[Brando]

I honestly dont know if i like the d7000 or the d9200 more. they're both amazing in their own way. Might have to keep both.

 

[Sound Eq]

No way this thing is like HD800. First of all, it's closed. The form factor is pretty much like Fostex cans like other Denons. If comparison is by memory, that's not reliable. This headphone has the same boomy bass as the Ebony.

You're telling people that has tried HD800 that this headphone is similar to it? That's crazy.

I adore the denon 9200 and its nothing compared to hd800 sound signature wise. To me the hd800 is not a great one, mids are thin, bass is lacking, not engaging and cold sounding, its a complete opposite of what denon 9200 is. And i played long enough with hd800 on very expensive equipments that you can see in my profile. If the denon 9200 was close to hd 800 i would never have bought denon 9200.

From all the headphones I own or owned here is my top 6 fav list

1- Hifiman HE1000SE
2- Hifiman HE 1000 V1
3- Denon 9200
4- Stax 007mk2
5- Audeze mx4
6- Meze Empyrean

For a closed back denon 9200 is a big big achievement, for it to be comparable to high end open backs is speaks volumes. To compare the denon 9200 to fostex ebony is not remotely close as well, as I had my time with that as well. Denon 9200 scales well with gears. For anyone who adores HD800 I would never recommend denon 9200 as those 2 are not alike even remotely. Again liking one signature opposite another is where we all differ. I for example can never understand why anyone would buy hd800, as to me it just sounds off, but who am I to judge, so I learned each one of us has a preferred signature, what sounds right to me might be off sounding to another. That being said I only can get surprised when denon 9200 gets compared to HD800 as those 2 are not related in anything. The HD800 has a huge sound stage which I did not hear on another headphone yet but that will not make it a good sounding headphone for me. As for denon of course it does not have the same big sound stage as HD800 and it has its own signature which is liked by many. I even can not say the denon 9200 like any headphone I heard before, it has its own character, its an audeze sound nor a hifiman sound, or a Meze empyrean sound. It is a denon sound signature which is unique in its own way. but to compare it to HD 800 is not applicable here at all. Bass, mids, highs, sound stage and tonality are completely different than hd800

Now to the most crazy mod that happened all by accident: Call it crazy as much as you like

Mod wearing 101 : rotate the leather pads in a way so you can let the headband sit above your eyebrows by an inch, yes it can be worn like that and you will look as silly as can be, and listen now to denon 9200 and tell me what you think what a crazy wearing mod. the leather pads can be rotated easily without taking the pads apart, as the pads rotate freely on the plastic ring without taking it off. Make sure when you wear it like that, the thick side of the pads are on the of your ears

 

[SilverEars]

I adore the denon 9200 and its nothing compared to hd800 sound signature wise. To me the hd800 is not a great one, mids are thin, bass is lacking, not engaging and cold sounding, its a complete opposite of what denon 9200 is. And i played long enough with hd800 on very expensive equipments that you can see in my profile. If the denon 9200 was close to hd 800 i would never have bought denon 9200.

From all the headphones I own or owned here is my top 6 fav list

1- Hifiman HE1000SE
2- Hifiman HE 1000 V1
3- Denon 9200
4- Stax 007mk2
5- Audeze mx4
6- Meze Empyrean

For a closed back denon 9200 is a big big achievement, for it to be comparable to high end open backs is speaks volumes. To compare the denon 9200 to fostex ebony is not remotely close as well, as I had my time with that as well. Denon 9200 scales well with gears. For anyone who adores HD800 I would never recommend denon 9200 as those 2 are not alike even remotely. Again liking one signature opposite another is where we all differ. I for example can never understand why anyone would buy hd800, as to me it just sounds off, but who am I to judge, so I learned each one of us has a preferred signature, what sounds right to me might be off sounding to another. That being said I only can get surprised when denon 9200 gets compared to HD800 as those 2 are not related in anything. The HD800 has a huge sound stage which I did not hear on another headphone yet but that will not make it a good sounding headphone for me. As for denon of course it does not have the same big sound stage as HD800 and it has its own signature which is liked by many

You make it sound like Ebony is totally different. It isn't, it's quite similar in characteristics. 9200 is slightly refined in comparison, but it's not like they are remotely different.

 

[Sound Eq]

You make it sound like Ebony is totally different. It isn't, it's quite similar in characteristics. 9200 is slightly refined in comparison, but it's not like they are remotely different.

I will not argue on this, read my post again as I added a crazy mod and enjoy my wearing mod 101 just for the fun of it. Lets have some fun with denon 9200

 

[Brando]

Denon shows the d9200 does 5-56000 hz in the specs but I don't hear anything until 20hz. Anybody else?

