lindrone
King Canaling
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Posts
- 3,887
- Likes
- 27
A lot of people on this forum had questions about the difference between Audio Technica A500 and A900. Most people opted to go for the one that fits within their budget, but very, very few ever heard both of them side by side. Given the dearth of availability of these headphones here in United States, most people are content with just picking one and sticking with it. So of course... I couldn't resist buying an A500 just to see exactly what the differences are.
Build and construction
Being Audio Technica, A500 and A900 really has very, very similar constructions. They both have the same basic design, with the combination of "3d support wing" and slight clamping for wearability. Out of the box the A500 felt a little tighter than I remember the A900 being. Perhaps the A900 just got loosened and stretched out over time. Either way, it's nowhere near the uncomfortable tightness that can come with some new Sennheisers. The A500 is still very comfortable out of the box. Although I did notice that the pad material, although both covered in the same pleather, seems to be different underneath. The foam padding in the A900 had a bit more "flex", and feels more comfortable in the way it compresses. The foam padding in the A500 definitely felt soft and spongey, feels like lower quality foam padding.
The A900 has that beatiful aluminum finish on the earcups that everyone knows about. The A500 is simply a smooth plastic finish. Meanwhile the shape is still beautiful, it does take away some of the beauty not having that nice finishing surface on the earcups. The cord of the A500 is nylon covered as well as the A900, however, here there is a quality difference as well. The nylon thread count on the A900 is much higher, the stitching is tigher and smoother. A500's cord has a much lower thread count in its nylon covering, so it feels much rougher, and doesn't bend as well. Still, minor differences, but difference nevertheless.
Lastly, A900's plug has a metal body, along with threaded 1/8" to 1/4" adaptor. The A500's plug has a plastic body, and is simply a straight plug into the 1/4" adaptor. A little tidbit of detail on build quality.
So... how does it sound?
First item of note, as of this writing I have about 20 hours of burn-in on the A500's... so I think their characteristic has basically settled down for the most part. I really haven't noticed any dramatic improvement in sound after about the first 10 hours or so. I tested both the A900 and A500 directly out of my iPod, unamped, as well as testing them in my home setup, with the HR-2 and modded CE775.
I think the most easily identifiable difference between the A500 and A900 is the soundstage. Meanwhile A500 has angled driver as well, and seems to do a pretty good job with frontal imaging, there is something strangely lacking about the way it projects the soundstage. Even though there is frontal imaging, there seems to be a lack of frontal "depth". What happens is that compares to the A900, even though I hear sound in the frontal location, all the sound that occurs in that position is in the same depth. So I'm getting positioning depth on the left and right side, but the sound in front of me remains flat and unmoving.
Over time, this characteristic created a strange sort of mental fatigue for me... I know that there's something wrong with the sound, and even though note for note, it was very pleasant, the positioning of the sound in this strange dimension got irritating after a while. Of course, I'm spoiled... A900 has a larger soundstage, and creates a frontal imaging that not only produces sound, but creates depth as well.
Sound-wise, A500 has pretty good articulation and separation. The sound signature is unmistakenly in the same vein as the A900. The bass is accurate, not boomy, the trebles are clear, but not overtly sharp. However, you do notice there's still a bit of difference between the A900 and A500 here as well. When you start reaching into the far extension, some of the fast bass beats in jazz tracks don't quite get reproduced as well. You hear the strum of the bass, but it doesn't sound quite right. There's a little bit of dullness in the sound, perhaps a little poorly controlled decay as well. The high cymabals seems to hit a dull "thud" rather than a crips "ding" as they would with the A900. There is definitely a difference in the sound reproduction capability between these two headphones.
Most of the midrange reproduction of instruments are very alike... guitars and pianos are generally very well and closely represented on both headphones. What's interesting, is that A500 again displays some dullness in the midrange, but not on instrumentals, mostly on just the vocals. For some reason both female and male vocals seems to be a little bit dull and lifeless... I can't really pin down what that is, but something about what's in their voice isn't really coming through as complete or as clear as the A900.
Value equation
The big question on everyone's mind is, is the A900 really worth twice as much as the A500? It's really hard to say one way or another... even though I had noted clear differences between the A500 and A900... it's also because I'm already far enough into the audiophile world where some of these differences are more apparent to me. Most newbies would likely try on both of these headphones and not notice any real difference in between them. As a newbie purchase, the A500 will definitely seem like 99.99% of the performance at half the price.
