[subguy812]

Please share how do they sound like!

I just received them as I posted the pictures, I will be happy too but need a little time. Out of the case, they are fairly balanced. I will say this, I love closed back headphones and these are the most spacious I believe I've ever heard. I promise I'll give some more thoughts in the next day or so.

 

[AudioDuck]

John Massaria XTC 2.5 in Brazilian Tiger Burl Wood

Very nice, congratulations! John’s a great guy and I’m sure they sound excellent.

 

[subguy812]

Please share how do they sound like!

I concur with everything you just said. This is my third mad scientist John creation

 

[gofishus]

Audio-Technica AWKT vs Denon D9200
so what do I think about these two flagship Japanese wooden closed backs?
I think the AWKTs are an acquired taste, for those who want an especially bright upper-midrange forward headphone then the AWKTs are definitely that, but the tuning can be considered a bit strange for some people. The upper mids and highs are much more detailed and prominent than the lower mids and lows and can sound a bit harsh and fatiguing to some, especially if you don't burn them in. Audio-Technica's tunings for their headphones are really kind of all over the place, they have no 'house' sound but in general they seem to like their highs a lot. Nor are they comfortable - which is odd considering that Audio-Technica's lower end headphones like the R70x are quite comfortable - the earcups are simply too big and shallow and press up against your ears. I recommend definitely demoing the AWKT before buying them they are not for everyone.
The D9200 on the other hand, is a much more general crowd pleaser. Although I personally like the darker Kokutan wood of the AWKTs more, the bamboo earcups of the D9200 definitely have more texture to them. Sound wise, they are nicely balanced and even across the spectrum. I would say the bass and mids especially are nicely textured and are slightly forward but not too much. The D9200s highs are their weakest point and are just ok - that's where Audio-Technica seems to excel in since they seem to focus on treble a lot. However, Denon seems to have much better bass than Audio-Technica headphones across the board. They are also much more comfortable to wear than the AWKTs.
So thats my conclusion of these two headphones - the AWKT retails for more, but seems to be more of a specialized headphone for people who like forward female vocals and detailed treble extension while the D9200s just seem to be a very balanced sounding headphone all around and are a much safer recommendation for most people.

 

[JAnonymous5150]

Audio-Technica AWKT vs Denon D9200
so what do I think about these two flagship Japanese wooden closed backs?
I think the AWKTs are an acquired taste, for those who want an especially bright upper-midrange forward headphone then the AWKTs are definitely that, but the tuning can be considered a bit strange for some people. The upper mids and highs are much more detailed and prominent than the lower mids and lows and can sound a bit harsh and fatiguing to some, especially if you don't burn them in. Audio-Technica's tunings for their headphones are really kind of all over the place, they have no 'house' sound but in general they seem to like their highs a lot. Nor are they comfortable - which is odd considering that Audio-Technica's lower end headphones like the R70x are quite comfortable - the earcups are simply too big and shallow and press up against your ears. I recommend definitely demoing the AWKT before buying them they are not for everyone.
The D9200 on the other hand, is a much more general crowd pleaser. Although I personally like the darker Kokutan wood of the AWKTs more, the bamboo earcups of the D9200 definitely have more texture to them. Sound wise, they are nicely balanced and even across the spectrum. I would say the bass and mids especially are nicely textured and are slightly forward but not too much. The D9200s highs are their weakest point and are just ok - that's where Audio-Technica seems to excel in since they seem to focus on treble a lot. However, Denon seems to have much better bass than Audio-Technica headphones across the board. They are also much more comfortable to wear than the AWKTs.
So thats my conclusion of these two headphones - the AWKT retails for more, but seems to be more of a specialized headphone for people who like forward female vocals and detailed treble extension while the D9200s just seem to be a very balanced sounding headphone all around and are a much safer recommendation for most people.

I think you covered the basic differences pretty well. I have a friend who's a big fan of the AWKTs so I borrowed his pair at his insistence for a week long trial run. The upper mids were just far too intense for me. I can handle treble brightness for days, but upper mids are my kryptonite.

