New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Basshead Club - Page 689  

post #10321 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post
 

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).

That sucks.

Do you have good return options?

post #10322 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaiibadboy View Post
 

That sucks.

Do you have good return options?


Bought from amazon so no prob. :P That's why I gladly order from amazon because it's probably the easiest place to return stuff, you just select a pre defined return reason and print out the paper for the return and send it back and the money is back on the account as soon as they scan the barcode on it. They even pay a bit off the shipping cost back to them, about half of that so I tend to lose only like 7 EUR. :)


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/26/14 at 9:43am
post #10323 of 11259

I mentioned my TH900's just got back from Mark Lawton Audio - the following is what I posted on the TH900 thread.  I post this here simply due to the incredible amount and quality of bass these now put out.  A basshead's dream with limitless bass (HBB take note buddy).

 

Ok, two days since I got them and I'm at a loss for words.  I'm not one of these guys who can spew all the terms like some of you (cold, warm, euphonic, etc) but these TH900's sound better than stock.  The bass was always present and strong - it is now so tight and deep and seems limitless how strong it can be with not a speck of distortion or muddiness.  And I've pushed them to the "cup shaking level".   Rarely do I go that way but I had to test them, right?  :basshead:

 

Two test tracks I always use on checking out new phones, auditions, recently modded units - Steely Dan's Aja (title track - has an amazing small group of drum solos) and Hurry Hurry and Deeper, both by Pete Belasco off the Deeper album (the whole album is A+).  I put them on my iPod Touch feeding through a NuForce iDo DAC into my Pioneer Spec 1 & 2 vintage speaker amp system.  Oodles of power through the headphone out.  Black background - no noise whatsoever.  

 

Lest anyone say "low quality files" - I did the same test with the Aja CD and album on vinyl from my original purchase back in the 70's and same result.  Astounding sound. 

 

Someone should check out those tracks - good music and great for basshead folks.  Anyway, the sound overall is very rich, very balanced, yet is bass-heavy if that makes any sense.  What I mean is I don't sense any area that is not clear and well represented.  Highs are sparkly (there's one of those terms), the mids sound good (voices are like Donald Fagen is in the room with you) and the bass feels bottomless (no end in sight). 

 

I used to feel they were about the equal of my D7000 (which are Lawton modded) but now they are better.  I have to listen to more A/B stuff like the above, which I had no time for last night, before I can say how much better they are, but I cannot imagine a better headphone.  Oh, and the soundstage is as close to open as you can imagine.   You know when you hear something way out to the back left that you think is someone trying to get your attention?  Yep, these do that a lot. 

 

The $129 cost including shipping is a pittance in the world of $400 cable swaps and $300 cup changes.  There is no mod I'd recommend higher than Mark Lawton damping - and he has blown me away twice now.  First time was with my stock D7000 - sent it to him for the damping and his angle pads - what I got back was a great headphone after sending him a good one.  Now I sent him a great headphone and got back what to me seems the perfect sound signature for my liking.  No, I haven't heard a Stax 009 but I'm so impressed by the TH900 that I am quite content. 

 

I'm a Denon/Fostex fanboy and after auditioning or owning over 40 headphones I've found the signature sweet spot for me.  Own a LA2000 that's got extra deep cups and a D600 as well.  Love them all. 


Edited by Oregonian - 3/26/14 at 10:35am
post #10324 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaiibadboy View Post

What is the source and test track? I liked these amped. Not enough bass but thought they were nice for R&B. Congrats btw. 
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. 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.
- I was unsure pre burn in. Never believed in it until those.

- The q40 bass is more in qty in the mix and has better texture but the yamaha hits and rumbles a little more for sure on the songs I used.

- The timbre of the yamaha to me was better as well as the soundstage and imaging. They are more transparent IMO. I do agree with the treble. As far as the balance goes the yamaha has a little boost in the upper mids and treble but over all its bass balance to me was more accurate than gratifying.

