[3X0]

Glad I'm not the only one utterly unenthused (not to be confused with unimpressed) about HiFiMans and orthos in general. I just can't get behind the sound.

 

[waynes world]

^ Wow. I love my ad900x, but I don't have any experience with more expensive hp's. So I dont mind seeing these kind of sentiments at all.

 

[razzz42]

Quote:

 
I say, that if when you change opamps and sound cards, and if the sound changes appreciably, then it doesn't seem to me that you are dealing with very accurate sound reproduction. 
 
Never heard the A900x, so I am not one to comment how that pair compares to the AD900x.  All I know, is that I'm not a basshead, but that I value a balanced sound spectrum, and I have found it not to be a problem to find open headphones that have enough low end for me.
 
But I don't think that the AD700's t have enough low end.  Seem to be plenty of people that agree with that.  You want to change opamps and sound cards to fix that?  Why not just crank the low end on your equalizer?  The result is the same thing. 

Well you can say that again about "accurate sound reproduction" as you never know what the original recording(s) were using for DACs, What you think you are listening to is actually the on-board DAC that is converting that digital sound to analog to drive your headphones. Which one were they using at the time for the recording? Unless it is a old vinyl record or tape were only the original analogue signal is recorded and only amplified for playback. Those cracks and pops on vinyl or hiss from tapes was so annoying. Maybe with the new laser record players, there might be an  improvement.
 
Anyway, many DAC (opamps) to chose from and just like headphones, you are looking for the sound that is cleanest and most realistic. At least to your ears. DACs take 'audiophile' to a different level, for the better. And good headphones help you make those decisions.
 
I bet Katun comes back saying AD700 staging is superior to the AD900x but the bass is livelier, that will be the tradeoff for more bass: More bass hides the staging or blankets some of the highs. The new cans aren't broken-in yet so the entire spectrum will get even better.
 
The A900x are the closed version of the open AD900x, supposedly.

 

[ProjectDenz]

Liking the AD900X, it has quite a bit more bass impact than the AD900 which I love. The AD900 seemed to have too little bass impact and sounded too polite for my tastes as a result.

 

[JakeJack_2008]

Quote:

Sweet, I have heard some great things about the K702 Annie version. I have tried the Q701 and I did like it but there was something missing that made me want more. I guess it was too balanced and neutral and made things feel a little dull, so that made me decide that I wanted something more immersive and fun verse accurate and balanced. That lead me to the Ultrasone Pro 900. 
 
I have read that the K702 Annie is the best out of the K701 & Q701 & K702 regular.  I almost tried buying the K702 Annie ear pads....as the consensus seemed that they made the Q701 sound the same - but they were like $100 for the pads.  So, I said forget it and moved on.  I guess I got so sick of reading reviews and just decided to buy stuff and try it out for myself to figure out what I liked. 
 
Let me know what you think the K702 Annie.

 
 
Quote:

... but they were like $100 for the pads

 
What?
 
How would the K702 Annie go along with my ODAC and O2?

 

[Katun]

Hmm, comparing the AD700 and AD900X doesn't reveal too big of a difference. Like reviewers have mentioned, the AD900X fills out the AD700's much needed bottom end, but it's still pretty light. The AD700 sounds a tad more spacious and airy, but also sounds a bit more sharp and unrefined. Perhaps a bit of EQ work on the AD700 could get it even closer to the AD900X, therefore, rendering the AD900X as not really required. Probably best to put that money toward some other headphone. Most likely something warmer and thicker, as I'm finding I still like my PX100-II more. But the AD900X is a fantastic headphone, and I'm not sure why it isn't getting as much attention as something like the Q701.

 

[Kevin Brown]

^^^
 
I had the PX100-II, and I thought those headphones had way too much low end.  I much prefer the PX100, and I liked them so much for on-the-go listening I got a backup pair when they went out of production. 

  But that does benchmark how much low end you like.  (I had the PX-100, PX-100 II, and HD-238's all at the same time.)
 
I think the Q701 sounds a fair amount more refined and detailed without being overly bright or sharp vs the AD900x.  In the end I like both, but they are very different headphones.

 

[Katun]

Quote:

^^^
I had the PX100-II, and I thought those headphones had way too much low end.  I much prefer the PX100, and I liked them so much for on-the-go listening I got a backup pair when they went out of production. 

  But that does benchmark how much low end you like.  (I had the PX-100, PX-100 II, and HD-238's all at the same time.)
 
I think the Q701 sounds a fair amount more refined and detailed without being overly bright or sharp vs the AD900x.  In the end I like both, but they are very different headphones.

 
Did you stretch your pair? Mine have quite a bit less bass than stock clamp. I actually prefer the BA type sound to a bassy one. Just love my warmth.
 
I really don't think the Q701 and AD900X are "very different headphones". More similar than different.

 

[lunemi]

How are the ath-ad900x for competitive fps gaming? Is the positional accuracy great?

 

[lunemi]

One more question! Are the ath-ad900x better than the ath-ad700 when it comes to "soundwhoring"?

 

[razzz42]

Quote:

One more question! Are the ath-ad900x better than the ath-ad700 when it comes to "soundwhoring"?

AD700 is the better value.  Seems to be the standard in staging, clarity and comfort.  Recently can be had for around $70 used on Amazon. A decent sound card with 3D or Dolby surround enhancements will make the headphones even more capable. I haven't seen a gamer yet badmouth the AD700.

 

[BizareLogics]

Is it worth getting the ATH-AD700X over the AD700's (Aswell as the 900 versions) What's the actual difference and are these surround headphones? I'm looking for some decent headphone/headsets for gaming, maybe some entertainment (music, movies) (90% time gaming).

 

[Kevin Brown]

Quote:

 
 
I really don't think the Q701 and AD900X are "very different headphones". More similar than different.

 
I don't agree with this at all.  I think that the AD900x's are darker and the Q701's are brighter.  IMO, there is a freq tilt to both.  The Q701's have less low end but are brighter and more detailed.  The AD900x's have more low end, but are darker on top.  Not the same at all.

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

 
I don't agree with this at all.  I think that the AD900x's are darker and the Q701's are brighter.  IMO, there is a freq tilt to both.  The Q701's have less low end but are brighter and more detailed.  The AD900x's have more low end, but are darker on top.  Not the same at all.

 
Wait, what?...
 
The AD900x are warmer and bassier than the Q701?

 
 
I found that hard to believe, having owned the old AD900 (and AD700) and Q701.  The AD900x would have to be significantly different from it's predecessor to pull that off...
 
O_0

 

[pngwn]

Katun said similar, not the same. If you nitpick differences, sure, the 900x is "dark", but in normal circumstances, I wouldn't describe it s dark or warm at all.