sarbruis
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
- Posts
- 47
- Likes
- 0
My setup:
iAudio M5 -> ALO Bling -> Total Bithead -> headphones
All of the tracks I used were -q7 ogg vorbis. I can't tell the difference between -q7 and -q10 on 99.9% of my music, and I certainly can't tell the difference between -q10 and lossless/wav. This is with a flat EQ as well.
This A/B test was done this afternoon. I got the AD2000 last Wednesday from Audiocubes. So they've had about 70-80hrs of white/pink burn-in, plus a lot of other listening time, maybe 40-50hrs. I've had the HD580 for a few years. The AD2000 didn't change much at all after the first couple nights of burn-in, so I don't think further burn-in will do anything to alter their sound.
Everyone seems to like the photos, so here are a couple:
2848 x 2136 version: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1252/...2e0bd061_o.jpg
2848 x 2136 version: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1083/...1f4771c6_o.jpg
Overall, the AD2000 is definitely a better headphone than the HD580, almost in every aspect. But I think the $470 (pj) price tag is a much too high for their performance. On the whole, I'd say, depending on the track, the AD2000 is 0-10% (maybe 15% in some cases) better than the HD580. And that certainly doesn't warrant 3x the price, in my opinion. Of course, keep in mind that this is without a great source or amp.
Bass
The bass is a bit more tight on the AD2000. Things like timpanis sound better, with more impact and texture. They do very well with acoustic bass, but they are perhaps a bit lacking in depth. The HD580 goes a deeper, and with electronic music (eg, progressive house), the HD580 has better bass overall. With trance/house, I find the AD2000 lacking in bass. The music is more articulate but less fun (good for classical, not so good for trance/house). Asr's review said that they were capable of inducing "bass-gasms" but I found the bass underwhelming. I was expecting more visceral bass. Asr did use a $1000 amp, though.
Mids
Of course, the Senns are known for having a bit of a "veil". I didn't know what this meant until I listened to the AD2000. It's like going from a photograph that is very, very slightly blurred to something completely in focus (HD580->AD2000). It's quite a marginal difference to me, but it's there (again, the 0-10% improvement). A bit more clarity and articulation with strings, guitar, synths, etc.
Highs
I found the AD2000 a bit harsh when I listened to them on the first day, but they've softened up slightly with burn-in (or I got used to it, one of the two). Either way, they extend a bit higher than the HD580, which is definitely a good thing, especially with vocals.
One good example is Radiohead's Life in a Glass House when the trumpet bursts in.
Cymbals and hi-hats sound very good as well.
Soundstage
The soundstage is a bit smaller than the HD580's. With orchestral music, I couldn't really tell much of a difference (Stravinsky's Petrouchka), but when listening to, for example, Radiohead or Feist, the vocals are closer, as though their nose is touching mine and they are singing into my face. I prefer this a little over the HD580. The vocals are more defined and there's a bit more detail. For instance, on some Radiohead tracks, I don't recall noticing before that there are two Thoms singing at different octaves (one very softly, of course).
Instrument separation/placement was one thing that really stood out as being a bit more than marginally better than the HD580. Complex passages are a bit less cluttered and it's easier to follow distinct sounds. It was a little easier to see the where the instruments are while listening to Petrouchka.
Build Quality
The HD580 is mostly plastic and seems really easily breakable, though I've tossed my around quite a bit and they haven't sustained any damages. The AD2000 is much better built. I think I read that the grilles are magnesium. In any event, they look probably twice more durable and well-made than the HD580.
Comfort
For short listens, the AD2000 is fine, but after a couple of hours, it starts to be pretty uncomfortable, as your ear sits on the plastic driver housing. This seems like a bad oversight; it doesn't seem like they'd be really comfortable for anyone. The pads are pretty limp, and while they're nice and cooshy, they don't keep your ears off of the driver housing. I thought maybe some Garfield Softies would help out, but they're too small, and I tried to put them on the inside of the pads, which kind of worked. Anyway, the HD580 wins easily on comfort. I do, however, prefer the AD2000's circularness to the HD580's ovalness. Also, the wings are a lot better than a headband, in my opinion.