As for the D9200s, they are a nicely balanced pair of headphones, but I found myself a bit underwhelmed by their technical performance. I find the detail retrieval to be subpar given their price, the imaging to be ill-defined, and the separation/layering to be a bit mediocre. That said, if you're just listening casually those issues take a back seat to the relative timbral/tonal accuracy and the nicely balanced, musical presentation. Overall, I can definitely see why there are quite a few D9200 fans out there.

In the end though, I always find myself appreciative of headphones that seem to have careful thought and development put into them whether they shut my tastes or not because it's wonderful to have so many different tunings, presentations, and styles. I mean, tastes in this hobby are as varied as they number of ears involved and I love watching people find new gear to love music and audio with.

When it comes to looks, I think both have a certain understated beauty to them. If I had to choose which I prefer based purely on aesthetics it would be the AWKTs, but the D9200s aren't far behind in my book.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I find reading and discussing other users perspectives on gear and how diverse they can be fascinating.

 

[gofishus]

I think you covered the basic differences pretty well. I have a friend who's a big fan of the AWKTs so I borrowed his pair at his insistence for a week long trial run. The upper mids were just far too intense for me. I can handle treble brightness for days, but upper mids are my kryptonite.

As for the D9200s, they are a nicely balanced pair of headphones, but I found myself a bit underwhelmed by their technical performance. I find the detail retrieval to be subpar given their price, the imaging to be ill-defined, and the separation/layering to be a bit mediocre. That said, if you're just listening casually those issues take a back seat to the relative timbral/tonal accuracy and the nicely balanced, musical presentation. Overall, I can definitely see why there are quite a few D9200 fans out there.

In the end though, I always find myself appreciative of headphones that seem to have careful thought and development put into them whether they shut my tastes or not because it's wonderful to have so many different tunings, presentations, and styles. I mean, tastes in this hobby are as varied as they number of ears involved and I love watching people find new gear to love music and audio with.

When it comes to looks, I think both have a certain understated beauty to them. If I had to choose which I prefer based purely on aesthetics it would be the AWKTs, but the D9200s aren't far behind in my book.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I find reading and discussing other users perspectives on gear and how diverse they can be fascinating.

Agreed that the technical performance doesn't match the price, however I think I've tried enough headphones across all price ranges to say that there's quite a few expensive headphones that have underwhelming technical performance. In general, Focal / Hifiman / Sennheiser seem to be quite good at their technicals across all their headphones. On the other hand, Meze prefers to focus on musicality and tonality rather than technicals. Denon / Beyerdynamic / Audio-Technica / Fostex / Dan Clark seem to depend on the model but they have quite a few that are underwhelming technically too.

The best bang for the buck headphones technically? Surprisingly, it's Shure.

You can find the SRH940s for under $200 street price and these absolutely will blow away the vast majority of headphones under $1000 technically. They may not be the most comfortable or well built or have a large soundstage but they are a reference level detail monster. These pretty much destroyed my AKG K712 Pros in technicality in an A/B comparison.

 

[JAnonymous5150]

Agreed that the technical performance doesn't match the price, however I think I've tried enough headphones across all price ranges to say that there's quite a few expensive headphones that have underwhelming technical performance. In general, Focal / Hifiman / Sennheiser seem to be quite good at their technicals across all their headphones. On the other hand, Meze prefers to focus on musicality and tonality rather than technicals. Denon / Beyerdynamic / Audio-Technica / Fostex / Dan Clark seem to depend on the model but they have quite a few that are underwhelming technically too.

The best bang for the buck headphones technically? Surprisingly, it's Shure.

You can find the SRH940s for under $200 street price and these absolutely will blow away the vast majority of headphones under $1000 technically. They may not be the most comfortable or well built or have a large soundstage but they are a reference level detail monster. These pretty much destroyed my AKG K712 Pros in technicality in an A/B comparison.

I think you're absolutely right. I should also note that technicalities aren't the "be all and end all" and I have owned quite a few pairs that were technically underwhelming for their price because they hit a sweet spot for tuning, timbre, comfort, or whatever so I wasn't saying that's a reason not to own them. It was just an observation and, as I mentioned, I can definitely understand why many D9200 owners love their 'phones regardless of their lackluster technical performance.

