Tell me why you hate the A900!
Sep 18, 2004 at 11:46 PM Post #46 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by hfk88
I dont know for sure


Then it's best to keep quiet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by visara
What I'm really interested in is: Are they neutral? Do they have a flat frequency-response and a detailed sound?


- A900 highs are less piercing than the Senn 280s/CD3Ks, but they're almost as detailed.
- Lows are stronger and more extended than the CD3K, stronger but less extended than the 280s.
- I can never judge mids, but they sound fine.

I think the A900 are reasonably ballanced: they're not overstrong in the bass, they're not annoying in the high treble.
 
Sep 18, 2004 at 11:48 PM Post #47 of 85
actually the reasons why i hate A900 is they are being mentioned every 2 seconds on headfi, and everybody seems to have one...
tongue.gif
 
Sep 19, 2004 at 12:33 AM Post #48 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok
actually the reasons why i hate A900 is they are being mentioned every 2 seconds on headfi, and everybody seems to have one...
tongue.gif



Including . . . YOU!
icon10.gif


BW
 
Sep 19, 2004 at 12:45 AM Post #50 of 85
For those who said A900 is colored, what do you consider a non-colored pair of headphones? Just curious really
biggrin.gif
 
Sep 19, 2004 at 8:18 AM Post #55 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by go_vtec
For those who said A900 is colored, what do you consider a non-colored pair of headphones? Just curious really
biggrin.gif



I'm not sure which pair of headphones would be non-coloured, but to myself, I found say, the Senn 497s, hd-600s, and K501s (disregarding the lack of bass) to be less coloured than the a900s.. that is if I don't have the definition of "coloured" mixed up =P
 
Sep 19, 2004 at 9:50 AM Post #56 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ward
Including . . . YOU!
icon10.gif


BW




and that means you too ! hehe...
icon10.gif

and the reason why i dont like my 542 is because Bill got one too! hehehe..
biggrin.gif


seriously, i also cant decide which headphone is coloured and which is not since i havent heard one headphones that is considered the neutral - reference type of headphones.

i wouldnt worry about colouration as long as it colours them to become nicer. its sort of MSG/flavouring in foods... gives you the extra flavour. i dont mind them as long as its not too much...
 
Sep 19, 2004 at 2:01 PM Post #57 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by go_vtec
For those who said A900 is colored, what do you consider a non-colored pair of headphones? Just curious really
biggrin.gif



I can't speak for hfk88 or Natsuiro, but AFAIK Sennheiser HD 600 and AKG K 271s are phones that are generally considered really neutral in their price range.

From what I've read in these forums, A900s have been described with such terms as warm, slightly muddy, lively, bright and slightly heavy on the bass. All of these terms seem to be in direct opposition with a neutral sound. Also, people seem to think A900s sound pretty similar to HD 595, which are not neutral, but rather up front.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok
i wouldnt worry about colouration as long as in colours them to become nicer.


Many people wouldn't, but I definately would. I will be doing mixing and mastering work with these phones on, as I still don't have accurate studio monitors - hence, neutrality is crucial. When eq:ing a track ever so slightly, I have to be able to get an accurate picture of how it sounds. Because of this, the phones also need to have a detailed sound.
 
Sep 19, 2004 at 2:12 PM Post #59 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by visara

Many people wouldn't, but I definately would. I will be doing mixing and mastering work with these phones on, as I still don't have accurate studio monitors - hence, neutrality is crucial. When eq:ing a track ever so slightly, I have to be able to get an accurate picture of how it sounds. Because of this, the phones also need to have a detailed sound.




ask nik about Omega 2...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top