[econsumer666]

I was looking for a pair of quality speakers for my computer table and someone in the shop adviced to me try a pair of near field monitors with a Sub. I had no clue and bought them: Adam A3X and Sub 7. Now after a month I know the difference between Studio and Hi-Fi and also what "near field" actually means.... yeah: it's damn near field, you have to be sitting in the sweet spot.
 
The sound quality is sheer amazing, I've never heard anything like that in my life before. The highs are just incredible and acoustic instruments sound incredibly realistic. I had to turn down the Sub at -24db though, cause otherwise my flat can literally fall apart. In fact, I think that as strange as it may sound, the sound quality may be even too much. I have like 600GB of music (a lot of classic and everything in a lossless format of course) and I can virtually only listen to like 2% of it, cause the rest is just garbage. The system is absolutely f..... unforgiving, when you're listening to an album you hear the different distance between the singe and the mic all the time, it's sometimes annoying. So yeah, it's incredibly difficult to find recordings that actually don't want to make you puke. This difference between Hi-Fi and Studio-equipment wasn't clear to me, I have no idea if I actually want it and the speakers don't fill the room with sound at all, so yeah don't know, can't get them back though so I'm gonna keep them for now. I have to say though that listening to the system causes fatigue, I have no idea why but I noticed that I can listen 1 hour max, the sound is just kinda so direct and coming at you, maybe I'm not used to it.
 
Now my actual question is, if I buy something sick like Sennheiser HD800, will it provide an even more incredible listening experience, cause sitting in front of these near field things is actually like wearing some sort of AKG 1000 as far as I understand or is a headphone still better in that regard? Of course, if the HD800 were closed, it'd be a nobrainer, as I could enjoy the incredible quality while not bothering others but it's open as hell so the question is, if it's worth it....

 

[Kanashimu]

The HD 800 in particular won't suit your needs. They are reputed for being among the least forgiving headphones there are. 

Headphones reportedly are much more forgiving on recordings than speakers, especially monitors. I'm sure someone can suggest another high end headphone for your situation.

However, the question is - what are your listening requirements and musical tastes? 

 

[econsumer666]

Quote:

The HD 800 in particular won't suit your needs. They are reputed for being among the least forgiving headphones there are. 

Headphones reportedly are much more forgiving on recordings than speakers, especially monitors. I'm sure someone can suggest another high end headphone for your situation.

However, the question is - what are your listening requirements and musical tastes? 

My musical requirements are actually perfect for HD800: classics, ballads, pop and no really heavy-bass music. Midrange ist really important for me, I love when I can feel the singing. It's ok if they are unforgiving, I don't have anything against renewing my collection and looking for good recordings. If you say that headphones are much more forgiving that studio monitors, than hmmm.... it might well be the deal, I probably have to read a few comparisons between HD800 and HD700 though.
 

 

[dyl1dyl]

Haha, why don't you go for a more "romantic" pair of headphones like a grado gs1000i or Audez'e LCD-2 or 3. Those will probably offer a more different approach to sound reproduction than studio monitors and no less enjoyable imo. For example, despite my possesion and experience with many flagship studio monitors like the adams, dynaudios, focal solo6 be, etc, I still personally find my LCD-3s to be a more engaging listening experience apart from their weight. 

 

[econsumer666]

Quote:

Haha, why don't you go for a more "romantic" pair of headphones like a grado gs1000i or Audez'e LCD-2 or 3. Those will probably offer a more different approach to sound reproduction than studio monitors and no less enjoyable imo. For example, despite my possesion and experience with many flagship studio monitors like the adams, dynaudios, focal solo6 be, etc, I still personally find my LCD-3s to be a more engaging listening experience apart from their weight. 

Hm.. never heard of those, sorry I'm new to Hi-Fi LCD-3 costs 2000 EUR here so it's kinda out of the question, LCD-2 is the same price as HD800 so it'd be an alternative, if they are comfortable enough and ok with Audio GD Fun....

 

[Acix]

I have the A7 and the K702 as my reference in the studio, but I also have acoustic treatment room studio that make a huge differences. There is other factors that can be taken into consideration...like if your walls and floor are made of wood, or concrete. if you have a carpet, the more wood furniture are better. 
 
