[DangerClose]

I listened to mine again recently and concluded that, whatever the cause, the result is "small notes."  It's like it has a big soundstage but the soundstage seems smaller overall than other headphones such as DT990.  It's as if the ma900 soundstage has the same amount of separation and width etc but then scale down the entire thing, making the soundstage smaller, but also the notes inside of it smaller, which keeps the soundstage sounding big relative to itself, but on an overall smaller scale relative to certain other headphones.  
 
Maybe that's not what I'm actually hearing, but it's the best description I can make at this time.
 
Maybe another description would be the difference between a big soundstage on an open headphone with big ear cups vs a big soundstage on an open headphone with on-ear cups.  They both have big soundstages, but the presentation can be different.  The Ma900 does kind of seem like an on-ear headphone in a way, which isn't a surprise since it has a big opening.
 
Regardless, the Ma900 feels good and sounds good.

 

[kman1211]

I listened to mine again recently and concluded that, whatever the cause, the result is "small notes."  It's like it has a big soundstage but the soundstage seems smaller overall than other headphones such as DT990.  It's as if the ma900 soundstage has the same amount of separation and width etc but then scale down the entire thing, making the soundstage smaller, but also the notes inside of it smaller, which keeps the soundstage sounding big relative to itself, but on an overall smaller scale relative to certain other headphones.  

Maybe that's not what I'm actually hearing, but it's the best description I can make at this time.

Maybe another description would be the difference between a big soundstage on an open headphone with big ear cups vs a big soundstage on an open headphone with on-ear cups.  They both have big soundstages, but the presentation can be different.  The Ma900 does kind of seem like an on-ear headphone in a way, which isn't a surprise since it has a big opening.

Regardless, the Ma900 feels good and sounds good.

Basically you find the MA900 to image smaller than headphones such as the DT 990? Like all the instruments, vocals, etc. have a smaller sense of scale on the MA900?

 

[DangerClose]

Basically you find the MA900 to image smaller than headphones such as the DT 990? Like all the instruments, vocals, etc. have a smaller sense of scale on the MA900?

 
Something like that.  I don't think it's just that the notes have less weight or warmth than DT990 notes.  AKG 701 has "thin" or cold notes compared to DT990's weightier notes, and 701 has lots of separation between notes, but both of the soundstages and notes overall are a similar size, (though 701 is wider, and 990 is deeper).  
 
But I put on the MA900, and its soundstage is still big in relation to its notes, but it's like everything is shrunk compared to the other two.  Maybe the soundstage isn't scaled down, and that it's just the notes that seem small.  
 
I don't want to say the mids are recessed, (especially when I'm also talking about the DT990 that I know has recessed mids), though eq'ing them up helps to change this presentation I'm talking about a little.  Maybe the MA900 just has more of a "sitting way back in the 20th row" sound.  There's parts of songs or movies when I expect the sound to become big and grand and full, but then it doesn't quite do it.  People sometimes talk about "polite" highs on a headphone.  It's like the entire sound and soundstage on MA900 is "polite." 
 
I only got these recently, and they haven't gotten the head time they deserve, so it's harder to describe what I'm hearing, but I put them on and think, "Something is different than what I'm used to." 
 
I've considered holding my comments on them until giving them more head time, but the MA900 has fallen off the radar around here a bit, and they sound good and are an interesting design to talk about.
 
A comment on build quality.  I do treat mine like I'm holding a fragile egg, but I don't think that's necessary.  The small pins and screws at the joints might be cause for concern, (it's hard to tell if they are weak unless actually trying to break them), but the headband itself feels quite strong.  I'd bet there's more broken AKG 701 out there than broken Sony MA900.

 

[K_19]

 
A comment on build quality.  I do treat mine like I'm holding a fragile egg, but I don't think that's necessary.  The small pins and screws at the joints might be cause for concern, (it's hard to tell if they are weak unless actually trying to break them), but the headband itself feels quite strong.  I'd bet there's more broken AKG 701 out there than broken Sony MA900.

 
The lower part of the headband arms is made of Magnesium and would certainly not snap unless you put real strong amount of force to break them. The top part I believe has a metal strip inside which I'm sure will stand up to most abuse, and the cups are made of strong ABS plastic... so yeah, they're definitely much better built than what lot of people give it credit for, very underrated build quality. It's just its very light weight and loose joints that gives it a feel of it being cheaply built when its actually not.
 
