Is A900 a significant/worthwhile improvement over e5c?

Jul 29, 2005 at 5:39 AM Post #31 of 44
Oh sheesh!

I'm so totally ignorant... never knew 595s to sound better than A900s...issit better by alot?
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 5:43 AM Post #32 of 44
Yo dj...

I already have a pretty small head on my shoulders...so much so most caps out there don't fit me well
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 10:45 AM Post #35 of 44
With all due respect to canalphones (and I've demoed a few top Shures in various setups - unfortunately, UMs are not available in Russia, so can't firmly talk about those), I remain strongly convinced that canalphones, no matter how good/expensive/technically advanced they are, simply cannot sound as natural as supraural, or, more so, circumaural cans - by definition, for one single, but important reason: there's one extremely important acoustic element which is missing: sound reflection off the inner walls of the auricula. They might reproduce brilliantly articulated bass, refined mids, crystal-clear highs etc., but soundstage, airiness and natural sound are just not there.

This is in no way intended to raise some flame here, but it's a more or less physiological fact. For the same very reason no cans would ever sound MORE NATURAL than good speakers, and no speakers would ever sound natural to a live unplugged performance. The whole idea about GOOD speakers, cans, canalphones etc. is to get them sound AS CLOSE to live performance, as possible (does not apply for techno and electronic music, though). So IMO that's how close they've all got there: canalphones -> closed cans -> open-air cans (including electrostats) -> good speakers.

Having said that, I do admit that good canalphones do sound very good, but not as natural as cans.
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 12:23 PM Post #37 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by SV_huMMer
With all due respect to canalphones (and I've demoed a few top Shures in various setups - unfortunately, UMs are not available in Russia, so can't firmly talk about those), I remain strongly convinced that canalphones, no matter how good/expensive/technically advanced they are, simply cannot sound as natural as supraural, or, more so, circumaural cans - by definition, for one single, but important reason: there's one extremely important acoustic element which is missing: sound reflection off the inner walls of the auricula. They might reproduce brilliantly articulated bass, refined mids, crystal-clear highs etc., but soundstage, airiness and natural sound are just not there.

This is in no way intended to raise some flame here, but it's a more or less physiological fact. For the same very reason no cans would ever sound MORE NATURAL than good speakers, and no speakers would ever sound natural to a live unplugged performance. The whole idea about GOOD speakers, cans, canalphones etc. is to get them sound AS CLOSE to live performance, as possible (does not apply for techno and electronic music, though). So IMO that's how close they've all got there: canalphones -> closed cans -> open-air cans (including electrostats) -> good speakers.

Having said that, I do admit that good canalphones do sound very good, but not as natural as cans.


I completly agree with you! My UM2's don't sound as good A500's. I dont think it has anything to do with the quality of sound, its just that the airiness and soundstage of my A500's just sound better than the UM2's. You can never get that open feel with canalphones no matter how good they are. But I'm lovin my UM2's at the moment but they just dont give me the open feel
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 1:19 PM Post #38 of 44
Fizban... First off, great name. Have you read their other series where they change his name around to 'Zifnab'?

Anyways, as to your question I think the E5c will be much better than the A900 [most headphones are
tongue.gif
], but I don't necissarily agree that you wont be able to find a better full sized headphone at the same price as the E5c. Enzo seems to be saying that the price/performace ratio for canalphones exceeds that of full sized headphones. I would have to dissagree, it is the opposite if anything. As to which headphones you should get, that depends on your music preferences.
wink.gif
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 4:46 PM Post #39 of 44
Philodox?
Yeah of course...i read of him as Zifnab first then Fizban second. My favourite series actually.

I listen to almost all sorts, pop, classical, jazz, whatever...except heavy metal and industrial.

No amp, cos i know next to nothign about them haha.

Lousy stupid reason i know...
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 5:22 PM Post #40 of 44
The K240S is great for acoustic music, alternative, pop, etc. The K501 is great for jazz and classical. If you want a good all around headphone, the K271S or K340 are great. You can get away with running the K271S and the K240S unamped, but they will improve with good amplification... The other two NEED an amp, especially the K340.
340smile.gif


"No discipline in the younger generation. His father, now there was a puffball..."
 
Jul 29, 2005 at 8:27 PM Post #41 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox
If you want a good all around headphone, the K271S or K340 are great.


Would second that about 271s - great cans, closed-back but not "narrow" in sound.

BTW, AFAIK, K340s are no longer in production, right? So there's nothing of this hybrid kind from AKG today?
 
Jul 30, 2005 at 4:10 AM Post #43 of 44
Haha!

Funny there philodox...nolstalgia sweeping over me in waves...
 
Jul 30, 2005 at 4:27 AM Post #44 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by SV_huMMer
BTW, AFAIK, K340s are no longer in production, right? So there's nothing of this hybrid kind from AKG today?


Yeah, unfortunately you have to buy them used.
frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top