New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Basshead Club - Page 344

post #5146 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post

Mmmm... I guess I still don't understand.

 

From the way I see it the design/build materials/comfort/style is basically the same from Beats to Yamaha (since yamaha basically just copied the Beats). This is actually quite fascinating to me because basically yamaha removed all the other variables except for sound quality by copying the Beats design. 

 

The Beats are OVERpriced at $300, because they have muddy bass/bad sound quality. So that means they should NOT be worth $300? ...So let's say maybe the range is $100-200 for muddy bass headphones? if you think the Beats are overpriced and muddy bass should cost under $150 (since Audio-Technica M50 under $150 is is supposed to have better sound than the Beats)... then Yamaha is charging an extra $250 to remove the mud from the bass...

 

The Yamaha Pro 500 is $400!!!! exact same everything except for the sound quality. So the cost of NOT having muddy bass is $100 more than the overpriced Beats? Legitimately, it costs $100 extra to tune the sound to make it less muddy??? ...and this is considered to be a fair price by audiophiles???

 

isn't the main complaints against Beats that they are overcharging for their sonic qualities?? I don't really see how Yamaha is doing anything differently =S

 

...I think there might already be closed headphones with good bass that are not muddy under $300???

 

I understand where you are coming from, and as I have not heard the Yamaha Pro headphones, I am unable to offer any insight as to its sonic properties and if it is deserving of its relatively high price tag. Just because it looks like the Beats (an unfortunate mistake) doesn't necessarily mean it sounds anything like it, even in a reduced-bass-quantity form.

 

The reason why I feel the Beats Solo/Studio are terribly overpriced is because I can get something similar (or even better sounding) for a whole lot less. Again, the Yamahas may be overpriced, but that is a conclusion that can only be reached after actively listening with it.

post #5147 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post

hey quick question to clear up my confusion.

 

so the beats studio at $300 is definitely a rip off right? muddy bass, flimsy build quality, and false advertising.

 

...but the yamaha pro 500 is legit right? $400, bass-emphasis, mostly plastic, really original design, and truthful advertising. After all, when I think v-shaped sound signature, I totally think sound that is "so real, so clear, so enveloping" that can "authentically reproduce any style of music." And I can take comfort in the fact that these headphones are "leading choice of professionals for studio and concert gear."

 

Just I am curious why the yamaha pro 500 is considered legit rather than overpriced junk similar to the beats. does it really take $100 to make the bass less muddy? I think some experienced head-fi-ers recommended these to me, and now I am just confused =S


Being as objective as possible, even the Beats isn't a ripoff if they meet the owner's needs, even if the owner's needs are less about sound quality and more about fashion/name brand.  It all depends what is on your personal list of check boxes.  There are good sound/cost headphones at every price range.  As RPG said, there are diminishing returns the higher you go with price.  Since this is all subjective, my two cents is that the best value in the $300 range for bass and overall sound quality, as well as portability and even style is the V-Moda M-100.  I consider it to be the total package.

post #5148 of 11183

I haven't either heard the PRO 500, but if I see several experienced listeners with good experience of various headphones raving about the sound quality of it that's good enough for me to be a believer, that doesn't mean I expect me personally to love it though because I'm well aware of the importance of our subjective preferences in sound.

 

For me there exists two different kind of values about the headphones; the objective and the subjective value.

 

The objective value I'd treat as an average value based on every user's feedback and how they stand like compared to their other headphones. The average of all opinions together so to speak which will form within time when the headphone has been out for a while and enough people have tried them and the more people have tried the headphones the more accurate the "objective value" will become. The Yamahas have only recieved very good feedback on the sound quality so far so there's a very high objective value but it may be just luck that every1 that tried them happened to have very specific taste towards the sound signature of the Yamahas.

