adevriesc
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Posts
- 43
- Likes
- 20
TL;DR = The ATH-TAD400 and ATH-TAD500 appear to measure well on CSD charts and, with some damping, could turn out to be excellent headphones.
I'll update this post with photos and a review when my materials and TAD500s arrive.
Setting the stage:
After a failed hunt for the Fischer FA-002/Yoga CD-990 I ran into a wall. I love open headphones, but most of the options out there are too expensive or too bass light (I prefer bass neutrality/mild warmth). I considered the SHP9500 and HI2050 but wanted something different. In a final effort, I turned to company websites for new options. I found the ATH-TADXXX series -- a Japanese exclusive budget line of open Audio-Technica cans.
TAD500 (L) & 400 (R) specifications:
TAD500
TAD400
Mod premise:
Let's take a look at 4 CSD charts. I'll source them from Golden Ears -- not ideal, but good enough for use.
Yes, the venerable and generally loved HD650. I don't really want to compare budget headphones to the HD800. Note the ridge beginning at 500 Hz and the two ridges above 10k -- the treble is relatively well extended.
In the TAD500, the bass is flatter than the HD650 (and rolls off with mild speed, which is not visible in this chart). The headphone has similar decay characteristics to the HD650 with the exception of a 10k+ decay spike (which is what you'd get if you combined the two spikes in the HD650, I imagine). An aggressive dip in the 5-9k area indicates a lack of sibilant frequencies and resonances. The treble rolls off after 15k or so. The indicated treble spike and decay are likely AT's "signature" sound. The result is a midrange focused headphone.
The TAD400 moves the aggressive drop found in the TAD500 to 3-6k; there is an additional sharp drop at 7k. The highs aren't rolled off. The decay pattern is consistent with the TAD500 (likely due to the shared frame design) but lacks the AT signature decay spike. The result is a more balanced yet bass light headphone (the bass rolls off quickly -- not displayed in this chart).
This is just thrown in for comparison. The SHP9500 exhibits less control in its decay than the other headphones.
Based on the behavior of the TAD400's 40mm driver in a similar enclosure (extended highs, less decay time, better decay pattern), the TAD500's 53mm driver is likely impaired by a lack of mass/damping in the chassis. Added mass/damping may result in better high frequency roll off, improved low frequency roll off, and smoothing of the 5-15k range.
Mod materials:
My options were felt, Dynamat Xtreme, and Acoust-X sound damping paint (seems like a great product, but it doesn't increase mass). I chose:
Review before mod:
The mod(s):
Well, I got curious. Before the actual materials arrived I popped it open. The ENTIRE PREMISE of my mod has just been jammed back in my face. You see, these things are damped up the $&)*%^. As it was, they were basically closed headphones.
I'll update this post with photos and a review when my materials and TAD500s arrive.
Setting the stage:
After a failed hunt for the Fischer FA-002/Yoga CD-990 I ran into a wall. I love open headphones, but most of the options out there are too expensive or too bass light (I prefer bass neutrality/mild warmth). I considered the SHP9500 and HI2050 but wanted something different. In a final effort, I turned to company websites for new options. I found the ATH-TADXXX series -- a Japanese exclusive budget line of open Audio-Technica cans.
TAD500 (L) & 400 (R) specifications:
TAD500
- 53mm CCAW flat oriented driver
- 35 Ohm impedance
- 700 mW max power
- 15-27k Hz FR
- 96 dB/mW sensitivity
- velour pads
TAD400
- 40mm flat oriented driver
- 35 Ohm impedance
- 500 mW max power
- 18-25k Hz FR
- 93 dB/mW sensitivity
- velour pads
Mod premise:
Let's take a look at 4 CSD charts. I'll source them from Golden Ears -- not ideal, but good enough for use.
Yes, the venerable and generally loved HD650. I don't really want to compare budget headphones to the HD800. Note the ridge beginning at 500 Hz and the two ridges above 10k -- the treble is relatively well extended.
In the TAD500, the bass is flatter than the HD650 (and rolls off with mild speed, which is not visible in this chart). The headphone has similar decay characteristics to the HD650 with the exception of a 10k+ decay spike (which is what you'd get if you combined the two spikes in the HD650, I imagine). An aggressive dip in the 5-9k area indicates a lack of sibilant frequencies and resonances. The treble rolls off after 15k or so. The indicated treble spike and decay are likely AT's "signature" sound. The result is a midrange focused headphone.