In the end, the most important property in a headphone that I'm using for listening to music is that it makes me want to listen to more music! That's my opinion anyways.

 

[Shungite Trillionaire]

Agreed that the technical performance doesn't match the price, however I think I've tried enough headphones across all price ranges to say that there's quite a few expensive headphones that have underwhelming technical performance. In general, Focal / Hifiman / Sennheiser seem to be quite good at their technicals across all their headphones. On the other hand, Meze prefers to focus on musicality and tonality rather than technicals. Denon / Beyerdynamic / Audio-Technica / Fostex / Dan Clark seem to depend on the model but they have quite a few that are underwhelming technically too.

The best bang for the buck headphones technically? Surprisingly, it's Shure.

You can find the SRH940s for under $200 street price and these absolutely will blow away the vast majority of headphones under $1000 technically. They may not be the most comfortable or well built or have a large soundstage but they are a reference level detail monster. These pretty much destroyed my AKG K712 Pros in technicality in an A/B comparison.

Interesting, I find the Shure 1540 to be underwhelming for technicalities at the 500€/$ mark (for 200 used they're probably alright but I don't have many sub 500 HPs), have you tried those as well?

 

[gofishus]

Interesting, I find the Shure 1540 to be underwhelming for technicalities at the 500€/$ mark (for 200 used they're probably alright but I don't have many sub 500 HPs), have you tried those as well?

Yes, the 1540s are tuned to be less reference and more 'consumer' friendly i.e closer to Harman target but the 1540s have decent detail for $500. I think they are actually fairly close to HD600s in detail (or perhaps similar to HD599s which are a step below the 600s in detail). The 1840s on the other hand are basically just the HD650s with slightly better detail. However the 940s beat both of them in detail (despite being a 'lower' end model)

 

[Shungite Trillionaire]

I have a lot of closed backs here atm so I might post some sound impressions later, will post some thoughts about isolation at least because that's the main point of closed backs for me:
- Meze 99: poor isolation, feels like wearing a semi open at best (got them for ridiculous bass so it's all good)
- Nighthawk: honestly, not sure if these are semi open but they seem to isolate more than the Meze. It filters minor noises (my fridge), for louder sounds, I can still tell what's going on around me.
- Same with the Final Sonorous, Fostex line. The isolation does depend on the frequency though, as higher frequencies are filtered better than low ones (think scratching noises; it's very situational)
- The Focal isolation is well known to be decent, easily a step up from semi closed above
- Shure 1540's isolation I'd consider good as well, what does that mean? I won't notice moderate noise if I focus on whatever I'm doing, even without music playing, the one exception being bass frequencies (includes vibrations from machinery, subway sounds, etc - those can actually seem louder than not wearing the HP in general, I haven't looked into why, but it's a good reason to use in ears instead)
- Aeon 2's isolation follows the same pattern, it does feel like I'm in another room, however, still not in ear levels of isolation.
- Same with the GH50 JM
- NDH20 - this one surprised me, it's the only one so far that came close to my silicone custom inears and shielded me from vibrating sounds / bass as well. They isolate so well that I might actually use them instead of inears on the go in in the future (pretty hard to audition inears where i live so i just went with a safe expensive option that i dont want to carry around, also, no cleaning and fiddling around)
- MDR Z7 - haven't used it much yet (pads worn, don't like their sound) but I'd say on par with Fostex isolation

 

[subguy812]

After a day of having these on my head, I feel a little better to give a quick update on the sound. The chart below shows the different tunings you can choose from when you order the JM Audio XTC ^2.5 Closed-Back. My tuning is between Near Scalpel Tuning and Warm Yet Detailed. The sound is huge, meaning this is probably one of the largest stages I have heard in a closed-back headphone. It is a fairly balanced tuning, but excellent sonics across the board, meaning the dynamics are at play. It is a lively set of HP's. To my ears, the bass is of superb quality and just enough quantity. There are times when I think maybe if it had a little more bass and then some serious bass sections of a song hit and I am like whoa, I don't need any more bass. The bass never interferes or overshadows the level of detail. The mids have a slight forwardness, but not to the level of say the Stellia. Excellent glistening extension in the treble but it is never over the top. For the price and I am hesitant, but will throw it out there, for any closed-back price these are the bees-knees. I am not sure I have heard better. This is not a review obviously, just quick impressions. I am happy to answer any questions, so hit me up.