 

The subjective value on the other hand is just the inviduals "opinion" on them which can very a lot from person to person depending on their sonical preferences. Take me as an example, the Q40 which I personally love which costs about $120 has a subjective value much higher as it happens to pair well with my own preferred sonical taste, and is more to me valued around $225 or so. The objective value I'd expect to be quite a bit lower though, maybe around 140-$150 as there is definitely those that won't like the quite compressed soundstage or the less than ideal separation or pretty strong clamping force (I happen to like the strong clamping!). Then obviously different people will priority different aspects differently, for me sound quality is far far more important than anything else, that's what I want to pay for, comfort probably comes 2nd place and then durability as a 3rd one etc and portable or not has no meaning to me. So it will vary a bit depending on how they prioritize things.

 

As another example, take Denon D1100, this headphone I think I paid 117 EUR or so for which was a good price as I see it costing right now $199 on amazon.com for example :O This is a headphone that doesn't suit my sonical tastes at all. I'd on a subjective rating value it more like 70~$80 only but the objective value I'd expect more to land around $120-130 maybe (talking only amongst headphone enthusiasts) as on this site I've seen several people liking them a lot also among other bassy 100~$200 headphones.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/4/13 at 6:53am
post #5149 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post

Mmmm... I guess I still don't understand.

 

From the way I see it the design/build materials/comfort/style is basically the same from Beats to Yamaha (since yamaha basically just copied the Beats). This is actually quite fascinating to me because basically yamaha removed all the other variables except for sound quality by copying the Beats design. 

 

The Beats are OVERpriced at $300, because they have muddy bass/bad sound quality. So that means they should NOT be worth $300? ...So let's say maybe the range is $100-200 for muddy bass headphones? if you think the Beats are overpriced and muddy bass should cost under $150 (since Audio-Technica M50 under $150 is is supposed to have better sound than the Beats)... then Yamaha is charging an extra $250 to remove the mud from the bass...

 

The Yamaha Pro 500 is $400!!!! exact same everything except for the sound quality. So the cost of NOT having muddy bass is $100 more than the overpriced Beats? Legitimately, it costs $100 extra to tune the sound to make it less muddy??? ...and this is considered to be a fair price by audiophiles???

 

isn't the main complaints against Beats that they are overcharging for their sonic qualities?? I don't really see how Yamaha is doing anything differently =S

 

...I think there might already be closed headphones with good bass that are not muddy under $300???

Let me simplify what everyone just said. The actual cost of building one Beats (incl. the materials and packaging and marketing-[The yamaha still have advertisement rite?]) is for example $120, but Beats is charging $300 cos they know there is a demand. However, though the build quality and packagin and etc. of the Yamaha pro500 is the same, actual time and work is spent in the sound, making it cost maybe 300 and they charge 400 to earn a profit. Do you understand now? Basically, Beats charge more than they should because there is a demand so they earn more, while the Yamaha is actually priced properly because it is worth it to pay 400 (They still gotta make a profit rite?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

You are missing the point. It's about relative sound quality performance, how they compare versus other headphones which is the only good measurement of pricing. The hobby itself is very very (I can't find the word I'm looking for atm), "you don't get a lot of additional improvement for price paid" the higher you go in this hobby. Paying $1000 for a headphone is certainly not going to be worth it for any1 else but a headphone enthusiasts because for a mainstream listener the sound quality will probably seem almost the same while a headphone enthusiast finds a bigger difference as what seems like a small improvement for the mainstream guy is a lot bigger for the enthusiast who cares for all the subtle differences.

 

Relatively speaking the Beats Studios compare more like 50~$70 worth sound quality and the PROs maybe around $150 or so but the Yamaha PRO500 seems to offer sound quality worth that of $400 headphone at the very least when you compare to other closed headphones, some users even say it may be among the best closed headphones under $1000 (there doesn't exist that many closed headphones in the 500 - $1000 pricerange though).

 

For you it's a matter of aknowledging the hobby isn't very forgiving in terms of price vs performance. But having said that I also cannot stress enough that personal taste plays a big role, that it may sound like a $400 headphone doesn't mean YOU will have to like it because we all have a bit different ideas how you want it to sound like.

 

I beg to differ to this statement. The best closed (and probably "bassy-audiophile-grade") headphones under $1000 is the Signature DJ, according to both Craigster75 and Anakchan.

