Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › M50s overrated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

M50s overrated? - Page 49

post #721 of 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

Why the **** are we talking about guns.

Because M50s are overrated. (Actually, you might be surprised how similar the hobbies are)

 

 

All flippancy aside, after 720 posts, do you really think the sanctity of the thread needs preserving?  I suspect everything that can be said, has been, in half a dozen difference forms each :P


Edited by Dragunov-21 - 10/29/12 at 12:34am
post #722 of 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael10 View Post

I think I said 10 MOA at 1000 meters or yards.  So 1 MOA at 100 meters.  That is the inherent accuracy of course.  I shoot more like 1.5 inches at 100 yards.  Of course most bolt action rifles in 308 will shoot to 1 MOA on the first round.  I wrote: 

 

 

I don't have a Dragunov but I know that it is good for about 20 MOA at a thousand meters (a 40 inch circle) while a M40 (which I have or at least a close copy of) is good for 10 MOA at a thousand meters.  Both will kill you but there is not doubt the M40 is more accurate.

 

The Dragunov is a gas operated rifle (I am not sure what you mean by S/A?).  I qualified as an Sharpshooter with the M-14 and missed expert by one ring.  Disappointed my drill instructor since that got rated on those things.  I qualified with an M-16 but those rifles back then (1968) were not nearly as nice as my AR's.  My understanding is that no gas piston operated rifle is as accurate as a bolt action rifle.  The AR's with gas impingement system are very accurate which is the argument against converting them to a piston system.  However, the Army snipers had many more kills than the Marines in Vietnam.  The difference was the Army was using M-14s with early starlight scopes at relatively short ranges compared to the Marines. I was just a grunt (scout dog handler).  

 

I teach psychometrics as I frequently use (as do many textbooks) targets and where the round impacts to demonstrated the difference between reliability (the rounds consistently group around a central point) compared to validity (the rounds are hitting what you are aiming at).  You can't have validity without reliability.  A test may give you consistent scores for the same individuals but not be measuring what you want to measure.  

 

As I stated earlier, the thing about headphones and other audio equipment is that there is no accepted method of accurately judging which piece of equipment is better. Kind of like the argument over big and slow versus small and fast. (The FBI says it doesn't matter much but what do they know.)  After extensive listening with many sets of earphones, I consistently return to my HD-650's and the Denon 2000's with the Lawton cups.  They sound very different but those are my two favorites.  but I will admit that I am not certain (given a blind test) that I could tell the difference between many of my headphones.  Some of them, I just haven't listen to that much.  Also, I do not claim to have anything better (and maybe worse) than ordinary hearing.  

 

Anyway, I have spent way too much time on this topic.  I am also going to quit buying headphones.  Enough is a enough.  I will also admit that I was very happy with my Sony MDR-V600's for many years. 

 

Happy listening and shooting!


post #723 of 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko1 View Post


well isn't it more like thread dead,derailed and dead again?(and maybe derailed a second time)

post #724 of 964

i tested again my M50S in LD MK IV SE, no is not overrated. FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!!


Edited by atistatic - 10/30/12 at 11:04am
post #725 of 964

I own K550, FA003, MS1 and HD650.. M50 still sounds good to me. Yes, it's not the best available headphone in the world. But for the entry level, it is a strong contender since the sound sig is good enough for most people, especially with modern songs.

post #726 of 964
Good headphone it is i agree, though the m50 is not the dominating overkill that the overhyping suggests
post #727 of 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3here View Post

I own K550, FA003, MS1 and HD650.. M50 still sounds good to me. Yes, it's not the best available headphone in the world. But for the entry level, it is a strong contender since the sound sig is good enough for most people, especially with modern songs.

agree. i also own HD650 and K550

my amp graham slee solo and DACport LX

with my setup m50 scale and sounds good

post #728 of 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by morpheusx View Post

agree. i also own HD650 and K550

my amp graham slee solo and DACport LX

with my setup m50 scale and sounds good


+2

for the price they are hard to beat (m50 at 110$ vs k550 at double and hd600 at quadruple...)

post #729 of 964

Personally, I find the M50s to not fit my listening style. I feel the mids are too recessed for my tastes ( I need stronger upper mids for my listening style), and I feel it wasn't... Smooth? I don't know if that's how you'd describe it. I felt they were great for rock music, but they didn't sound good with most forms of techno, especially dubstep.

post #730 of 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by daleb View Post

Personally, I find the M50s to not fit my listening style. I feel the mids are too recessed for my tastes ( I need stronger upper mids for my listening style), and I feel it wasn't... Smooth? I don't know if that's how you'd describe it. I felt they were great for rock music, but they didn't sound good with most forms of techno, especially dubstep.


Agree with that statement. The treble can be sibilant and the mids are recessed. Don't find them suitable for trance too.

post #731 of 964

The m50s were definitely overrated. I say it in past tense because unless the LE version is supposed to sound different, the LE blew me away for the price while the old m50 I had sounded sibilant and had boomy low bass.

post #732 of 964

I listened to an m50 along with a Sony v6 the other day, both for the first time. The m50 did have an all around enjoyable sound, but Sony now has my money. I think the m50 street price should really be closer to $70-80 usd


Edited by stillshot2 - 6/6/13 at 10:03am
post #733 of 964
About a year ago when looking for my first headphones, the M50 kept coming up as the best sub-$200 headphones. I went to a headphones shop but they didn't have the ATH-M50 so I bought their last Shure SRH840. I did feel a little sad since I've only read compliments on the M50.

Only recently did I notice the criticisms such as too much clamping force, non-existing mids, poor pads. I'm assuming people are looking for a new headphone to put on a pedestal. I'll be sure to get an M50 out of curiosity though.
post #734 of 964

If the M50s are similar to the Roland RH-300s, as some have mentioned on this forum I will strongly disagree with the assumption that the M50s are overrated.

I find the Rolands to be excellent, that is if you are willing to EQ them a bit, the highs are very subdued so they definitely need EQ-ing.

But tonally they are very natural sounding, and at the moment I am enjoying them better than my Denon D5000s.

post #735 of 964

I don't think the M50 is overrated at all. Maybe I haven't heard the blue box version of the M50s and those are worse than the straight cable white box versions I have but I think they're worthy of the praise they get. Recessed mids? Sure, but they're not garbage and I rarely find the M50s to be at all sibilant.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › M50s overrated?