 

[Babbage78]

They are similar sounding headphones, not idential. I don't really look at measurements before I listen thinking it will influence my judgement. Accuracy of rigs is another issue.

With these Fostex type form factor headphones with less bass than either one of them is the EMU Teak, which is actually bright. I've also heard Lawton mod I believe teak, which was bright and a bit peaky. It's also been said TH900 is quite peaky, but never heard, I'm curious if the bass on that headphone is anything particularly special. Is it compared to the D9200?

I also know that Ebony is the most balanced of the TH-X00.

I also I have multiple amps I tried the D9200 on.

From my experience with the D9200, different amps have a pretty noticeable effect on how they sound. I've listened to them out of a Monoprice Monolith THX AAA 887, Monoprice Monolith Tube amp, and the headphone out of a Metrum Amethyst and they all sound different enough where I was able to blindly pick which one they were currently plugged into. The Monoprice tube amp was almost uncomfortable to listen to the D9200s out of, way too much treble energy. On the flip side, that same amp was my favorite amp to listen to the ZMF Aeolus out of, since it added some sharpness to their more warm sound.

Also, I have never listened to any of the Fostex varients other than the EMU Teak, which I currently still own and I can tell you that there is a pretty stark difference between them and the D9200s. The level of clarity and tonal balance on the D9200's is in a completely different league from the EMU Teaks, and the bass is still present but significantly less prominent than on the Teaks. It almost sounds like you are talking about another pair of headphones to be honest. Maybe you've become so accustomed to a overly bright sound signature and now everything else is just dull and rolled off in comparison? It seems to me that you confound bass actually being present with being boomy. Yes, some headphones will have even more clarity because they lack a proper bass presentation which helps keep the sound cleaner and pushes the mids and highs more in your face, but this is not a natural sound. Real music and sounds aren't completely distortion free. It's like you're turning up the saturation and contrast while photo editing, resulting in a picture that looks better than real life (which I believe even the D9200's do, because they have much more treble energy than is natural leading to their hyper-detailed sound).

I know that when I first listened to the D9200s after listening almost exclusively to the ZMF Aeolus for months that I thought that the D9200's sounded piercing, and tinny in comparison. Now that I've listened to it more and allowed my ears to adjust I can see that the D9200s are superior to the Aeolus in many ways with only a few trade-offs that are completely worth the improvements (in my opinion). So I could see how that could happen in the other direction if you've been listening to brighter headphones for a while.

 

[jmills8]

I adore the denon 9200 and its nothing compared to hd800 sound signature wise. To me the hd800 is not a great one, mids are thin, bass is lacking, not engaging and cold sounding, its a complete opposite of what denon 9200 is. And i played long enough with hd800 on very expensive equipments that you can see in my profile. If the denon 9200 was close to hd 800 i would never have bought denon 9200.

From all the headphones I own or owned here is my top 6 fav list

1- Hifiman HE1000SE
2- Hifiman HE 1000 V1
3- Denon 9200
4- Stax 007mk2
5- Audeze mx4
6- Meze Empyrean

For a closed back denon 9200 is a big big achievement, for it to be comparable to high end open backs is speaks volumes. To compare the denon 9200 to fostex ebony is not remotely close as well, as I had my time with that as well. Denon 9200 scales well with gears. For anyone who adores HD800 I would never recommend denon 9200 as those 2 are not alike even remotely. Again liking one signature opposite another is where we all differ. I for example can never understand why anyone would buy hd800, as to me it just sounds off, but who am I to judge, so I learned each one of us has a preferred signature, what sounds right to me might be off sounding to another. That being said I only can get surprised when denon 9200 gets compared to HD800 as those 2 are not related in anything. The HD800 has a huge sound stage which I did not hear on another headphone yet but that will not make it a good sounding headphone for me. As for denon of course it does not have the same big sound stage as HD800 and it has its own signature which is liked by many. I even can not say the denon 9200 like any headphone I heard before, it has its own character, its an audeze sound nor a hifiman sound, or a Meze empyrean sound. It is a denon sound signature which is unique in its own way. but to compare it to HD 800 is not applicable here at all. Bass, mids, highs, sound stage and tonality are completely different than hd800

Now to the most crazy mod that happened all by accident: Call it crazy as much as you like

Mod wearing 101 : rotate the leather pads in a way so you can let the headband sit above your eyebrows by an inch, yes it can be worn like that and you will look as silly as can be, and listen now to denon 9200 and tell me what you think what a crazy wearing mod. the leather pads can be rotated easily without taking the pads apart, as the pads rotate freely on the plastic ring without taking it off. Make sure when you wear it like that, the thick side of the pads are on the of your ears

Pics or it never happened.