Though I have yet to try them, I think the words of the people I mentioned before are quite reliable, don't you agree? But like the statement that can be seen from your every post,

"sound is a subjective matter", a hd800 can sound not as good as others described because it lacks punch in the bass area, "John" may think it's no good. I had yet own a proper headphone but I am soon going to.

However, after reading so many threads, reviews of several websites, talking to salespersons, the topic of "What headphones should I buy?" is very subjective.

 

Eg. Clarity= LCD-2. , Clear and Airy Sound with Impeccable Detail= HD800

 

Though the LCD 2 may be good at detail, the hd800 is great at it and the hd800 can be good at clarity but the LCD-2 is great at it.

 

Just realised I typed so much about such a trivial matter.


Edited by myap2328 - 3/4/13 at 7:22am
post #5150 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by myap2328 View Post

I beg to differ to this statement. The best closed (and probably "bassy-audiophile-grade") headphones under $1000 is the Signature DJ, according to both Craigster75 and Anakchan.

Though I have yet to try them, I think the words of the people I mentioned before are quite reliable, don't you agree?

 

That's why I wrote "among the best" not THE BEST. wink.gif I actually even had Signature DJs in my mind when I wrote that as the probably better sounding one (objectively seen, subjectively some people out of 10 people may still prefer Yamhas possibly but majority would probably opt for the Signature DJs) but couldn't be bothered to mention it as I already wrote "among the best" not implying PRO 500 would be better or even as good, just among the better ones. :P When taking into account price vs performance the PRO500 will probably keep up well against Sig DJs though as I doubt Signature DJs are like twice as good (not like in this hobby you'd ever get such upgrades spending twice as much, for audiophiles even getting like 30-50% sound quality boost paying twice the price would be concidered rather great deal xD).

 

So yes I perfectly agree with what you wrote above of course.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/4/13 at 7:56am
post #5151 of 11183

Would you consider the love of headphones (or sound) as more of an art form or a science? The objective vs subjective debate is oft-heard, and I think it merits some discussion, at least among bassheads.

 

Basshead cans aren't generally very well-regarded in the world of headphones/IEMs. In fact, they are probably at the bottom rung, with the detailed cans and treble friendly headphones held in better regard. Consequently, greater bass quantity is quite frowned upon by the audiophile headphone community. However, for someone like myself, cans with good/great/massive bass is more important to me than say soundstaging or clarity. Hence, I actually value the XB500 (for example) greater than a Sennheiser Momentum. This does not translate well to actual value, since the latter is  3-4 times more expensive than the XB500.

 

I really love cans with loads of bass, and this has seen me pick up quite a lot of bassy cans over the past year. I don't believe I am an expert in sound, but I know what I like, and I am willing to pay for it. Coming back to this discussion, the Beats Solo/Studio are only worth as much as how much one wishes to pay. If he/she loves the sound and style, who's going to stop them for picking one up? I might disagree with the value of a Beats Studio relative to its basshead brethren, and yes, it is overpriced, but really, how can you determine its true worth if its sound signature perfectly matches one's preferences?

post #5152 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malevolent View Post

Would you consider the love of headphones (or sound) as more of an art form or a science? The objective vs subjective debate is oft-heard, and I think it merits some discussion, at least among bassheads.

 

Basshead cans aren't generally very well-regarded in the world of headphones/IEMs. In fact, they are probably at the bottom rung, with the detailed cans and treble friendly headphones held in better regard. Consequently, greater bass quantity is quite frowned upon by the audiophile headphone community. However, for someone like myself, cans with good/great/massive bass is more important to me than say soundstaging or clarity. Hence, I actually value the XB500 (for example) greater than a Sennheiser Momentum. This does not translate well to actual value, since the latter is  3-4 times more expensive than the XB500.