Maybe you can go back to the shop and check out the A7 that have some option to adjust the sound a bit in the back.
 

 

[niranhopper]

I owned both Adam A3X and HD800 around the same time. The Adams were very good speakers and pretty loud. Unfortunately my room was quite small and so i couldnt get the right room acoustics. If midrange and vocals are important, then probably HD800 may not be the best choice. Anyway the A3X will give you better imaging and soundstage that the HD800. So having the HD800 is redundant because they are best known in the headphone world for imaging and soundstage. A more intimate sounding headphone should be a better choice. But the HD800 are very very comfortable and probably the only headphone that can stay on my head for over an hour.
 

 

[BleaK]

You can maybe try the HE500, great for your genres and also quite neutral (with a bit of sparkle in the treble).
 
Tyll from Innerfidelity wrote this about them:
 
"The surprisingly good headphone of the bunch was the HE-500. They held their own surprisingly well in world-class company. No,they didn't have the liquid juicy goodness of the LCD-2, but they did sound somewhat more "right down the middle." I'd say these had the best price performance ratio on the table, and might get a stronger recommendation from me than the LCD-2, as they were a bit more tight and neutral, and possibly more likely to satisfy a wider range of tastes. I'd say these are not only great listening cans, but also great headphones for professionals who want something more pleasantly listenable than the HD 800."
 
Source: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/comparing-world-class-headphones-conclusions

 

[econsumer666]

Quote:

I owned both Adam A3X and HD800 around the same time. The Adams were very good speakers and pretty loud. Unfortunately my room was quite small and so i couldnt get the right room acoustics. If midrange and vocals are important, then probably HD800 may not be the best choice. Anyway the A3X will give you better imaging and soundstage that the HD800. So having the HD800 is redundant because they are best known in the headphone world for imaging and soundstage. A more intimate sounding headphone should be a better choice. But the HD800 are very very comfortable and probably the only headphone that can stay on my head for over an hour.
 

That's probably the answer I was looking for, maybe I'm gonna try the Hifiman 500 now, thanks!

 

[Acix]

enconsumer,  what is the cause of your fatigue, the treble of the A3 ?

 

[GL1TCH3D]

Are you looking for a high end closed can though? If I had nice speakers I don't think I'd trade them for open headphones but anyway...

 

[econsumer666]

 
Quote:

enconsumer,  what is the cause of your fatigue, the treble of the A3 ?

I wish I knew what is causing that. In fact I only read about something like fatigue when listening to music before I actually experienced it myself with the Adam set. My Adam A3X is a smaller model and has only the tweeter-setting but I didn't change anything. My room is 18m2 but I thought the room acoustics isn't all that important for a near field monitor? I mean it doesn't fill the room even to one third and the sound comes straight into you so I don't quite understand how the room acoustic is so important in this case.
 
Actually it's pretty strange because I experience NO fatigue whatsoever when listening to classics and to pure acoustic instrumental music (like a guitar) but if it gets more pop and someone is singing: the fatigue is there. The sound is so direct and maybe I'd describe it as too transparent? I'm probably not used to this sound but it kinda doesn't let me relax. With classics it's not a problem, this system costs like 800 EUR total with the Sub and I highly doubt one can actually get anything better for classics for this amount, when the source is good it sounds incredibly natural and I'm only using the Audio Gd fun as DAC and preamplifier.
 
P.S. I was considering buying B&W MM 1 or the Zeppelin because they sounded incredibly sweet to my ears i the store, however the store where I actually went to buy didn't have this stuff at all and had only pro-studio-stuff and no hi-fi so I bought the Adam set.

 

[Draygonn]

Actually it's pretty strange because I experience NO fatigue whatsoever when listening to classics and to pure acoustic instrumental music (like a guitar) but if it gets more pop and someone is singing: the fatigue is there.

maybe has to do with dynamically compressed music?

 

[econsumer666]

Quote:

maybe has to do with dynamically compressed music?

I wish I could understand what you mean All I have is in lossless, not sure if you mean this though...

 

[Draygonn]

Pop music is usually dynamically compressed. Makes it good for background music and listening in louder places. Using it for critical listening can sometimes cause fatigue though. Just an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