New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Basshead Club - Page 688  

post #10306 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

I get it, regardless of the soundstage width and depth I have yet to hear a closed that sounded open like an he500 for example. but its all good though. I used to sit infront of my pioneer sdjo8 speakers and turn the bass up while listening to music through the sennheiser hd650 at the same time lol. It kinda worked actually.tongue_smile.gif

Have you heard the TH600 or TH900? My TH600 sounds more open than my HE500
post #10307 of 11259
Deleted
Edited by spurxiii - 3/25/14 at 10:08pm
post #10308 of 11259
You must be such a bass head to do that grizzly
post #10309 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurxiii View Post

Have you heard the TH600 or TH900? My TH600 sounds more open than my HE500

Open as in no cup reverberation/ hear through like you can hear the sound actually leave the cups. I know that's not the definition of open on head-fi but that is what I mean. Or do you mean open in soundstage? Cause I too have heard hp's that have better depth and width than the he 500.

You could be right I shouldn't knock it till I try it but it's just hard to believe.
post #10310 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post


Open as in no cup reverberation/ hear through like you can hear the sound actually leave the cups. I know that's not the definition of open on head-fi but that is what I mean. Or do you mean open in soundstage? Cause I too have heard hp's that have better depth and width than the he 500.

You could be right I shouldn't knock it till I try it but it's just hard to believe.

I believe some people really like the bass of the Philips Fidelio X1. It's open. I don't know the quantity of the bass, but it's been MuppetFace approved, so it's probably not all that bad.

post #10311 of 11259

@spurxiii i guess i am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post
 

I believe some people really like the bass of the Philips Fidelio X1. It's open. I don't know the quantity of the bass, but it's been MuppetFace approved, so it's probably not all that bad.

I say its bass is pretty darn good. I liked it a lot. I just didnt like the distance of instruments and busy songs sounded toooo airy. I do want another but I am preoccupied with others

post #10312 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

Open as in no cup reverberation/ hear through like you can hear the sound actually leave the cups. I know that's not the definition of open on head-fi but that is what I mean. Or do you mean open in soundstage? Cause I too have heard hp's that have better depth and width than the he 500.

You could be right I shouldn't knock it till I try it but it's just hard to believe.
I'm not sure about hearing the sound leaving the cup. My ears can't tell these things so. Maybe hearing the sound leaving the cup is a psychological thing, you know it's open so you expect it to sound open. I dunno
post #10313 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post
 

I say its bass is pretty darn good. I liked it a lot. I just didnt like the distance of instruments and busy songs sounded toooo airy. I do want another but I am preoccupied with others

I would love to have it, but I have a hard time convincing myself of buying open backed headphones due to me having a family. It's never really quiet around here.

post #10314 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by razor5cl View Post

Wait, since when were the SRH1540 Bass head cans? I heard they were typical Shure mid focused fare.

 



Nope, they're entry level basshead cans.
post #10315 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloomingbla View Post

Ah. My objective 2 arrived, and i love it.

Finally, there is no doubt or need for upgrading, my djs sound perfect to my ears. Only things i may consider now are the zo3 and th900s, in the very far future.

Nirvana biggrin.gif

 

add an Odac to the bunch and youre pretty much set for life :smile_phones:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiCore View Post
 

Okay, I'm sending also the SRH1540 back. Why? I have odd ears and I hear some annoying sharpness in the upper mids on some albums. Probably going back to DT770 as I feel somehow drown to them ;)

Also from all the basshead phones I heared lately (SRH1540, HD8 DJ, Fidelio L1, Pro900, D600, Signature DJ) they have the best balance and really good/strong subbass properly EQed.

 

Are there any other headphones I should look at? Probably Q40, but they're not that easy to get in Europe anymore (had to cancel my order once).

 

oldschool denon perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post
 

 

(lol)

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I'm on my laptop so I don't have the photos of me working with Skrillex.. Now would have been a good time to post them.

Instead, here is Dizzee Rascal performing:

 

 

 

and a sound/line check for Avicii:

 

 

 

The Offspring:

 

 

If you haven't heard music from "Shlohmo", you're missing out! Not for everyone, but definitely for me.

 

 

man... youre my hero :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiCore View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by razor5cl View Post

Wait, since when were the SRH1540 Bass head cans? I heard they were typical Shure mid focused fare.

 



Nope, they're entry level basshead cans.


did you eq? how much? how did they respond?

post #10316 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr did you eq? how much? how did they respond?

 



I always EQ bass, as there are no phones which aren't lacking in bass for me wink.gif
Anyway, some HP response good to EQing, some not - in the case of the Shure's, the bass was becoming too boomy crawling into the mids (for example the DT770 bass' becomes very strong, but still manages to stay in place). In general, these Shure's aren't the best HP to EQ - almost as if they were tuned to not allow drastic EQ changes.
post #10317 of 11259

Listening to out of box impressions of Yamaha MT220.