 

I really love cans with loads of bass, and this has seen me pick up quite a lot of bassy cans over the past year. I don't believe I am an expert in sound, but I know what I like, and I am willing to pay for it. Coming back to this discussion, the Beats Solo/Studio are only worth as much as how much one wishes to pay. If he/she loves the sound and style, who's going to stop them for picking one up? I might disagree with the value of a Beats Studio relative to its basshead brethren, and yes, it is overpriced, but really, how can you determine its true worth if its sound signature perfectly matches one's preferences?


For me, the science is irrelevant and the graphs go out the window as soon as I put the headphones on my ears and press play.  Either the sound they reproduce moves me or doesn't. 

post #5153 of 11183

That is why I talk about objective value vs subjective value above, it's impossible for any1 but yourself to determine subjective value but objective value can be determined by the average of every people's opinion. One may concider a headphone worth $100, for another person it's worth $200, then the objective truth would be $150. The more feedback the more accurate the average value will get. Objective value can be help users to to be pinpointed towards the right direction of what's a good headphone choice for the price paid in general as in average the more higher regarded objectively seen headphone will in average still have a higher chance appealing to the person than a headphone with a lower objective value. But since subjective value can still differ a lot from the objective value, it's important to know your personal taste and preferences in determing what's best for you.

 

I think it's more about audio physiology more than anything else. What do we want to experience? What makes us get the enjoyment when listening to music? How do we want to listen? Why do certain sounds appeal to us more than the others? etc These are the kinds of questions that constantly I keep thinkering about. I bet when I get older I have written a book about audio physiology if it keeps going like this. ^^


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/4/13 at 8:39am
post #5154 of 11183

Ah, so many opinions. I guess I'll throw mine in. I only buy headphones based on the drivers they have. Mostly everything else can be modified to fit my preferences.

 

RPG: You can't average two subjective perspectives and get an objective average. I see where you're coming at though. The more input we get for a particular headphone, the easier it is to estimate what type of sound we should expect from it. I, for one, tend to rely on frequency graphs, square graphs, and whatnot to really decide my purchase, especially on higher end headphones. It seems the more expensive the headphone is, the more subjective the reviews are. In those situations, objective analysis bear more fruit than subjective impressions. Subjective reviews still serve as a nice reference when buying headphones, though. Also, I think you mean audio psychology, not physiology. 

 

Anyways, I was screwing around with my HFI-780s again, and I found out there's some tape behind the magnet on the driver. When you take the tape off, there are four small holes in the magnet, and with all of them opened up, the soundstage is increased, there is more bass quantity, and the treble is sharper. It still sounds like crap though...

post #5155 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by myap2328 View Post

Let me simplify what everyone just said. The actual cost of building one Beats (incl. the materials and packaging and marketing-[The yamaha still have advertisement rite?]) is for example $120, but Beats is charging $300 cos they know there is a demand. However, though the build quality and packagin and etc. of the Yamaha pro500 is the same, actual time and work is spent in the sound, making it cost maybe 300 and they charge 400 to earn a profit. Do you understand now? Basically, Beats charge more than they should because there is a demand so they earn more, while the Yamaha is actually priced properly because it is worth it to pay 400 (They still gotta make a profit rite?).

 

 

If you think Yamaha spent more than $100 on manufacturing costs for a pair of headphones made out of aluminum and plastic, you are severely underestimating the capabilities of modern-day mass-production, cheap overseas labor, and cheap raw materials. They are charging for the brand name. In fact, the Beats probably cost more to manufacture due to the additional cost of its noise-cancelling circuitry. How much R&D do you think Yamaha did? V-Moda went through a lot more trouble with their "crowd-sourcing" multiple revision R&D process for the M100s and their headphones are still only $310 with higher quality materials and free customization. Some people still consider that the M100 is overpriced at $300.

