[pngwn]

A nagging double post and a back handed thank you, wow

 

[pngwn]

Comparing a HiFiMan ortho (he-500 if possible) to the AD900x, what are the comparative strength and weaknesses of each? Would it be enough to justify upgrading?

 

[pngwn]

Double posted

 

[waynes world]

Quote:

Comparing a HiFiMan ortho (he-500 if possible) to the AD900x, what are the comparative strength and weaknesses of each? Would it be enough to justify upgrading?

 
You better stop even thinking about them pngwn - that's the beginning of a very slippery and expensive slope LOL!
 
Those puppies are three to four times the price of the AD900X's. It certainly would be interesting to hear how they compare soundwise.

 

[pngwn]

Eh, I've been on the fence about the he-500 for a while because of how satisfied I am with the AD900x. After Katun said he preferred the AD900x to them a few pages back, I'm even more so. I'm mostly curious about the "incredible organic bass" of orthos and how much better the imaging is than te AD900x's. They're a tentative purchase that I might be saving until after I've spent a year with my ATs and if I really feel like upgrading after seeing how my AD900x sound with the iFi iCan when I eventually buy that over the summer.

With the AD900x, I feel like I've hit near the peak of my point of diminishing returns. Any desire I have for bass is easily remedied by my E12, EQ'ing, and hopefully my incoming WS99. All that's left is finding a headphone with better soundstage, speed, and imaging, if I'm REALLY itching for those traits in my music, I guess?

Which of course goes back to my question: does the he-500 offer enough of an improvement in those areas and others to justify upgrading to them or is the difference improportionately small compared to the cost?

 

[waynes world]

Quote:

Eh, I've been on the fence about the he-500 for a while because of how satisfied I am with the AD900x. After Katun said he preferred the AD900x to them a few pages back, I'm even more so. I'm mostly curious about the "incredible organic bass" of orthos and how much better the imaging is than te AD900x's. They're a tentative purchase that I might be saving until after I've spent a year with my ATs and if I really feel like upgrading after seeing how my AD900x sound with the iFi iCan when I eventually buy that over the summer.

With the AD900x, I feel like I've hit near the peak of my point of diminishing returns. Any desire I have for bass is easily remedied by my E12, EQ'ing, and hopefully my incoming WS99. All that's left is finding a headphone with better soundstage, speed, and imaging, if I'm REALLY itching for those traits in my music, I guess?

Which of course goes back to my question: does the he-500 offer enough of an improvement in those areas and others to justify upgrading to them or is the difference improportionately small compared to the cost?

 
It seems that you have stolen the thoughts out of my cranium and written them down for me - thanks! Except for this thought: yes, I'm pretty sure the ws99's will satisfy your bass cravings. What's also cool is that they sound sufficiently different from the ad900x's that it's very satisfying and fun switching between the two. And I'll throw in the CKS1000 iems into that equation (that is my holy ath trifecta after all   In fact, I'm enjoying the trifecta so much that all I've been doing lately is enjoying music instead of feeling upgrade-itis gnawing at me. It's an odd feeling, this satisfaction!

 

[pngwn]

Audiophile satisfaction without breaking the bank? Heresy ;]

At the moment, I'm really satisfied with the RE-0 for my IEM needs, but I'll definitely look into the CKS1000s!

 

[3X0]

Audio Technica is really killing it with the X models. I'm sad to have let my A900X go a while ago and tempted to get a pair of AD900X or even AD2000X. Not to mention that the W1000X is pretty otherworldly in of itself -- it just walked away from a shoot-out against the rest of my collection as the only headphones worthy of complementing my JH13s.
 
I really hope they come out with a W5000X. 

 

[Katun]

Quote:

Eh, I've been on the fence about the he-500 for a while because of how satisfied I am with the AD900x. After Katun said he preferred the AD900x to them a few pages back, I'm even more so. I'm mostly curious about the "incredible organic bass" of orthos and how much better the imaging is than te AD900x's. They're a tentative purchase that I might be saving until after I've spent a year with my ATs and if I really feel like upgrading after seeing how my AD900x sound with the iFi iCan when I eventually buy that over the summer.

With the AD900x, I feel like I've hit near the peak of my point of diminishing returns. Any desire I have for bass is easily remedied by my E12, EQ'ing, and hopefully my incoming WS99. All that's left is finding a headphone with better soundstage, speed, and imaging, if I'm REALLY itching for those traits in my music, I guess?

Which of course goes back to my question: does the he-500 offer enough of an improvement in those areas and others to justify upgrading to them or is the difference improportionately small compared to the cost?

 
I really do love the HE-500, and enjoy it's rich sound. But I had some problems with it's comfort, treble, and in some instances, spaciousness.
 
While I still find the AD900X a very good headphone, it's not without its problems either. I'm finding the bass still a bit too light, and the sound can be too airy. Yes, too airy. Comparing them to my RE-400 for instance, reveals that while the AD900X are significantly more spacious sounding, I still found the concentrated sound of the RE-400 was more appealing. I guess it sorta depends on the day. In a general sense, I'd take the MA900 over the AD900X. I was actually able to compare the HE-500 to the MA900 side-by-side, and ended up preferring the MA900 to the vast majority of songs I tested them with. Both the AD900X and MA900 have smoother treble and a much airier sound that the HE-500, which makes me believe why I prefer them more; even though the HE-500 has wonderful bass and midrange. 

