AD700 first impressions

Mar 25, 2006 at 9:07 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 26

spaceconvoy

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Posts
1,016
Likes
15
Just got mine yesterday afternoon, and they've been burning in continuously for 17 hours now, of which I've been listening about 5. So this is just a first impression - I might post a full review later. I have to say that they've far exceeded my expectations on certain aspects, but completely dissapointed me on others. Keep in mind that I'm listening through my Panasonic CT700 pcdp (some people hate this player, but it has a nice smoothness (dullness?) that works well with the AD700, and a good bass boost), YMMV.

The Good: Keep in mind that it's been ~2 months since I sold my A900LTD, and I've been listening to mainly the KSC75 in the meantime. That said, I feel like the detail of the AD700 is just as good as the LTDs. I was expecting it to fall short considering the price, but to my ears (and slightly foggy memory) they're neck and neck in terms of general fidelity. Also, the recessed mids of the LTD are completely fixed by the AD700. Vocals are probably not as forward as I like (personal preference), but they sound perfectly equal with the rest of the music. Overall, it sounds very balanced except for the bass (see below).

The Excellent: Soundstage, depth and seperation completely blow away the LTDs. I feel very certain - I don't need to hear the LTDs again for confirmation. IMO this is probably due to the open design more than anything else. While I loved the forwards, swirling-around-your-head presentation of the LTDs, something about it always seemed unnatural and compressed. There was definitely a bit of "blob effect" going on, where the music was isolated in a little cloud around your head.

The AD700 retains the same general immersive presentation, and while the instruments are just as close and immediate, it feels like the soundstage doesn't have a definite end - sound keeps trailing off into infinity. As a result, seperation and imaging are very clear and not as condensed as the LTDs. If you close your eyes, you can definitely see where the instruments are, and can even get a sense of mic placement and the size of the recording studio. It's probably my imagination, but they seem to give each album a very clear sense of 'space', where the LTDs always imposed their own artificial space on every recording.

The OK: Comfort is very strange. While it's a very big headphone, it's also one of the lightest I've ever worn. But for some reason the velor pads taper inwards, so instead of the whole pad resting flat against your head, only the edge of the pad makes contact. It's hard to get a good fit, but if you rotate the pads you'll eventually find the sweet spot. So while I would say it's a comfortable headphone, the feeling of the pad edges is always slightly distracting.

The Bad: Where's the beef? The bass is definitely there, but gives almost no visceral sensation. There's no solidity to the sound, and the lows just sort of float there. This is with using the bass boost of my pcdp! Without it, the bass is almost non-existent. I'm really hoping this improves after burn-in, but right now it gives them a very strange sound. Now I know what people mean when they say these have a 'light' presentation. With some music they can sound ethereal in the best way (acoustic music mostly), but with most recordings there's always a sense that something's lacking. The best way I can explain it is that the bass has no meat to it.
 
Mar 25, 2006 at 10:13 PM Post #3 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceconvoy
Also, the recessed mids of the LTD


That's not what I want to hear! I have an LTD on the way. Have you ever owned an A900? Are the mids of the LTD at least better than the A900? Nice review btw.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 1:02 AM Post #4 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by 003
That's not what I want to hear! I have an LTD on the way. Have you ever owned an A900? Are the mids of the LTD at least better than the A900? Nice review btw.


I've never heard the A900, but I've read a few opinions that claim the LTD is a definite improvement. They weren't even that recessed anyways, I just prefer the vocals to be more prominent in the mix... it was more about my personal preferences than "this sounds terrible"
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 2:45 AM Post #6 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by 003
That's not what I want to hear! I have an LTD on the way. Have you ever owned an A900? Are the mids of the LTD at least better than the A900? Nice review btw.


It's upon your taste whether you like the back seated mids or not.

Also A900LTD needs proper burn-in to reduce its forward mids harshness. Did you burnt them for 200 hrs "spaceconvoy" ?
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 2:59 AM Post #7 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by manchau
It's upon your taste whether you like the back seated mids or not.

Also A900LTD needs proper burn-in to reduce its forward mids harshness. Did you burnt them for 200 hrs "spaceconvoy" ?



I burnt them in for about 150 hours, but to my ears the sound stopped changing after the 80 hour mark. It's funny that you say burn-in reduces "forward mid-harshness", because to my ears, the initially nicely forward mids only got more and more distant as burn-in progressed. I guess it really does come down to personal preference.
icon10.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by scubadiver329
Thanks for the great review! How's the build quality by the way? Is the magnesium body durable?


Magnesium, huh? Maybe the grills are magnesium, but the body (all of the golden part in my pictures) is definitely plastic. Still, it doesn't feel cheap at all - very solid and nice.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 3:28 AM Post #8 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceconvoy
I burnt them in for about 150 hours, but to my ears the sound stopped changing after the 80 hour mark. It's funny that you say burn-in reduces "forward mid-harshness", because to my ears, the initially nicely forward mids only got more and more distant as burn-in progressed. I guess it really does come down to personal preference.
icon10.gif



Yes... I agree that It's down to personal preference.
wink.gif


For me when I got my A900LTD's, it was too bright mids at some points, but now all looks set.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 4:32 AM Post #9 of 26
im definately getting the ad700 now. i was gonna go with sum beyer dt990 but i think i made my choice....im mainly a gamer and soundstage is a priority
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 3:37 PM Post #11 of 26
Thanks for the writeup, Spacedude.

I'll be getting mine soon.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 3:51 PM Post #12 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceconvoy
The Bad: Where's the beef? The bass is definitely there, but gives almost no visceral sensation. There's no solidity to the sound, and the lows just sort of float there. This is with using the bass boost of my pcdp! Without it, the bass is almost non-existent.


Most PCDPs and MP3 players show a severe bass drop-off with low-impedance headphones such as the AD700 (32 ohm).
.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 4:14 PM Post #13 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ
Most PCDPs and MP3 players show a severe bass drop-off with low-impedance headphones such as the AD700 (32 ohm).
.



True, but here it's definately the AD700. When i auditioned them all AD models below the AD2000 lacked bass and impact.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 4:31 PM Post #14 of 26
Headphonereviews may have bad information then concerning materials of construction:

http://www.headphonereviews.org/head...=2&action=list

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elephas
Welcome to Team AD Series.

I believe the AD700 is mostly plastic, like the AD900. The AD1000 seems to have a plastic body and metal earcup grills. The AD2000 is mostly metal, with exposed thin metal headbands.



 
Mar 26, 2006 at 5:06 PM Post #15 of 26
I checked the Audio-Technica website, and it does describe the AD700 has having aluminum and magnesium.

The purple earcup covers could be metal, along with some small parts. Most of it seemed like plastic to me when compared with the AD2000.

Apologies for posting erroneous information.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top