 

While I am sure that the Pro 500 headphones sounds decent, there is no reason that they should be priced at $400 when all other portable, closed, bassy headphones can be found under $300. For $400 can get you the HE 400. No matter how much you love bass, $400 is kind of ridiculous for a colored pair of headphones when you can get legitimate flat, accurate, balanced, studio/monitoring type headphones for even cheaper and EQ the bass yourself. You can't honestly say that the extra $100 is really giving you anything else except for a slightly different sound signature (which may be subjectively better or worse)

 

If people start falling for this and buying the v-shaped bassy Yamaha sound signature for $400... then all the other headphone companies will start jacking up the prices of their own bassy headphones. You can't even fall back on the argument of build quality or design since they copied the design of another brand of headphones.

 

This is going to be the beginning of severe headphone price inflation. How much new technological advancements have you seen in the headphone industry in the last 10 years? They are basically selling us the same stuff with slightly differently tuned sound signature for more & more money!!

post #5156 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

That is why I talk about objective value vs subjective value above, it's impossible for any1 but yourself to determine subjective value but objective value can be determined by the average of every people's opinion. One may concider a headphone worth $100, for another person it's worth $200, then the objective truth would be $150. The more feedback the more accurate the average value will get. Objective value can be help users to to be pinpointed towards the right direction of what's a good headphone choice for the price paid in general as in average the more higher regarded objectively seen headphone will in average still have a higher chance appealing to the person than a headphone with a lower objective value. But since subjective value can still differ a lot from the objective value, it's important to know your personal taste and preferences in determing what's best for you.

 

I think it's more about audio physiology more than anything else. What do we want to experience? What makes us get the enjoyment when listening to music? How do we want to listen? Why do certain sounds appeal to us more than the others? etc These are the kinds of questions that constantly I keep thinkering about. I bet when I get older I have written a book about audio physiology if it keeps going like this. ^^

For me, from my own short forage into the audiophile world... most of it really just seems like hype, subjective perceptions, feeling of luxury due to higher price, and brand-name bias. I did blind tests on burn-in vs. non-burn-in, and I could not hear the difference. I compared a ton of headphones side-by-side and whenever I thought I heard a sonic difference, I would rewind to that portion of the track and do an A-B comparison. A lot of the changes that are described as night vs day, I found were very subtle and very hard to consistently duplicate.

 

I really really seriously wonder if the sonic differences for similar competing headphones would be so apparent if the companies just transplanted their drivers into a generic brandless headphone shell and made people do blind tests so they did not know the price or brand of what they were trying. I also wonder how much of our impressions are biased based on what we read about each headphone. Finally, I wonder how much of the difference in audio quality is "in-your-head" compared to objectively measurable upgrades.

 

here are some interesting psychology studies that are kind of illustrating my concern of our brains' powerful ability to trick us into believing what we want to believe.

http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/why_we_believe_our_own_lies

http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/the-truth-about-self-deception.php

 

Of course, none of this is meant to be offensive. Just my own thoughts as a new-comer to the audiophile scene.

post #5157 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malevolent View Post

Would you consider the love of headphones (or sound) as more of an art form or a science? The objective vs subjective debate is oft-heard, and I think it merits some discussion, at least among bassheads.

 

Basshead cans aren't generally very well-regarded in the world of headphones/IEMs. In fact, they are probably at the bottom rung, with the detailed cans and treble friendly headphones held in better regard. Consequently, greater bass quantity is quite frowned upon by the audiophile headphone community. However, for someone like myself, cans with good/great/massive bass is more important to me than say soundstaging or clarity. Hence, I actually value the XB500 (for example) greater than a Sennheiser Momentum. This does not translate well to actual value, since the latter is  3-4 times more expensive than the XB500.

 

I really love cans with loads of bass, and this has seen me pick up quite a lot of bassy cans over the past year. I don't believe I am an expert in sound, but I know what I like, and I am willing to pay for it. Coming back to this discussion, the Beats Solo/Studio are only worth as much as how much one wishes to pay. If he/she loves the sound and style, who's going to stop them for picking one up? I might disagree with the value of a Beats Studio relative to its basshead brethren, and yes, it is overpriced, but really, how can you determine its true worth if its sound signature perfectly matches one's preferences?

