[TAMAL]

I feel bad that I can't try any of them. I live in a thirld world country & only decent headphone available here is MDR 1A(+priced insane). My uncle who lives in Australia, will do the purchase & then bring them to me when he comes.

Though my prefered genres don't directly match yours, I do like slhghtly warm, smooth & bassy sound. My small collection ranges between 2000-2012 yr rock, pop songs.

 

[joey99]

Maybe others on this thread can chime in with a good headphone for rock and pop. The A900X does everything quite well .. some might want more bass but I find it adequate... when I want a bit more bass on it, I also use the bass boost on my JDSlabs C5D with it ... but if it's warm, smooth bassy and big soundstage is what you're after .. the Z7 is my choice ... but that's me .. you might even like the shure 1540 for rock. It's a hard choice isn't it.

 

[TAMAL]

Yes, hard choise indeed, specially when I can't audition them... I'll look on to the Z7 however. Thanks for your kind help so far
I'll wait & see what others have to say...

 

[theuprising]

Honestly this headphones sounds great (though it may need EQ to make it neutral for a few songs), without my amp, any one know an amp that's fairly neutral, b/c my E07k makes it sound boomy as hell and I would imagine a cold amp would make it even more treble focused. And again if no one else tried it yet, the a900x's drivers are very malleable and can be made to sound very neutral via EQ.
 
I'm thinking of trading my fiio e07k for an e17

 

[joey99]

I had many Fiio amps in the past and they're all too warm and I think they take away the detail too much.
 
For me I like the neutrality of the O2+ODAC and the C5D for the A900X. The C5D especially for the bass boost that it needs to make the headphone awesome. The bass is already not bad and sufficient by itself but having had the Sony Z7 for almost a year, it makes everything else lack bass.

 

[Tshiknn]

I just got a lightly-used pair of these off Amazon, and I have a question about what seems to be a really heavy peak at around the 8-10khz area. I own a pair of HD558's, which I really love (although they're supposedly veiled, they sound really natural to my ear). I listen to a lot of classical music, and voices and instruments sound really unnatural and cold, whereas they sound completely natural on the HD558's. Is this an issue anyone else has experienced? I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up by anyone else. Does it go away after burn-in?

 

[theuprising]

  I just got a lightly-used pair of these off Amazon, and I have a question about what seems to be a really heavy peak at around the 8-10khz area. I own a pair of HD558's, which I really love (although they're supposedly veiled, they sound really natural to my ear). I listen to a lot of classical music, and voices and instruments sound really unnatural and cold, whereas they sound completely natural on the HD558's. Is this an issue anyone else has experienced? I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up by anyone else. Does it go away after burn-in?

Nope the goldenears charts supports this along with my own listening. Its signature is sparkly treble, creamy mids, and punchy bass, and supposedly beautifies acoustic recordings. I find it ridiculous that these are recommended so highly at r/headphones over the M50, when they have such a peculiar sound.
 
My EQ which I posted before is based off the goldenears charts neutralizes the headphones, showing what they are really capable of. Sorry if its unnecessarily complicated, I made it for myself for use with EQapo, a windows plugin.
 
Fc 20 Hz       Gain   4.5 dB   Q 1
Fc 256 Hz      Gain  0.5 dB   Q 1
Fc 3000 Hz    Gain     1 dB   Q 2
Fc 3000 Hz    Gain -0.5 dB   Q 4.7
Fc 7000 Hz    Gain     8 dB   Q 1
Fc 8500 Hz    Gain    -7 dB   Q 2.8
Fc 9800 Hz    Gain    -2 dB   Q 6.5
Fc 10000 Hz  Gain  -2.5 dB   Q 1
Fc 10100 Hz  Gain  -0.5 dB   Q 15
Fc 11000 Hz   Gain  0.5 dB   Q 2

 

[Tshiknn]

Thank you so much for the EQ, they sound really good with it (still a bit thin only very occasionally). I don't like having to EQ them, and I still think the HD558 will by my go-to, but they sound good. Not sure if I should return them and get a new pair (was thinking SRH940? I don't know though) or just accept the fact that it won't be perfect.