 

[Raketen]

Denon shows the d9200 does 5-56000 hz in the specs but I don't hear anything until 20hz. Anybody else?

Below 20hz is not an audible frequency for humans. You can feel it but you don't hear it. You won't feel it with many headphones. Some DACs and Amps dont' even claim to extend below 20hz in their specs (even some lossy file compression types might affect it ). Bassheads who love their subbass usually have do a bass boost to make it tangible with regular headphones, thats why there are all these crazy things like wearable subwoofer backpacks and wristbands and haptic drivers in headphones (like the Kannon or that one Skullcandy).

 

[Brando]

Below 20hz is not an audible frequency for humans. You can feel it but you don't hear it. You won't feel it with many headphones. Some DACs and Amps dont' even claim to extend below 20hz in their specs (even some lossy file compression types might affect it ). Bassheads who love their subbass usually have do a bass boost to make it tangible with regular headphones, thats why there are all these crazy things like wearable subwoofer backpacks and wristbands and haptic drivers in headphones (like the Kannon or that one Skullcandy).

gotcha. i thought it would have been weird for a reputable company to lie about specs than anyone can easily check. thanks for the info.

 

[soundblast75]

You make it sound like Ebony is totally different. It isn't, it's quite similar in characteristics. 9200 is slightly refined in comparison, but it's not like they are remotely different.

I am getting seriously fed up with this, we all got your opinion by now dude

 

[Luisonic]

You make it sound like Ebony is totally different. It isn't, it's quite similar in characteristics. 9200 is slightly refined in comparison, but it's not like they are remotely different.

I'm a bit late but would like to offer a slightly different point of view.

As a former professional musician, classical and jazz, I had the chance to play and experience music from many perspectives, from the inside directly, as well as outside, directly and indirectly (mediated by equipment, speakers, consoles, etc.). Having had the chance of playing with recording and production equipment, I also had the chance of experimenting some possibilities of sound and music modding.

Just to humbly say that I have an idea of what music should sound like to me, and what my subjective preferences are in general, in terms of enjoying the sounds of music.
My choices of gear are taken with these preferences in mind.
I don't think then in terms of "how does this gear compare to that other one?" but instead think of "how well does this gear transmit the music experience to me?".

Sometimes I had to sit through great musical performances played on horrible equipment, or with really bad sonic mixing. Inevitable if you want to listen, or you walk and leave.
With my personal gear, I prefer to think that it will give the me kind of musical experience that will help me enjoy what I hear, with the "what I hear" being another matter.

The 9200 make me hear and experience music, making me enjoy the sounds that I hear, with clarity and emphasis throughout the ranges, without harshness yet detailed in the high ranges (absolutely necessary for me), a fun bass and sub bass, and clearly shine with well recorded music, especially when played at a decent resolution (88 and up).

I know sometimes we (or I at least) may sound like dumb fanboys, but I'm pretty sure that people paying 1k plus just for these headphones (or anything for that matter) have clear ideas of what they like/don't.

I appreciate why you're trying to do, because triangulating info from different sources and opinions to base a buying decision is complicated, especially when we don't have the chance to test the gear beforehand.
But once bought, we post our experiences and opinions, and when we like what we hear, with some more enthusiasm.
You obviously don't so much, thanks for the valuable input, but then move along and let us also enjoy our subjective experiences with this great product.

 

[Groot Geluid]

I'm a bit late but would like to offer a slightly different point of view.

As a former professional musician, classical and jazz, I had the chance to play and experience music from many perspectives, from the inside directly, as well as outside, directly and indirectly (mediated by equipment, speakers, consoles, etc.). Having had the chance of playing with recording and production equipment, I also had the chance of experimenting some possibilities of sound and music modding.

Just to humbly say that I have an idea of what music should sound like to me, and what my subjective preferences are in general, in terms of enjoying the sounds of music.
My choices of gear are taken with these preferences in mind.
I don't think then in terms of "how does this gear compare to that other one?" but instead think of "how well does this gear transmit the music experience to me?".

Sometimes I had to sit through great musical performances played on horrible equipment, or with really bad sonic mixing. Inevitable if you want to listen, or you walk and leave.
With my personal gear, I prefer to think that it will give the me kind of musical experience that will help me enjoy what I hear, with the "what I hear" being another matter.

