DT880 better than AD900?

[dc]

yeah that's fine, I don't have a problem with EQing

But it's being presented here as a miracle solution when it is clearly not.

[G-rig]

I don't like to use the EQ either, and agree to try and find the right sound starting with the headphones.

I just reckon the AD900 need a bit more bass, and slighly bright.. Any suggestions for something else?

I'm still scratching my head over the logic to modifying EQ through itunes. Seems crazy, and pointless if you are using more than one set of headphones.. Flat EQ is good once you got decent equipment and i don't want to modify any of the ID3 tags/padding etc

[dc]

I just reckon the AD900 need a bit more bass, and slighly bright.. Any suggestions for something else?

DT880 isn't less bright than the AD900, though it has more bass.

K701 is a little less sharp on the treble, and has a smidgen more bass than the AD900.

There could be something else... Marcus?

[Marcus]

Well it's all relative, isn't it?
Quite a few people describe both the DT880 and K701 as "bright" headphones, which if you took it the wrong way would mean the AD900 is really bright, but that's just not true.

Overall I think the 880 and 701 have more "body" than the AD900, especially for pianos etc, but it doesn't really come across as being "bassy" per se.

It becomes quite difficult to put the differences into meaningful words when it comes to these three models, a lot of people tend to misinterpret things, and again without a point of reference it can be really, really hard to know which one is going to be the better choice.

Remember this thread isn't just for those posting, especially those that HAVE heard any of the models in question, but for those reading the forums that haven't heard any of them. I don't want people to build incorrect pictures in their mind of how these different models sound because it can end up being quite misleading.


HOWEVER, here's my quick "relative to each other" rundown:

AD900 (with or without amplification) - really nice open and airy soundstage with good separation, excellent speed and definition, nice smooth sound, controlled and tight but not hard hitting bass.
Overall sound: open, light and fast. Bass is warm, but not prominent. Adding an amp does bring some more bottom end to the party, and who doesn't like some nice bottom ends at their party.

DT880 (WITH good amplification) - for lack of a better word: "divided" soundstage, where the AD900 has a nice spread, the 880 tends to place sounds in a more structured way (ugh, what a way to describe it, probably meaningful ONLY to those that have heard the 880). Warm and deep bass response that isn't overly prominent. A controlled and detailed, yet fairly forgiving sound overall (relatively speaking) with good weight and presence. Not a bassy headphone, but not what I'd consider lean on the bass either.

K701 (WITH good amplification) - wide, somewhat stretched soundstage, but not 'smeared' (ugh, I hate describing headphones sometimes) like some models. Perhaps sometimes a little over exaggerated, but not to the point where I have any complaints about it (the K501 sometimes sounded overextended in terms of soundstage). Really nice weight for classical music (especially piano), but the bass rolls off a little high making them not as much "fun" for contemporary music as some models, DEPENDING ON TASTE (I like them just fine for rock, but prefer the MSPro).

I'd probably throw it out there that the 880 is almost a cross between the AD900 and K701 in some respects, but at the same time the AD900 does lack some of the finer points of the 880 and 701.

Take the amp away from the equation however, and I'd pick the AD900 over the DT880 and K701 any day.
The AD900 sounds dynamic from almost any source, yet the 880 and 701 sound flat and deflated without just the right amount of power.


Closing note:
Dynamics/dynamic range/presentation is something I think a LOT of people forget about when choosing headphones, they get WAY too caught up in fucking soundstage all the time, I don't understand why soundstage is a term that people cling to like an inflatable life ring when it comes to headphones, but they do.
If I had a choice between a headphone that lacked dynamics but had heaps of soundstage, and a narrow sounding but dynamic headphones (all other things considered equal), I'd pick the more dynamic headphone any day, for ANY kind of music.

Hm, I feel another blog coming on...

[G-rig]

Wow, thanks for the comparison Marcus.

I find the AD900 are great from any source, and very good for the price. But was wondering is the Corda (2Move) battery amps enough to drive the DT880? I know the K701 would definiely want more power.

Also, how does the MS Pro fit in between the other 3 here? It sounds like those are hard to fault.

[Marcus]

The 880 is very power hungry, they're one of the headphones where I'd say a minimum of a Corda Cantate is needed, with models like the T-3H upwards being ideal, so no a 2Move isn't enough to power them properly.

The MSPro is a completely different headphone again, but they slot right into my "dynamic vs soundstage" argument. They don't have anywhere near as wide a soundstage as the AD900/DT880/K701, but what they lack in soundstage they make up for with a really nice dynamic presentation, and (IMO) better, more fun bass response (not overdone).

[Drubbing]

Interesting stuff.

Marcus, can you define 'Dynamic' as an audio concept?

[Marcus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dynamic

[dc]

typically dynamic range is the difference (or range) between the loudest possible and quietest possible parts of a song

often referred to as the signal to noise ratio, and measured in decibels. in digital better dynamic range can be achieved by a higher bit length, ie. 16-bit, 24-bit etc.