 

[chicolom]

Katun, what are your thoughts on the MA900 vs AD900X?  How are their soundstages?
...It sounds like you may still prefer the MA900 to the AD900X? 
 
I know the MA900 is supposed to have a diffuse sounding holographic soundstage.  I used to own the MDR F1s (predecessor and inspiration for the MA900)and I can confirm that they had that same type of soundstage that I've read the MA900s have.  It's a cool effect at times (can be very relaxing), but occasionally it can be a bit too diffuse and unfocused.
 
I prefered the AD700 soundstage and imaging to the AD900.  The AD900 sounded a bit blurrier next to the AD700, and something about AD900's upper mids seemed congested in the soundstage.
 
Some impressions on the AD900X are also saying that it's imaging is a bit fuzzy.  Is it similar to the old AD900 in terms of soundstage, or is the imaging worse?

 

[Katun]

Not sure if you caught a_recording's comparison between the two, but I thought he did an excellent job, and his thoughts are similar to mine.
 
I do indeed like the MA900 better. It's more akin to the Senn sound. I find it's spaciousness a bit more realistic than the AD900X as well. I actually really liked the AD900X at first, but coming back to it from PX100-II and IEM listening, I find it's actually too airy. Almost like the music is scattered, or misdirected. Somewhat lost. It's a weird feeling for sure. I remember thinking that occasionally for the MA900, but not as often as the AD900X. Perhaps it's partly because the MA900 has a thicker and smoother sound. Or maybe it's because the AD900X has more treble, and it sorta creates a false sense of space. Both sound "large" but in different ways.
 
I've been comparing the AD700 to the AD900X for the past few weeks, and I definitely like the soundstage/imaging of the AD700 better. While the AD900X does a good job of fixing some of the AD700 pitfalls, I find it doesn't quite do enough to warrant the purchase, especially when the AD700 naturally has more realistic soundstage and positional capabilities. While I think the AD900X (and AD900 for that matter) is a nice headphone, it simply has too much *good* competition. MA900, HD598, K601, Q701 come to mind, all which I like better. At least, I'm pretty sure... 

 
Hmm, I couldn't comment too much on the AD900 vs AD900X; it's been quite awhile. The AD900X does have angled drivers though, the AD900 didn't. I still find the AD700 better than both for soundstage/imaging.
 
Yup, I had the F1 too. It was on my list for years, and I finally found a pair on ebay awhile back. I luckily had an MA900 with me as well. Comparing the two, I was surprised to find the MA900 is truly a worthy successor. Bass is a bit more fleshed out, and the overall sound is more refined. Perhaps partly due to the more modern driver, but then again, the drivers are quite a bit bigger as well. Sound was quite similar, as was soundstage. F1 probably had the slight edge there, but it wasn't too drastic. F1 had a better headband and build quality/materials, but the MA900 had more ergonomic cups. If the F1 was still on the market for the same price as the MA900, I'd still get the MA900.
 
Pic of my F1 and my first pair of MA900 with friends:
 

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Not sure if you caught a_recording's comparison between the two, but I thought he did an excellent job, and his thoughts are similar to mine.
 
I do indeed like the MA900 better. It's more akin to the Senn sound. I find it's spaciousness a bit more realistic than the AD900X as well. I actually really liked the AD900X at first, but coming back to it from PX100-II and IEM listening, I find it's actually too airy. Almost like the music is scattered, or misdirected. Somewhat lost. It's a weird feeling for sure. I remember thinking that occasionally for the MA900, but not as often as the AD900X. Perhaps it's partly because the MA900 has a thicker and smoother sound. Or maybe it's because the AD900X has more treble, and it sorta creates a false sense of space. Both sound "large" but in different ways.
 
I've been comparing the AD700 to the AD900X for the past few weeks, and I definitely like the soundstage/imaging of the AD700 better. While the AD900X does a good job of fixing some of the AD700 pitfalls, I find it doesn't quite do enough to warrant the purchase, especially when the AD700 naturally has more realistic soundstage and positional capabilities. While I think the AD900X (and AD900 for that matter) is a nice headphone, it simply has too much *good* competition. MA900, HD598, K601, Q701 come to mind, all which I like better. At least, I'm pretty sure... 

 
Hmm, I couldn't comment too much on the AD900 vs AD900X; it's been quite awhile. The AD900X does have angled drivers though, the AD900 didn't. I still find the AD700 better than both for soundstage/imaging.
 
Yup, I had the F1 too. It was on my list for years, and I finally found a pair on ebay awhile back. I luckily had an MA900 with me as well. Comparing the two, I was surprised to find the MA900 is truly a worthy successor. Bass is a bit more fleshed out, and the overall sound is more refined. Perhaps partly due to the more modern driver, but then again, the drivers are quite a bit bigger as well. Sound was quite similar, as was soundstage. F1 probably had the slight edge there, but it wasn't too drastic. F1 had a better headband and build quality/materials, but the MA900 had more ergonomic cups. If the F1 was still on the market for the same price as the MA900, I'd still get the MA900.
 
