[up late]

th900's mids are slightly recessed. details come out of a black background. w3000anv doesn't have that clarity. w3000anv's mids are forward but they're also colored. i like the effect but it is what is. vocals don't sound distant or thin to me from th900. th900 sounds less colored than w3000anv so it comes closer to neutral or reference quality sound IMO. the sr009 obviously gets even closer. like i said, i hear it differently to you.

 

[visualguy]

th900's mids are slightly recessed. details come out of a black background. w3000anv doesn't have that clarity. w3000anv's mids are forward but they're also colored. vocals don't sound distant or thin to me from th900. th900 sounds less colored so it comes closer to neutral or reference quality sound IMO. the sr009 comes even closer. like i said, i hear it differently.

 
Interesting... Vocals sound closer, more intimate, and more detailed to me on my SR-009 and W3000ANV than my TH-900. It's not a subtle difference - it's immediately noticeable.

 

[up late]

haven't heard the sr009 but i'd wager that vocals and mids wouldn't sound like the w3000anv's tonally. doubt that the w3000anv would have as much bass depth as the sr009 either. i like the w3000anv probably for the same reasons you do but the th900 is more neutral, maybe even more resolving and the better all rounder IMO.

ps edited my previous post.

 

[Hiyono]

3000anv shouldn't be considered neutral. It's a fun headphone with great mids and vocals.

I didn't like the sibilance on the th900s and I felt the mids were recessed also. The comfort on the 900s were really good tho. I ended up getting the 3000anv after the lax headphone meet after trying both.

 

[up late]

the mids are recessed - slightly. i dig the w3000anv but feel that it's a bit bass lite. comfort's also been an issue for me. the th900 trumps it in those areas for me.

 

[muzic4life]

I just got my TH-900. My other closed headphones are the ATH-W3000ANV. Here's how they compare:

TH-900 Advantages:
(-) More comfortable. They surround the ears, while the W3000ANV press on the ears.
(-) Bigger soundstage
(-) More impactful bass, but it can intrude too much

W3000ANV Advantages:
(-) More detailed sound
(-) Better midrange. The midrange is noticeably recessed on the TH-900.
(-) Better vocals - on the TH-900, vocals sound somewhat distant.
(-) Somewhat better isolation. The TH-900 isolate less than I expected.

The bottom line is that I prefer the sound of the W3000ANV, but I can't really use them for sessions longer than 1-2 hours due to comfort issues (particularly when wearing my glasses).

I really agree with this impression. Mirroring to what i feel about both. The th900 is actually more neutral. But only applied from highs to mids (thou i think the highs is too zing and too slim, also mids just a tad too laid back as well)...but its bass that i definitely hate. Less accurate. Boomy/punching and over quantity. Even though it is clean bass..but i would prefer the LCD's bass.

 

[up late]

was saying in the th900 thread that it's the first headphone i've heard that does speaker-like bass. couldn't describe it as overdone or boomy - just quality bass. sometimes i think head-fier's forget what real bass sounds like - it's not lean or rolled-off.

 

[daigo]

I'm eagerly awaiting the next local head-fi meet up to make the comparison between the TH900 and my W3000ANV myself.  The mids presentation of the W3000ANV was what convinced me to purchase my pair last year so I may be biased in their favor already, but it's still good to hear what else is out there.  

 

[moodyrn]

  I just got my TH-900. My other closed headphones are the ATH-W3000ANV. Here's how they compare:
 
TH-900 Advantages:
(-) More comfortable. They surround the ears, while the W3000ANV press on the ears.
(-) Bigger soundstage
(-) More impactful bass, but it can intrude too much
 
W3000ANV Advantages:
(-) More detailed sound
(-) Better midrange. The midrange is noticeably recessed on the TH-900.
(-) Better vocals - on the TH-900, vocals sound somewhat distant.
(-) Somewhat better isolation. The TH-900 isolate less than I expected.
 
The bottom line is that I prefer the sound of the W3000ANV, but I can't really use them for sessions longer than 1-2 hours due to comfort issues (particularly when wearing my glasses).

These impressions are spot on to mine when I compared both. Neither is what I call reference, and they both have their own unique qualities that makes them both very fun to listen to. But the w3000 advantages over the th900 far outweighs the couple of the things the th900 do better for me. And I think you really hit the nail on the head with those impressions.  I would be happy with either, but would chose the w3000 everytime.