 

[Alexzander]

After a day of having these on my head, I feel a little better to give a quick update on the sound. The chart below shows the different tunings you can choose from when you order the JM Audio XTC ^2.5 Closed-Back. My tuning is between Near Scalpel Tuning and Warm Yet Detailed. The sound is huge, meaning this is probably one of the largest stages I have heard in a closed-back headphone. It is a fairly balanced tuning, but excellent sonics across the board, meaning the dynamics are at play. It is a lively set of HP's. To my ears, the bass is of superb quality and just enough quantity. There are times when I think maybe if it had a little more bass and then some serious bass sections of a song hit and I am like whoa, I don't need any more bass. The bass never interferes or overshadows the level of detail. The mids have a slight forwardness, but not to the level of say the Stellia. Excellent glistening extension in the treble but it is never over the top. For the price and I am hesitant, but will throw it out there, for any closed-back price these are the bees-knees. I am not sure I have heard better. This is not a review obviously, just quick impressions. I am happy to answer any questions, so hit me up.

Thank you for the impressions!

Would you be able to compare it so smth like Rognir Planar in the closed-backs, or HE1000se in the open-backs?
Especially for the stage holography and imaging precision?

 

[Shane D]

It has been a long time since I A-B'd some closed backs.
My two favourite amps allow you to run two headphones at once.


I used the Cascades recently and don't recall them being super bassy, although I am sure I am in the minority on that.
But compared to the Radiance's, they are Really bassy.

The Radiance's are more articulate and clear though. That kind of surprised me as I find them very inferior to my favourite open backs. I find that closed backs can sound Great, up until you put on an open back. And then you can hear and feel what you were missing.

I started doing this as I was wondering if I could keep the Cascades and put the Radiance up for sale, but that's not going to happen. They are two Very different kinds of headphones.

With bassy headphones, I am enjoying the iFi over the Violectric.

What a Great way to spend a Sunday!

 

[Shungite Trillionaire]

It has been a long time since I A-B'd some closed backs.
My two favourite amps allow you to run two headphones at once.


I used the Cascades recently and don't recall them being super bassy, although I am sure I am in the minority on that.
But compared to the Radiance's, they are Really bassy.

The Radiance's are more articulate and clear though. That kind of surprised me as I find them very inferior to my favourite open backs. I find that closed backs can sound Great, up until you put on an open back. And then you can hear and feel what you were missing.

I started doing this as I was wondering if I could keep the Cascades and put the Radiance up for sale, but that's not going to happen. They are two Very different kinds of headphones.

With bassy headphones, I am enjoying the iFi over the Violectric.

What a Great way to spend a Sunday!

I don't actually find the Radiance to be bassy either and I have a suspicion that it's the upper mids' fault which are pretty forward. I also found it to become less dynamic on my desktop setups, not sure why, maybe bad synergy, too much soundstage or pad wear. My favorite fully closed closed backs are the GH50 JM 2 (NDH20 for on the go / daily usage)
Haven't heard the JM XTC yet, maybe in the future...

 

[Shane D]

I don't actually find the Radiance to be bassy either and I have a suspicion that it's the upper mids' fault which are pretty forward. I also found it to become less dynamic on my desktop setups, not sure why, maybe bad synergy, too much soundstage or pad wear. My favorite fully closed closed backs are the GH50 JM 2 (NDH20 for on the go / daily usage)
Haven't heard the JM XTC yet, maybe in the future...

I wasn't impressed by the Vio amp, which is pretty warm. Not a great match.
The iFi, which I find more neutral, even in tube mode, really seems to open them up.

The two amps are a nice Ying and Yang to cover many different 'phones.

I should probably mention that the Violectric is my favourite amp in the collection. Just not in this case.