So there you have it.
iAudio M5 -> ALO Bling -> Total Bithead -> headphones
All of the tracks I used were -q7 ogg vorbis. I can't tell the difference between -q7 and -q10 on 99.9% of my music, and I certainly can't tell the difference between -q10 and lossless/wav. This is with a flat EQ as well.
This A/B test was done this afternoon. I got the AD2000 last Wednesday from Audiocubes. So they've had about 70-80hrs of white/pink burn-in, plus a lot of other listening time, maybe 40-50hrs. I've had the HD580 for a few years. The AD2000 didn't change much at all after the first couple nights of burn-in, so I don't think further burn-in will do anything to alter their sound.
Everyone seems to like the photos, so here are a couple:
2848 x 2136 version: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1252/...2e0bd061_o.jpg
2848 x 2136 version: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1083/...1f4771c6_o.jpg
Overall, the AD2000 is definitely a better headphone than the HD580, almost in every aspect. But I think the $470 (pj) price tag is a much too high for their performance. On the whole, I'd say, depending on the track, the AD2000 is 0-10% (maybe 15% in some cases) better than the HD580. And that certainly doesn't warrant 3x the price, in my opinion. Of course, keep in mind that this is without a great source or amp.
Bass
The bass is a bit more tight on the AD2000. Things like timpanis sound better, with more impact and texture. They do very well with acoustic bass, but they are perhaps a bit lacking in depth. The HD580 goes a deeper, and with electronic music (eg, progressive house), the HD580 has better bass overall. With trance/house, I find the AD2000 lacking in bass. The music is more articulate but less fun (good for classical, not so good for trance/house). Asr's review said that they were capable of inducing "bass-gasms" but I found the bass underwhelming. I was expecting more visceral bass. Asr did use a $1000 amp, though.
Mids
Of course, the Senns are known for having a bit of a "veil". I didn't know what this meant until I listened to the AD2000. It's like going from a photograph that is very, very slightly blurred to something completely in focus (HD580->AD2000). It's quite a marginal difference to me, but it's there (again, the 0-10% improvement). A bit more clarity and articulation with strings, guitar, synths, etc.
Highs
I found the AD2000 a bit harsh when I listened to them on the first day, but they've softened up slightly with burn-in (or I got used to it, one of the two). Either way, they extend a bit higher than the HD580, which is definitely a good thing, especially with vocals.
One good example is Radiohead's Life in a Glass House when the trumpet bursts in.
Cymbals and hi-hats sound very good as well.
Soundstage
The soundstage is a bit smaller than the HD580's. With orchestral music, I couldn't really tell much of a difference (Stravinsky's Petrouchka), but when listening to, for example, Radiohead or Feist, the vocals are closer, as though their nose is touching mine and they are singing into my face. I prefer this a little over the HD580. The vocals are more defined and there's a bit more detail. For instance, on some Radiohead tracks, I don't recall noticing before that there are two Thoms singing at different octaves (one very softly, of course).
Instrument separation/placement was one thing that really stood out as being a bit more than marginally better than the HD580. Complex passages are a bit less cluttered and it's easier to follow distinct sounds. It was a little easier to see the where the instruments are while listening to Petrouchka.
Build Quality
The HD580 is mostly plastic and seems really easily breakable, though I've tossed my around quite a bit and they haven't sustained any damages. The AD2000 is much better built. I think I read that the grilles are magnesium. In any event, they look probably twice more durable and well-made than the HD580.
Comfort
For short listens, the AD2000 is fine, but after a couple of hours, it starts to be pretty uncomfortable, as your ear sits on the plastic driver housing. This seems like a bad oversight; it doesn't seem like they'd be really comfortable for anyone. The pads are pretty limp, and while they're nice and cooshy, they don't keep your ears off of the driver housing. I thought maybe some Garfield Softies would help out, but they're too small, and I tried to put them on the inside of the pads, which kind of worked. Anyway, the HD580 wins easily on comfort. I do, however, prefer the AD2000's circularness to the HD580's ovalness. Also, the wings are a lot better than a headband, in my opinion.
So there you have it.
