[FightBrothers]

Considering getting a AD900X because i got a weird and reverby feeling on the a900x and the mid bass hump is just slightly annoying for me. I just want to know how different the sound signature are between these two headphones. I would also like to know how the bass quality and quantity compares to a q701.

 

[FightBrothers]

bump

 

[manbear]

I haven't head the A900X, but I own the AD900X and used to own the Q701. I prefer the AD900X. Bass quantity is similar between the two but the AD900X has a much sharper, more tactile sense of snap. The Q701 has slightly better extension but sounds flat in comparison because you can only hear it, not feel it. Both have a lean bass overall but you can actually feel the AD900X bass. 

Beyond the bass, the AD900X has more forward mids and is more engaging overall whereas the Q701 is more detached and dry. Voices, guitars, etc. sound close to your ears on the AD900X and there is good depth for background sounds. There is a kind of diffuse sound but I wouldn't call it reverby--it's very open and clean. More like the imaging is soft. 

 

 

[Lorspeaker]

side by side, the Q701 has a more refined sound, ad900x is more gritty. 
....might not be bothersome if u just have the ad900x on its own.

 

[manbear]

Yeah, I agree with that. The AD-900X is a little grainy.

 

[FightBrothers]

  I haven't head the A900X, but I own the AD900X and used to own the Q701. I prefer the AD900X. Bass quantity is similar between the two but the AD900X has a much sharper, more tactile sense of snap. The Q701 has slightly better extension but sounds flat in comparison because you can only hear it, not feel it. Both have a lean bass overall but you can actually feel the AD900X bass. 

Beyond the bass, the AD900X has more forward mids and is more engaging overall whereas the Q701 is more detached and dry. Voices, guitars, etc. sound close to your ears on the AD900X and there is good depth for background sounds. There is a kind of diffuse sound but I wouldn't call it reverby--it's very open and clean. More like the imaging is soft. 

  side by side, the Q701 has a more refined sound, ad900x is more gritty. 
....might not be bothersome if u just have the ad900x on its own.
 

Between both of them, which one would you pick for rock and pop? Also how well does the ad900x handle fast tracks in comparision? And does the q701 sound more or less bright that than the ad900x?

 

[Me x3]

   
Between both of them, which one would you pick for rock and pop? Also how well does the ad900x handle fast tracks in comparision? And does the q701 sound more or less bright that than the ad900x?

I guess Fidelios X1/2 are better for those genres. You should also consider Soundmagic HP200.
http://noblehifi.blogspot.com.ar/2013/05/soundmagic-hp200-review.html

 

[manbear]

   
Between both of them, which one would you pick for rock and pop? Also how well does the ad900x handle fast tracks in comparision? And does the q701 sound more or less bright that than the ad900x?

I would definitely pick the AD900X over the Q701 for rock and pop. The reason, for me, is that the Q701's bass can't be felt. Drums and other acoustic bass instruments sound much more satisfying on the AD900X. IMO, though, the AD900X is still a bit bass shy for any kind of electronic bass (e.g. pop) though it depends on personal preference. 

The AD900X handles fast tracks just fine, as does the Q701. Both are plenty fast. The difference, again, is that the AD900X has bass you can feel (for example, I'm thinking of fast drums with metal). 

The AD900X and Q701 are pretty close in brightness, but I'd say the Q701 is brighter if I had to pick. Primarily because the AD900X has more forward mids. Both have a similar treble, which is bright but not sibilant or spiky. 

The main thing the Q701 has going for it is more refinement/ resolution overall. Not by a huge margin, but I'm talking about the texture and realism of individual instruments. The AD900X obscures the last bit of microdetail. Also, the Q701 has a very distant soundstage, very far away from you and large, but there isn't much depth within that soundstage--everything is about the same distance from you. This can sound great with some genres, off with others. The AD900X tends to put the midrange (voices, guitars, strings, etc) right in front of you with its greater sense of depth reserved for bass lines and treble details. The Q701's soundstage has more width, the AD900X has more depth. 

 

[FightBrothers]

Thanks alot for the comparison. Think i'll get as soon as there is a killer deal.

 

[PurpleAngel]

  Thanks a lot for the comparison. Think I'll get as soon as there is a killer deal.

 
You might also take into consideration that the ATH-AD900X is easier to drive then the Q701.
What headphone amplifier do you have?
 
I've though about getting the AD900X, but ended up ordering the AKG KXX.

 

[FightBrothers]

   
You might also take into consideration that the ATH-AD900X is easier to drive then the Q701.
What headphone amplifier do you have?
 
I've though about getting the AD900X, but ended up ordering the AKG KXX.

I already have the q701 and k7xx and a900x running off of monoprice dac/amp. volume is more than enough on the monoprice. Don't know how it perform against other dac/amp combos because that's the only thing source i have. I just wanted the ad900x as a replacement for my q701 and a900x. I really like the vocals on my a900x but found the slight reverby feeling off and the bass is not tight enough and a little bit too much. As for the q701, i found the bass slightly lacking and a bit too bright causing treble fatigue on some tracks. I also didn't like how distant the q701 sounded with some intimate vocals and rock, it felt really unnatural at times. I was really hoping ad900x could fill in the holes. If ad1000x or ad2000x are any good for vocals or rock, then i might consider them as well.

 

[Lorspeaker]

u can switch the pleather pads on the a900x to velor...that will take some bass reverbs off the sound.