Does the ATH-AD2000 "correct" the AD700's shortcomings?
Jul 20, 2008 at 8:12 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 38

Beagle

His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Posts
8,615
Likes
2,432
I've been considering the ATH-AD2000 as an upgrade to the AD700.

My main concerns with the AD700 are the wispy, textured upper treble and the overly polite bottom end. I love pretty much everything else about the AD700, the spacious sound, the natural midrange and overall presentation.

Will the AD2000 fix these flaws that seem to be characteristic of the AD700?
 
Jul 20, 2008 at 8:27 PM Post #2 of 38

Gradofan2

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Posts
3,819
Likes
40
If you mean... you want more aggressive bass (both extention and prominence, not PRAT and impact) and more prominent upper treble (not upper mids and lower treble)... then they may not.

The AD2000s bass is extended (one of the lowest), and its very tight and impactful, but it does not "bloom" like the Senns, or Denons. And... the upper bass may be more prominent, adding to the sense that the bass is "tight." You can hear the lowest bass resonance, but it's by no means as dominant as the Denons, which tend to sound more boomy.

The upper treble is present, but is not as prominent as the Denons - though the AD2000s do sound bright, because their upper mids and lower treble is so prominent, perhaps masking a bit the resolution and prominence of the most finite detail in the upper treble (that may actually be less "wispy"). And... of course the highs are very airy and spacious (if that's what you mean by "wispy").

The AD2000s have lots of PRAT, and they sound fast, taught, and a bit lean - a bit like Grados.

Can't compare them to the AD700s - haven't heard those... but... I suspect they have a somewhat similar sound, but perhaps more bold and aggressive.
 
Jul 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM Post #3 of 38

aaron313

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Posts
2,185
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I've been considering the ATH-AD2000 as an upgrade to the AD700.

My main concerns with the AD700 are the wispy, textured upper treble and the overly polite bottom end. I love pretty much everything else about the AD700, the spacious sound, the natural midrange and overall presentation.

Will the AD2000 fix these flaws that seem to be characteristic of the AD700?



I'll speak from experience first. The AD2000 fixes the flaws of the HD650. The bottom end is well defined, is is supremely fast, and the midrange is prominently exposed. Based on what you said about the AD700, I'll try to compare what I hear in the AD2k. The bottom end is not what I would call polite, although it is not Darth Beyer. It sounds nice. The upper treble is not "wispy" to my ears. The sound is very textured, down to nuances in vocalists' performances. This is the kind of headphone I would recommend trying before you buy, because it is not cheap. The midrange might be a concern for some folks, but I like it.
 
Jul 20, 2008 at 8:42 PM Post #4 of 38

iancraig10

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
4,199
Likes
758
I wonder whether you should have a listen to a Beyer DT880. Comparing the 700's with the 880's is interesting.

The openness of the 700's remains but that 'wispy' quality that you are speaking of goes. (Funny, when you described the sound of the treble, I recognised it instantly!!) In comparison, the 880's sound quite warm. (But a lot cooler than the Senn 600 or 650)

I have the AT 1000's which many people here say is a completely different headphone. AT themselves reckon it's very close to the 2000. I don't like the 1000 at all. They sound 'clattery' in the treble and aggressive with a bass that goes low, but is very subtle and doesn't give the feeling of a 'slam'. Therefore, I'm not sure that the 2000 will give you what you want.

Maybe a good combo for you could be the 880 with an amp that 'warms' the Beyers up a bit. (Tube amp)

I use the 700's straight out of ipods/irivers but the 880's are far superior via an amp. (Apologies if you've heard the 880)

Ian
 
Jul 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM Post #5 of 38

donunus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Posts
9,196
Likes
117
I agree with the try before you buy suggestion. I liked them but in the long term, I couldn't live with the semi-dry mids and rolled off top end
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 12:53 AM Post #6 of 38

Beagle

His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Posts
8,615
Likes
2,432
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gradofan2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you mean... you want more aggressive bass (both extention and prominence, not PRAT and impact) and more prominent upper treble (not upper mids and lower treble)............... the AD2000s do sound bright, because their upper mids and lower treble is so prominent, perhaps masking a bit the resolution and prominence of the most finite detail in the upper treble (that may actually be less "wispy").


Just a wee bit more presence in the bass and a little less brightness...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iancraig10 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I wonder whether you should have a listen to a Beyer DT880. Comparing the 700's with the 880's is interesting.


I have the 880's. They are mud compared to the AD700.

