M Rael
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2001
- Posts
- 675
- Likes
- 10
I heard someplace that there are 2 kinds of knowledge: theres knowing what we know, and theres knowing what we dont know. But theres something missing from that. And its this: we dont know, what we dont know.
I had to start with that, because earlier headphones I've owned and earlier comments I've made about them seem queer to me now. For example if I said in the past that the Sony F1 sounded ok to me, or that it was neutral in areas that the Grado 325 was not; that was fine before now. And I've owned the K1000 and the CD3000 and they both have good qualities. But lately I've come to see those earlier comments were a case of 'not knowing what I dont know.'
Enter the Dragon / Audio-Technica ATH-W2002:
Its been less than a week, but some ideas have formed already about their sound. And I'm guessing the sound will change over time; after all these have barely over 10 hours on them. I listen to CD, either through a Sony X707ES or my portable player with the Apheared 'caffeine' amp. As a rule I always listen to recordings flat, i.e. with no equalizing or DSP thrown in.
The W2002 is extremely clear sounding. Clear and open.
The Sex Pistols, on the other hand, are very dirty sounding. Dirty and spotty. I will try to explain therefore, that the W2002 does not make certain kinds of music sound better than they are or than they were recorded. It is instead a work of craftsmanship and technology that you place on your head, and it lets you absorb whatever it is that went into the recording. For good or for bad.
I'm going to disdain acting as if the program material itself is 'calling the shots' in my listening impressions, and so I'm not going to quote specific program material as examples. The W2002's sound balanced and flat across the frequencies. Thats all I expected and hoped from them. I dont expect the same clairity and balance in the recordings I own as I do from my headphones; thats sad but true. The width and depth of the sonic events (music) while listening to the W2002's and the separation of individual instruments, is in every way facilitated by them, if the recording contains such information and if the rest of your system has the resolution for it. I dont sense imbalances when I have these headphones on. Even though some CD's are bright or some CD's dont have lots of bass, thats ok with me now. When a CD does have bass, I have heard it in a new and wonderful way:
low frequency events seem to extend outward from the headphone and indeed from the head itself. It was an odd feeling at first, since the Grado I own seemed to be such a bass happy specimen, but I'm thinking now that the Grado is merely 'humped' and warm at a certain lower frequency. The lowest frequencies from the W2002 are distinctly non-directional, and seem to move equally away from the ear as towards it. It has the effect of an actual low frequency event, rather than a blast of warm air from a speaker into your ear.
No comparison.
Say, its a lot of work writing all this stuff up! And by now I'm trying to make my escape stage left. I know I didnt touch on the midrange or treble, but I have something to say in closing thats actually very funny to me, from my point of view: back when we were talking about the Sony F1 I said that there were better choices for the beginning buyer, and that I would never recommend them to someone as a first headphone, or for any other reason other than to just try them, and even then they were not worth full retail at $299. Whats funny to me is this: I'm nervous about suggesting a stranger spend $180 on the F1, but I would recommend the $725+ Audio-Technica ATH-W2002 to anyone who is serious about headphone listening and who has that kind of money to spend. On that point I have a clear conscience. Recording quality may vary greatly from one to the next, but I feel the W2002's excellence is a sure thing. I used to think the F1 was fine and the 325 sounded good, but I didnt know, what I didnt know.
Short version of the review for those with ADD:
Mark likes them, and says they are well worth the money.
I had to start with that, because earlier headphones I've owned and earlier comments I've made about them seem queer to me now. For example if I said in the past that the Sony F1 sounded ok to me, or that it was neutral in areas that the Grado 325 was not; that was fine before now. And I've owned the K1000 and the CD3000 and they both have good qualities. But lately I've come to see those earlier comments were a case of 'not knowing what I dont know.'
Enter the Dragon / Audio-Technica ATH-W2002:
Its been less than a week, but some ideas have formed already about their sound. And I'm guessing the sound will change over time; after all these have barely over 10 hours on them. I listen to CD, either through a Sony X707ES or my portable player with the Apheared 'caffeine' amp. As a rule I always listen to recordings flat, i.e. with no equalizing or DSP thrown in.
The W2002 is extremely clear sounding. Clear and open.
The Sex Pistols, on the other hand, are very dirty sounding. Dirty and spotty. I will try to explain therefore, that the W2002 does not make certain kinds of music sound better than they are or than they were recorded. It is instead a work of craftsmanship and technology that you place on your head, and it lets you absorb whatever it is that went into the recording. For good or for bad.
I'm going to disdain acting as if the program material itself is 'calling the shots' in my listening impressions, and so I'm not going to quote specific program material as examples. The W2002's sound balanced and flat across the frequencies. Thats all I expected and hoped from them. I dont expect the same clairity and balance in the recordings I own as I do from my headphones; thats sad but true. The width and depth of the sonic events (music) while listening to the W2002's and the separation of individual instruments, is in every way facilitated by them, if the recording contains such information and if the rest of your system has the resolution for it. I dont sense imbalances when I have these headphones on. Even though some CD's are bright or some CD's dont have lots of bass, thats ok with me now. When a CD does have bass, I have heard it in a new and wonderful way:
low frequency events seem to extend outward from the headphone and indeed from the head itself. It was an odd feeling at first, since the Grado I own seemed to be such a bass happy specimen, but I'm thinking now that the Grado is merely 'humped' and warm at a certain lower frequency. The lowest frequencies from the W2002 are distinctly non-directional, and seem to move equally away from the ear as towards it. It has the effect of an actual low frequency event, rather than a blast of warm air from a speaker into your ear.
No comparison.
Say, its a lot of work writing all this stuff up! And by now I'm trying to make my escape stage left. I know I didnt touch on the midrange or treble, but I have something to say in closing thats actually very funny to me, from my point of view: back when we were talking about the Sony F1 I said that there were better choices for the beginning buyer, and that I would never recommend them to someone as a first headphone, or for any other reason other than to just try them, and even then they were not worth full retail at $299. Whats funny to me is this: I'm nervous about suggesting a stranger spend $180 on the F1, but I would recommend the $725+ Audio-Technica ATH-W2002 to anyone who is serious about headphone listening and who has that kind of money to spend. On that point I have a clear conscience. Recording quality may vary greatly from one to the next, but I feel the W2002's excellence is a sure thing. I used to think the F1 was fine and the 325 sounded good, but I didnt know, what I didnt know.
Short version of the review for those with ADD:
Mark likes them, and says they are well worth the money.
