ATH-W2002, MDR-CD3000 and MDR-R10

[jatinder]

Now that my W2002s have had about a week to burn-in - they've mainly been on CD-repeat all day/every day, I think it should be OK to post a few notes on them.

I ordered the W2002s due to the great reviews they were getting on Head-Fi and I also needed a spare set of headphones (for 'er indoors etc). I didn't really expect them to compare well with the R10 and in that respect, it's fair to say, I'm not disappointed with them.

The W2002 definitely competes well with the CD3000. Overall, the W2002 is more natural sounding than the CD3000. The W2002 has a much better/more natural overall tonality. I'm not convinced that the bass and treble of the W2002 is particularly natural-sounding, when compared to the CD3000. When it comes to timbre and the decay of notes, I can't help feeling that the W2002 sounds "artificial" compared to the CD3000. I've always said that I think the imaging of the CD3000 is better than the R10s, and I think too, that the CD3000 beats the W2002 in this respect.

The W2002s are good, and possibly objectively/subjectively better than the CD3000.


There's no way that the W2002s could be a "killer" or even a contender for the R10. The R10 is more detailed and so much more natural.

Bass response - to my ears, the R10 goes deeper and provides a richer, more natural bass compared to the W2002. The W2002s bass just doesn't cut it compared to the R10.

Treble response - I think that the R10 could do with just a tiny bit more high-frequency sparkle. I find that the treble of the W2002 almost but not quite tries to dominate the sound of the W2002. In essence, I find the W2002s quite irritating in that they have just a bit *too much* sparkle.

At higher than normal listening levels, the R10 is still in complete control and just gets louder. The W2002 seems to close-in on you and begins to pound your ears. This can be "pleasant" with Metallica/Led Zep/Iron Maiden whatever - but I think it's due to the levels of distortion that manifest themselves when the volume goes up. In the same way, that if I turn the volume up on my main amp, after about 11o'clock on the volume knob, you can hear the speakers begin to strain.

The natural decay of instruments, the overall tonal balance, there's more but I can't seem to express it -- the R10s have it. The W2002s don't. Maybe this is the "disappearing headphones" phenomenom - with the R10 you listen to music, with the CD3000 and the W2002 you listen to headphones.

When I listen to normal speakers, the sound is natural and well-balanced. The problem with a lot of headphones is that they don't sound natural nor well-balanced. Headphones can and sometimes do sound analytical and in some cases can be too analytical or too flat in frequency response to be "musical".

In the end, I *want* my headphones to sound like normal speakers (apart from the obvious room interactions). The R10 does this. The CD3000 doesn't. The W2002s don't.

All in all, the W2002s are great headphones - and I'll probably keep them. They look good too which is always a bonus. But they certainly aren't as well made, as good-looking, as comfortable or as good sounding as the R10s.

Happy Listening,
--Jatinder

 

[ai0tron]

Sanity! Sanity prevails!!!


So would you say they were overpriced? They are around $800 are they not?

I'm easily annoyed by treble, do the CD3000's have similar treble to the R10's? If they do, I MIGHT consider them, but from all accounts they have omni present treble. As you found the AT's a little too trebley, I am guessing from reviews that I would find the CD3000's treble a little too present.

Nice review!!

 

[steinie]

Jatinder:

Thanx for the honest review. Sounds like my CD3000's are not all that bad compared to the W2002's. It's good to know I don't need to throw them away and find some W2002's instead.

Seriously, it's good to read some positive comments on the CD3000's for a change. I love mine, but never seem to read much good stuff about them on these forums.......

 

[markl]

Thanks jatinder for posting your comments. We are in agreement on most aspects of the W2002, but not everything.

I'd like to go through some of jatinder's comments with some of my own:

"The W2002 definitely competes well with the CD3000."

The W2002 actually reminds me most of the Sony CD3000 of all other phones I've owned. Tone and timbre and overall sound is different, but they provide a similar kind of listening experience. With the W2002 and CD3K, you say to yourself, "Wow, listen to that driver!" With the R10, it's, "Wow, listen to that music." The W2002 and CD3K are more showy in a typically "hi-fi" way. Its very impressive, but not as real and true as the R10.

"I'm not convinced that the bass and treble of the W2002 is particularly natural-sounding, when compared to the CD3000."

I'd say their equally "un-natural" compared to the R10, but in different ways. That is, they deviate from perfection (R10) along different lines.

"When it comes to timbre and the decay of notes, I can't help feeling that the W2002 sounds "artificial" compared to the CD3000."

Bingo! Insufficient note decay is one of my major hang-ups with W2002. It does not provide as much decay as R10. I think this is due to the tightness of the W2002's driver which greatly benefits the bass, so its a wash.

"I've always said that I think the imaging of the CD3000 is better than the R10s, and I think too, that the CD3000 beats the W2002 in this respect."

Disagree pretty strongly here. CD3000 images way better than HD600, but R10 is that much better still. W2002 drivers, though angled, do not have nearly the same degree of tilt as CD3K/R10. It images well, but not as well as the Sony's. I get a weird effect with the 2002. I hear the usual left and right ear blobs, but center blob is raised up ABOVE the left and right blobs to an annoying degree. Anyone else experience this?

"The W2002s are good, and possibly objectively/subjectively better than the CD3000."

