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

M50s overrated? - Page 64

post #946 of 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctowne View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senzen View Post
 

My only criteria is if they make music enjoyable, and the M50 sure do, even if they do sound better to me when connected to a full on amplifier, and even if there are bound to be better headphones. I'm seeing deals for these at $85 USD, at that price frankly a no brainer. The ATH-ESW9A sound interesting but I'm seeing them at $219...


Thanks guys. They definitely make music enjoyable, especially at their price. Think I'll stick with them for quite some time. Right now I don't have an amp to run them through so I was thinking about picking up a cheapo Fiio E6 for like 28 bucks on amazon, thoughts?

Sent from my LG G2

I'd say they make it cringe worthy because of the harsh treble, but okay then.

post #947 of 954

Actually using M50S driven by ZERO DAC (modded using ODIBU amp and some little DAC tweaks), fed by HIFACE TWO on Charged USB Hub, source is Foobar KS 24/192. Comparing to E11 amp or uDAC2 or whatever source like direct PO from SANSA players f.e., the lower band got much better control, got rendered, way better dynamics, not fatiguing anymore, even when still in charge, as deep as abyss, and I don't mean deep all the time just like for no reason. Mids are far more detailed and aired, creating better noticeable echo where intended, with quite good imaging and dynamics. Highs are now the full competitor to the rest of the band in amount, staging and layering, yet still not that interesting as could be, bit unclear but not distorted. But let's be frank. The phones can give you good times for a buck. Aimed on the mids and mainly, bass bass and bass, those are still not covering the rest of the wide band it is capable of. No, when properly driven, you get some good details, image and the stage, with interesting and entertaining moments within listening, no matter the genre. Only the comfort isn't really for long time listening.

 

@takato14 - :rolleyes: 


Edited by El Pino - 3/3/14 at 5:29pm
post #948 of 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pino View Post

 

@takato14 - :rolleyes:

Just to be fair, I put these on again for the first time in a few years, thinking that my memory of their sound might be a little bit rusty or exaggerated, but no. I can't believe I ever thought these were nice. Half of the vintage cheapies I've owned over the ages sound better than these do. 

 

They're sort of flat... sort of. The FR itself is sort of a frown, however the bass distortion punches up the low end a lot (which is what recesses the midrange) and there's a big 10k peak followed by heavy rolloff. This is unacceptable. These are supposed to be monitors; perceived flatness is of utmost priortity. Perhaps this is considered "better" for personal audio listening by some, but as far as Audio-Technica's R&D goes it's outright lazy and incompetent. I do recognize that they released a revision of the M50 with a slight driver and damping tweak; mine are the old version. This fixes the loose bass but the tonality problem is still there and this also increases the distortion throughout the whole frequency band; again, Audio-Technica's incompetence at its finest, half-assing the issue instead of actually fixing the design flaws. This is their top-of-the-line monitor, they should be putting more into it. There are a lot of monitors at the $100-120 price point and these are horridly underdesigned. The Sony MDR-V6/7506 destroys the M50 as a monitor for nearly half the cost, and there was a V7 and V8 above the V6

 

For music, their bass is too loose and their stereo width is noticeably squashed into the head. They don't have any depth or placement. The midrange suckout makes vocals sound hollow and the 10k peak is rude and jarring. Their detail and top end control is outright dismal; they sound hissy, resonant, and poorly extended. They may not as bad as I remember them in this regard, but its still worse than any headphone I currently own, and that puts the nails in the coffin for me. They're also a lot less comfortable than I remember; my ears are touching the baffle plate and feel rather squashed inside the pads.

 

The M50 is not good. It is poorly designed. It is not worth its asking price. And yes, it is grossly overrated.


Edited by takato14 - 3/3/14 at 9:10pm
post #949 of 954

And yet still way better than the 7506. :)

post #950 of 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

And yet still way better than the 7506. :)

How? Flatness is all that matters in monitoring and in that regard the 7506 is infinitely superior than EITHER version of the M50.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SonyMDRV6.pdf

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50.pdf

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50B2012.pdf


Edited by takato14 - 3/3/14 at 9:07pm
post #951 of 954

You should probably do some more of the recent readings on Innerfidelity-- specifically the ones talking about Dr. Olives's research on headphone target responses, and the review of the Focal headphones.

 

You should also probably not comment about bass distortion and 10khz spikes with steep rolloffs afterwards, because the V6 is the very embodiment of those comments.  It's a shrill sounding piece of trash.

post #952 of 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

You should probably do some more of the recent readings on Innerfidelity-- specifically the ones talking about Dr. Olives's research on headphone target responses.  

 

You should also probably not comment about bass distortion and 10khz spikes with steep rolloffs afterwards, because the V6 is the very embodiment of those comments.  It's a shrill sounding piece of trash.

You must be misinformed on how frequency responses work. You want flat for monitors, not what our ears perceive as neutral. They are not the same thing. 

 

When you factor in the V6's bass distortion to the FR, you are left with a nearly completely flat line from DC to 8kHz. The V6's 10k isn't a peak because it's in line with the rest of the FR. And yes, the V6 can sound pretty shrill and harsh in stock form. This is reflected in the 300Hz square wave response of the V6. However, this measurable lack of control is caused by driver/pad/baffle resonations; underneath that is a very clean, very detailed headphone. The proper pad swap can reveal this; my friend preferred his modded V6 to his Sennheiser HD600, and I agree with him. The stock pads are required for the perfect tonality, so even though they introduce poor sounding treble they are necessary because the V6 is a monitor and it needs to be flat. 

 

The M50's treble problems are modal problems with the driver and cannot be compensated for without modification to the transducer itself. The modal distortion is also the cause for their lack of soundstaging prowess. While this doesn't matter for monitoring, it obviously isn't good for music listening. So, the V6 is both the better monitor and the better subjective listening headphone in this situation with the right pad swap. Try Beyerdynamic EDT-231V pads and tell me what you think of it then. I'm sure you'll realize that the M50 is the shrill sounding piece of trash in this situation. The pads give the V6 a downward-slope frequency response with a ridiculously holographic soundstage and extremely competent detail and control.  


Edited by takato14 - 3/3/14 at 9:38pm
post #953 of 954

What an amazing conversation. 

post #954 of 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

What an amazing conversation. 

Agreed, I can't wait until another nublet necroposts and we can do this again.

 

Until then, take care.

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?