The bass seems decent, not superb, slightly more subbass skewed than midbass, I'd need a tiny bit more midbass for the hardstyle to sound correct, a very tiny boost at 125Hz slider and it sounds better (more in-balance with the subbass). Quantity wise a bit lower than Q40, but still decent, would put it as entry level basshead. Texture is above average but the subbass can slightly mask the finer details.

Mids are pretty much neutral sounding, neither too warm nor cold and neither distant or up-front, so neutral, can't either detect any upper-mid resonance peaks from a quick listen which is a fairly common issue. 

Highs are slightly on the rough side, there's tiny bit graininess present and it's tiny bit boosted, very slightly too much for my tastes, a very very slight cut around 8kHz helps but I wish they were softer overall and not so "shrill"/rough. I personally rather take a softer highs texture than rough as I find it unnatural sounding if it's too rough, I never hear highs like that in real-life so.

Soundstage seems pretty okay, not as amazing as I had thought it to be, a bit more oval shaped, so not as much depth as width. Imaging doesn't impress me that much, Q40 has a smaller soundstaging but better imaging (easier to pinpoint stuff). 

Comfort is pretty good, the clamping is tiny bit lower than my taste ideally would want as I prefer slightly tighter clamp. Since I'm used to lighter headphones the Q40 is more comfortable for me to wear and Yamaha MT220 starts stressing my neck after a while.

At this point I'm very unsure about the Yamahas but they are still new so will give them more time.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/26/14 at 8:16am
post #10318 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post
 

Listening to out of box impressions of Yamaha MT220.

The bass seems decent, not superb, slightly more subbass skewed than midbass, I'd need a tiny bit more midbass for the hardstyle to sound correct, a very tiny boost at 125Hz slider and it sounds better (more in-balance with the subbass). Quantity wise a bit lower than Q40, but still decent, would put it as entry level basshead. Texture is above average but the subbass can slightly mask the finer details.

Mids are pretty much neutral sounding, neither too warm nor cold and neither distant or up-front, so neutral, can't either detect any upper-mid resonance peaks from a quick listen which is a fairly common issue. 

Highs are slightly on the rough side, there's tiny bit graininess present and it's tiny bit boosted, very slightly too much for my tastes, a very very slight cut around 8kHz helps but I wish they were softer overall and not so "shrill"/rough.

Soundstage seems pretty okay, not as amazing as I had thought it to be, a bit more oval shaped, so not as much depth as width. Imaging doesn't impress me that much, Q40 has a smaller soundstaging but better imaging (easier to pinpoint stuff). 

Comfort is pretty good, the clamping is tiny bit lower than my taste ideally would want as I prefer slightly tighter clamp. Since I'm used to lighter headphones the Q40 is more comfortable for me to wear and Yamaha MT220 starts stressing my neck after a while.

At this point I'm very unsure about the Yamahas but they are still new so will give them more time.

 

What is the source and test track? I liked these amped. Not enough bass but thought they were nice for R&B. Congrats btw. 

post #10319 of 11259

I use Realtek ALC1150 onboard on the ASRock Extreme6 board with onboard amps and digiZoid ZO2.1. I have a SoundBlaster ZxR sitting on the shelf too as I prefer the sound of the onboard which is by far the best onboard soundcard I've ever used but I will probably have to give ZxR a try with Yamaha as it could have better synergy and the ZxR is pretty warm sounding which is exactly what I'd need, a more warm/smooth sounding source to get closer to my preferred sound.  I have to set the bass boost a few levels higher to get to that preferred level compared to Q40. 

The main prob as it is now, seems to be the highs, they are a bit too shrill which creates a slightly cold signature that doesn't make me get into the music, I'd want a tiny bit more warmth, think Tube amps and the sound would be far better. Vocals and hi-hats etc doesn't have that much raspiness to them in real-life as I'm currently getting with the Yamaha, it's more the character than quantity of the highs that is the issue.

EDIT: Doesn't look like the result out of ZxR is any better, if using the amped headphone out the mids slightly improve (the only real thing I truly enjoy out of the ZxR in comparison to the onboard).


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/26/14 at 9:23am
post #10320 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsiCore View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr did you eq? how much? how did they respond?

 

 



I always EQ bass, as there are no phones which aren't lacking in bass for me wink.gif
Anyway, some HP response good to EQing, some not - in the case of the Shure's, the bass was becoming too boomy crawling into the mids (for example the DT770 bass' becomes very strong, but still manages to stay in place). In general, these Shure's aren't the best HP to EQ - almost as if they were tuned to not allow drastic EQ changes.

 

im with you on the eq mate. its a shame to hear about the shures, i was kinda of fantasizing about maybe making a future purchase in some months to come. ill keep an eye out for them and try and find some more reviews. the signature on them looks really good with a nice fat sub bass response. thanks for your input :beyersmile:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked