zyxwvutsr
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Posts
- 280
- Likes
- 11
I'm quite impressed with these headphones. Initially, I was interested in the HD595 because people on the forums here have been drawing similarities between the HD595 and the ATH-A900. I have the A500, and I was looking for an upgrade with a similar sound signature, so the HD595 seemed like a good choice. Plus, they are cheaper than the A900's.
Note: I made these impressions using the following chain of devices - laptop>Little Dot Micro+>ATh-A500 / 70ohm adapter+HD595.
When I first tried them, they were totally different from what I expected. The "openness" of the HD595s was what struck me first ... duh. It's just that I wasn't expecting the difference between open and closed to be so noticeable.
Some more specific comparisons:
The bass on the HD595 is tight and comparitively impactful but lacking in quantity compared to A500. Bass on both phones extend pretty low. A500's bass is more weighty, but it still has some impact.
When it comes to lower mids, HD595 wins hands down. On the HD595, detail in this range is much more apparent.
With regards to upper mids, I finally realize why some people claim that the vocals on the A5/7/900 sound nasally. However, the degree of nasality is slight at most. In this range, the A500s seem to have a bit more detail, especially with the vocals. However, this quality adds a bit of graininess to the vocals. Vocals on the HD595 are comparitively smooth, but not as smooth as the vocals on an AKG K240M, which out of all the headphones I have heard, is the king of vocals (especially female vocals).
The highs on the A500 really shine/sparkle. It's full of energy and detail. If not for the sibilance, I would absolutely love it. The HD595s, on the other hand, sound slightly muffled, but on the plus side, I detect almost no sibilance.
Both phones have good sound-staging. The A500s, however, seem to lack depth. I have no problem discerning the direction a certain sound is coming from, but I have a hard time trying to figure out which sound/instrument is closer to me. In fact, everything sounds as if they were right in front of me.
The HD595s are more tonally accurate. I was listening to some piano music and I found that the A500s add a sort of slight electronic quality to a grand piano (especially on the lower notes).
The above impressions were actually made when I first got the HD595s (about two weeks ago).
Lately, I've got a chance to evaluate the HD595's without the 70 ohm adapter and what I've got to say regarding this is probably inline with what everybody else has been saying.
The adapter noticeably tones down the treble and upper mids. The vocals are pushed back and become somewhat muted. Bass improves in terms of quantity and impact. Without the adapter, the highs do remind me of the A500 (without the sibilance though).
Overall, I'd give the HD595s a thumbs-up. However, I'm not completely satisfied with it. I wish that there was some way to merge the HD595s with and without the adapter in such a way that I would not have to sacrifice the upper end for better bass.
On another note, any suggestions on how to grant my wish? Perhaps a better amp? Or should I just look somewhere else in the headphones department?
Note: I made these impressions using the following chain of devices - laptop>Little Dot Micro+>ATh-A500 / 70ohm adapter+HD595.
When I first tried them, they were totally different from what I expected. The "openness" of the HD595s was what struck me first ... duh. It's just that I wasn't expecting the difference between open and closed to be so noticeable.
Some more specific comparisons:
The bass on the HD595 is tight and comparitively impactful but lacking in quantity compared to A500. Bass on both phones extend pretty low. A500's bass is more weighty, but it still has some impact.
When it comes to lower mids, HD595 wins hands down. On the HD595, detail in this range is much more apparent.
With regards to upper mids, I finally realize why some people claim that the vocals on the A5/7/900 sound nasally. However, the degree of nasality is slight at most. In this range, the A500s seem to have a bit more detail, especially with the vocals. However, this quality adds a bit of graininess to the vocals. Vocals on the HD595 are comparitively smooth, but not as smooth as the vocals on an AKG K240M, which out of all the headphones I have heard, is the king of vocals (especially female vocals).
The highs on the A500 really shine/sparkle. It's full of energy and detail. If not for the sibilance, I would absolutely love it. The HD595s, on the other hand, sound slightly muffled, but on the plus side, I detect almost no sibilance.
Both phones have good sound-staging. The A500s, however, seem to lack depth. I have no problem discerning the direction a certain sound is coming from, but I have a hard time trying to figure out which sound/instrument is closer to me. In fact, everything sounds as if they were right in front of me.
The HD595s are more tonally accurate. I was listening to some piano music and I found that the A500s add a sort of slight electronic quality to a grand piano (especially on the lower notes).
The above impressions were actually made when I first got the HD595s (about two weeks ago).
Lately, I've got a chance to evaluate the HD595's without the 70 ohm adapter and what I've got to say regarding this is probably inline with what everybody else has been saying.
The adapter noticeably tones down the treble and upper mids. The vocals are pushed back and become somewhat muted. Bass improves in terms of quantity and impact. Without the adapter, the highs do remind me of the A500 (without the sibilance though).
Overall, I'd give the HD595s a thumbs-up. However, I'm not completely satisfied with it. I wish that there was some way to merge the HD595s with and without the adapter in such a way that I would not have to sacrifice the upper end for better bass.
On another note, any suggestions on how to grant my wish? Perhaps a better amp? Or should I just look somewhere else in the headphones department?
