Does the MT220 sound similar to the HD 650 to you as well? Because I owned both and thought they sounded nothing alike. Due to this, it's surprising to me that you say the HD 600 (which I admittedly have not heard) is so similar to the MT220. The most striking difference in the MT220, for me, was the bass impact. Even got it to make my head rattle at high volume on occasion. Can't imagine the HD 650 pulling that off. In my experience, the MT220 is very engaging, with revealing treble, while the HD 650 is more laid-back and somewhat warm and dark, though not overly so.
Is the HD 600 really as exciting as the MT220? How does its bass impact compare? I've read much of what you (and others) have published about the AD2000. From that, I'm assuming the AD2000 sounds much more exciting than the MT220 and the recordings themselves. Sadly, the AD2000 is hard to find nowadays. This makes the prospect of getting the HD 600 before the others appear more logical, although on the other hand, snatching up an AD2000 first if given the opportunity has its own sense of urgency thanks to its rarity. Basically I'm a little confused about which I would prefer. I know you said the HD 600 has a noticeably more natural tonality than the AD2000. Which would you say is more accurate overall? (When I say accurate overall, this applies to all music, not just a few genres.)
Also (and I know this may be asking a bit much), if you could compare the MT220, HD 600, and AD2000 in depth, it would be highly appreciated!
Don't have an HD650, so can't say if it sounds similar to the MT220.
When I wrote that the HD600 and MT220 sounded similar, I meant mostly in terms of tonality and frequency spectrum balance—not really in terms of anything else (especially imaging, which they're the most different on). I consider the MT220 more "exciting"-sounding, and it has more bass quantity too (providing for more impact), as well as lower extension.
For tonality, I view the HD600 as extremely accurate, with the MT220 not far behind. The AD2K has always sounded weird to me, enough that I've never used it on predominantly acoustic music like classical, jazz, folk, etc (it's always been my electronica, metal, and modern rock/pop headphone). I'm using the word "accuracy" with respect to tonality in the context of being a musician though (specifically a violinist).
For overall "accuracy" in tone, speed, imaging, etc, the best I've heard has been the Stax OII MKI on the BHSE sourced by the Plinius CD-101, by far.
No offense, but not sure I can be bothered to do an in-depth comparison of those 3 headphones, due to limited listening time. I'll just do a short version:
- I view the HD600 as the most natural- and neutral-sounding "budget" headphone, not just of the 3, but out of all the other inexpensive headphones I've heard too. It's quite limited in its strengths though, IMO, as the natural & neutral sound is pretty much all it has going for it. Slow impulse response, not very clear, spatially narrow.
- The AD2K is also quite limited in its strengths—extremely fast impulse response, equally extremely agile-sounding (never plodgy, unless held back by an amp or source). Very in-your-face, and very well-defined spatials that are limited in scope (consistently sounds moderately room-sized).
- The MT220 has a good amount of the HD600's natural and neutral sound (and with lower bass extension too) for a cheaper price and in a closed headphone that's also refreshingly low-impedance and efficient enough to sound great straight out of a computer or portable device. Similarly slow impulse response and lack of clarity, IMO. Not sure about spatials though, haven't really paid attention to that aspect yet.
If you want electrostatic-like clarity with natural & neutral sound, the only thing I can recommend is a well-amped Stax OII MKI.