Marcus may be referring more to a sound signature related trait though.

[Marcus]

Bit of both.

[Ludwig]

Little Dot MK V Technical Specifications:


Dual-Mono design essentially has two independent amplifiers, one for each channel.

Dual-supply transformer, dual rectifier, double filtering, bi-symmetric regulator

MCU for source input switching, ON/OFF protection, stand-by control

Premium Vishay-Dale resistors, Matushita filter capacitors, WIMA coupling capacitors, ALPS-27 Potentiometer, Van Den Hul/American CMC RCA input jacks, OMRON relay
Includes transient voltage suppression diode to shunt off voltage spikes.
Frequency Response:
10HZ - 100KHz (-0.5dB)
THD+N: 0.05% (100mW @ 300 ohm, 1KHZ)

Suitable Headphone Impedance: 32 - 600 ohms
Power Output:
300 ohms: 187mW
32 ohms: 500mW
DC Offset: R/L +/- 3mV

Been looking at this amp recently and it seems reasonable for the price - feels hard to justify dropping a grand for a top notch amp.

Noticed it uses dual MC33078P Op Amps (ON Semiconductor), seems to be uncommon as I can't find much info on it. Does anyone know anything about them?

They're socketed so rolling them is an option I guess.

[mrfloopy]

Noticed it uses dual MC33078P Op Amps (ON Semiconductor), seems to be uncommon as I can't find much info on it. Does anyone know anything about them?

They're socketed so rolling them is an option I guess.

I know these op-amps are just fine in my MK V. The designer of the MK V knows about them – that's why they're in there. If you want to fiddle around with the guts of the MK V, I think there are some relevant threads over at the Little Tube forum (or you could start a new one there).

[Drubbing]

EQ brings out more detail. When a song has low bass, i would want to hear those bass at a more satisfying level, and for cheaper headphones can also do well with EQ to bring out more Treble if they sound bit dark in the first place. If you dont like the song, messing with the EQ might do just that to bring out those things except soundstage.

Just jumping back to this topic as it's still about poor sound, I've been playing with the iTunes EQ and I've had a 'moment'...

I've realised onboard sound sucks like a Thai hooker showing off her hosepipe-golf ball party trick.

I've always had the EQ on my iPod and iTunes (I'd forgotten about this). And I've just re-ripped a load of Cds to 320kbps. I turned the EQ off while listening to the DT250, then the MS1, and for the first time I'm hearing things as 'default delivered', and my music sounds like shit.

Yes, there's detail and clarity, but it's also hollow and recessed; all the life has been sucked out of the sound, like the band (Foo Fighters in this case) has been suddenly shoved down the end of a long corridor. Take your headphones, pull the drivers away from your ears⎯that's what I'm hearing without EQ. With it, the music sounds pumped up, a bit fat and in places, a bit wooly when you're listening to stuff like the Foo's. Ramping up the volume helps, but that's not good for my ears.

I turned off my cheap little DAC and plugged directly into my Mac… oh, the horror. The DAC may not do a great deal, but it certainly helps. I gave the Best of the Eagles a go, because that's a very nicely produced CD and also the guitar ballads on Echoes, Silence, Patience and Grace. Less noticeable and quite listenable, although the guitars lack the oomph the EQ gives them. So loud rock music which throws a lot of sound around, and is going to be affected more.

EQ isn't tweaking anything IMH(and limited to this scenario)O, it's masking. Course I'm referring to iTunes/Pod⎯dedicated EQ devices may be a different story. But EQ's on these products is the biggest audio bollocks since $1000 cables. As dc says, EQ doesn't add detail; it emphasizes certain parts of the music over others.

During the purchase process I tested all the headphones I was considering on my iPod⎯which like iTunes⎯has EQ set to Classic (pretty much same setting as Rock). So at least during this process I was comparing apples with apples and not switching settings and generally buggering up the whole audition process.

Having occasionally plugged my phones into my Bose home theatre, the difference is significant. No EQ, and music sounds fantastic, as it does on Marcus's shop combo, which wouldn't be EQ'd either. Ultimately, this is very depressing. It means I'm not going to get anything like decent sound unless I go CD/Amp DAC. Which is about as affordable for me as a set of MSPro's.

I need a frickin beer.

[Ludwig]

I know these op-amps are just fine in my MK V. The designer of the MK V knows about them – that's why they're in there. If you want to fiddle around with the guts of the MK V, I think there are some relevant threads over at the Little Tube forum (or you could start a new one there).

I'm sure the op-amps are fine given that they were specifically chosen for the circuit.

Matching an amp to headphones/source can be difficult though, having the option of rolling op-amps (which this amp thoughtfully has) makes this amp more versatile.

[dc]

I'm sure the op-amps are fine given that they were specifically chosen for the circuit.

Indeed. Most circuits are designed for certain opamps or at least opamps with a particular set of specifications.

Rolling opamps for the sake of rolling may result in a cooked amp.