The weakest point of these headphones are probably those small plastic tabs at the extension of the headband which does feel somewhat fragile, and the non-detachable cable.

 

[rovopio]

   
The lower part of the headband arms is made of Magnesium and would certainly not snap unless you put real strong amount of force to break them. The top part I believe has a metal strip inside which I'm sure will stand up to most abuse, and the cups are made of strong ABS plastic... so yeah, they're definitely much better built than what lot of people give it credit for, very underrated build quality. It's just its very light weight and loose joints that gives it a feel of it being cheaply built when its actually not.
 
The weakest point of these headphones are probably those small plastic tabs at the extension of the headband which does feel somewhat fragile, and the non-detachable cable.

 
This has VERY GOOD build quality actually. Design-wise, they just design them to look and feel like it's flimsy.
However, given all things SONY, it's not designed to built to last. They have short product cycles and produce new goods on regular basis.
 
Which is why we have the non-detachable, very thin cable. And we have the plastics on the headband extension. And we also have the exposed springs and screws for said extension.
 
It makes me a little sad that this GREAT headphone is not being produced anymore. This is the ultimate Netflix headphone really.

 

[xkonfuzed]

   
Something like that.  I don't think it's just that the notes have less weight or warmth than DT990 notes.  AKG 701 has "thin" or cold notes compared to DT990's weightier notes, and 701 has lots of separation between notes, but both of the soundstages and notes overall are a similar size, (though 701 is wider, and 990 is deeper).  
 
But I put on the MA900, and its soundstage is still big in relation to its notes, but it's like everything is shrunk compared to the other two.  Maybe the soundstage isn't scaled down, and that it's just the notes that seem small.  
 
I don't want to say the mids are recessed, (especially when I'm also talking about the DT990 that I know has recessed mids), though eq'ing them up helps to change this presentation I'm talking about a little.  Maybe the MA900 just has more of a "sitting way back in the 20th row" sound.  There's parts of songs or movies when I expect the sound to become big and grand and full, but then it doesn't quite do it.  People sometimes talk about "polite" highs on a headphone.  It's like the entire sound and soundstage on MA900 is "polite." 
 
I only got these recently, and they haven't gotten the head time they deserve, so it's harder to describe what I'm hearing, but I put them on and think, "Something is different than what I'm used to." 
 
I've considered holding my comments on them until giving them more head time, but the MA900 has fallen off the radar around here a bit, and they sound good and are an interesting design to talk about.
 
A comment on build quality.  I do treat mine like I'm holding a fragile egg, but I don't think that's necessary.  The small pins and screws at the joints might be cause for concern, (it's hard to tell if they are weak unless actually trying to break them), but the headband itself feels quite strong.  I'd bet there's more broken AKG 701 out there than broken Sony MA900.

I own a DT880 (DT990's sibling) and when i compare it to the Ma900 i don't really have that problem with soundstage. The Dt880's might have the edge in terms of technicality but soundstage-wise (and imaging) the Ma900's beat it hands down. Maybe its your source? What are you plugging them into?

 

[kman1211]

   
Something like that.  I don't think it's just that the notes have less weight or warmth than DT990 notes.  AKG 701 has "thin" or cold notes compared to DT990's weightier notes, and 701 has lots of separation between notes, but both of the soundstages and notes overall are a similar size, (though 701 is wider, and 990 is deeper).  
 
But I put on the MA900, and its soundstage is still big in relation to its notes, but it's like everything is shrunk compared to the other two.  Maybe the soundstage isn't scaled down, and that it's just the notes that seem small.  
 
I don't want to say the mids are recessed, (especially when I'm also talking about the DT990 that I know has recessed mids), though eq'ing them up helps to change this presentation I'm talking about a little.  Maybe the MA900 just has more of a "sitting way back in the 20th row" sound.  There's parts of songs or movies when I expect the sound to become big and grand and full, but then it doesn't quite do it.  People sometimes talk about "polite" highs on a headphone.  It's like the entire sound and soundstage on MA900 is "polite." 
 