Pic of my F1 and my first pair of MA900 with friends:
 

 
 
Ya, I did catch that review.  It was excellent and details the differences nicely.
 
I just wanted to get a second opinion, and now that you've confirmed you have similar thoughts - I can rest easy.
 
There are 3 headphones I'm curious to try and those are the AD900X, the MA900, and the Fidelio X1.  I think I can scratch the AD900X off my list though.  I've sort of graduated from the AD series sound, and since it sounds like the AD900X doesn't improve (or match) the soundstage prowess of it's predecessors there's not much reason for me to pursue it any longer.
 
The MA900 is still interesting though.  I always thought the F1 was a special headphone with a unique soundstage, but it was a bit overpriced (rare and had to import via Japan).   I'm glad Sony decided to revive the design and mass produce it, at a comparatively affordable cost and with improved ergonomics and, apparently, sound quality.
 
I may pick it up one day.  I'm not sure it can do anything better than the Q701/Anniversary, but I'm still curious.  Did you ever do a MA900 / Q701 comparison? 
 
I don't suppose you've heard the Fidelio X1 either?

 

[roguegeek]

Every time I think I've graduated from the AD sound, I get sucked right back in. I thought the Annie would make me content or at least be my resting spot for a while, but I still find myself preferring the signature (not the quality of the sonics, but the signature) of the AD700. I know my path will eventually take me to the HE-500, but I think I'm going to take a little detour with the AD1000X or AD2000X first. Just need to figure out this Tenso thing so I can import from Japan and get them for those awesome yen prices.

 

[Katun]

Quote:

Every time I think I've graduated from the AD sound, I get sucked right back in. I thought the Annie would make me content or at least be my resting spot for a while, but I still find myself preferring the signature (not the quality of the sonics, but the signature) of the AD700. I know my path will eventually take me to the HE-500, but I think I'm going to take a little detour with the AD1000X or AD2000X first. Just need to figure out this Tenso thing so I can import from Japan and get them for those awesome yen prices.

 
You'd be surprised that you may not like the HE-500 as much as the AD Audio Technicas. If you get addicted to their super spacious and airy sound, it's hard to settle for anything less. I preferred the MA900 and AD900X to the HE-500 many times.
 
That doesn't even account for the AD1000X and AD2000X, which I've heard are an improvement to the AD900X in many ways.
 
Quote:

Ya, I did catch that review.  It was excellent and details the differences nicely.
 
I just wanted to get a second opinion, and now that you've confirmed you have similar thoughts - I can rest easy.
 
There are 3 headphones I'm curious to try and those are the AD900X, the MA900, and the Fidelio X1.  I think I can scratch the AD900X off my list though.  I've sort of graduated from the AD series sound, and since it sounds like the AD900X doesn't improve (or match) the soundstage prowess of it's predecessors there's not much reason for me to pursue it any longer.
 
The MA900 is still interesting though.  I always thought the F1 was a special headphone with a unique soundstage, but it was a bit overpriced (rare and had to import via Japan).   I'm glad Sony decided to revive the design and mass produce it, at a comparatively affordable cost and with improved ergonomics and, apparently, sound quality.
 
I may pick it up one day.  I'm not sure it can do anything better than the Q701/Anniversary, but I'm still curious.  Did you ever do a MA900 / Q701 comparison? 
 
I don't suppose you've heard the Fidelio X1 either?

 
I've been curious about the X1 myself, but the reviews stating they're bass heavy sorta made me lose interest. Plus, I don't think I could bring myself to buy the X1 over my favorite headphone which also happens to be around the same price; the HD650. But I think you're on that right track. If you've already heard either the AD700 or AD900, there really isn't a point to feeding your curiosity and buying the AD900X; unless you *really* loved their sound and wanted a slight upgrade/sidestep. 
 
I too, am extremely glad Sony revived the F1. Hopefully, they'll decide to take it one step further, and make the MA1000 or something. If they made it with significantly better build and fine tuned the sound a bit more, I honestly think we'd have a simply outstanding headphone on our hands. But until then, the MA900 will do. I just hope it gains a bit of popularity so Sony has an incentive. Everyone seems to get too caught up with FOTM items, and sometimes glance over gems like itself.
 
Q701 is one of my favorite headphones. Unfortunately, It was quite a spacing from when I owned it and the MA900. All I can really attest to is that the MA900 has much smoother/polite treble. 

 

[roguegeek]

Quote:

 
You'd be surprised that you may not like the HE-500 as much as the AD Audio Technicas. If you get addicted to their super spacious and airy sound, it's hard to settle for anything less. I preferred the MA900 and AD900X to the HE-500 many times.
 
That doesn't even account for the AD1000X and AD2000X, which I've heard are an improvement to the AD900X in many ways.

 
I am highly concerned about this as well. That's why I want to grab an AD1000X first. I have a feeling that will be the can I love before I hit higher priced cans with diminishing returns.