[iareConfusE]

Okay, I've searched google, searched multiple times on Head-Fi and I'm still unsure.

I know that what sounds good to one person may sound not so pleasant to another, but I would just like to know, generally, how these two compare, or contrast.

I currently own the AD700's as my first real pair of cans, and I don't have anything to compare them to except some HD280s. I've recently acquired some extra money, and the thought of upgrading to the HD600's have popped into my head a couple times. I don't want to go any higher than this, because thats just too much of a hit on my wallet.

I'd like to know if the soundstage of the HD600's are as wide as the AD700's, and if the sound quality (in your opinions) of the 600's are significantly better than the AD700. I do realize that the HD600's will be much harder to drive, and I will be making an amp in the near future.

I listen mostly to trance music, but occasionally listen to all other types of music as well. Most people have said that AD700's bass is too weak, but I found that with the right amp I can get some pretty heavy, non-distorted bass out of them.

So, can anyone tell me if the HD600's are right for me?

 

[m0ofassa]

FWIR sennheiser cans arent good for trance because they are quite slow (and lose a lot of energy in the presentation/sound 'laid back'). IMHO this is not what you are after (unless you are wanting to get a more diverse sounding collection)

 

[Nocturnal310]

For Trance.. HD600 are definitely much much better than AD700 mainly due to Bass which is layered and has good punch for open headphones.

but if u want only for trance then there are much bassier headphones out there...because HD600's bass aint gonna rumble your skull.

also checkout HD650 which has more weight in the bass.

but overall many will agree that HD600 is another league....in terms of soundstage, stereo imaging, neutrality and comfort.

for more opinions on sound quality there are like thousands of reviews so search for them..and enjoy reading.

 

[vvanrij]

I prefer ultrasone for trance.

 

[John Willett]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0ofassa /img/forum/go_quote.gif FWIR sennheiser cans arent good for trance because they are quite slow

Please can I correct this - the headphones are *not* "slow".

The voice-coil is aluminium ribbon, which is very light and responsive. This makes the diaphragm / voice-coil combination very fast-acting compared to headphones that use a copper voice-coil.

Now - you may be using the word "slow" to describe something else which may make you think the headphones are not suitable. I won't comment on this as the sound of headphones can be very personal.

I just want to correct the technical point about the speed of movement of the diaphragm.

John
(Technical Support - Sennheiser UK)

 

[Nocturnal310]

^i agree.

also depends on amp and how well it drives the headphone.

ok..

now where's my HD800 discount voucher?

 

[iancraig10]

I have the ad700's and Senn 600 and 650.

Most used phones for me are the ad700's. I have problems with the treble region of both of the Senns.

I use a Graham Slee Solo amp to drive them and the Senns always make me want more volume in order to raise a kind of 'presence' in the sound. I don't do this with the ad700's. Orchestral strings just don't sound scraped to me on a Senn.

The 600's are lighter sounding than the 650's but I still go back to the ad700's although they probably do not have the same kind of resolution as the Senns. The ad's also don't squeeze your head like a Senn.

Before spending that kind of money, it would be well worth going into a shop and having a listen yourself because you may end up feel underwhelmed by the perceived 'lack of sparkle' or even overwhelmed by the enormous bass of the 650. Depends what kind of sound you like. Before you know it, you'll be spending more money on cables in order to try and tweak the sound which leaves the Senns with their new cable costing a lot of money. (For quite minor changes imo as far as cables go)

I've stuck with Senns for a long time, (20 years) but the 650 sort of became the end of the line for me with it's emphasis in the bass region. I then bought a 600 in order to try and lose the fat bottom end, but then I realised that I had problems with the upper region and kept wanting to put the volume up too high in response to the sound of these phones. They are good at high volumes but I don't care for them much at low volumes.

For me, I went in the opposite direction to grado 325i. Back to low levels and clarity. (They also respond extremely quickly like the Senns) More money, but for me, it was the way to go unless Senn change their sound sig in the next model.

In English money (approx) £179 for the 650. £400 for the Graham Slee. £160 for the 600. £170 ish for a cable. = £909. So we're talking a Grand in the end for a sound that I ultimately just couldn't stick with long term.

BTW - I wouldn't go the AD1000 route. I also have them. The treble is too clattery for my tastes. More clattery than a 325i which sounds positively sweet in comparison.

Ian

 

[mbd2884]

If you don't want to go the route of the Senns,

May I suggest upgrading to the AD900 for 279$? Despite what you may read here, there is a difference between the AD900 and the AD700, and well I much prefer the 900s for everything, in every category, no question here. AD900 from what I gather is the most musical of the AD900, AD1000 and the AD2000. Don't include the AD700 as I categorize it as entry level, the 900 and 1000 mid-fi and the AD2000 Audiophile.

Or as I've contemplated many times, upgrading to the AD2000! Which I would add, my opinion the AD2000 are the best looking headphones around, think they look just awesome. No other headphone comes close to its appearance for me. The AD2000 supposedly has more bass than the AD900, but more analytical.

The thing I love most about the AD series from AT is they have one purpose. To make music sound awesome. The K701 were made as studio monitoring phones. The HD650 is similar, and made to be a reference phone. AD from AT was made for Audiophiles, listeners of music, not professionals.

Whatever you choose, you won't be disappointed don't think between the 650, 900 and 2000.