I only got these recently, and they haven't gotten the head time they deserve, so it's harder to describe what I'm hearing, but I put them on and think, "Something is different than what I'm used to." 
 
I've considered holding my comments on them until giving them more head time, but the MA900 has fallen off the radar around here a bit, and they sound good and are an interesting design to talk about.
 
A comment on build quality.  I do treat mine like I'm holding a fragile egg, but I don't think that's necessary.  The small pins and screws at the joints might be cause for concern, (it's hard to tell if they are weak unless actually trying to break them), but the headband itself feels quite strong.  I'd bet there's more broken AKG 701 out there than broken Sony MA900.

I used to have the MA900 and had a similar experience compared to my other headphones. It's not what I would call thin either. I'm not sure if polite is the right term either as I had more listening fatigue issues with them than normal. But my ears are oddly sensitive, most headphones fatigue me long term sonically with only a few that don't fatigue me such as the K712. The MA900 is very well built and does stand the test of time, the cable is also sturdier than it may seem as well, mine suffered through a lot of abuse before I let them go. 

 

[DangerClose]

  I own a DT880 (DT990's sibling) and when i compare it to the Ma900 i don't really have that problem with soundstage. The Dt880's might have the edge in terms of technicality but soundstage-wise (and imaging) the Ma900's beat it hands down. Maybe its your source? What are you plugging them into?

 
If weak amp is a factor, I'd expect the MA900 to be destroying the DT990 and AKG 701 instead of them all being good but different.  I have a few home receivers I've plugged them into, though most of the time they're used with a Xonar DG.
 
DT990 is said to have a bigger soundstage than DT880.  
I'd have to do more A-B'ing to figure out whether DT990 or MA900 has a bigger stage.  They're both very big, and I'd say comparable.  Neither gives the "too wide" impression the 701 does.  One thing though is, the 990 has big bass, but despite the 990's obviously recessed mids, the sound has more weight and fullness to it than the MA900.  So the MA900's "polite" or "small" or "thin" or "lightweight" or whatever term someone wants to use for its notes can help the soundstage sound bigger due to that.
 
I was comparing some headphones with a certain part of a movie with lots of sound effects going on in a short time, people getting stabbed, fires whooshing, music kicking in, and the DT990's stage sounded big, but I know the mids are recessed.  I give those an eq pop, and various of the sounds are not only fuller and seemingly closer and take up more space, but the sound of the fire and the voice singing the music become fuller and have more texture and sound more, I don't know if I should say "natural."  They sound more dynamic and sound how I think they should sound in a movie.  
 
I now listened to the same on the MA900, and there is a similar thing going on.  Not only a bit of "far away politeness," but the textures are lacking somewhat.  Maybe the sounds are technically correct, (or maybe not), but they lack feeling and dynamics.  
 
It reminds me of the AKG 701 in a way.  The 701 has impressive detail and separation and soundstage width, but the soundstage is 2d, and the sound overall lacks "funness."  
 
And I do think the MA900 could use some help in soundstage depth/3D-ness.  It doesn't make me think the sounds are all drawn on a big but flat whiteboard like the 701 does, but it doesn't have that 3D hologram type of depth the DT990 has. (relatively speaking.)
 
Playing with the eq a bit, put the 120hz and 250hz about +4db, and then it has a weightier and fuller sound, and it gives those sound effects and things I mentioned more texture.  It may not sound quite right doing that, but it's just for an example.
 
Maybe that's the description I've been looking for.  That the MA900 (to me) has a somewhat-distant/polite soundstage and has recessed upper bass/lower mids -- which combine to give the impression of extra soundstage size and extra detail but lack of fullness, texture, and dynamic funness.
 
I like listening to the MA900 for the most part, but they're such an interesting headphone I think I might be having more fun talking about them than listening to them.  
 
Next week will be even more fun when I can compare them to Sennheiser 580 (600), and AD700x and AD900x.  Oh, and a Superlux EVO arriving tomorrow.  Place your bets on that one!  

 

[kman1211]

   
If weak amp is a factor, I'd expect the MA900 to be destroying the DT990 and AKG 701 instead of them all being good but different.  I have a few home receivers I've plugged them into, though most of the time they're used with a Xonar DG.
 
