[Whazzzup]

To like th900 or la900 you got to want to feel it. subtly speaking its not subtle,  but you want to bring music in up close and personal, success.

 

[up late]

Maybe, just people expressing opinions.  I'm not degrading Tyll in any way, shape or form.  To me, The difference between being on the WOF (Denon) and SUCKS (TH900) should be a MAJOR difference in performance, which I don't experience, but again, that is my opinion.  Tyll is certainly entitled to his own.

it's apparent from his comparative review that the th900/mk2's presentation grated on him in a way that the denons didn't. and again, he did find that the th900/mk2's presentation was a departure from the denons, massdrop and e-mu variants. he also attributed much of this to the different shaped ear pads on the th900/mk2. anyways, i'm taking @thatonenoob's advice.

 

[Sethivict]

I am sure it was because Jupiter hit Saggitarius and his Guruship felt the hot treble, can you speculate more on Tyll's cosmic wave coming from TH900,  up late?
Sorry to ruin your dogmatic view.

 

[thatonenoob]

  I am sure it was because Jupiter hit Saggitarius and his Guruship felt the hot treble, can you speculate more on Tyll's cosmic wave coming from TH900,  up late?
Sorry to ruin your dogmatic view.

Aargh......
 
If we're so upset (and mind you I'm not) by Tyll's review - would it not be easier to provide further contributions (discussion on mods, impressions etc.) to demonstrate the TH900's worthiness as a can than to continually find fault with one source???  You're not going to change his mind, or his opinions by further speculating.
 
In fact, what would be more useful is to write to him directly.  I'm sure if you have a valid concern it'd be something he'd be willing to take a look at and clarify.
 
The fact that not everyone is up in arms means that there is indeed an element of truth in what he said as well.  And now we're just picking away at each other - how helpful.

 

[up late]

that's a constructive suggestion @thatonenoob but he'd rather troll here - unfortunately

 

[thatonenoob]

that's a constructive suggestion @thatonenoob but he'd rather troll here - unfortunately

Yea...sorry if I came over as ranty but this convo just bores me...and is creating a lot of pointless tension. 

 

[up late]

wouldn't be the first time. sethivict's had a good run but he really should move on in search of another axe to grind.

 

[brams]

Of course the real concern of those who are infuriated by the review/professional opinion is the potential impact on re-sale value of the th900. Let's face it, we just lost 20 -25% folks.

Damn those folks who depend purely on professional reviews/opinions to inform their purchasing decision!:rolleyes:

 

[Whazzzup]

who would sell these pups, err kitty witty's

 

[up late]

Of course the real concern of those who are infuriated by the review/professional opinion is the potential impact on re-sale value of the th900. Let's face it, we just lost 20 -25% folks.

Damn those folks who depend purely on professional reviews/opinions to inform their purchasing decision!:rolleyes:

on the upside, they'll still be able to afford to buy a thx00 or e-mu as a replacement

 

[Edric Li]

My evaluation standard for audio performance is always:
 
1. Transparency;
2. Everything else.
 
IMO If two headphones have the same level of transparency, for example the TH900 and HD800, they are in the same "class". Their market value may depend on people's preference for sound-signature/tuning, which is why TH900 are more expensive (popular) than HD800 in japan but not in the US.
 
It makes ZERO sense to me when people (like Tyll, as well as some ATH fans) take sound-signature over transparency. I hate it when people say HD600 is better than HD800 (or Denon better than Fostex) because they like their sound signature better and completely ignore the difference in transparency. To me that's just unprofessional, inconclusive analysis of audio performance. 
 
At least I am able to tell by my ears that Sennheiser does price their product according to transparency, as well as Beyer, Fostex, and many more headphones and earphones manufacturer. However, I can also tell that some company does price their stuff based on sound-signature and ignore transparency, for example Final, ATH and Ultrasone. 
 
Well, maybe I am the subjective one. Maybe some people like their music muddier and call that "smooth" "musical"?

 

[socks mk2]

[redacted]

 

[AnakChan]

Darko has written his review of the Utopias already which can be found here. I heard the Utopias myself last week and I have to admit I'm sold on it too (although I haven't bought one). It's been highly tempting to consider offloading my TH-900 and HD800S in favour (and in consolidation) for the Utopia. However as per Darko's review, they are different in signatures which to me are very preferential from individual to individual, however in terms of technical execution I think I like the Utopias more for its ethereal qualities....reminds me a lot of my SR-009.

 

[up late]

My evaluation standard for audio performance is always:

1. Transparency;
2. Everything else.

IMO If two headphones have the same level of transparency, for example the TH900 and HD800, they are in the same "class". Their market value may depend on people's preference for sound-signature/tuning, which is why TH900 are more expensive (popular) than HD800 in japan but not in the US.

It makes ZERO sense to me when people (like Tyll, as well as some ATH fans) take sound-signature over transparency. I hate it when people say HD600 is better than HD800 (or Denon better than Fostex) because they like their sound signature better and completely ignore the difference in transparency. To me that's just unprofessional, inconclusive analysis of audio performance. 

At least I am able to tell by my ears that Sennheiser does price their product according to transparency, as well as Beyer, Fostex, and many more headphones and earphones manufacturer. However, I can also tell that some company does price their stuff based on sound-signature and ignore transparency, for example Final, ATH and Ultrasone. 

Well, maybe I am the subjective one. Maybe some people like their music muddier and call that "smooth" "musical"?

depends on what you mean by transparency. the th900 and hd800 sound quite different to me so i don't know how both could be regarded as transparent as i understand the term. i think that the th900 has impressive clarity, particularly for a closed can, but i wouldn't call it transparent. i avoid using that descriptor anyways.

 

[up late]

@socksmk2 - i know that tyll is influential but i had no idea he was that influential