 

[limpidglitch]

You might check out AD900 too, and maybe you already have, but FWIR they're simply an improved AD700. So if you like the general signature of the 700 and just want an improvement, read up on 900. AD1000, as Ian says, is a whole other deal.

EDIT: I hate being a slow typer.

 

[nhat_thanh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you don't want to go the route of the Senns, May I suggest upgrading to the AD900 for 279$? Despite what you may read here, there is a difference between the AD900 and the AD700, and well I much prefer the 900s for everything, in every category, no question here. AD900 from what I gather is the most musical of the AD900, AD1000 and the AD2000. Don't include the AD700 as I categorize it as entry level, the 900 and 1000 mid-fi and the AD2000 Audiophile. Or as I've contemplated many times, upgrading to the AD2000! Which I would add, my opinion the AD2000 are the best looking headphones around, think they look just awesome. No other headphone comes close to its appearance for me. The AD2000 supposedly has more bass than the AD900, but more analytical.

I own both AD700 and AD2000, have heard AD900 and did a comparison with AD700. I agree that AD900 is clearly superior to AD700.
When I was thinking about upgrade from AD700, I considered AD900 but from other's people experiences, the price different is not worth it, anyway I want to try new "flavour" so I didn't get the AD900. After that I had a chance to try AD900 and I glad I didn't get them, as I said they are just like AD700 but better.
IMO AD2000 is more musical than both AD700 and 900, due to the warmer sound, I haven't heard AD1000 though so can't say anything about them.
AD2000 are much fuller and clearer sound, the mids is more foward, more bass (the amount is perfect for me) with more impact and very extension at low end. I wouldn't call AD2000 analytical, but compare to AD700/900, they have much more detail, I realized that there are some bass attack that I missed when I listen to AD700.
Though if you like AD900/700's soundstage, you might disappointed with AD2000 soundstage because they are indeed have narrower and less airy soundstage. But it is more focus on accuracy and go better with the their sound signature. I'm sure you will find AD2000 are quite different from AD900/700, because they have their own characteristic. But they still, IMO, remain lots of things from AD-series sound.

 

[lucky]

To put it shortly, no, they wouldn't be an upgrade if you like the AD700 for what it does better than almost any other phone out there. With regard to the AD900, what it offers over the AD700 is slightly more bass and slightly more soundstage. That's it. IMO, it's not worth the price difference. YMMV. Finally, the AD2k isn't an upgrade if you treasure the soundstage for reasons already mentioned, though if you're looking for bass and clarity, you'll like it. However, there really isn't anything in the AD line quite like the 700/900, from what I've read.

So no, if you like the AD700 for what it does, no Sennheiser phone will do it better. AKG, on the other hand, has a few options that may satisfy you.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhat_thanh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I own both AD700 and AD2000, have heard AD900 and did a comparison with AD700. I agree that AD900 is clearly superior to AD700. When I was thinking about upgrade from AD700, I considered AD900 but from other's people experiences, the price different is not worth it, anyway I want to try new "flavour" so I didn't get the AD900. After that I had a chance to try AD900 and I glad I didn't get them, as I said they are just like AD700 but better. IMO AD2000 is more musical than both AD700 and 900, due to the warmer sound, I haven't heard AD1000 though so can't say anything about them. AD2000 are much fuller and clearer sound, the mids is more foward, more bass (the amount is perfect for me) with more impact and very extension at low end. I wouldn't call AD2000 analytical, but compare to AD700/900, they have much more detail, I realized that there are some bass attack that I missed when I listen to AD700. Though if you like AD900/700's soundstage, you might disappointed with AD2000 soundstage because they are indeed have narrower soundstage. But it is more focus on accuracy and go better with the their sound signature. I'm sure you will find AD2000 are quite different from AD900/700, because they have their own characteristic. But they still, IMO, remain lots of things from AD-series sound.

Wow this is the first time ive seen a pretty good comparison of these cans ever. Looks like I might like the ad900s after all. As for ad700 vs hd600s. Put it this way, I like hd600s more than the ad2000s

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow this is the first time ive seen a pretty good comparison of these cans ever. Looks like I might like the ad900s after all. As for ad700 vs hd600s. Put it this way, I like hd600s more than the ad2000s

The problem with your second analogy is that the AD2k isn't necessarly an upgrade over the AD700; I'd take the HD600 over the AD2k too, but I'd take the AD700 over both of them. :O)

 

[donunus]

Really??? Is the soundstage improvement on the ad700s enough to be better sounding than the ad2000s?

Now if thats the case, I'm all over them. It just sounds too good to be true though

 

[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow this is the first time ive seen a pretty good comparison of these cans ever. Looks like I might like the ad900s after all. As for ad700 vs hd600s. Put it this way, I like hd600s more than the ad2000s

Me too.

Say, Donunus, what do you feel is wrong with the 2000's? (In comparison to hd600)

Audio Technica reckon that the 1000 is as close as dammit to the 2000 which is why they say that they don't supply it in the UK.

I'm in two minds about the 1000. It is analytical to the point of being 'jarring'. Having had another close listen to it this afternoon after reading here, it does have more of a mid presence than the Grado 325i (I think) and that with the emphasis on the treble makes them feel a bit too jangly for me.

I would love to hear the 2000 and compare but it's just too expensive to get it into the UK simply for a comparison. I would love to know whether the 1000 is in fact similar to it. Only a few Headfiers have compared.

Did you find the 2000 screechy?

Ian