A little postscript..

A while back, I had made a CD-R of the 20 minute pink noise track (that a Head-Fi'er so kindly provided to the Forum) and for the last three days I let it run through the 700 at a significant volume level (I could see the diaphragms vibrating but not fluctuating). Result? Same thing that happened after I ran in the K701 with pink noise; less brightness and more bottom. So there has been a change in the right direction. I may not need to upgrade after all. Pink noise has made me a convert to the break-in brigade. Horrors..
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 1:27 AM Post #7 of 38

donunus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Posts
9,196
Likes
117
880s are mud compared to the ad700s? wow thats really gonna make all stores have the ad700 on backorder hehehe

I'm not saying anything about the 880s though since Ive only heard 990s and didn't care much for them
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 1:50 AM Post #8 of 38

ciphercomplete

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Posts
1,194
Likes
96
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have the 880's. They are mud compared to the AD700.


Wow, I thought I was the only one. the ad700s are the main reason I sold my first pair of DT880s. But then again, I hate the dt880s. My second time around with them lasted a whole two days.
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 6:24 AM Post #10 of 38

glac1er

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Posts
990
Likes
14
From my experience, the DT880('03)'s high end is a LOT clearer than the AD700's. Forward and smooth.

The AD700's high is forward too but grainy (like HD595's) if you compare them with higher end headphones.

Not even close.
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM Post #11 of 38

Beagle

His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Posts
8,615
Likes
2,432
Quote:

Originally Posted by glac1er /img/forum/go_quote.gif
From my experience, the DT880('03)'s high end is a LOT clearer than the AD700's. Forward and smooth.

The AD700's high is forward too but grainy (like HD595's) if you compare them with higher end headphones.

Not even close.



The 880's top end is nice. Lower midrange on down is murk.

Run pink noise through the AD700 for a few days at a good volume. Any grain that still exists after that is either on the source or recording.

I realize I've just corrupted and negated the original point of this thread, but call it a happy fluke. I gave up on the AD700 because of the top end grain and lack of bottom presence that would not go away through listening. I put them aside. Since I had noticed an improvement on the K701 using the pink noise, I tried it (Friday through yesterday) on the AD700 and it transformed them. Top is smoother, midrange and bass come forward and everything locks together seamlessly.

I couldn't figure out how Keith Howard of hi-fi news could label the AD700's sound as "creamy". It was anything but. Now that is the word I would almost use to describe what I am now hearing out of them. More accurate description would be balanced.
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 3:15 PM Post #12 of 38

sonq

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Posts
332
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'll speak from experience first. The AD2000 fixes the flaws of the HD650. The bottom end is well defined, is is supremely fast, and the midrange is prominently exposed. Based on what you said about the AD700, I'll try to compare what I hear in the AD2k. The bottom end is not what I would call polite, although it is not Darth Beyer. It sounds nice. The upper treble is not "wispy" to my ears. The sound is very textured, down to nuances in vocalists' performances. This is the kind of headphone I would recommend trying before you buy, because it is not cheap. The midrange might be a concern for some folks, but I like it.


Hi Aaron, Read from the latest Pico review that it does not work well with AD2000. What's you take on that?

BTW, how does the AD2000 stack up against your Stax? Look forward to your respond. Thanks.
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 5:31 PM Post #14 of 38

wrecked_porsche

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Posts
1,676
Likes
17
Location
Asia, Earth.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Pink noise has made me a convert to the break-in brigade. Horrors..


Welcome to the club!
biggrin.gif

Burn-in rocks, especially on some AT cans.
cool.gif
 
Jul 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM Post #15 of 38

iancraig10

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
4,199
Likes
758
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The 880's top end is nice. Lower midrange on down is murk.

I couldn't figure out how Keith Howard of hi-fi news could label the AD700's sound as "creamy". It was anything but. Now that is the word I would almost use to describe what I am now hearing out of them. More accurate description would be balanced.



You've got me switching between them now since I wouldn't describe the 880 as 'murky' but our ears are all different.

One thing I find with the 700's treble is that on speech, it seems to accentuate the sibilants which is why I use the 880 for radio listening. With music, it's not so obvious. I've used mine for 9 months so maybe I'll shove a load of pink noise through them to see if they turn 'creamy'.

The 700's seem more open sounding than the 880's and the 'Headstage' seems wider but for my ears, the 880 suits me better tonally.

At least you've saved a lot of money if you're happy with the 700's.

Ian
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top