[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the info. So my question is: what's the top-end extension of the AD700, AD900, and AD2000 like? Also, I don't recognize the models ESW9 and ES7. Are those simply another name for AD900 and AD700 or something else entirely? Thanks, Mike

The AD700 and AD900 are similar in sound. I prefer the AD900. Slightly more of each end imo. Sounds as though it's going higher and lower than the 700. I don't have the AD2000 but I really don't like the top end of the AD1000. I hear that the 2000 is better in this respect, but I'm not willing to risk the money on what is said. I'd rather hear the 2000 myself before spending that sort of dosh.

The 700's are a polite listen and very balanced sounding with a huge soundstage. I personally hear a touch of sibilance in voice reproduction in them which can be annoying. The 900's have a slight edge on them in all respects and for some reason don't sound as detached at the top where the sibilance occurs in the 700's so it's not as noticeable.

the 1000's are aural razor blades!!

Ian

 

[Bengt77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Getting back to the AD900, I'd actually like to give the A900s a shot - I know that open cans normally get the gong for better sound, but the ES7s have got me wondering where A-T can take a closed pair of phones without spending a lot of money. End of the day, there will be plenty of cans for everyone.

I can't comment on the regular A900, but I really love my A900Ti. I honestly think it's a better headphone than the AD900. It extends further at both ends and has more neutral mids. However warm and lush the mids of the AD900 sound, they are very coloured. While the A900Ti's soundstage is (understandably and logically) less wide than that of the AD900, it is still pretty wide for a closed headphone. If you have some money to spend, you should really try it.

 

[brn80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to stray too far from the topic of this thread, I love the K701 and I'm eager to hear the Audio-Technica. From the reports on this forum, I think I'll love it. -Mike

I would recommend you try the AD700 rather than the AD900 if you'd like to try out the sound since they say the two are very much alike. The AD900 is harder to come by and at a higher price. Having owned the AD900 before, I would not pay more than $200 for it again, but I wouldn't mind the AD700 @ ~$100. The K701s were much more versatile in that regard. I've since settled on a K601 as I probably favor some bass flavor to my sound.

This is of course, in my opinion, and from my preferences/experience. As we've noted in this thread, everyone's ears (and tastes) are different so this is just a suggestion

 

[mbd2884]

I'd ignore Moonboy's post. The A700 get's plenty of love. Just cause Moonboy doesn't like em doesn't mean they are bad.

Also Mike, don't let anyone tell you the AD700 is a substitute for the AD900. It's not, the AD900 is better in every way.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the info. A question. After a lot of time with the K501, K601, and K701, I have come to realize that the top-end extension of the K701 is key. Top-end is critical in creating the "you are there" illusion. The K701 is magical. As much as I love the midrange of the K501, by comparison it falls flat. The illusion is lost. So my question is: what's the top-end extension of the AD700, AD900, and AD2000 like? Also, I don't recognize the models ESW9 and ES7. Are those simply another name for AD900 and AD700 or something else entirely? Thanks, Mike

First let me say that I dont find the k701s extended in the treble at all. In fact they are rolled off after the frequencies they are bright at. even at 12khz, I feel they are lacking. The ad700s and ad900s are more extended than the k701s but less bright at the lower treble than the k701s. The ad900s are smoother while the ad700s are a little sparklier on top compared to each other. The ad2000s are a little too soft for my tastes on top because of the very strong mids but still better to me than the k701s treble extension.

 

[hifidk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif First let me say that I dont find the k701s extended in the treble at all. In fact they are rolled off after the frequencies they are bright at. even at 12khz, I feel they are lacking. The ad700s and ad900s are more extended than the k701s but less bright at the lower treble than the k701s. The ad900s are smoother while the ad700s are a little sparklier on top compared to each other. The ad2000s are a little too soft for my tastes on top because of the very strong mids but still better to me than the k701s treble extension.

I agree with you although I didn't think K701 had rolled off highs. Also, like you said, AD700/900 and AD2000 have completely different sound signature, and I like both (better than K701).

 

[logwed]

k701s, but this is probably most contested recommendation thread ever.

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 /img/forum/go_quote.gif . EDIT: some additional info. I won't try to argue with you that CDPs sound different because we'll never agree, but I'll respond to this idea that "the information is what it is and nothing more can be retrieved." This is fundamentally wrong. Scientists can process images to retrieve information that isn't obvious in the original picture. My day job is statistical orbit determination, which means navigation of spacecraft and satellites through interpreting very noisy and error-filled data. In both cases the key is this: you have a model of the original, and you fit it to the data. When you have a model, then data is not "just data" but can be interpreted as arising from a specific process, which means that some ambiguities can be filled in, and errors corrected. My theory is that good CDPs are essentially modeling natural impulse responses and fitting them to the data on the CD. I don't mean this happens explicitly, but is probably an effect that "falls out" from the circuit design.

The type of sophisticated data processing you describe may well be theoretically possible, but it would have to be an active, software-based system. It definitely does not "fall out" from the circuit design of any hard-wired DAC circuit.
Such a system may exist to run un a PC, but if so I am not aware of it. What I am certain of, however, is that it is not available in a CD player.

No CD player at any price achieves better sound quality than my $250 Tascam or my $320 Cambridge.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by logwed /img/forum/go_quote.gif k701s, but this is probably most contested recommendation thread ever.

Your recommending the K701 for a person who has a 50 dollar mixing board and no plans to buy an amp?

You should never pass out advice.

 

[brn80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by logwed /img/forum/go_quote.gif k701s, but this is probably most contested recommendation thread ever.

It is also 6 months old and the OP already bought and sold one of headphones inquired about.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn80 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is also 6 months old and the OP already bought and sold one of headphones inquired about.

He sold the 701's.

 

[Cankin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif First let me say that I dont find the k701s extended in the treble at all. In fact they are rolled off after the frequencies they are bright at. even at 12khz, I feel they are lacking. The ad700s and ad900s are more extended than the k701s but less bright at the lower treble than the k701s. The ad900s are smoother while the ad700s are a little sparklier on top compared to each other. The ad2000s are a little too soft for my tastes on top because of the very strong mids but still better to me than the k701s treble extension.

Totally disagreed. The reason why I sold my AD2000 is because of its 1)brightness, 2)disappointing high extension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif No CD player at any price achieves better sound quality than my $250 Tascam or my $320 Cambridge.

Very insightful comment

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif The type of sophisticated data processing you describe may well be theoretically possible, but it would have to be an active, software-based system. It definitely does not "fall out" from the circuit design of any hard-wired DAC circuit.

Fact 1: the circuit design affects transients.
Fact 2: ever heard of analog computers? they were used extensively for engineering and military applications before digital computers took over.


Quote:

No CD player at any price achieves better sound quality than my $250 Tascam or my $320 Cambridge.

I wish I could believe that... would save a big chunk of money.

-Mike

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Totally disagreed. The reason why I sold my AD2000 is because of its 1)brightness, 2)disappointing high extension.

Thats what I said. I thought the ad2000s werent very extended. They are also brighter at the low treble than the ad900s/ad700s but... in comparison to the k701 are less bright and a little more extended since the k701s I heard had totally no extension and was bright

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif First let me say that I dont find the k701s extended in the treble at all. In fact they are rolled off after the frequencies they are bright at. even at 12khz, I feel they are lacking.

I'm middle aged from a family with history of hearing loss. I have tinnitus. My last test was within the normal range, but I know listening to frequency sweeps I can't hear much about 12 KHz. Maybe the K701 actually works well with my ears.