[dukeskd]

Quote:

Having traded my HD800 towards an 009, I think the 009 extends the high frequencies further than the HD800 but without any grain at all, and more importantly without any fatiguing frequency response spikes.

x2.

 

[realmassy]

Never found my SR-009s "bright" (like say the HE-6s) with either my SRM-727II (now sold) or my HeadAmp KGSS. In fact, I find the HD800s brighter too.

Have to agree. I just got the 009, and I was concerned about the brightness but these headphones are very very smooth. Treble is there, but is extended and grain free. My old 007 mk2 were harsh compared to the 009.

 

[arnaud]

Sounds similar to my experience with 007A vs 009. One caution though realmassy: once you get used to the 009, everything else sounds off, one way or another. We had another meet here yesterday and really, nothing stirs we away, even from the 727 amp in stock form.

 

[realmassy]

It's not a problem in my case: I'm a one headphone man and I'm using only the 009s

 

[rsbrsvp]

Putting the argument about brightness on the 009 aside,  is anyone bothered by how thin the 009 sounds?
 
The general rule for all high end audio in my experience seems to be more detail equals thinner sound.  
 
Is the weight of the sound on the 009 something that bothers anyone?
 
I have found that using my 007 MK1 and MK2 which have a bit more weight (more convincing to my ears), and using the parametric equalizer in Amarra- I can pull out a lot more "apparent" detail from my 007's - very much on par with the 009 while maintaining that more realistic weight- especially in the mid to lower ranges.

 

[Radio_head]

It sounds thinner with the BHSE.  Using something like an LL2 gives it more "support" though it doesn't change its ethereal nature.

 

[complin]

I had similar issues with this too but found the source and source material had a great influence on the overall weight of the sound.
I settled on a Metrum Octave for use with CD and a battery powered John Kenny JKDAC for computer audio.  I considered the Audiophile USB/SPDIF converter, but the John Kenny DAC is so cost effective and great sounding it was a no brainer.
 
Quote:

Putting the argument about brightness on the 009 aside,  is anyone bothered by how thin the 009 sounds?
 
The general rule for all high end audio in my experience seems to be more detail equals thinner sound.  
 
Is the weight of the sound on the 009 something that bothers anyone?
 
I have found that using my 007 MK1 and MK2 which have a bit more weight (more convincing to my ears), and using the parametric equalizer in Amarra- I can pull out a lot more "apparent" detail from my 007's - very much on par with the 009 while maintaining that more realistic weight- especially in the mid to lower ranges.

 

[rgs9200m]

My 009s seem to have broken in and I'm sure I'm not imagining thing, as I have a host of dynamic flagships for comparison.
They did sound thin at first, but a year and a half later, they sound as full as TH900s and close to LCD3s, and make my HD800s sound thin.
 
I *love* my (stock) 007t/ii amp with my 009s and my great EMM DAC and I'm afraid to change anything in the chain now to disturb things.
I get smooth, dense images and no fatigue and I can play them at very high volumes with no problems at all, and extremely satisfying high quality bass,
so the bass is fine, a lot deeper than my former bass-light R10s and more profound bass than my HD800s. I feel there is nothing lacking in the bass,
even though it is maybe 10% deeper on my LCD3s on HE500s (I hate putting numbers on things, but just this once...).
 
I think the 007t amp is much better on the 009s than the SR007/mk1 phones I had for 7 years. Staxes always sound better with tubes to me.

 

[realmassy]

I'm trying the 007t at home with my 009s and I strongly agree with rgs9200m. I like the combo a lot, the 007t sounds definitely more tubey than my usual SRM600ltd. The 007t has soft attacks and decay of the notes is natural (someone may say slow). Voice have a strong presence and are more forward, especially male. The 600ltd has better dynamics and it's very transparent, but sometimes sounds 'confused'. The 007t has also wider soundstage, but the 600 has better positioning, instruments have better separation. Basically I like them both

 

[BournePerfect]

Curious about the 009 *death knell*...how good are they at low volume listening? I've heard people say that because they are so grain/distortion free if you will, that the tendency is to turn them up? What say ye? FWIW I love the low-volume listening aspects of my HD800s.
 
-Daniel

 

[MorbidToaster]

They're very good at low levels. I definitely had mine up too loud most of the time, but I started to be aware of that fact and listening lower and it was still excellent.

 

[arnaud]

Quote:

They're very good at low levels. I definitely had mine up too loud most of the time, but I started to be aware of that fact and listening lower and it was still excellent.

 
A very important detail, unfortunately often ignored by most: the 009 is definitely a low / moderate listening level headphone, similar to the HD800, because both have a voicing that makes it so. The Omega 2 is the opposite, it has such a warm tonal balance that you need to listen to it louder to make it more natural.
 
Why is this? Google up fletcher and munson.
 
I need to point out however that despite this important point, some people may still prefer a rendering with more "body" / "foundation", regardless of volume level, in which case the 009 may not be adequate. Personally, I'll take the clean and extended bass of the 009 paired with adequate source anyway but ymmv.

 

[realmassy]

Completely agree. They are soooo good at low volume. And I think the brightness some people are complaining about is definitely due to the higher-than-normal volume they're listening to.

 

[LarsHP]

The loudness contour suggests that for low level listening a "fun" sounding headphone (with extra bass and treble) would sound more correct than a (measured) neutral one, since the neutral headphone will sound lean and lack sparkle at low levels because of said contour. This doesn't seem to be the case with the SR-009: It has a slightly lowered the bass response and no treble peak (source: Inner Fidelity).

 

[arnaud]

There are two ways to look at the M&F curves. From bottom up, you get a sense of hearing threshold. There, I absolutely agree with you that a U shape headphone will sound neutral at a lower SPL than a "flat" response headphone.

What I meant was more in terms of comfortable listening level. Looking at the M&F curve from the top down, you get a sense of the average joe threshold of pain / discomfort.

Our hearing is most sensitive in the 1-4kHz region. As a result, it is also most bothered by mid/high level SPLs in that region. As such, the maximum level of "comfortable" listening , even though variable in absolute sense between individuals (e.g when you hear your neighbors music through your cans at a meet ), is likely quite a bit lower for a headphone like the 009 compared to something like the 007 (or LCD2 to push the comparison even further) because it will feel much louder for a given input signal.

This is easily confirmed by listening tests: anyone agrees that the 009 feels significantly louder than 007 when driven at the same volume level (e.g parallel outputs of the same amp), much more than the 1dB sensitivity difference at 1kHz would indicate...