The TAD400 moves the aggressive drop found in the TAD500 to 3-6k; there is an additional sharp drop at 7k. The highs aren't rolled off. The decay pattern is consistent with the TAD500 (likely due to the shared frame design) but lacks the AT signature decay spike. The result is a more balanced yet bass light headphone (the bass rolls off quickly -- not displayed in this chart).
This is just thrown in for comparison. The SHP9500 exhibits less control in its decay than the other headphones.
Based on the behavior of the TAD400's 40mm driver in a similar enclosure (extended highs, less decay time, better decay pattern), the TAD500's 53mm driver is likely impaired by a lack of mass/damping in the chassis. Added mass/damping may result in better high frequency roll off, improved low frequency roll off, and smoothing of the 5-15k range.
Mod materials:
My options were felt, Dynamat Xtreme, and Acoust-X sound damping paint (seems like a great product, but it doesn't increase mass). I chose:
- Dynamat Xtreme = AT designs tend to have a lot of plastic; that means little mass and a lot of potential for resonance.
- Felt = Dynamat Xtreme has some naysayers who state that high frequencies reflect off of it; I'll coat the dynamat in thin felt to minimize any such effect.
Review before mod:
The TAD500 is quite light. The design is mostly plastic -- the exception is an aluminum ring that supposedly enhances sound quality (it also looks quite sharp). The 'phones don't creak or exhibit any structural issues. Soft fabric/velour and low density foam are used for the earpads and headband. The cable strain reliefs are long, as is the cord. There may be impedance issues related to its length. The drivers are absolutely massive; I removed a pad to look at them and my jaw dropped. There appears to be a foam layer behind the honeycomb vent material.
Good god these things are comfortable. They do press your ears lightly against your head due to the design of their "3D pads," but the foam and velour are so soft that it doesn't matter. Some sweat might accumulate between your ears and head if you're the sweaty type. The headband keeps vertical weight off your ears and secures the phones to your head solidly. Comfort wise, these things blow away headphones far above their price point. I enjoy having them on my head.
Imaging: pretty good. Giving it a general rating... 4/5
Soundstage: y axis is the widest component; the x axis and z axis are roughly the same and just close enough to feel intimate.
Treble ~ slightly grainy, rolled off, and polite -- at the same time, notes are sharp. Not harsh, but precise. The treble grain actually adds texture to most songs. Little to no sibilance.
Midrange ~ warm lower-central area, reasonable detail. Very pleasant. There may be some significant dropoff in the upper mids-lower highs (which is disappointing at times). Definitely a veil.
Bass ~ very tight, deliciously textured, and surprisingly adaptive. It doesn't have a huge presence in terms of volume, but the overall presentation is superb. I wasn't expecting such impressive bass performance considering the measurements.
Overall ~ sound is, for the lack of a better term, polite and genre adaptive. There's a lot of energy in the lower-central midrange, but I'm noticing something missing elsewhere that can make the signature a bit boring at times. Probably that massive dip in the CSD chart (unless that's confirmation bias at work).
Soundstage: y axis is the widest component; the x axis and z axis are roughly the same and just close enough to feel intimate.
Treble ~ slightly grainy, rolled off, and polite -- at the same time, notes are sharp. Not harsh, but precise. The treble grain actually adds texture to most songs. Little to no sibilance.
Midrange ~ warm lower-central area, reasonable detail. Very pleasant. There may be some significant dropoff in the upper mids-lower highs (which is disappointing at times). Definitely a veil.
Bass ~ very tight, deliciously textured, and surprisingly adaptive. It doesn't have a huge presence in terms of volume, but the overall presentation is superb. I wasn't expecting such impressive bass performance considering the measurements.
Overall ~ sound is, for the lack of a better term, polite and genre adaptive. There's a lot of energy in the lower-central midrange, but I'm noticing something missing elsewhere that can make the signature a bit boring at times. Probably that massive dip in the CSD chart (unless that's confirmation bias at work).
The mod(s):
Well, I got curious. Before the actual materials arrived I popped it open. The ENTIRE PREMISE of my mod has just been jammed back in my face. You see, these things are damped up the $&)*%^. As it was, they were basically closed headphones.
