[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Youve heard the ad900s? Can you elaborate more on the differences between them and the ad2k?

One one condition: somebody make AD2000 appreciation/ official thread for these lovely beauties

it's been a while since I tried them...I'll compare AD1000 vs AD2000 instead, since I had AD1000 for a while(AD1000 was closer to AD900 anyways)

As far as bass extension, I didn't notice any obvious drop-offs in either one, I thought AD2000 went strong all the way DEEEEP down, whereas AD1000 went down in level of bass in extremely deep bass (30-60Hz?) - I wouldn't say rolled off, but decreasing more as it got lower

Midbass was a bit artifical IMO, sorta like A900s, like EQing up midbass on my mp3 player.
As for impact level, AD1000 was noticeably weaker kind of like airy bass, with AD1000's decay being a hair slower. - Still very fast paced - kind of like A900's mid-bass, but being controlled

Midrange - AD1000 was just a bit weird. it was colored, but it was weirdly colored - it only sounded good for certain type of music - jazz, blues among others- I prefered mids on AD900 a bit more. I would describe it as nasal, more than other - like vocals were coming from the nose, rather than throat. It sounded good with female vocals, but not so much for male vocals. I think it's one of those weird AT's attempt here to tweak the midrange. No recessed mids, just a bit weird.

High extension was almost the same, little harsh IMO than AD2000 ( very linear and strong all the way up) - a teeny bit of roll off here as well

So that's what I meant by extension/mids/impact being weird on AD1000,
AD900s, if I remember correctly, doesn't have that artificial bass, weird midrange coloration, but rest are similar.
AD900's mids can be described as dry but accurate vocals, and guitars being nice and forceful.

AD2000's mids? we know this already - so much weight, strength, emotion into every syllable. Whisper will sound like a whisper and pain (eddie vedder's voice when he's singing "better man" for example) makes you cringe in sympathy.

donunus, Look what you made me do!! I nearly wrote a full review *sigh

I don't have AD1000 or AD900 to test A/B so I'm not going to put it as a full review.

Last time I've listened to AD900 was few months back, and I'm not too sure if it's accurate, and I didn't like AD1000, and it didn't get much head time.

I hope that answered your question!

EDIT: after reading Elepha's comment, It might have been my amp? or is it because I didn't like it from day one?
I'll try to borrow AD1000 back from my friend and test it A/B

 

[donunus]

I guess I don't regret spending more for the ad2ks after reading that. I thought they were closer than you described. That guy marcus from the australian headphone forum(aka snufkin here on headfi) really has some weird tastes on all sorts of cans since he recommends the ad900 but doesn't like the ad2ks

 

[egokun]

Yep, the AD2000 are indeed great headphones. I too have bought them coming from the K701, and it took some time to get used to the more compressed soundstage, the much more forward sound, the fact that their sound won't change much - if at all - by shifting them over your head, quite the opposite of what happens with the AKGs. But give them a week, and you do find it hard to go back to the K701.

The AD2000 have less detail than the K701, and the highs are unquestionably more recessed, albeit present. On some tracks I really feel that I'm missing something that the K701 has no problem presenting, but on the other hand, it's practically impossible to experience listening fatigue with the AD2000, they're so smooth and clear. They excel with male vocals (yes, male!), guitars sound fantastic, piano is colored but too pleasant to complain. Also these are rocking cans if I ever heard any. And no trace of sibilance, save for the more extreme cases.

The vocals on the AD2000 can sound a bit harsh if you go unamped, but add a decent amp and this issue is easily solved. I find it slightly difficult to attain an ideal volume level, you go from a bit too low to a tad too high with the slightest turn of the knob. The biggest issue I have with them is that they pick up background hiss from practically everything, unless I use a portable amp in low gain mode.

Some day I may write a review of the AD2000 comparing them to the K701. For now, I can safely say that the AD2000 seem to get everything right, even with their evident coloration in the mids. They are somewhat similar to the K701, but there are plenty of differences that make it a reasonable choice to keep them both.