Preference wise it is was a tiny bit bright and splashy in the treble for me as well. I just really appreciated its attack and timbre compared to the headphones I had next to it at the time like the 7520 and akg k545. As far as rough mixing goes I think they would be a good studio tool because the bass and mids are pretty and the highs are only boosted a little.

But to each his own. from jump I liked them but I didnt like the lower mid murkiness I thought I heard pre burn in.
Edited by grizzlybeast - 3/26/14 at 11:43am
post #10325 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

1. I was unsure pre burn in. Never believed in it until those.

2. The q40 bass is more in qty in the mix and has better texture but the yamaha hits and rumbles a little more for sure on the songs I used.

3. The timbre of the yamaha to me we're better as well as the soundstage and imaging. They are more transparent IMO. I do agree with the treble.


1. They will have to change too much of what is realistic for me to start liking them

2. For me the Q40 hits harder, punches with more impact probably due to the slightly stronger midbass. Due to the slightly lesser amount midbass on the Yamaha, the bass has a slightly deeper tone to it but I'm looking for impact/punch, not subbass quantity.

3. Timbre to my taste/preference is better on Q40, the Q40 have the mids more in-your-face which is important to me to get into the music and get the feeling of want to dance, singalong etc. The louder shrilly highs of Yamaha pushed the mids slightly further away or I'd say more like I limited the listening volume according to the highs on the Yamaha so then the mids were very slightly less "in-my-face" when the highs were on a comfortable level with the Yamaha. Soundstage was a lot wider on the Yamaha but depth-wise the Q40 is fairly good. They are like the opposite in this regard, Q40 is very narrow but fairly deep and Yamaha is wide but not very deep. Judging from my trackrecord of having used fairly narrow-width soundstaging headphones in the past it seems like depth perception is slightly important than width for me but ideally I'd want both to be good ofc. Imaging to me is better on the Q40.

For bass, hardstyle that I listen to is a bit different, unlike HBB, I'm not into that singletone subbass humpage of hiphop. I prefer more snappy, punchy impactful bass hits which Hardstyle is about, not so much about depth. Hardstyle is more "narrowband" bass boost which leads to more focused bass that can go louder at the peaking frequency due to being more narrow and thus not as audible (it's more about the feel). Hiphop for example has a deeper bass focus in comparison and has a pretty wide boost and not so peaky boost. Hiphop is like earthquake-like bass, rumbly, slow, more audible but "softer". Hardstyle is like getting hit by a hammer, faster and very focused impact and has big impact where it hits but doesn't rumble so much. (well obviously it does at live events at big speaker setups but not for headphone listening but I still get decent amount rumble with it due to Q40's bass boost + ZO2.1 @ lvl14-15 or so).


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/26/14 at 12:09pm
post #10326 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post
 


1. They will have to change too much of what is realistic for me to start liking them

2. For me the Q40 hits harder, punches with more impact probably due to the slightly stronger midbass. Due to the slightly lesser amount midbass on the Yamaha, the bass has a slightly deeper tone to it but I'm looking for impact/punch, not subbass quantity.

3. Timbre to my taste/preference is better on Q40, the Q40 have the mids more in-your-face which is important to me to get into the music and get the feeling of want to dance, singalong etc. The louder shrilly highs of Yamaha pushed the mids slightly further away or I'd say more like I limited the listening volume according to the highs on the Yamaha so then the mids were very slightly less "in-my-face" when the highs were on a comfortable level with the Yamaha. Soundstage was a lot wider on the Yamaha but depth-wise the Q40 is fairly good. They are like the opposite in this regard, Q40 is very narrow but fairly deep and Yamaha is wide but not very deep. Judging from my trackrecord of having used fairly narrow-width soundstaging headphones in the past it seems like depth perception is slightly important than width for me but ideally I'd want both to be good ofc. Imaging to me is better on the Q40.