The 9200 make me hear and experience music, making me enjoy the sounds that I hear, with clarity and emphasis throughout the ranges, without harshness yet detailed in the high ranges (absolutely necessary for me), a fun bass and sub bass, and clearly shine with well recorded music, especially when played at a decent resolution (88 and up).

I know sometimes we (or I at least) may sound like dumb fanboys, but I'm pretty sure that people paying 1k plus just for these headphones (or anything for that matter) have clear ideas of what they like/don't.

I appreciate why you're trying to do, because triangulating info from different sources and opinions to base a buying decision is complicated, especially when we don't have the chance to test the gear beforehand.
But once bought, we post our experiences and opinions, and when we like what we hear, with some more enthusiasm.
You obviously don't so much, thanks for the valuable input, but then move along and let us also enjoy our subjective experiences with this great product.

This headphone was chosen by me and a couple of colleagues, to use on our recording and postproduction work when we cannot rely on loudspeakers. Sennheiser HD600 were and are used for this purpose a lot, but a major problem with those is that they are completely open and not giving any sound isolation (making it also much more difficult to use at the same time when speakers are on). In the past we discovered the Denon AH-D5000 which I have used for years, also modifying them with Lawton damping and pad changing. A very nice headphone, which then for me made me also interested in the Fostex range when they came out. The TH-600 with cup damping and Lawton damping on the driver sound very good. Also for the TH-900 I added the driver dampening but not the cup (the cup is clearly very important and I do find the TH-900 even better. But specially the highs, written about a lot, make these headphones very analytical and easy to hear details, but from a tonality point of view, specially for me on orchestral violins, they can be too sharp).

Now when trying to find a better solution we listened to many headphones. Empyrean sounded wonderful (but open and maybe more for enjoyment than for monitoring ie it made all sound a bit more beautiful...) and the Focal Stellia (favourite to one of us at least) which I did not find easy on the head... AKG K872 closed sounded positively weird (coloured mids in the big inside space of the earpiece).The Denon AH-D9200 however (a little bit unexpected) turned out to be great on many levels. First it closes better than the old Denon and the Fostex range, so better isolation. Then tonally it is very even..... With a positively great controlled bass response going as far down as the old Denons, and Fostex's. It makes it very easy to judge tonality as there is no undue emphasis in the highs, making massed violins sound very realistic.

This is winner in my opinion. From all the headphones I mentioned, it makes listening with it easy and quickly you forget the headphones characteristics but the recording itself draws your attention.

 

[jmills8]

 

[Beagle]

I'm a bit late but would like to offer a slightly different point of view.

As a former professional musician, classical and jazz, I had the chance to play and experience music from many perspectives, from the inside directly, as well as outside, directly and indirectly (mediated by equipment, speakers, consoles, etc.). Having had the chance of playing with recording and production equipment, I also had the chance of experimenting some possibilities of sound and music modding.

Just to humbly say that I have an idea of what music should sound like to me, and what my subjective preferences are in general, in terms of enjoying the sounds of music.
My choices of gear are taken with these preferences in mind.
I don't think then in terms of "how does this gear compare to that other one?" but instead think of "how well does this gear transmit the music experience to me?".

Sometimes I had to sit through great musical performances played on horrible equipment, or with really bad sonic mixing. Inevitable if you want to listen, or you walk and leave.
With my personal gear, I prefer to think that it will give the me kind of musical experience that will help me enjoy what I hear, with the "what I hear" being another matter.

The 9200 make me hear and experience music, making me enjoy the sounds that I hear, with clarity and emphasis throughout the ranges, without harshness yet detailed in the high ranges (absolutely necessary for me), a fun bass and sub bass, and clearly shine with well recorded music, especially when played at a decent resolution (88 and up).

I know sometimes we (or I at least) may sound like dumb fanboys, but I'm pretty sure that people paying 1k plus just for these headphones (or anything for that matter) have clear ideas of what they like/don't.

I appreciate why you're trying to do, because triangulating info from different sources and opinions to base a buying decision is complicated, especially when we don't have the chance to test the gear beforehand.
But once bought, we post our experiences and opinions, and when we like what we hear, with some more enthusiasm.
You obviously don't so much, thanks for the valuable input, but then move along and let us also enjoy our subjective experiences with this great product.

THANK YOU!

Finally, a point of actual reference. So many people just compare one headphone to another and use that form of methodology to determine a natural sounding piece of gear, without the slightest idea of how it should sound, not using live sounds as a reference.

We know what headphone has more bass, more treble, what is U-shaped...but we rarely compare to the sound of the real thing to determine "accuracy" (if it exists at all in gear)..

 

[imas69]

Anyone bored yet, fancy a pint