i didn't see the th900's recessed midrange described as "basically nonexistent" or its treble condemned as "plain awful" in the comparative review. nor was there any mention made of its "lean midbass" in the description accompanying its first place bass ranking.
I never said it was. That's my wording, not his, else I would have put in quotation marks. Here's what he said:
Re: bass: "Rumble and sustain are done decently sometimes leaving a want for a little more bloom and lacks the natural fatness of bass the Eikon and Atticus deliver."
Re: midrange: "I would love to hear a TH900 with a fuller midrange. It is recessed compared to the others but the most clear. It lacks body and presence with a thinness about its tones that while super clean and clear, is a little less realistic than the lot. Midband balance is very recessed in the lower midrange [...]."
Re: treble: "Sibilant, Way overdone, painful, and I can’t listen for more than 25 minutes at a time unless I specifically make a playlist of dark Songs"
So there, my version was just less polite.
in the conclusion of the review, the reviewer ranks the th900 third and the z1r seventh in the order of merit, and ranks the th900 fourth and the z1r seventh on the price to performance list. however, in the reviewer's order of personal preference, the z1r ranks in fourth place with the th900 in fifth place - just sayin'.
Exactly. TH-900 saved by price/performance, Z1R condemned by it. I don't think I said anything different. Again, I think that they should be priced closer to each other. Still, Z1R 3rd and TH-900 last on "overall tonality", which most would consider not an unimportant aspect.
anyways, it's one reviewer's subjective evaluation and it makes for an interesting addition to the discussion. i appreciate the effort he or she made to produce it.
Absolutely.
