Introduction

The first serious “audiophile” headphone I ever owned was the Audio Technica A900X I bought on a trip to Japan. That was about 10 years ago. While my tastes in audio have changed since then, Audio Technica as a brand still holds a small place in my heart. 

So as we begin 2026 after the launch of their flagship open back ADX7000, I thought we’d take a look at a couple of their last generation high end headphones, the ADX3000 and ADX5000 that come in at $1,100 and $2,200 respectively. This article will focus on the sound of the ADX3000. You can find the review for the ADX5000 here.

Source(s) Used: Ferrum ERCO

Disclaimer: Review units are on loan from Audio Technica.

Build and Comfort

Note: This part is identical for both review articles

Unlike the gorgeous lacquered wood designs of Audio Technica’s closed back headphones, the ADX line-up has a very utilitarian look. Black with the glint of metal. This no-frills approach makes the ADX3000 and ADX5000 lightweight headphones, coming in at around 250 - 270 grams via a magnesium alloy frame. 

In hand, both headphones feel sturdy. There’s a reasonable amount of range of motion with the cups both vertically and horizontally. The headband adjustment is easy to use with discrete steps. The earcups are large to accommodate their 58 mm drivers. The ADX3000 comes with a set of velour pads while the ADX5000 uses an alcantara fabric. They have a very real open-back feel to them similar to headphones like the Sennheiser HD800S or HiFiMan Arya.

However, here is where I must complain about the proprietary A2DC connectors Audio Technica uses. In theory, these are great connectors. They’re effectively a perfected version of the MMCX connectors you typically find on IEMs. They slot in easily with a satisfying click and come out clean with a small amount of force. The problem is that no one else uses the A2DC standard. Replacement cables are thus a pain to find. To make matters worse, the ADX5000’s braided cable is stiff and has a horrific amount of cable memory and noise. The ADX3000’s cable is slightly better in that regard, but the sheathing feels like cheap plastic. 

Unfortunately, the complaints don’t stop there. Comfort wise, these headphones are a mixed bag. Out of the box, the clamp force is high. That’s not too bad in itself, though it’s clear that these headphones were made for smaller heads. The bigger issue I have is with the headband design. It’s two curved bands holding the sides together. In theory it should work fine with the headphone floating just a little off your head and held with the clamp force. In practice, I do feel the two bands pressing down and giving me a hotspot over time. It’s worse on the ADX5000 as the bands are thinner, having less surface area to spread the weight out. And this is despite a sliver of padding that Audio Technica has put on the headband. 

That said, I wouldn’t say the ADX3000 or ADX5000 are wholly uncomfortable. They’re fine. I just wish they made a few different design choices. 

Sound - Objective

To start our discussion on sound, here’s the frequency response graph of the ADX3000 calibrated to the B&K 5128’s DF HRTF. As a reminder, the preference bounds are depicted in the grey region. In extremely simplified terms, if the frequency response is within the bounds, it’s likely to sound balanced. And that means it’s most likely to be preferred by the average person - hence the name, preference bounds. That said, 1) You are not an average person; and 2) There’s no reason why you can’t enjoy multiple types of tunings. It’s a question of probability.

The tuning of the ADX3000 looks quite good until you reach 4 kHz and see that absolute monster of a lower treble peak. While you should keep in mind that these measurements aren’t 100% reflective of how a headphone will sound on your head, this is definitely not a good look for the ADX3000. Beyond that, we have a bright sounding treble with yet another large peak at 9 kHz. 

Here is the raw graph which is a different visualization of the same dataset.

ADX3000 - Subjective

Tonally, this headphone is bassy and bright. V-shaped, if you will. But I think it’s a little more nuanced than that. The bass starts with a punchy attack that rounds out in a boomy response due to the subbass extension and midbass elevation. The treble is very raw sounding. That 4 kHz peak isn’t actually as intense as I expected from the graph as it’s masked by the overbearing nature of the upper treble. But there’s no denying that it lends a harsh timbre at the attack and makes the ADX3000 sound splash-y and clash-y. This will very well be a dealbreaker for many.

Where it differs from the typical V-shaped type of sound is that it has a surprisingly normal midrange. Lush, even. This comes from a bass shelf that starts at 300 Hz, bleeding a little into the lower mids. The upper mids at 1 - 2 kHz has a bit of an elevation for a touch of forwardness before relaxing back at 3 kHz to further warm up the mids. It’s actually quite nice. 

Comparison to ADX5000

For obvious reasons, the ADX3000 bears many similarities with the ADX5000. So it makes sense to compare the two throughout the rest of this review. You can find my ADX5000 review here if you want a dedicated look at that headphone. 

The midrange of the ADX3000 is immediately more appealing than the ADX5000’s. It’s normal in a good way. The ADX5000 has a confusing quality that takes a bit of time to understand what it’s doing. It’s paradoxically distant with its upper mids recession, yet intimate as a result of its 1.5 kHz hill. While it does ultimately work for me in an acquired taste sort of way, there’s no question that from first impressions, more people are going to enjoy the structure of the ADX3000’s mids better. It’s smooth with effortless clarity while maintaining a relaxed sense of space in the mix. While both headphones have that bass elevation into lower mids shelf, the ADX3000 eschews the 400 Hz dip that the ADX5000 has, giving both male and female vocals greater richness. 

The ADX3000 has a little more bass presence but it trades it for worse bass definition. I find that it sounds a tad smeared, likely due to no dipping right as it crosses the lower mids. For the treble, while the ADX5000 still sounds raw, it’s noticeably less timbrally awkward and not quite as “splash-y and clash-y”. Despite looking quite similar on the graph, I found the ADX5000’s treble to be less fatiguing.

From a perceived technicalities standpoint, the shared acoustic designs and platforms between these two headphones give them the same sense of “feel”. They’re both open sounding, though I think the ADX5000 is slightly more open. Great horizontal width, limited depth and height. The ADX3000’s imaging is more normal - I don’t get that W-shaped soundscape that I do on the ADX5000. Instrument placement is cleanly spread without any zones of concentration. 

For resolution and layering, I do think the ADX5000 edges the ADX300 out. I mentioned the bass smearing already, but I think the other contributor is in the treble masking out some of the timbral nuances in notes. I don’t find the ADX3000 necessarily lacking, but the ADX5000 does do a better job of pulling together a more cohesive presentation. 

Should You Buy It?

No, not really. At half the cost of the ADX5000, this is comparatively a good value. But it’s not a good overall value. While I do quite enjoy its midrange and am OK with its bass, its treble is rough. While I don’t find it painful per se, when I take a step back to think about the greater headphone market, the ADX3000 simply doesn’t do anything well enough to justify its deficiencies. 

That said, I’ll fully admit that I’m being hypocritical as I speak a little more favorably of the ADX5000 in my review of that headphone. If I may defend myself a little here: I enjoy the ADX5000 more - there’s a bit of a special sauce to its sound. Maybe I’m biased because it’s more expensive and bigger number means better right? Either way, I’ve already acknowledged that I wouldn’t recommend either the ADX3000 or ADX5000. I don’t dislike them, but I also don’t think anyone should be jumping to buy them. So if you’re willing to look past the big flashing “buyer beware”, I think they’re both worth a passing try.