[Kammerat Rebekka]

You maybe right but I will of course need to hear it for myself. The graph doesn’t bode well for it…and not to single anyone out here, but each and every time Beyerdynamic releases a new headphone, the initial reactions are those of ‘hey they’ve fixed the treble peak!’ or ‘the treble is distinctly warmer compared to the old Beyers’…and I usually end up either buying one for myself or contacting my buddy who is a huge Beyer fan and really can’t help himself (26 Beyers at the moment I believe!)..and I end up very disappointed. Either the mids have been pulled back or the bass boosted effectively making the headphone seem slightly warmer..but still retaining the treble peak.
The DT1990’s story is like this. The first couple of reviewers instantly spoke about how much better the treble was and the icecycles of the past was over with. Turns out the treble had been boosted even further than the good old DT990 and people merely were hearing what they wanted to…or conversely hearing a great headphone per their tastebuds without recognising that they indeed go for a brighter and more ‘detailed’ presentation.
That is the thing though…these days PC culture is everywhere. People can’t even admit to liking something if they feel the (right) description is derogatory…and that is how insanely bright headphones end up as ‘natural’, ‘neutral’ hell even ‘warm’.

 

[yabadaba]

You maybe right but I will of course need to hear it for myself. The graph doesn’t bode well for it…and not to single anyone out here, but each and every time Beyerdynamic releases a new headphone, the initial reactions are those of ‘hey they’ve fixed the treble peak!’ or ‘the treble is distinctly warmer compared to the old Beyers’…and I usually end up either buying one for myself or contacting my buddy who is a huge Beyer fan and really can’t help himself (26 Beyers at the moment I believe!)..and I end up very disappointed. Either the mids have been pulled back or the bass boosted effectively making the headphone seem slightly warmer..but still retaining the treble peak.
The DT1990’s story is like this. The first couple of reviewers instantly spoke about how much better the treble was and the icecycles of the past was over with. Turns out the treble had been boosted even further than the good old DT990 and people merely were hearing what they wanted to…or conversely hearing a great headphone per their tastebuds without recognising that they indeed go for a brighter and more ‘detailed’ presentation.
That is the thing though…these days PC culture is everywhere. People can’t even admit to liking something if they feel the (right) description is derogatory…and that is how insanely bright headphones end up as ‘natural’, ‘neutral’ hell even ‘warm’.

Yes, I know what you mean and completely agree with your last paragraph. Let me just say then that the DT 900 Pro X is definitely not as bright as the DT 990 Pro. Whether reduced enough or not for you I obviously could not say and yes you would need to test. It's not confirmation bias or anything like that for me, as I actually would prefer them brighter (though not as bright as the 990's). The difference between 900 and 990 is not subtle, but possibly not enough to match to your tastes. Compared to other headphones that I have, it is in no way warm....still got raised treble (relatively speaking) and the mids are relatively forward. Yes, try and listen to them, or buy from somewhere where you can easily return them I guess. Hopefully you can do this as would be interested to see what you think to them.

 

[WhiteHartMart]

My honest opinion of the DT900 is that the treble absolutely has been tamed from the 990 and 1990 BUT personally, they have lost the open/spacious sound of those two to my ears - these really sound quite closed to me and while I really enjoy them for music, they just miss the mark for gaming (which I enjoyed the 990 and 1990 for).

I wanted the 900 Pro X as an all rounder but they're sadly not going to fill that need for me.

 

[yabadaba]

My honest opinion of the DT900 is that the treble absolutely has been tamed from the 990 and 1990 BUT personally, they have lost the open/spacious sound of those two to my ears - these really sound quite closed to me and while I really enjoy them for music, they just miss the mark for gaming (which I enjoyed the 990 and 1990 for).

I wanted the 900 Pro X as an all rounder but they're sadly not going to fill that need for me.

Yes, I agree. They only sound better than 990's, to me, with tracks that were already too bright, but other stuff now sounds a bit too dull for me and, yes, they do sound more closed in and less spacious, which I guess is due to them being less V shaped. I'm sure many will prefer this tonality though. I know it might sound crazy, but they actually remind me more of my closed back AKG K371's...in terms tonality...than say the 990's or 770's. I think it's the midrange that's causing me to get that impression.

