Sony xb500 vs ATHm50

Can't you just EQ the XB500? It benefits a lot from EQing. It's difficult to find other headphones with this kind of bass, it's one of a kind. 

 

I use EQ settings like this for XB500 to get more clear & balanced sound. The detail can match ATH-M50 with proper EQing, also burn-in will help, mine improved even after 100hrs of use.

 

Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 1/12/11 at 3:29pm

I'd say you;d be better off with the Shure SRH750DJ's( which I own) the bass is tighter on the Shures then either the XB500( which I own) and the M50's which I've always found to be a little sloppy in comparison. I prefer the bass of the XB500's but the Shures hardly sacrifice the bass for the rest of the spectrum which is nice to my ears.

Bass on XBs go reaaaaaally low though. Won't be the same extension on the other headphones. Just boost the mids a bit on the eq, or lower the bass slightly
 

If i have to EQ headphones in order to get a sound i like, i usually get rid of them. EQ should not really be necessary if the headphones have been voiced correctly.

So you don't like dressing on your salad? Eq isn't that bad and alot of the time it's all it takes to make a $50 headphone sound like a $200 headphone.

This. Couldn't have said that better myself!  ^^ I'd easily have paid $200 for the sound I get with my EQ'd XB500. XB500 is a headphone that has great sound quality but the unbalanced sound unEQ'd is what makes the 50~$60 pricetag justified and you start wondering if Sony perhaps made it on purpose so they can release an updated "XB2" series later with better balance as only balancing it out will make it sound much nicer. I usually end up EQing any headphone at least a bit as I always seem to find something that isn't quite perfect and can be adjusted to sound better (as in more to my liking). BUT and a big but, different EQs provide different results, some may only ruin the sound rather than improve it. I find the EQ in kX Audio drivers I use to be REALLY great (won't add any distortion or clipping despite boosting values a lot making it work like a "software amp" sorta :p) and part of the reason I won't change my Audigy 2 ZS soundcard in near future.

Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 1/13/11 at 4:18am

Actually, if a $50 headphone really does that well comapred to a $200 after EQ, I would think again if the $200 headphones really is worth that much.

Guys,

 try these links:

 

why grammy award-winning music producers and engineers like ATH-M50:

http://www.frontendaudio.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Headphones-p/9999-02031.htm

 

Here is another review regarding M50-SRH840-SRH750DJ:

http://www.headfonia.com/closed-cans-shootout-m-50-esw-9-t50p-hd25-1-beats-studio-srh-840-srh-750dj-k181dj-and-dj1pro/

 

http://www.zzounds.com/productreview--AUTATHM50

 

http://www.headphone.com/selection-guide/audio-technica-ath-m50.php

 

http://www.testfreaks.com/headphones-headsets/audio-technica-ath-m50/

FWIR, the whole XB line can be EQ'd; and do respond well to a little eq help. I own the M50, and am very pleased with them. Bass is clean, tight and extends low. However, I am convinced that as a bass head, I need to go get myself a pair of xb's

 

check out this thread, it has lots of good discussion on the xb series in general:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/501168/bass-impact-thats-all-i-ever-asked-for-in-life

Yes they respond very well to EQing. XB500 has a bit more EQ potential than XB700 from my experience. While many of the other headphones even expensier ones I've tried may be better balanced, I often think the XB have better sound quality though, the detail in the mids and highs and the lows (like too good for this pricerange and belongs in the 150~$200 range if balancing them out using a good working EQ) so therefore EQing makes even more sense to get the most out of them as possible.

Sitting here w/ both pairs of headphones... mid-burn in for both so this is likely to change, but here are my thoughts. No eqing on either. The bass on the xb500s is exponentially larger not larger (as the m50s do not lack these freqs in any sense) but more pronounced, and a little sloppier, really great for dubstep w/o a doubt. The xb500s sound a lot like my v700djs, but warmer and less detailed. The highs are really muddled though, compared to my m50s, which are far more natural sounding. The bass on the m50s extend very low and is even a little tighter than my v700djs, but more balanced (not flat at all tho). mids are only slightly recessed, helps add punch to the bass it seems. Highs on the m50s are crisp, clear, and slightly snipped off at the upper most registers, I'm assuming to avoid sibilance because these are not either that or are they tiring. Mid burn-in they're a little tinny, so I'm hoping that will work its way out over the next 25hours. Mid burn-in on the xb500s is very recessed highs (again, like my v700s, which I'm hoping opens up a bit after about 50 more hours). Warm and fun, in your face bass and seriously the xb series is most comfortable series of headphones ever devised. I prefer my m50s as they don't lack the bass and add incredible detail and don't cut out the highs. They are only slightly less comfortable for my small head. But really, for half the price, the xb500s are stellar, really some must have ear-candy for the savvy basshead.

I demo'd the XB500 at my local Best Buy yesterday, with my own Fuze and songs. I literally spent an hour with them. The store was pretty empty and quiet too.

I enjoyed the XB500 immensely. For $50, bassheads shouldn't miss these. They are ridiculously fun. I do note that they lack subterranean bass, which I prefer over midbass, which these have more than anything. By contrast, the XB700 has that really low sub bass, but lacks midbass. Its all preference. The XB500 also runs considerably better unamped than the XB700.

I would still say the 'bassy' variant of the M50 is overall superior to the XB500, but for bassheads, the XB500 would be a better buy.

I'm really fighting the urge to get a pair of XB500 for work use. They are a guilty pleasure x1000000.

I gave up the XB700 because the pads just did something to my skin. I didn't feel it with the XB500 though.

Tried EQing it? Problems such as muddy midrange can be totally fixed, as can the slightly recessed highs and it will sound much more detailed. I wouldn't say there is a lack of subterranean bass but it's cuz of the much stronger mid/upper bass the bass sounds much less deep, you don't even need to raise the deep bass on EQ, you can lower the upper bass slightly and already it'll sound a lot deeper, after critical listening against XB700 I came to the conclusion it doesn't output much less deep bass at all (maybe just a tiny bit), it's just the tonal character sounds different cuz of the slight mid/upper bass dominance unEQ'd. XB700 got like 70/30% deep/upper bass emphasize ratio while XB500 is more like 46/54% deep/upper and that's why you get a quite different bass tonal character, it's all about the relevance between 31 - 62Hz vs 125 - 250Hz sliders on a simple 10-band EQ for example.

EQ can fix any headphone worth anything. I definitely know it lacks compared to the XB700 is sub bass though, but its alright. I already have the D7000 for most of those needs. I quite like the un-EQ'd XB500. Its...different. The punch of the bass is quite satisfying. I wouldn't mess with it.

The only reason I'm not getting them is because I want something that doesn't isolate as much. I need to be able to hear the phone. That's why I'm used to the KSC75.