I have been looking to get a pair of headphones with a different sound palate compared to the warm HD650s and LCD2s that I own, so I've spent most of today listening to headphones at Munkong Gadget in Bangkok (great guys - excellent collection of gear and they let you listen to your heart's content).
The LCD2s, to my mind, remain the best of the lot (not surprisingly - that's what I felt earlier and which is why I had bought them over the HEs in the first place!) - the music simply has a level of fullness/richness that the other headphones dont.
The harder comparison was the 500s vs the 400s. There is a very clear and obvious sound difference between the two. However, it was actually surprisingly hard to tell which one I preferred. Often, I'd find myself liking the sound of the 400 a little more at first blush, but every time i listened to a song in entirety, I found the overall musical presentation of the 500 to be better. I felt that the 400s created an artificial forwardness to the music, which initially seemed to be impressive if evaluating sound, but not so good when evaluating the impact of the music. Not sure if that makes sense?
The Fidelio X1, of which I had high hopes, was quite disappointing, actually. Ok sound, a little boomy bass, not very refined. I listened to it for a bit and the sound didnt really grab my attention the way it would coming from a pair of high-end headphones. So i didnt really spend a lot of time with them.
The AKG701s were actually surprisingly nice. I now know why they are called "analytical": the music that comes from them is very clear across the entire frequency spectrum, with really good transient response and separation. Good if you like to listen to music with your head (ie analytically). I prefer a more visceral/musical sound and so I wasnt sure if i was going to like these headphones - but they were surprisingly enjoyable, despite the "analytical" tag.
In the end, I bought the HE-500s to complete my headphone trifecta.
The LCD2s, to my mind, remain the best of the lot (not surprisingly - that's what I felt earlier and which is why I had bought them over the HEs in the first place!) - the music simply has a level of fullness/richness that the other headphones dont.
The harder comparison was the 500s vs the 400s. There is a very clear and obvious sound difference between the two. However, it was actually surprisingly hard to tell which one I preferred. Often, I'd find myself liking the sound of the 400 a little more at first blush, but every time i listened to a song in entirety, I found the overall musical presentation of the 500 to be better. I felt that the 400s created an artificial forwardness to the music, which initially seemed to be impressive if evaluating sound, but not so good when evaluating the impact of the music. Not sure if that makes sense?
The Fidelio X1, of which I had high hopes, was quite disappointing, actually. Ok sound, a little boomy bass, not very refined. I listened to it for a bit and the sound didnt really grab my attention the way it would coming from a pair of high-end headphones. So i didnt really spend a lot of time with them.
The AKG701s were actually surprisingly nice. I now know why they are called "analytical": the music that comes from them is very clear across the entire frequency spectrum, with really good transient response and separation. Good if you like to listen to music with your head (ie analytically). I prefer a more visceral/musical sound and so I wasnt sure if i was going to like these headphones - but they were surprisingly enjoyable, despite the "analytical" tag.
In the end, I bought the HE-500s to complete my headphone trifecta.