 

[kman1211]

I was waiting on a frequency response for these new Beyers, thanks

The DT900 genuinely looks like a combination of the DT990 and the DT1990, still with the infamous mount Beyer treble. It’s a little difficult to judge by the measurement alone, but looking at the frequency response for the DT1990 made on the same rig (presumably), it’s obvious we’re witnessing the same treble behaviour.
Dammit…

Honestly outside some vintage Beyers, the only Beyers I’ve heard without the Mt. Beyer are the DT 150, T1 Gen 3, and T5 Gen 3, and that’s pretty much it. But honestly I found the DT 1990 a little less irritating than the DT 880/990 in terms of treble, treble presentation was easier for me to handle. It was still a little much for me. I’ll have to hear the DT 700/900 to see how they fair to my ears.

 

[ordivergens]

Hello all, my first post here. Just a bit about how I view headphones for context. I basically only care about tonality/soundstage/spatial qualities/ergonomics. Beyond that I don't notice much on different headphones. I have no idea what people mean when they talk about resolution, macro-/micro-dynamics, etc. For example, to me my HD800 (when eq'd to fix the tonality) has better spatial qualities than my 1990, likely due to the larger, further spaced back and angled drivers, but beyond that I don't really see it as any better than the 1990. The HD800 is lighter on my head, so there is that...

I just bought the 900 to try it out and see if it was a mini 1990 of sorts. I already have a 1990 that I listen to regularly. The treble on the 1990 is a bit too hot for me to listen to without some form of eq. To me the treble on the 900 definitely has been lowered compared to the 1990 (almost to the point of being kind of dull sounding though there is still a peak in there somewhere I think). This makes sense given the thicker foam that is used on these, like the Amiron wireless. However, while it is a bit easier to listen to compared to the 1990, as others have pointed out, it is much more closed sounding. The 1990 has a more spacious presentation. I thought it might be because of the foam that is dulling the treble, but I actually have the Amiron wireless foam on my 1990 which tames the treble a bit (just enough for me not to need any external eq). It sounds just as spacious as it did without it, so I am not sure why the 900 sounds so closed off to me. I feel like it would be better to get the 700 with all the advantages of being closed back instead since the 900 sounds basically much more like a closed back.

I did find the 900 pads to be more comfortable than the 1990. I didn't really notice much difference in weight between the two. However, the tips of my ears did touch the foam on the 900, while they do not on the 1990 (keep in mind mine has the thick Amiron wireless foam), so I am not sure if the drivers in the 900 sit closer to the head than the 1990. Maybe this is why the 900 sounds more closed than the 1990 to me, due to less interaction with the pinna.

So to me the 900, while the treble is reduced, doesn't really have the spatial qualities of the 1990. So it is not really a cheaper/lower impedance mini 1990 as I thought it might be when I bought it.

 

[InvisibleInk]

Hello all, my first post here. Just a bit about how I view headphones for context. I basically only care about tonality/soundstage/spatial qualities/ergonomics. Beyond that I don't notice much on different headphones. I have no idea what people mean when they talk about resolution, macro-/micro-dynamics, etc. For example, to me my HD800 (when eq'd to fix the tonality) has better spatial qualities than my 1990, likely due to the larger, further spaced back and angled drivers, but beyond that I don't really see it as any better than the 1990. The HD800 is lighter on my head, so there is that...

I just bought the 900 to try it out and see if it was a mini 1990 of sorts. I already have a 1990 that I listen to regularly. The treble on the 1990 is a bit too hot for me to listen to without some form of eq. To me the treble on the 900 definitely has been lowered compared to the 1990 (almost to the point of being kind of dull sounding though there is still a peak in there somewhere I think). This makes sense given the thicker foam that is used on these, like the Amiron wireless. However, while it is a bit easier to listen to compared to the 1990, as others have pointed out, it is much more closed sounding. The 1990 has a more spacious presentation. I thought it might be because of the foam that is dulling the treble, but I actually have the Amiron wireless foam on my 1990 which tames the treble a bit (just enough for me not to need any external eq). It sounds just as spacious as it did without it, so I am not sure why the 900 sounds so closed off to me. I feel like it would be better to get the 700 with all the advantages of being closed back instead since the 900 sounds basically much more like a closed back.

I did find the 900 pads to be more comfortable than the 1990. I didn't really notice much difference in weight between the two. However, the tips of my ears did touch the foam on the 900, while they do not on the 1990 (keep in mind mine has the thick Amiron wireless foam), so I am not sure if the drivers in the 900 sit closer to the head than the 1990. Maybe this is why the 900 sounds more closed than the 1990 to me, due to less interaction with the pinna.