Speaking from an experienced ear though, there are enough improvements from the A500 to the A900 to really make it warrant the price increase. From an unamped situation, that difference is much less, but with a good amp, it really drives out the difference between the A500 and A900. Most obvious effect is the completely of the A900's soundstage in comparison with the A500. Small nuisances in instrument reproduction and vocal reproduction takes a little more attention, but it's easy to pick up as well.
There's enough difference between the A500 and A900 to my ears, that I can't really stand using A500 for music listening purposes. I've resorted the A500 to use with my home speaker system to watch DVD's when I can't crank the speakers up at night. However, even there the strangely compressed frontal soundstage of the A500 becomes a slight problem, but at least it's the one I'm more willing to make a compromise for. Once again though, this comes from experienced and far pampered ears... For most people making their first headphone purchase, they'll find the A500 pretty amazing.
What about its own price class?
Which brings me to the next point... the only other headphone in this price class that I can think of that offers the same type of comfort and sound balance is the Sony MDR-CD780. So how does those two compare against each other? CD780 is open-air, so it doesn't create sound imaging as well as the A500, however it also doesn't have the compressed frontal soundstage problem that the A500 has. At the same time, part of that is due to the fact that CD780's frontal soundstage isn't as complete, so it doesn't feel compressed... because it isn't altogether as well done.
CD780 also has a slightly warmer sound signature, with slightly muddier sound. The A500 has more clean and clear articulation than the CD780. However, neither headphone is anywhere near cold nor analytical, they're still both musical and more fun.
Previously I had noted that CD780 is probably what I consider one of the best value for under $100... now A500 belongs in that category as well. However, given one's need for closed or open-air headphone, you can pick one or the other. A500 also has a higher "perceived" build quality, because the design is elegant, and the finish seems just more fit and better designed. This means that you can't necessarily tell the quality of the plastic itself, but at least A500's plastic is more well formed into its shape. Lastly, you can't deny the coolness of Audio Technica's headphone just on looks alone.
Conclusion
Overall, A500 is very competent headphone, and in lineage of its older brother, probably one that also warrants to be mentioned as "one of the best all-around, unamped headphone for under $100" (where the A900 is the same for under $200). However, if you do have the money to afford the A900... A900 is definitely "better" than the A500 in just about every way; but whether or not that difference is significant depends on how well trained your ears are (or will eventually become...).
Edit:
I had to additionally "bold" the "newbie purchase" part. Some people were confused that I was suggesting the A500 is 99.99% of A900. No, it's not anythign like that. It would only seem that way for people who hasn't developed ability to discern the nuisance of sound yet. For those people, they might not be able to tell the difference.
For experienced ears, there's going to be definite difference between the A500 and A900.
Build and construction
Being Audio Technica, A500 and A900 really has very, very similar constructions. They both have the same basic design, with the combination of "3d support wing" and slight clamping for wearability. Out of the box the A500 felt a little tighter than I remember the A900 being. Perhaps the A900 just got loosened and stretched out over time. Either way, it's nowhere near the uncomfortable tightness that can come with some new Sennheisers. The A500 is still very comfortable out of the box. Although I did notice that the pad material, although both covered in the same pleather, seems to be different underneath. The foam padding in the A900 had a bit more "flex", and feels more comfortable in the way it compresses. The foam padding in the A500 definitely felt soft and spongey, feels like lower quality foam padding.
The A900 has that beatiful aluminum finish on the earcups that everyone knows about. The A500 is simply a smooth plastic finish. Meanwhile the shape is still beautiful, it does take away some of the beauty not having that nice finishing surface on the earcups. The cord of the A500 is nylon covered as well as the A900, however, here there is a quality difference as well. The nylon thread count on the A900 is much higher, the stitching is tigher and smoother. A500's cord has a much lower thread count in its nylon covering, so it feels much rougher, and doesn't bend as well. Still, minor differences, but difference nevertheless.
Lastly, A900's plug has a metal body, along with threaded 1/8" to 1/4" adaptor. The A500's plug has a plastic body, and is simply a straight plug into the 1/4" adaptor. A little tidbit of detail on build quality.
So... how does it sound?
First item of note, as of this writing I have about 20 hours of burn-in on the A500's... so I think their characteristic has basically settled down for the most part. I really haven't noticed any dramatic improvement in sound after about the first 10 hours or so. I tested both the A900 and A500 directly out of my iPod, unamped, as well as testing them in my home setup, with the HR-2 and modded CE775.
I think the most easily identifiable difference between the A500 and A900 is the soundstage. Meanwhile A500 has angled driver as well, and seems to do a pretty good job with frontal imaging, there is something strangely lacking about the way it projects the soundstage. Even though there is frontal imaging, there seems to be a lack of frontal "depth". What happens is that compares to the A900, even though I hear sound in the frontal location, all the sound that occurs in that position is in the same depth. So I'm getting positioning depth on the left and right side, but the sound in front of me remains flat and unmoving.
