Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › M-Audio Q40 Impressions (long w/pics)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

M-Audio Q40 Impressions (long w/pics) - Page 79

post #1171 of 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thujone View Post

I think the X1's have more bass quantity than the Q40's with the 840 pads. I didn't mess with stock pads very much due to the fit.

I never tried the Q40's, but I assume they have plenty of bass. So for me, it would be kinda useless having a headphone that has more mid bass but less sub-bass than a very bassy headphone + is more bloated in the bass.  But this is if were talking about bass alone, so keep that in mind.

post #1172 of 1611

The X1's aren't for you then. They have a significant mid bass emphasis.

post #1173 of 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thujone View Post

The X1's aren't for you then. They have a significant mid bass emphasis.

With what amp are you driving them?

post #1174 of 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakanao View Post

With what amp are you driving them?

Maverick A1 or Schiit Magni.

post #1175 of 1611

Hello. I have bought these headphones and I am trying to decide if they are broken or if I am doing something incorrectly. The problem is - I am generally new to the topic of headphones and it's hard for me to compare them to anything else.

 

In comparison to my M-Audio AV 40 monitors these headphones sound very muddy and/or very warm to me. The mids and heights are weak or very weak, the sub-bass is weak or muddy. Generally they sound like something is trying to squish all of the frequencies into one loud and unpleasant hum somewhere in the low mids/bass area. At least this is the impression that I get. Long story short - the sound terrible to me in comparison to my speaker monitors.

 

Basically I tried to amp them with the build in headphone amplifier of my E-MU 0204, then with Behringer MA 400, then with a build in headphone amplifier of some old and large hi-fi stereo amplifier. The three just provide different bargains between extreme warmness and muddiness. Maybe this is the problem? Maybe these are not enough to drive these headphones? But I have read some opinions that these are easy-to-drive headphones.

 

Without amping on the other hand, these sound like cheap, weak or no bass headphones to me.

 

I'll appreciate any suggestions.


Edited by Ketill - 8/28/13 at 3:33pm
post #1176 of 1611

How long have you had them for? Most headphones tend to be boomy right out of the box but should settle down within the first few hours.

post #1177 of 1611

Several days. My impressions are, that they went from "terrible" to "still quite bad" sounding after the burn-in. The bass and general muddiness in the bass area was actually reduced somewhat after I left them for several hours with pink noise.

post #1178 of 1611

The Q40's do have a lot of midbass. Do you have any other full sized headphones to compare?

post #1179 of 1611

Sadly not - this is my main problem. Nor do I have an expensive dedicated headphone amp - only the ones mentioned above, so it may be another problem.

 

But after looking at this: http://en.goldenears.net/9049, especially at the frequency response I'm starting to think that maybe I was expecting unreasonable things from these headphones.

post #1180 of 1611

Actually that response looks great IMO for a bass enthusiast, only the highs have pretty poor extension but this is well above the frequencies that is used in music but even so I won't deny those 15k+ frequencies do add sense of "air" / openness which isn't Q40's strongest suit.

Anyway here are simple tweaks that would benefit you:

1. Padswap or modding the stockpads, for the stockpads you can simply stuff something underneath the pads (I used kitchen paper rolls cut into 1/3 and rolled up and stuffed underneath) giving you more depth and this leads to less mid presence => more highs which will make them clearer sounding/less muddy and smeared and less "in-your-face" so there's room for better soundstage imaging.
2. Swap stock cable, you'd be suprised, it has exactly that kind of signature like you explained.

I have 2 Q40's here, one unmodded and then my everyday pair, they sound like two different headphones. The unmodded and lightly used pair sounds exactly like you describe and my everyday pair sounds like "monitors" with good quality bass emphasis. The source and amp used will always also affect the end result, I've learnt myself with experience "synergy" is such a huge deal.... some sources / amp combos will make the Q40 sound muddy and smeared and others will make it sound like you're having something punching weeeeelllll above its price range as this headphone is picky with source/amp used (doesn't necessarily have to be expensive at all, it's just different equipment comes with different sound signatures no matter cost and some works well with Q40 and others not). 


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 8/28/13 at 4:29pm
post #1181 of 1611

Thanks for the tips!

 

I tried the the paper stuffings, but they didn't really change the sound that much in my case. I'll try exchanging the cable too if I get a slim one that fits. I think I'll have to equalize them in the end sadly, because that is too large of a mid-bass boost for me. I might have been under the wrong impression that these were supposed to be more of a monitor type headphones with a bit flatter response and higher frequency range.

