[mwb]

Uvak: I sent a money order so if you need me to send you an additional $15 just email me with an address and I will be happy to send it along. It was not my intent to have you PAY to do me a favor!

Michael

 

[markl]

It's really none of my business, but now that it seems there's no real shortage of these AT phones, why not wait and see what other people have to say before you take the plunge?

I see lots of people running to buy the AT phones, and I know I've created some of the frenzy by daring to compare them to the R10, and maybe that wasn't the right approach.

I've basically concluded that to my ears the W2002 is not as good as the R10.

Is it too early in the eval to dismiss the W2002? I've got about 35 hours of heavy duty burn-in on them now and I've been listening to them throughout. What about further break-in? I'm afraid that my mind has made itself up, and there's nothing I can do about it. I don't expect further break-in to affect the sound enough to change my mind.

I'd like to add, that I don't think the differences between the phones are simply a matter of personal taste, i.e. "Well the W2002 is better for rock, while the R10 is better for classical", or "Thery're clearly in the same class, it's just a matter of personal taste which phone is better".

To my ears, and I would guess to at leat 80% of anyone else's ears, the R10 are subjectively better than the W2002.

Before the flames start, the W2002 is a fine set of headphones, but for me, it's not in the same class as the R10. This is my honest opinion. I fully understand being emotionally attached to the W2002 because they are excellent headphones.

How much of the R10's performance do you get with the W2002? Not really an easy question to answer since they sound so different. The thing both headphones share is a grain-free, flowing liquid sound that set them above the rest. They reek of quality.

However, the R10 stands above the W2002 in terms of tone and timbre, soundstaging, image depth, instrument body, and detail retrieval. The R10 sound more "real" and natural and 3D. The W2002 has a "cupped hands" quality to voices that is absent in the expressive R10. W2002 has more of the "3 blobs effect" than the R10 which has consistent left-to-right imaging.

Look, I don't have my notes in order enough to do a full review, but I wanted to inject a dose of sanity.

I don't think the W2002 is an "R10 killer". If the HD600 represents the best of what you can buy for $300, then the W2002 is the best you can get at the $700 level (it will certainly trounce the RS-1, for example.) Now, I don't have any of the other headphones I used to own on hand so I'm going by my gut, but my gut tells me the W2002 is superior to the CD3000, RS1, HD600, and ER4S. However, the W2002 is more in the class of those other phones than it is the R10.

markl
Be gentle, be kind. These are merely my opinions.

 

[Vertigo-1]

Anybody want to send me their W2002s and let me compare them to the R10s?

 

[uvak]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Is it too early in the eval to dismiss the W2002? I've got about 35 hours of heavy duty burn-in on them now and I've been listening to them throughout. What about further break-in? I'm afraid that my mind has made itself up, and there's nothing I can do about it. I don't expect further break-in to affect the sound enough to change my mind. __ Now, I don't have any of the other headphones I used to own on hand so I'm going by my gut, but my gut tells me the W2002 is superior to the CD3000, RS1, HD600, and ER4S. However, the W2002 is more in the class of those other phones than it is the R10. markl Be gentle, be kind. These are merely my opinions.

Personally, I think the headphone would improve sonically with more burn-in. I spent more than 80+ hours burning the cans before I could convince myself that it was worth the investment.

I agreed with Markl's "gut". Personally, I prefer W2002 over CD3000 and HD 580.

 

[Raymond Kim]

Uh oh, I don't know if that was a safe thing to do Markl...

M Rael is going to come rushing in here defending the Audio Technica W2002s to death...

 

[M Rael]

I dont think the W2002 is an R10 killer either. The presentation is certainly different though. In the end I dont think its any more fair of me to call the R10 'polite' than it is for someone to call the W2002 'brash.' Fairness aside, (but without making an ass of myself, again)-- I dont whole-heartedly agree with your central findings. Thats cool though.. and if it were up to me everyone would get to compare these headphones.

I agree with uvak about the playing in part. If audio-technica themselves say the W2002 might occasionally sound harsh or bright when new, then that should tell an intelligent person something. The company is saying 'yeah it might sound harsh at first, but thats because it needs to be played in.' Its not voo-doo.. audio-technica knows more about the suspension material and stiffness and what it requires than we do. Its that simple.