DT990 is said to have a bigger soundstage than DT880.  
I'd have to do more A-B'ing to figure out whether DT990 or MA900 has a bigger stage.  They're both very big, and I'd say comparable.  Neither gives the "too wide" impression the 701 does.  One thing though is, the 990 has big bass, but despite the 990's obviously recessed mids, the sound has more weight and fullness to it than the MA900.  So the MA900's "polite" or "small" or "thin" or "lightweight" or whatever term someone wants to use for its notes can help the soundstage sound bigger due to that.
 
I was comparing some headphones with a certain part of a movie with lots of sound effects going on in a short time, people getting stabbed, fires whooshing, music kicking in, and the DT990's stage sounded big, but I know the mids are recessed.  I give those an eq pop, and various of the sounds are not only fuller and seemingly closer and take up more space, but the sound of the fire and the voice singing the music become fuller and have more texture and sound more, I don't know if I should say "natural."  They sound more dynamic and sound how I think they should sound in a movie.  
 
I now listened to the same on the MA900, and there is a similar thing going on.  Not only a bit of "far away politeness," but the textures are lacking somewhat.  Maybe the sounds are technically correct, (or maybe not), but they lack feeling and dynamics.  
 
It reminds me of the AKG 701 in a way.  The 701 has impressive detail and separation and soundstage width, but the soundstage is 2d, and the sound overall lacks "funness."  
 
And I do think the MA900 could use some help in soundstage depth/3D-ness.  It doesn't make me think the sounds are all drawn on a big but flat whiteboard like the 701 does, but it doesn't have that 3D hologram type of depth the DT990 has. (relatively speaking.)
 
Playing with the eq a bit, put the 120hz and 250hz about +4db, and then it has a weightier and fuller sound, and it gives those sound effects and things I mentioned more texture.  It may not sound quite right doing that, but it's just for an example.
 
Maybe that's the description I've been looking for.  That the MA900 (to me) has a somewhat-distant/polite soundstage and has recessed upper bass/lower mids -- which combine to give the impression of extra soundstage size and extra detail but lack of fullness, texture, and dynamic funness.
 
I like listening to the MA900 for the most part, but they're such an interesting headphone I think I might be having more fun talking about them than listening to them.  
 
Next week will be even more fun when I can compare them to Sennheiser 580 (600), and AD700x and AD900x.  Oh, and a Superlux EVO arriving tomorrow.  Place your bets on that one!  

My experience with many AKGs is that they tend to sound very different depending on the system, moreso than most headphones, especially when you start factoring in tubes. They often gain a holographic 3D sound on tubes(some tubes sound quite 2D though), but they often do sound quite 2D on many SS amps(some SS amps sound quite 3D). The K701 is a real treat with good synergy and gobs of power. But the newer K712 is basically a fixed K701 imo. 
 
Btw I don't find the HD 580 and the HD 600 to sound all that similar, which surprised me. But I don't find the HD 650 and HD 600 to sound all that similar either. I haven't heard any of those but the Senns. My experience with the Senns HD 600 family have a good amount of depth to their soundstage and sound quite holographic and tend to have quite full and large imaging. Beyers in my experience are quite holographic sounding in general.
 
One thing I noticed about the MA900 is their ease of driving and how consistent it's sound was from system to system. Very forgiving headphone of the system. It's doesn't seem to transform sonically as much as some other headphones can.

 

[speakerlao]

Anywhere to get these in the USA? Can't find them anywhere for a decent price.

 

[K_19]

  Anywhere to get these in the USA? Can't find them anywhere for a decent price.

 
They're out of production everywhere but Japan (and from what I've been hearing, it may also have been discontinued in Japan) for sure, so unless you are willing to get used units, probably not.

 

[kenshinesca]

I got mine off ebay for a decent price.  They were in great condition.

 

[eimis]

Does anyone have both the O2 & Magni 2 Uber amps and could post a short performance comparison with the MA900?

 

[rovopio]

  Does anyone have both the O2 & Magni 2 Uber amps and could post a short performance comparison with the MA900?

 
Don't O2 and Magni generally sound almost the same? and ma900 sounds the same from my iphone or magni 2 uber anyway.

 

[K_19]

Yeah, I second that the MA900's don't really sound overly different from amp to amp. I'm actually just as happy listening to it straight off my Macbook Air even though I also have the O2/ODAC.