Okay I think I've listened enough out of the AD900X to give some small impression of the sound.
The AD900X's definitely do have the characteristic that I remember most strongly from the AD900 - namely a very dry, extended treble range. This is a definite and noticeable aspect of the sound that carries through every track I throw at it - this very strong sense of air from an emphasis on the treble.
Mids are clear and have a nice bell-tone clarity, but vocals are not especially mellow or liquid. Again like typical AT they do an amazing job on female vocals; the lack of lower mid emphasis make male vocals sound nice but not particularly interesting.
Bass is fast, tight and punchy, decent for an open headphone but not anything standout to me. From memory it seems like a definite improvement on the AD900 bass. Listening to this test:
http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencychecklow.php driver action starts at around 20hz, but only really becomes audible at 30hz and only reaches full volume at about 60hz. There is definitely some roll off in the sub-bass, same as with almost all open headphones. (Except the LCD-2 heh.)
Soundstage initially seems quite open because of the treble emphasis and the way it tends to emphasize atmospherics in the sound (reverb, echo). However, like how I remember the AD900 and AD2000, soundstage is actually somewhat diffuse and imprecise. It's slightly smeared over a large area, and I'm not getting any sense of great imaging.
My main criticism of the sound: while these sound great for slower tracks where the atmospherics shine, they fall apart a bit for very fast aggressive music because a) they don't separate or layer amazingly b) the hot treble just becomes too spitty c) the slight bass roll off makes it harder to preserve a sense of beat or rhythm.
I am really being incredibly harsh here though. Relative to other headphones in their price category (I'm going by the Amazon.co.jp price I got)
these are great. While I wouldn't recommend them for people who listen to a lot of aggressive electronic or metal, they do an amazing job with almost everything else. Build quality is also a big plus, but I'm still undecided about comfort.
I want to listen a listen a little more and gather my thoughts before I give a comprehensive comparison against the MA900, but I'll say this: I like the MA900 more. I am sure the AD900 will have many fans because of the treble flavour (the MA900 is definitely more laid back and mellow in that regard) but imaging and layering are noticeably better on the MA900. The MA900 sounds a little more boring but has better genre bandwidth than the AD900X. The MA900 is also hands down more comfortable for me.
Of course, the MA900 should be a better headphone technically; it costs more. Build quality on the AD900X puts the MA900 to shame.
Once I've written / made my video review, I'll put the AD900X's on sale. The money will probably go towards an AD1000X and AD2000x
.
.gif)
