactly do you mean by "effronted"? Perhaps you aren't familiar with the word "effrontery," but it's synonymous with "presumptuousness," and this is the sense in which I used it.

So tell us again, Markl--whose post is dumb?

 

[MirandaX]

Markl's comment was meant to be funny. He's using "effronted" as a pun on the word affronted. The quotation marks emphasize this.