I must say that I have a lot of respect for this review. I do feel that the reviewer seems a bit partial to the ZMF's, but out of the cans he tested, I'm quite familiar with the TH-900 and Z1R (heard the LCD-XC and Ethers too briefly to really judge them), and FWIW, I hear their respective tonalities almost exactly as he describes them. In this hobby, where one has become used to wildly varying listening impressions, that is almost uncanny. The only thing I cannot explain is how he comes up with the idea of the Sony sounding "thin". Apart from that, his sound descriptions are spot-on, as far as I'm concerned. I very much agree with his assessment of the treble, mids and bass sections of both cans. In my book, this would result in a "sort of mediocre" grade for the Z1R due to all three ranges being solid, if not really exceptional, and a "downright bad" rating for the TH-900 with its outstanding subbass region, okayish, but lean midbass, basically nonexistent midrange and plain awful treble. I also think it's fair to measure the Z1R (as well as the other cans) against its MSRP, and agree that it's way overpriced, so in absolute terms, this would play in favor of the TH-900 (and the other contenders). Like the reviewer, I'd expect the Sony's clarity/transparency to be at a somewhat higher level, given what it retails for. This is an important trait for me, and I feel it's what separates truly high-end (or "summit-fi") headphones from the middle ground. Others may have different criteria.
"Dead last" is not entirely true though. In the "Reviewer's Preference" section, which is the actual conclusion, the Z1R ranks 4th of seven, beating the TH-900, LCD-XC and Ether C Flow. Looking at the rankings in the sound department, you'll see that the Sony actually performs quite okay, it just gets massively weighed down by being $700 more than the second most expensive contender and twice as much as the more expensive of the ZMFs, the Eikon.
lol....you are too rich to have grabbed a few of those....