 

[up late]

compared both last night. lurv the w3000anv's dreamy sound but the mids alters the tonality of piano in a way that the th900 doesn't. so yeah, the th900 sounds truer to me. can understand all the props for it.

 

[wind016]

Quite frankly there's a certain smell of the Audio Technica woodies that I like. It reminds me of simpler times. It's also gorgeous. 

 

[daigo]

  Quite frankly there's a certain smell of the Audio Technica woodies that I like. It reminds me of simpler times. It's also gorgeous. 

I may have to sniff my headphones tonight to see if I can pick up this smell...

 

[Maxx134]

Each headphone has its own strengths and weaknesses. If those strengths align with your preference while the weaknesses do not get in the way, then you have found -your- headphone.

There is no universal clear winner between the W3000ANV, HD800 and TH900. You gotta pick the one that suits you.

Excellent quote !

I may have to sniff my headphones tonight to see if I can pick up this smell...

lol

 

[daigo]

Excellent quote !
lol

BTW, I didn't pick up any interesting smells from my W3000ANV's...

 

[Jon-LF]

I just got my TH-900. My other closed headphones are the ATH-W3000ANV. Here's how they compare:

TH-900 Advantages:
(-) More comfortable. They surround the ears, while the W3000ANV press on the ears.
(-) Bigger soundstage
(-) More impactful bass, but it can intrude too much

W3000ANV Advantages:
(-) More detailed sound
(-) Better midrange. The midrange is noticeably recessed on the TH-900.
(-) Better vocals - on the TH-900, vocals sound somewhat distant.
(-) Somewhat better isolation. The TH-900 isolate less than I expected.

The bottom line is that I prefer the sound of the W3000ANV, but I can't really use them for sessions longer than 1-2 hours due to comfort issues (particularly when wearing my glasses).

Just picked up a 3000 ANV used in perfect condition. I have been lusting after these for a while, and it was between the Fostex 900 and this.

I've auditioned the Fostex and LOVED it, and I more or less agree with everything being said about it.

I'm planning to start collecting, and a big sway for me was the Limited Edition Status of the 3000s, and the reviews here which have been really helpful.

I bought it with a quick audition using a Burnson amp. My initial impressions, this unit has only 50 hours on it, and I'm burning it in as I write this (it seems like it super important for these headphones).

I'm coming from a HD700s another underrated piece of gear and these are my initial thoughts of the 3000anv vs the HD700s and the Fostex 900.

1) It's comfortable but it isn't a HD700. The HD700s however are the most comfortable headphones in the world to me, more so that what I feel to be the oversized and clumsy HD800s. The 3000ANV is as comfortable as the Fostex 900, they would score 7.5 of 10 with the HD700s being a 10 to me.

2) It doesn't have the separation of the HD700s, everything seems muddled together on the top and the bottom. The 700s exaggerate bass decay (colored but very nice) and everything feels tight. The main fault with the 700s is the treble peak, and I'm sensing slightly less so with the 3000anvs, but not quite gone.

3) The Vocals. Holy ****. I've always felt that the 700s lacked some "Soul" in recordings like Diana Krall's pure acoustics recordings as well as with many others. I would describe it as SMOOTH (caps intended) and effortless vocals.

4) The sound signature makes it hard for me to wear for too long if I'm listening to anything but relaxed acoustic music.

5) Bass, it sounds like a tube amp vs a power amp, when u compare the HD700s & the even more exciting bass of the Fostex 900. It sounds muddy and undefined.

In short:
Will the sound signature improve after burning in? I'm having an issue with separation quality but I suppose it is very likely that is the trade off for such magnificent vocals.

What amps are you guys using with the 3000anv?

Will it grow to become a solid all round headphone? Or will I have to be satisfied with it being the KING of Vocals?

I have an issue with the way Adele sounds (once the other instruments come in, I do NOT like the decay on the 3000s), but on acoustics - this destroys everything.

I'm a little let down comparing it to the Very fun Fostex 900, but looking at it - it can actually (definitely) out perform the Fostex in that awesome mid range.

I'm totally fine with this being a permanent vocal headset which I keep and enjoy, knowing I have one of two thousand pieces.

But it would be nice to know how it would perform on the other areas once burnt in.

Thanks so much for all your help!