 

[donunus]

About the hiss when plugging to almost any amp issue... I noticed that if I use the grado 1/8 to 1/4 adapter there is less noise from my headfive than when using the screw on adapter that comes with the ad2ks

 

[d-cee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I don't regret spending more for the ad2ks after reading that. I thought they were closer than you described. That guy marcus from the australian headphone forum(aka snufkin here on headfi) really has some weird tastes on all sorts of cans since he recommends the ad900 but doesn't like the ad2ks

to be fair, he's heard lots of phones and owns a headphone store so has lots of different phones at his disposal and can to do an A/B at any time he pleases

he also does say quite openly the AD2000 is the superior phone, but for a number of reasons (value for money, versatility) he enjoys the AD900 more

i appreciate his honest opinion even though it may not always agree with mine. i mean it would be in his best interests to sell everyone the more expensive headphones, but instead he recommends based on what the customer asks for and more often than not the AD900 is more suitable (most people stumbling into that forum are PC users or first time headphone buyers with no idea that headphone amps exist)

 

[donunus]

i also feel he's honest d-cee. It's just weird that his tastes are so far from the headfi norm. I actually posted the question before asking for advice between the ad900 or ad2k ignoring price and he said he would take the ad900 over the ad2k any day. I haven't heard the ad900s yet so until this day, I am still very intrigued about how the ad900s sound because of him

This is even though I have the ad2ks already.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by egokun /img/forum/go_quote.gif The AD2000 have less detail than the K701

I am still befuddled on these "less details" comments, if they have more details than DT880, which are more detailed than K701, how K701 can be more detailed than AD2000? You are not talking about AH-D2000, are you?

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am still befuddled on these "less details" comments, if they have more details than DT880, which are more detailed than K701, how K701 can be more detailed than AD2000? You are not talking about AH-D2000, are you?

Detail level: AD2000=DT880>K701
DT880 and K701 has more PERCEIVED detail - due to their lean bass, and DT880 and K701 - recording faults stand out more while AD2000 makes it less prominent.

Andrew: when's yours arriving?

 

[egokun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am still befuddled on these "less details" comments, if they have more details than DT880, which are more detailed than K701, how K701 can be more detailed than AD2000? You are not talking about AH-D2000, are you?

No, I am perfectly aware that we're talking about the Audio Technica ATH-AD2000 (I myself see much confusion in discussions regarding one of these two HP).

I have the distinct impression that the K701 delivers more details. It may be due to its superior instrument separation, which allows you to focus more easily on different layers of the music, or to its more prominent highs. The K701 seems to be made to allow for analytical listening, while the AD2000 is more musical in its presentation and forwardness. The AD2000 is detailed, but it presents the music as a whole rather than "dissecting" it into several layers that can be picked and listened to (almost) separately. You may say that the K701 lures you into this type of critical listening, while the AD2000 just doesn't want you to go that way and rather suggests you to just get lost into your music

I've never heard the DT880 so I can't comment on its level of detail.

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by egokun /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, I am perfectly aware that we're talking about the Audio Technica ATH-AD2000 (I myself see much confusion in discussions regarding one of these two HP). I have the distinct impression that the K701 delivers more details. It may be due to its superior instrument separation, which allows you to focus more easily on different layers of the music, or to its more prominent highs. The K701 seems to be made to allow for analytical listening, while the AD2000 is more musical in its presentation and forwardness. The AD2000 is detailed, but it presents the music as a whole rather than "dissecting" it into several layers that can be picked and listened to (almost) separately. You may say that the K701 lures you into this type of critical listening, while the AD2000 just doesn't want you to go that way and rather suggests you to just get lost into your music I've never heard the DT880 so I can't comment on its level of detail.

I think there is more perceived detail due to its ability to do well on instrument seperation - you're right.
However, I feel that there's superior detail present in bass texture and detail in AD2000(it's very easy to distingish single bass from double bass on AD2000, not so much on K701), and there's about the same level of detail present in midrange. AD2000 also benefits from its extension, with great extension from both ends.

 

[tdogzthmn]

I have my pair of D2000s on the way! I have to wait three days.

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdogzthmn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have my pair of D2000s on the way! I have to wait three days.

uhh... D2000s? or AD2000s?
D2000s are Denons and AD2000s are AudioTechnicas.

 

[d-cee]

very slight, but important difference.

Doesn't help that the full name for the Denon is the AH-D2000 and the Audio Technica in ATH-AD2000

just coincidence on Denon's part? I think not...

 

[wower]

How did I miss this thread? Glad you like them.

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-cee /img/forum/go_quote.gif very slight, but important difference. Doesn't help that the full name for the Denon is the AH-D2000 and the Audio Technica in ATH-AD2000 just coincidence on Denon's part? I think not...

Which came first?
I'm guessing AD2000, because it has been AT's open flagship for a while...
any ideas?