[imran27]

I want to buy new headphones but I'm unable to decide which one to buy. I don't have a particular taste, I listen to anything and everything. I love to appreciate the fine details and movements in music.
 
The headphone I want should have a very good clarity, details and instrument timbre. Overall great sound quality. Regarding soundstage, imaging and instrument separation I'm not sure if it affects the former three features in some way, if it enhances those (details, clarity etc.) then it's good to have.
 
So far I've known that there is not much difference between A500X & A700X but I want a headfier's opinion on that. I was almost set to order M40X but then the looks and reviews of the art monitor stopped me from doing so.
 
I don't want 'phones that are just good for hip hop & rock or jazz and classical etc. I want an all rounder, yeah the M40X is one option as an all rounder but I want opinions regarding Art Monitors, esp. the A500X (It looks to me that aside from a lower max power input there is no there difference)
 
Thanks in advance

 

[Puzzles]

I believe that Audio Technica cans are not worth the money you spend for. I haven't listened to the A400 or A700, but I had the Audio Technica ATH-AD900X and that killed my interest in any other can from AT immediately. The problem with the AD900X was that it is horribly uncomfortable and it doesn't sit properly on your head. It always feels like it is about to slide off your head (and my head is not small).
But more importantly, the sound was not transparent. Instruments felt like hidden behind a screen. The A400 or A700 which are below the AD900X in AT's line up probably won't be better in that regard. My old Sennheiser HD598 did better than the AD900X in terms of transparency and frequency response (AT cans also have generally weaky weak bass).
I was impressed by the AD900's airy spacious sound though. However, it had terrible imaging and a forward sound without any attempt to define the space. As it was a rather subtle spaciousness and because I prefer accurate soundstage, I sold it after a few weeks. The HD598 did way better with soundstage definition.
If you still wanna get an AT can, I'd recommend to get the best model you can afford, the M50X might be quite OK.

 

[imran27]

If clarity and resolution and fine details are not affected by an open/airy sound I don't mind having a narrow soundstage.
 
As for the their 3D Wing support system you are right, it's true that it may not be the most comfortable way to mount a headphone on the head, but it depends. Most people say it is a bit tricky but comfortable once you get used to it.
 
I'm more concerned about sound quality, a bit of bass boost won't harm unless it negatively affects other aspects. I'm more interested in A500X and the M40X for their budget.
 
DT770 Pro & 880 pro look good but are bassy, premium versions are good for my tastes but are costly (they're 'premium')
 
If any other recommendations that come close to M40X or are better are always welcome.

 

[MoneJone]

I had actually the exact opposite opinion than puzzles... I own an ATH AD700 and I am impressed with its clarity, detail and soundstage. I can hear things I couldn't even imagine they were recorded in the track I was playing. Also, I find the 3d wing system to be one of the most comfortable I have tried... they sit firmly on my head and I can wear them for hours, I can even forget I am wearing headphone. But I think that depends mostly on one's head shape and habits...

 

[imran27]

There were almost no complains (very few) complaints regarding the sound quality of all mentioned headphones.
 
I just wanted to know how do these 'Art Monitors' (A###X) stand against the 'Professional Monitors' (M##X) in terms of clarity, resolution etc. I just don't want a 'colored' sound output in order to enjoy all kinds and genres of music. This property pretty much screams professional/studio monitors but even the art monitors seam to be pretty close to it or better (may not be a pro monitoring but have great detail and resolution than M series)

 

[Puzzles]

Maybe I exaggerated the transparency issue. It is a relative thing. It was just not as transparent as I know it from my Beyerdynamic T1 and Fostex TH900 (the comparison is unfair, I know 

). If I never heard them, I might be happy with AT. The AT's do carve out details nicely but what I missed was tonal saturation/body. Compared to the cans I have, it sounded thin, like a pastel painting. And it often felt like the final brush stroke was lacking. But these are nuances as the music doesn't change much.
If I remember correctly, the Art monitors maintain that spacious sound while the M-monitors sound more "conventional". I would've recommended the DT770 as an alternative but if you found that too bassy, then you'll probably find the A700 a nice can. 

 

[zunehdrocks]

Well the m40 doesn't seem very special for the price.
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audio-technica-ath-m40fs-precision-studiophones/reviews/9023

 

[zunehdrocks]

Some other balanced cans:
Koss prodj100 with m50 pads
Nvx xpt100/brainwavz hm5/lindy hf100/jaycar pro monitor (same sound)
Martinlogan mikros 90 (huge price drops in the US)
Harmon kardon cl (huge price drops in the US)

 

[imran27]

My past: Sennheiser CX 180 Street II, Sony MDR-E11LP

My present: SoundMagic E10

I haven't heard any better earphones/headphones

But from what I have read and known, the M40FS sounds very different from the M40X.

I guess only 2 points I want to know
1. Does the A500X offer better clarity, details and resolution than the M40X? What about overall SQ?
2. Is A700X worth considering over A500X?

As a bonus point plz suggest other headphones below $200 for my taste. I don't have access to the recommendations in post above the last.

 

[Allentown]

The M40fs is not the same as the M40x

 

[zunehdrocks]

The M40fs is not the same as the M40x

They both use the same drivers so its nearly identical soundwise

 

[imran27]

They both use the same drivers so its nearly identical soundwise

Same drivers mean same sound quality? I differ, since almost all M-series use same drivers with differences in max power input, sensitivity and impedance. All A-series Art Monitors use same drivers and have same sensitivities with differences in max input power and impedances. But I guess they do sound a little different from each other at same sound level.

 

[Allentown]

They both use the same drivers so its nearly identical soundwise

M40FS: Freq 5-28
M40fx: Freq 15-24

M40FS: Impedance: 60
M40x: Impedance: 35

M40FS: Sensitivity: 100
M40x: Sensitivity: 96

The acoustical shape of the housing are completely different to. Many phones with the same drivers sound different with different housings even WHEN the specs are the same. (Thus the results people get from various mods).

What struck me is that many review sites (often with the same reviewer) that gave the FS 3 stars gave the X 5 stars and felt the need to go out of their way to set set the record straight that the X is NOT the FS. Don't shoot the messenger....I'm just passing the info along.

 

[imran27]

M40FS: Freq 5-28
M40fx: Freq 15-24

M40FS: Impedance: 60
M40x: Impedance: 35

M40FS: Sensitivity: 100
M40x: Sensitivity: 96

The acoustical shape of the housing are completely different to. Many phones with the same drivers sound different with different housings even WHEN the specs are the same. (Thus the results people get from various mods).

What struck me is that many review sites (often with the same reviewer) that gave the FS 3 stars gave the X 5 stars and felt the need to go out of their way to set set the record straight that the X is NOT the FS. Don't shoot the messenger....I'm just passing the info along.

OK, you seem right, so the A500X and A700X should sound quite similar isn't it, only impedance is different. The shape of the housing is same.
 
Are these DT770 Pro better than M40X or A500X (in terms of clarity, resolution & details)? Which version is more balanced, 32/80/250/600? Also, I can't make out whether A500X is better than M40X (the same 3 attributes)!

 

[Allentown]

One other possible difference is what ever trickery occurs in how they "tune" the phones.

That's vague at best, especially with regard to phones that supposedly have zero electronic interferenc. ...but it's a possible reason for the differences. The supposedly improved sq of the Bose QC 25s over the Bose QC 15s and the improvent in SQ from the ATH M50s to the M50x when by all accounts identical designs....