 

[theuprising]

  Thank you so much for the EQ, they sound really good with it (still a bit thin only very occasionally). I don't like having to EQ them, and I still think the HD558 will by my go-to, but they sound good. Not sure if I should return them and get a new pair (was thinking SRH940? I don't know though) or just accept the fact that it won't be perfect.

Glad you liked it! If you download EQapo you can keep them EQ'ed all the time, assuming you are using a computer. There are front-end GUI's for it so you can turn the EQ off on short notice too. Yes if you can afford the SRH940, you will likely be pleased with those though I doubt they will touch the A900x's soundstage.

 

[chazb11]

This may be a dumb question but...
How can anyone give an accurate review/listening impression of any headphone when what they are accustomed to listening to has been altered by EQ?
 
The subject of using EQ was brought up early in this thread and again here at the end and it seems many head-fiers use a carefully balanced EQ curve for each different headphone they own. I'm not knocking the use of EQ...to each his own. BUT, how can you evaluate a new set of cans? What do you compare them to? Do you return your favorite cans EQ setting to flat (so it now sounds like crap to you) in order to do the comparison... or do you quickly decide on an EQ setting for the new cans? (that certainly doesn't seem like a fair or accurate method) Maybe you compare your EQ adjusted cans directly to the new ones on flat EQ? (again, hardly fair or accurate)
 
You get the idea of what I'm trying to say here. This is my objection to using EQ, Call me a stuffy audiophile if you like but the point I'm making is valid.

 

[Smugsie]

  This may be a dumb question but...
How can anyone give an accurate review/listening impression of any headphone when what they are accustomed to listening to has been altered by EQ?
 
The subject of using EQ was brought up early in this thread and again here at the end and it seems many head-fiers use a carefully balanced EQ curve for each different headphone they own. I'm not knocking the use of EQ...to each his own. BUT, how can you evaluate a new set of cans? What do you compare them to? Do you return your favorite cans EQ setting to flat (so it now sounds like crap to you) in order to do the comparison... or do you quickly decide on an EQ setting for the new cans? (that certainly doesn't seem like a fair or accurate method) Maybe you compare your EQ adjusted cans directly to the new ones on flat EQ? (again, hardly fair or accurate)
 
You get the idea of what I'm trying to say here. This is my objection to using EQ, Call me a stuffy audiophile if you like but the point I'm making is valid.

 
Sorry for the late response.

When I evaluate a new set of cans, I compare the new set without EQ to my old set that was EQ'd.
I want my new headphones to sound like my old set that was EQ'd, except better.
I.E. I used to EQ my ATH-A900X to sound like the AKG Q701.
 
To me there's no such thing as flat, it either sounds good with my music or it doesn't.

Your point was a bit odd to piece together but hopefully I interpreted your question correctly.

 

[chazb11]

   
Sorry for the late response.

When I evaluate a new set of cans, I compare the new set without EQ to my old set that was EQ'd.
I want my new headphones to sound like my old set that was EQ'd, except better.

That makes perfect sense if you are evaluating headphones for your own personal use, but how about when you are posting your impressions here on Head-Fi? You can't give someone a realistic idea of what xyz headphones sound like by saying "these new xyz headphones are weak in the midrange compare to abc phones, which by the way, I have EQed to suite my own sense of what's ideal." It's kind of like making your favorite cup of coffee and sweetening it to your taste, then comparing it to a new coffee without sweetener and saying "this new coffee is bitter and not nearly sweet enough for me". 
 
There's no such thing as flat? Again, it's like the black coffee. You may not like black coffee but it exists and it's what coffee really tastes like, for better or worse.
 
Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult or something. I really am curious as to how you (and others) handle this when discussing what various headphones sound like.