 

From the frequency response graph and from what I hear with my equipment these headphones seem to roll-off pretty quickly both in the heights and in the sub-bass. I am under the impression that the advertised response of 10Hz to 20kHz is a serious overstatement.

 

I once listened to one of the Beyerdynamic models and remember that they were capable of a deep sub-bass kick, but I can get nothing of the sort from my M-Audio model.

post #1182 of 1611

Personally, I think if your Q40's aren't producing sub bass they must be defective. These are big time basshead cans and no basshead can be satisfied without sub bass. Sure, they have a mid bass hump, but I find it unlikely that your Q40's don't produce sub bass at all.

post #1183 of 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thujone View Post

Personally, I think if your Q40's aren't producing sub bass they must be defective. These are big time basshead cans and no basshead can be satisfied without sub bass. Sure, they have a mid bass hump, but I find it unlikely that your Q40's don't produce sub bass at all.

+1

OT: By the way Thujone, I'm enjoying Infected Mushroom big time over here. Especially with the Q40's beerchug.gif

post #1184 of 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ketill View Post

Thanks for the tips!

 

I tried the the paper stuffings, but they didn't really change the sound that much in my case. I'll try exchanging the cable too if I get a slim one that fits. I think I'll have to equalize them in the end sadly, because that is too large of a mid-bass boost for me. I might have been under the wrong impression that these were supposed to be more of a monitor type headphones with a bit flatter response and higher frequency range.

 

From the frequency response graph and from what I hear with my equipment these headphones seem to roll-off pretty quickly both in the heights and in the sub-bass. I am under the impression that the advertised response of 10Hz to 20kHz is a serious overstatement.

 

I once listened to one of the Beyerdynamic models and remember that they were capable of a deep sub-bass kick, but I can get nothing of the sort from my M-Audio model.


Beyer DT770 Pro for example is a very subbass focused headphone, Q40 has pretty equal much subbass as midbass presence, it all depends what you're comparing with. Q40 definitely packs subbass too, again it depends what you're comparing to, the less midbass it has the more audible the subbass becomes too as they both fight for attention so to speak but I've heard much more midbass focused headphones than Q40 personally so I can't say it's a midbass focused headphones, FR measurements shows roughly equal amount of both if we count 80Hz as the border between subbass and midbass.

DT770 Pro vs Q40. It's not as clear here but the important thing about frequency response is balance of X range versus Y range on the own headphone's graph only, you can't like compare how does it look like at 50Hz on headphone A versus 50Hz on the graph of headphone B. So yea here it shows DT770 Pro has a bit more subbass skewed output with a bit better extension too while Q40 has stronger bass more punchy bass but from my experience Q40 has no trouble outputting 20Hz whatsoever (ofc I'm using a digiZoid amp so that's a bit of a cheat :p)


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 8/29/13 at 5:10am
post #1185 of 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter123 View Post

+1

OT: By the way Thujone, I'm enjoying Infected Mushroom big time over here. Especially with the Q40's beerchug.gif

Nice! Yeah, Infected Mushroom continues to grow on me every day. They have so much music and every new headphone puts all their tracks in a different light. I'm glad you are enjoying them!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post


DT770 Pro vs Q40. It's not as clear here but the important thing about frequency response is balance of X range versus Y range on the own headphone's graph only, you can't like compare how does it look like at 50Hz on headphone A versus 50Hz on the graph of headphone B. So yea here it shows DT770 Pro has a bit more subbass skewed output with a bit better extension too while Q40 has stronger bass more punchy bass but from my experience Q40 has no trouble outputting 20Hz whatsoever (ofc I'm using a digiZoid amp so that's a bit of a cheat :p)

Yeah, I agree that it is important to note that the Y-axis is completely arbitrary. (There was someone talking in a different thread about how they ordered Audeze LCD2's to upgrade from the D2000's because the LCD2's have "more bass" according to the frequency response graphs at Headroom... the LCD's were simply measured at a higher volume...)

 

Still though, I don't think Golden Ear's measurements do the Q40's justice. I've owned the DT770's (Pro 80 ohm) as well as the Q40's and the DT770's sound incredibly V-shaped. Vocals are extremely recessed leaving only bass and somewhat sibilant highs. I would agree that the Q40's do suffer a bit with highs, but the rest of the spectrum is surprisingly clear for a headphone at this price point, and much much more clear than its more expensive friend the DT770's. This is just all my opinion of course...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › M-Audio Q40 Impressions (long w/pics)