So to me the 900, while the treble is reduced, doesn't really have the spatial qualities of the 1990. So it is not really a cheaper/lower impedance mini 1990 as I thought it might be when I bought it.

Thanks, and welcome to Head-Fi!

 

[yabadaba]

Okay, was trying to resist, but......I couldn't. Just tried swapping the foam inserts with a spare set of the DT 990 ones, (exactly same size, perfect fit), but the sound just became harsher/harder and more steely sounding, rather than more sparkly. I think perhaps the foam swap boosted the lower treble region, rather than the really high frequencies that I perceive as sparkle. I was almost expecting the treble to more closely resemble that of the 990, but I guess the new drivers simply have a different tonal quality entirely.

 

[cel4145]

However, the tips of my ears did touch the foam on the 900, while they do not on the 1990 (keep in mind mine has the thick Amiron wireless foam), so I am not sure if the drivers in the 900 sit closer to the head than the 1990.

As someone with an XXL head, it's always interesting to me when you guys talk about ears not touching the foam of headphone pads. I've always tried to imagine what that might be like.

 

[Terriero]

Last year I purchased Beyer T 1.3 and I liked them but had comfort issues with them due to the inner size of the pads (they pinched my inferior ear lobes) and finally I decided to return them. I have no issues at all with DT 1990 Pro and had no issues with Amiron Home that I had briefly (both of them have bigger inner size of the pads than the T1). If some of you have the T1 and the DT 700 and can compare them, I'd be really grateful.

 

[cel4145]

DMS has posted measurements of DT 900

https://twitter.com/dms3tv/status/1451621838958825481

Does he apply Harman Target Response? If so, these are about to become extremely popular among the HTR crowd.

 

[AudioManNewb]

Love the graph of the DT 900 PRO X tho.

 

[GotNoRice]

I'm finding it difficult to get an idea of the Bass capabilities of the DT700 and to a lesser extent the DT900, particularly the deep bass. Some say that they have great bass while others say that the sub-bass is almost completely absent.

For me, I'm less concerned about the stock sound signature than I am with what the drivers are physically capable of. I have no qualms about using EQ to get the sound that I desire but the drivers still have to actually be capable of what I'm asking from them.

I currently have both a DT770-Pro 80ohm and a DT990-Pro 250ohm. Both respond nicely to EQ on the low-end and have pleasing bass, though neither can get anywhere near what my Sony XB700 can do, regardless of EQ. Are the DT700/DT900 physically capable of more bass than the DT770/DT990 when EQ is used?

 

[Nostoi]

I'm finding it difficult to get an idea of the Bass capabilities of the DT700 and to a lesser extent the DT900, particularly the deep bass. Some say that they have great bass while others say that the sub-bass is almost completely absent.

For me, I'm less concerned about the stock sound signature than I am with what the drivers are physically capable of. I have no qualms about using EQ to get the sound that I desire but the drivers still have to actually be capable of what I'm asking from them.

I currently have both a DT770-Pro 80ohm and a DT990-Pro 250ohm. Both respond nicely to EQ on the low-end and have pleasing bass, though neither can get anywhere near what my Sony XB700 can do, regardless of EQ. Are the DT700/DT900 physically capable of more bass than the DT770/DT990 when EQ is used?

Between DT770 and DT1770, DT700 feels like it has the best bass. It's less boomy than the other two and with more extension and better control.

I'm very impressed with the DT700. I was using it out and about today with a Cayin N6ii/R01 and it's a majestic pairing. Very listenable but also quite detailed. The DT700 also scales exceptionally well. With the TT2, it sounds like a headphone that costs 3 times more than its retail price.

 

[MayaTlab]

I'm finding it difficult to get an idea of the Bass capabilities of the DT700 and to a lesser extent the DT900, particularly the deep bass.

For me, I'm less concerned about the stock sound signature than I am with what the drivers are physically capable of. I have no qualms about using EQ to get the sound that I desire but the drivers still have to actually be capable of what I'm asking from them.

I have no difficulties EQing the DT900 so that they measure similarly on head (with in-ear microphones), as, let's say, a pair of Airpods Max or a Hi-X65. Both of which extend quite low with very low THD.

Your main difficulty for EQing them will be the 4K dip and in general the 2.5-5K region, which is a bit wiggly and heavily dependent on pad compression, and perhaps pad wear.