For bass, hardstyle that I listen to is a bit different, unlike HBB, I'm not into that singletone subbass humpage of hiphop. I prefer more snappy, punchy impactful bass hits which Hardstyle is about, not so much about depth. Hardstyle is more "narrowband" bass boost which leads to more focused bass that can go louder at the peaking frequency due to being more narrow and thus not as audible (it's more about the feel). Hiphop for example has a deeper bass focus in comparison and has a pretty wide boost and not so peaky boost. Hiphop is like earthquake-like bass, rumbly, slow, more audible but "softer". Hardstyle is like getting hit by a hammer, faster and very focused impact and has big impact where it hits but doesn't rumble so much. (well obviously it does at live events at big speaker setups but not for headphone listening but I still get decent amount rumble with it due to Q40's bass boost + ZO2.1 @ lvl14-15 or so).

thats cool man well we have have different tastes. 

 

I will agree with this:

q40 has better balance to my preference for sure

yamaha is more wide than deep (though alpha pads helped depthout but made the bass a little more boomy almost negatively)

yamaha highs are a little grainy and a bit boosted

yamaha mids are neutral

 

disagreements:

Timbre isnt balance and the timbres of the yamaha are a lot more natural and realistic. There is more resolve and accuracy in the notes even though the lower mids of the q40 are a little stronger. yamaha was a little more transparent.

 

I kept playing several tracks to see which one hit and rumbled harder really desiring to say the q40 did because I was reluctant to go against the grain but the yamaha was clearly more felt than the q40 on the songs I tested while the q40 was more consistant regardless of song and had better texture. 

 

The imaging is a toss up but I felt the yamaha did really well there also.

 

Over all if I could take the timbre of the yamaha and everything else of the q40 I think it would be a hit.

 

I think with my priorities on the fidelity of tones the yamaha won out barely. That could be because I'm a singer first and hip hop head second. I was totally impressed by the q40 and it did make me feel the yamaha was over priced. But when the yamaha was next to other headphones it made them feel overpriced. So the q40 is NO JOKE.


Edited by grizzlybeast - 3/26/14 at 12:49pm
post #10327 of 11259

How do the Pandora VI compare like in these aspects?

post #10328 of 11259
I am trying to remember the midbass but dont recall a big hump. The sub bass can hit a little harder and has way more mids than both, it has an upper mid range emphasis, maybe called entry level basshead,less grain/harsh highs. A little brighter than q40 maybe but not as splashy as yamaha. Very detailed and fairly fast. Not comfortable, highs are good. The bass is different in that I would like it tighter but it still has decent resolution. It has a very clear sound with average soundstage depth and width. Way better clarity. Wow factor out the box isn't much until you compare it to what's around it and then u see its glory.
post #10329 of 11259

That Pandora seems interesting.

 

Anyone here have a set?

post #10330 of 11259

Mine will be here on Saturday. I'll update y'all once I get them. 

post #10331 of 11259
Maybe yamaha has sone issues making each pair of headphones sound the same ^.^
post #10332 of 11259
Diff set ups as well. The Yamaha def sounded diff with dif amping. I wonder if the q40 is scalable. Ie I hated it with the x3 but loved it from my iMac out
Edited by grizzlybeast - 3/26/14 at 5:36pm
post #10333 of 11259
Hmm... I haven't even listened to rap on these cans, a genre I listened to at least 3 times a week before I had the JVC's... I now know what I was missing out on with these cans. Lol. This sounds at least 4X better with these than my previous 3 headphones...
post #10334 of 11259
I wonder why headphone companies havent just had two drivers, have the back of one open and the other one closed back. The closed back one for bass. Ya know?

But then again, i guess i dont really know these things well enough.
Edited by sloomingbla - 3/26/14 at 5:47pm
post #10335 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

Diff set ups as well. The Yamaha def sounded diff with dif amping. I wonder if the q40 is scalable. Ie I hated it with the x3 but loved it from my iMac out

 

With an e12 on my stupid bass levels it needed a slight decrease but the lower lows were nice. I thought Etta James "At Last" sounded awesome. 

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