Over time, this characteristic created a strange sort of mental fatigue for me... I know that there's something wrong with the sound, and even though note for note, it was very pleasant, the positioning of the sound in this strange dimension got irritating after a while. Of course, I'm spoiled... A900 has a larger soundstage, and creates a frontal imaging that not only produces sound, but creates depth as well.
Sound-wise, A500 has pretty good articulation and separation. The sound signature is unmistakenly in the same vein as the A900. The bass is accurate, not boomy, the trebles are clear, but not overtly sharp. However, you do notice there's still a bit of difference between the A900 and A500 here as well. When you start reaching into the far extension, some of the fast bass beats in jazz tracks don't quite get reproduced as well. You hear the strum of the bass, but it doesn't sound quite right. There's a little bit of dullness in the sound, perhaps a little poorly controlled decay as well. The high cymabals seems to hit a dull "thud" rather than a crips "ding" as they would with the A900. There is definitely a difference in the sound reproduction capability between these two headphones.
Most of the midrange reproduction of instruments are very alike... guitars and pianos are generally very well and closely represented on both headphones. What's interesting, is that A500 again displays some dullness in the midrange, but not on instrumentals, mostly on just the vocals. For some reason both female and male vocals seems to be a little bit dull and lifeless... I can't really pin down what that is, but something about what's in their voice isn't really coming through as complete or as clear as the A900.
Value equation
The big question on everyone's mind is, is the A900 really worth twice as much as the A500? It's really hard to say one way or another... even though I had noted clear differences between the A500 and A900... it's also because I'm already far enough into the audiophile world where some of these differences are more apparent to me. Most newbies would likely try on both of these headphones and not notice any real difference in between them. As a newbie purchase, the A500 will definitely seem like 99.99% of the performance at half the price.
Speaking from an experienced ear though, there are enough improvements from the A500 to the A900 to really make it warrant the price increase. From an unamped situation, that difference is much less, but with a good amp, it really drives out the difference between the A500 and A900. Most obvious effect is the completely of the A900's soundstage in comparison with the A500. Small nuisances in instrument reproduction and vocal reproduction takes a little more attention, but it's easy to pick up as well.
There's enough difference between the A500 and A900 to my ears, that I can't really stand using A500 for music listening purposes. I've resorted the A500 to use with my home speaker system to watch DVD's when I can't crank the speakers up at night. However, even there the strangely compressed frontal soundstage of the A500 becomes a slight problem, but at least it's the one I'm more willing to make a compromise for. Once again though, this comes from experienced and far pampered ears... For most people making their first headphone purchase, they'll find the A500 pretty amazing.
What about its own price class?
Which brings me to the next point... the only other headphone in this price class that I can think of that offers the same type of comfort and sound balance is the Sony MDR-CD780. So how does those two compare against each other? CD780 is open-air, so it doesn't create sound imaging as well as the A500, however it also doesn't have the compressed frontal soundstage problem that the A500 has. At the same time, part of that is due to the fact that CD780's frontal soundstage isn't as complete, so it doesn't feel compressed... because it isn't altogether as well done.
CD780 also has a slightly warmer sound signature, with slightly muddier sound. The A500 has more clean and clear articulation than the CD780. However, neither headphone is anywhere near cold nor analytical, they're still both musical and more fun.
Previously I had noted that CD780 is probably what I consider one of the best value for under $100... now A500 belongs in that category as well. However, given one's need for closed or open-air headphone, you can pick one or the other. A500 also has a higher "perceived" build quality, because the design is elegant, and the finish seems just more fit and better designed. This means that you can't necessarily tell the quality of the plastic itself, but at least A500's plastic is more well formed into its shape. Lastly, you can't deny the coolness of Audio Technica's headphone just on looks alone.
Conclusion
Overall, A500 is very competent headphone, and in lineage of its older brother, probably one that also warrants to be mentioned as "one of the best all-around, unamped headphone for under $100" (where the A900 is the same for under $200). However, if you do have the money to afford the A900... A900 is definitely "better" than the A500 in just about every way; but whether or not that difference is significant depends on how well trained your ears are (or will eventually become...).
Edit:
I had to additionally "bold" the "newbie purchase" part. Some people were confused that I was suggesting the A500 is 99.99% of A900. No, it's not anythign like that. It would only seem that way for people who hasn't developed ability to discern the nuisance of sound yet. For those people, they might not be able to tell the difference.
For experienced ears, there's going to be definite difference between the A500 and A900.