 

[Smugsie]

  That makes perfect sense if you are evaluating headphones for your own personal use, but how about when you are posting your impressions here on Head-Fi? You can't give someone a realistic idea of what xyz headphones sound like by saying "these new xyz headphones are weak in the midrange compare to abc phones, which by the way, I have EQed to suite my own sense of what's ideal." It's kind of like making your favorite cup of coffee and sweetening it to your taste, then comparing it to a new coffee without sweetener and saying "this new coffee is bitter and not nearly sweet enough for me". 
 
There's no such thing as flat? Again, it's like the black coffee. You may not like black coffee but it exists and it's what coffee really tastes like, for better or worse.
 
Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult or something. I really am curious as to how you (and others) handle this when discussing what various headphones sound like.

Personally, I'm an objective person, I sometimes judge headphones by frequency responses, measurements and whatever comes out in numbers. This became a habit after a fellow Head-Fier was kind enough to give me his microphone to stick in my ear and I would be the Head and Torso Simulator to measure a headphone.
 
In this case, it's best to remove all EQ in order to properly measure a headphone. The reason people keep buying headphones is so they don't have to EQ in the first place. Without an EQ, you can start using frequency response charts to compare headphones. =3061&graphID[]=2931&scale=30]Take this comparison chart by example.
Based on this chart, you can say the AD900 is cleaner, colder sounding, and more airy compared the AKG Q701's.
The AKG Q701's might have more treble texture and warmer sounding due to the higher levels in the bass/lower mid areas.
 
In regards to flat, I suppose one could take the perceived human hearing chart and use this chart to find a headphone that is flat. However the compensation is under research by many enthusiasts/engineers and the current successful compensation chart is the Harman Target Response Curve.
 
TL;DR, people compare headphones without an EQ.

 

[Makiah S]

 

Ok, so. Here's my entire a900x mod.
The wings are modded to stay down, plus I decompressed the spring so the wings have a more downward force when the mechanism inside it pushes together to strain the wings from lifting. Plus I ordered Alpha Pads from Dan last month and got these in the mail today, these earpads were quite in demand.  I have a better camera that I'll take pictures with after I get some errands done.
I'm going to add more details to this review because I have something to do....
But quick impressions.

-Bass less punchy, less droning. (I was actually a bit disappointed these were flattened out)
-Sub bass is more prominent, it's also a natural feeling sub bass, not like artificial bass boost
-10khz peak lowered 3-5db
-Narrower soundstage
-Better instrument seperation
-Darker sound signature
-Mids a tad recessed, about 0.5 to 1 db less
-Better seal around my ears, thus improving isolation
-SSOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFTTT
Like seriously, I felt the softness of these earpads through the paper packaging.
-Regarding to softness, even though these generate more heat from my head, it just feels more comfortable.
-Less earpad contact, fabric mesh no longer touch my ears
-Heavier

Yea I'll quote a 2 year old post SURE
 
Happy to hear the Alpha pads work their magic on these too 

 

[Makiah S]

  Personally, I'm an objective person, I sometimes judge headphones by frequency responses, measurements and whatever comes out in numbers. This became a habit after a fellow Head-Fier was kind enough to give me his microphone to stick in my ear and I would be the Head and Torso Simulator to measure a headphone.
 
In this case, it's best to remove all EQ in order to properly measure a headphone. The reason people keep buying headphones is so they don't have to EQ in the first place. Without an EQ, you can start using frequency response charts to compare headphones. Take this comparison chart by example.
Based on this chart, you can say the AD900 is cleaner, colder sounding, and more airy compared the AKG Q701's.
The AKG Q701's might have more treble texture and warmer sounding due to the higher levels in the bass/lower mid areas.
 
In regards to flat, I suppose one could take the perceived human hearing chart and use this chart to find a headphone that is flat. However the compensation is under research by many enthusiasts/engineers and the current successful compensation chart is the Harman Target Response Curve.
 
TL;DR, people compare headphones without an EQ.

Yup an yup, I only EQ cheap headphones
 
also I've found moving up the chain that tactility is something you cannot EQ, attack an decay aren't something you can EQ either, yea increase DBs via EQ may change your perception of them but in reality a headphone with a lot of decay won't suddenly lose said decay if you eq that freq down