The Basshead Club - Page 322

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofastreamer 

quite funny as i could not sleep tonight, so i decided to do a A/B comparison between ie80 and mh1. and guess what!? the mh1 easily plays all the way down to about 22-25hz. the ie80 starts playing at 32! as for quantity the mh1 has about the quantity in sub bass, that the ie80 has at about half opened bass screw but without bloating in the upper bass registers. another thing i registered is that the mh1 has better soundstage depth but is a tiny tad smaller in width. mids, separation and highs are on a similiar level to my ears. so we have a clear winner. mh1 is also more comfortable to my ears.

I thought the IE80 had the wider soundstage of the two. However at stock, the MH1C has much nicer and cleaner bass. I've modded my IE80 and it now sound much nicer in all areas, although the mid bass is reduced further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myap2328 

Ok
.

Ok. Hav anyone hear the Westone's 3 or hav any others (Regardless of type of headphones as long as it has bass and not those bass-only crap everything else type) to recommend? Thx In Advance.

I have the Westone 3 and Shure SE215. Both are known to be relatively bass-friendly IEMs. The mid-bass hump on the W3 is fairly impressive, and has good extension on both ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myap2328 

I don't think the nu-force can be as good as the d5ks and any other headphones abv 400 bucks. Yes it may have the best bang of the buck but becos I don't get to try it and I dun think it can be even half the goodness of a 650 dollar headphones I think I am going to think a little more.

So anyone has experience with the d5ks and know of something which are better without being uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is loke the m-100 for me cos Im wearing specs. Dun forget abt the bass! I'm open to anything from IEMs to superaurals to around ears. I have a feeling the denon series are the best closed cans arnd cos anything higher up are open, agree? Any views on the Westone 3 and IE80? Any suggestions on supernaturals? I am thinking abt starting in the upper mid-fi section below 400usd but if everyone agrees the d5ks are gd I will grab them now cos its already discontinued.

Back to the Yamaha Pro 500 which some prominent Head-fiers have stated is one of, if not the best sounding closed headphone available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myap2328 

Yamaha PRO 500 better than Denon D5K?!?!?!? Are you sure, hav you a/b them or have someone a/b them. Or do u mean the pro500 is worth it's 400 bucks and the d5k is worth it's 650 buck respectively? I would really LOVE to start slowly at maybe a lower price phones like the nu-force but I just don't want to see the d5k to be unavailable. In such a frustrating state!!!

I am saying based on reviews there is a strong possibility that yes, they may sound better to you than the Denon 5K.  I would pose this question on that thread, but believe they would hold their own sonically and may be superior in some areas.  There are also many retailers that would provide easy return of the Pro 500 if they weren't "all that".  One other advantage of the Pro 500 is the option of portability which you don't have with the D5K.  The D5K might be $650 now because they are no longer available, but were selling under $500 for awhile.  I did own the D600 which was Denon's replacement to the D5K and felt they were inferior to even the M-100.  I would have the Pro 500 in my hands right now if I didn't go all out for the Ultrasone Signature DJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myap2328 

Hey Guys, I was bored and thought about categorizing headphones like this, is it correct?Headphones

[Audiophile Grade] •Abv $651•
-Denon D5000($999)

[Summit-fi]•$551-$650•
-Yamaha Pro 500 (Approx:$616)

[Hifi] •$451-$550•

[Upper-Midfi] •$351-$450•

[Midfi] •$201-$350•
Nuforce HP-800 (Approx:$230)

[Entry-Level] •Blw $200•

Sorry abt the confusing prices, to live in my country
would cost you. If any of you would second my categorizing
method please tell me!

One of the fundamental problems you will run into is that you're equating fidelity (at least it looks like it) with pricing, which may or may not work sometimes, but doesn't really have a causal connection. There are other reasons for a headphone to go up in price than pure fidelity (if I interpret your usage of the word correctly), such as how rare it is, marketing, manufacturing costs, build materials, and so on and so forth. Aside from that, I think the guys over at summit-fi would probably disagree on Pro 500 being summit-fi grade equipment, however, what do I know about that place?

1) It's all fine that you use pricing to separate your headphones, but you probably should leave it there. Just use the prices as names for your categories.

2) If you however want to use "hi-fi" "mid-fi" and so on as categories, I think it'll take a lot more research and you will probably run into concepts such as fidelity, neutrality and "naturality" and so on.

3) To be quite honest with you, I don't really understand what it is you want to rank - is it overall quality, sound quality, build quality, coolness factor, bass quality, bass quantity, "how true to the source they are", or a mixture of them all? You want to elaborate on this.

In the end though, it's your list so you decide whatever you want to list and therefore you set the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by myap2328 

Ta

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coq de Combat 

One of the fundamental problems you will run into is that you're equating fidelity (at least it looks like it) with pricing, which may or may not work sometimes, but doesn't really have a causal connection. There are other reasons for a headphone to go up in price than pure fidelity (if I interpret your usage of the word correctly), such as how rare it is, marketing, manufacturing costs, build materials, and so on and so forth. Aside from that, I think the guys over at summit-fi would probably disagree on Pro 500 being summit-fi grade equipment, however, what do I know about that place?

1) It's all fine that you use pricing to separate your headphones, but you probably should leave it there. Just use the prices as names for your categories.
2) If you however want to use "hi-fi" "mid-fi" and so on as categories, I think it'll take a lot more research and you will probably run into concepts such as fidelity, neutrality and "naturality" and so on.
3) To be quite honest with you, I don't really understand what it is you want to rank - is it overall quality, sound quality, build quality, coolness factor, bass quality, bass quantity, "how true to the source they are", or a mixture of them all? You want to elaborate on this.

In the end though, it's your list so you decide whatever you want to list and therefore you set the rules.
[/quote]

Thanks for your enlightenment but just to let you know that I place them according to price after I considered the sound quality. This list is for Bassy phones only but I only place headphones in that particular category if they are both supposed to be there and also in that price range. I suppose I could do this:

Midfi
ABC Brand (Price)

I am making this list not for all but for my personal preference which is Bassy with a bit of boom for the extra oomph and also neutrality in the mids and highs. No harsh highs or female vocals and also not ear fatiguing. I don't mind if it looks like a piece of crap or what it is made of(but this usually affects sq), as long as the sq is gd and its actually WEARABLE (Comfort) but it would not be very Impt cos a headphone comfortable for one may not be so for another.

Maybe after garnering more exp. with audio and headphones I can make a near-exhaustive list for bass heads. But of course after I earn enuf bucks first!

Okay, so if I understand you correctly your prioritized ranking is first for sound quality, and then for price? Personally I'd probably rank them as a whole, and skip the pricing, even though pricing may be of interest. Perhaps a weighted result of ranking per price unit or something along those lines, showcasing the "bang for buck" factor? As a matter of fact, I think "bang for bucks" are quite rare for enthusiasts, probably because pricing is of a lesser issue for many (and because of the law of diminishing returns), but I think it still serves a purpose. At least it could be an eye opener.

I still think you need to define better criterias, and as popular I think the terms "lo-fi", "mid-fi" and "hi-fi" are, I think you probably shouldn't use them. I think some people use them more or less to categorize by "pricing" and not by "fidelity"; "Mid-fi" becomes a unit to show how much a headphone costs instead of how "accurate" they are. Oh well, just my 2 cents here.

Getting punched in the head has never felt so good

Noooooooooooo, No beats, unless they are pros (and you get them at a huge discount). Had the MKII's and they sound good, but I think there could be something better for the money.