Yes, by a margin that would be appreciated by most people.

"There's no way that the W2002s could be a "killer" or even a contender for the R10. The R10 is more detailed and so much more natural."

I agree. I've said it before, but I think that at least 80% of headphone enthusiasts would feel that way as well. I don't think the difference will come down to "different strokes for different folks". R10s are recognizably better.

"Bass response - to my ears, the R10 goes deeper and provides a richer, more natural bass compared to the W2002. The W2002s bass just doesn't cut it compared to the R10."

Here's where we part company. I don't think the R10 goes any deeper. Yes, tonally the R10 sounds more natural than W2002, but when it comes to bass, tonality ain't the whole ball game. W2002's provide substantial pressure on the ears due to DADS system that feels more like real (amplified) bass notes do in the open air hitting your ears at a concert. I have yet to get a bass headache from this effect and actually find the sensation oddly enjoyable. I call it "ear massage". I've posted elsewhere in more detail my esteem for W2002 bass. I'd say its the W2002's "secret weapon" that could make some people overlook other flaws.
I listen to a lot of very heavy rock and some electronica, so I likes me bass .

"Treble response - I think that the R10 could do with just a tiny bit more high-frequency sparkle. "
Yeah, but not a lot more. Top end is pretty friggin' good. Especially when compared to woolly HD600.

"I find that the treble of the W2002 almost but not quite tries to dominate the sound of the W2002. In essence, I find the W2002s quite irritating in that they have just a bit *too much* sparkle."

I feel they are not *quite* as sparkly and crystalline as CD3000, but there's certainly more there than R10.

"At higher than normal listening levels, the R10 is still in complete control and just gets louder. The W2002 seems to close-in on you and begins to pound your ears. This can be "pleasant" with Metallica/Led Zep/Iron Maiden whatever - but I think it's due to the levels of distortion that manifest themselves when the volume goes up. In the same way, that if I turn the volume up on my main amp, after about 11o'clock on the volume knob, you can hear the speakers begin to strain."

I have the exact opposite experience driving W2002 and R10 through my Melos Gold. The Sony R10's "poop out" *in the bass region* before the mighty W2002 which enables more and more volume without *unpleasant* distortion (hash and/or clipping).
HOWEVER, the W2002's have a problem at high volumes that annoys me. The mids stop blooming after a certain point and volume increases highs and lows at a greater rate. You want to keep turning the W2002 up so you can hear the voices more distinctly and you get more bass and treble instead. The R10s are much better at expressing vocals than the W2002. With the R10, you never have to ask yourself: "what did he just say"? That said, W2002 blows other phones away in terms of translating lyrics and making them clear. Just not as good as R10.
W2002 also has a somewhat nasal and "cupped hands" quality to vocals that is absent in the R10. Would you notice this effect without an R10 to set you straight? I'd say it's on the borderline.

"In the end, I *want* my headphones to sound like normal speakers (apart from the obvious room interactions). The R10 does this. The CD3000 doesn't. The W2002s don't."

Yes. I've said it before: the R10s are voiced like a high-end speaker.

"But they certainly aren't as well made, as good-looking, as comfortable or as good sounding as the R10s.."

Agreed.

*phew*

markl

 

[markl]

Not to hog this thread, but I've put my W2002s up for an "interest check" in the classifieds here:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...&threadid=8023

markl

 

[M Rael]

...just wanted to thank jatinder for posting what he thought about the W2002. I love reading comparisons, regardless of what my evil twin might post here. Certain things he mentioned about the R10 totally reminded me of what it was like to have them both here for a short time. Thanks again jatinder.
And markl, thanks a bunch too! The longer you have the W2002's the more happy I am that you are speaking up about them (both their strengths and weaknesses.) You have a nice way of conceptualizing the differences that is growing on me the more I read them. Thanks again.

 

[jatinder]

Hi ai0tron,

(Did I spell that correctly?)

In terms of treble and the way *I* react to it -- I'd say that the CD3000 is less bothersome than the W2002. This could be due to all kinds of reasons - I'm not suggesting that the W2002s have sharp treble at all.

I suspect it's more to do with the whole tonal balance of the headphones - the CD3000s sound a little detached, the W2002s sound very good and more natural than the CD3000s - and the treble (which could be better) then sticks out like a sore thumb. (Probably not that bad in reality - but I can't express it any better.) You just notice it more with the W2002s.

Markl:
I think the imaging on the CD3000 is more accurate than the R10. So there

Also, I can't say that I've played the R10s at *very* loud levels -- but I did buy my pair new from Japan and know what they've been through over the years. They do not poop out at higher levels, not in the bass or anywhere else.

I understand what you say about bass tonality being different to bass-extension - and I still say that the bass on the R10 goes deeper.

--Jatinder

 

[markl]

Maybe "poop out" was a bit harsh. The bas just fails to acheive more volume and impact after a certain point, but that's much much louder than you would normally listen. The ATH W2002 has a much, much tighter "grip" on the sound, which can also make it *slightly* rubbery in comparison to the ultra-natural R10. I find myself really cranking the W2002s to "get off" on the bass. It's so enjoyable.

There seem to be a lot of trade-offs when it comes to driver design. Don't get me wrong-- I've always stuck up for the R10's bass. It's damn good!

markl