They dont say that about the W100.

It might be 'forgiving' of me not to argue markl's findings more strenuously, but I dont care. Sorry KR. I dont think the R10 is on a different level altogether, but thats just me. Go hear them yourselves! How hard is that? (snickers to himself.. )

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by Raymond Kim M Rael is going to come rushing in here defending the Audio Technica W2002s to death.

I've posted in anger enough times that I'm going to do pennance by letting that characterization pass by. Monkey boy.

 

[KurtW]

Quote:

I don't think the W2002 is an "R10 killer". If the HD600 represents the best of what you can buy for $300, then the W2002 is the best you can get at the $700 level (it will certainly trounce the RS-1, for example.)

Frankly, my dear head-fiers, I don't give a damn if the W2002 is a R-10 killer or not. I think the second part of Markl's statement is what matters, and I also agree with it. The fact that the W2002 is even being seriously compared with the R-10, which is several times its cost, is praise enough. The W2002 is expensive, but many people here have spent this kind of money or more on amps so I think it may be affordable to some. The R-10 is in a different price category all together, so it should sound better...maybe much better. I find the comparisons between the W2002 and R-10 very interesting but they don't change my opinion of the W2002. R-10 should compete with the high end Stax (Omega II)...now that's a more fair comparison.

 

[Nick Dangerous]

Now all we need is a comprehensive W100 vs. W2002 review.

 

[markl]

Actually, I don't find the W2002 "bright" at all. Treble not as apparent as CD3000, and I didn't really object to that either.

I've said this privately to people, so I'll repeat here: the thing with both the R10 and the W2002 is the fluidity and sense of "ease" to the sound. Some will think this presentation "dull" and wish for something more lively. Their loss. Some people enjoy their hash and stridency. That's their right.

But consider this: both the R10 and the W2002 cause the least amount of tinnitus or listening fatigue of any phones I've heard, and they do this without truncating highs. They give you pure clean sound. They enable longer and (*gulp*) louder listening. You worry much less about your ears when you use the W2002 and especially the R10.

The above is a significant side benefit to either of these phones and make them especially appealing to folks like us that listen long and listen intently.

If people are interested, I can post more thoughts on the R10 vs. W2002. If no interest, I won't bother, and we can turn out the lights on this thread.

markl
takes a licking and keeps on.... oh whatever

 

[markl]

Sorry one more key thing about W2002:

Tube amp mandatory. These phones are a bit on the "cold" side of neutral (but not objectionably so). Cheers.

markl

 

[M Rael]

Post your thoughts markl! I saved some cool pictures of the R10 and the W2002 together I've been waiting to use. I've spoken my peace already- dont worry. I'm not looking for more opportunities to post. I liked what you said about the tube amp being mandatory. Not that I have one.. I liked it because you're helping me get the most out of my W2002's. I appreciaite the strong suggestion. Thanks!

 

[KR...]

Quote:

It might be 'forgiving' of me not to argue markl's findings more strenuously, but I dont care. Sorry KR.

Quote:

I dont think the R10 is on a different level altogether, but thats just me. Go hear them yourselves! How hard is that? (snickers to himself.. )

 

[KurtW]

As I mentioned, I do find the comparisons interesting, so keep them coming markl.

Tonight I met some friends at a very nice restaurant in town. We got there early and met in the bar area and I brought the W2002 in their case to show them. When they saw me with the case they thought maybe I had quit my job and become a Fuller brush salesman. These people have a very nice tube based speaker system and well as a HD600/ZOTL. I had brought a Pana CDP and a DIY CMoy and let them listen. They were very impressed, as was the waitress that also wanted to hear. It even attracted the attention of the jazz trio that was playing. Of course I had to break their hearts and tell them they were unavailable. So if anyone knows of where more are available or if they are unhappy with theirs and want to get rid of them, let me know.

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vertigo-1 Flumpus, it's the kinda insane guy we both know right?

Is it the kinda insane guy that has them listed in the forum now?
(KennyRogers.....roasters.....Stax....Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town....The Gambler....Coward of the County...."escrow" challenged....etc) ?