 

I could have written this post - and the key to me is "who cares what audiophiles think" about our love of all things bass????  Really.  We know what we like and no amount of cajoling is going to make me like non-basshead phones.  Great example - I got a pair of Mad Dogs last weekend - heavily anticipated their arrival (bought them on the advice of a great resource here), unboxed them, plugged them into my bi-amp setup (yet another thing I've been derided for even trying, let alone loving and listening to for a couple of months now), and.......................sheer, utter disappointment.  Words do not do justice to how bummed out I was immediately.  Tried everything I could..............single amp.................no EQ...............double amp hooked up in every possible combination...............no amp..............different sources................and all to no value.  I just did not like the sound.  Had no thump.  No mid bass hump (as if I know what that is).   Nothing. It was suggested I stop listening to basshead phones and let my ears adjust...............sorry, I know what I like.   

 

Fast forward a week.  Send the Mad Dogs back, ordered DT770's (32ohm LE version), same anticipation, got them, plugged in and IMMEDIATELY loved them.  Go figure.  $100 less and sounded $500 better in my mind.

 

To each their own is the final moral of the story.  You like Beats like my buddy at work?  Fine with me.  Not my money he's spending.  He readily admitted after a rather intense A/B session with me that not only do my XB700's sound much better, so do my Q40's.  

 

Again, we have a sound we want and audiophiles be damned. 

 

Me likey bass................


Edited by Oregonian - 3/4/13 at 12:09pm
post #5158 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post

For me, from my own short forage into the audiophile world... most of it really just seems like hype, subjective perceptions, feeling of luxury due to higher price, and brand-name bias. I did blind tests on burn-in vs. non-burn-in, and I could not hear the difference. I compared a ton of headphones side-by-side and whenever I thought I heard a sonic difference, I would rewind to that portion of the track and do an A-B comparison. A lot of the changes that are described as night vs day, I found were very subtle and very hard to consistently duplicate.

 

I really really seriously wonder if the sonic differences for similar competing headphones would be so apparent if the companies just transplanted their drivers into a generic brandless headphone shell and made people do blind tests so they did not know the price or brand of what they were trying. I also wonder how much of our impressions are biased based on what we read about each headphone. Finally, I wonder how much of the difference in audio quality is "in-your-head" compared to objectively measurable upgrades.

 

here are some interesting psychology studies that are kind of illustrating my concern of our brains' powerful ability to trick us into believing what we want to believe.

http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/why_we_believe_our_own_lies

http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/the-truth-about-self-deception.php

 

Of course, none of this is meant to be offensive. Just my own thoughts as a new-comer to the audiophile scene.

 

 

You should also read up on trained ear versus non trained. I've got a trained ear for example after years and years of EQing, tweaking of different sound effects plugins and these days mastering hardstyle tracks for newcomers. From that I've learnt to interpret what I'm hearing and can even hear very tiny changes when tweaking the settings.

 

It's at the point when I hear a track I already know roughly how to EQ before even testing, yea it needs a boost or cut at X frequency range etc.

 

But I think all this talk should be brought to the right forum section. xD


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/4/13 at 12:16pm
post #5159 of 11183

i think the term "overpriced" can only be viewed in comparison to other headphones in the same price range. 

as mentioned (kinda), nothing is worth any more, or any less, than what people are willing to pay for it. as bassheads, we are willing to pay for bass heavy cans, even though they're usually poorly thought of in the "audiophile community". this is because we like bass - and thats all there is to it. i think people get a bit carried away with all this "objective", "analytical", "neutral" business. i fail to understand why "neutrality" became the goal for headphones. i want to enjoy the music i listen to. science, measurements and "accuracy" have nothing to do with it. i do want a neutral amp for example, because i want to control the colour i add to the music, and dont like the idea of my amp giving me a head start. but for headphones, i expect bass quality (though i only have one pair, with one more on the way - just so as to keep things in perspective), and the quantity is managed by me later on. 

what im trying to say, is that price over performance is a meaningless term. performance can be measured 1000 times, but if the shoe fits, who are these audiophiles to say otherwise? if one is looking for a flat line frequency response then by all means. if someone is looking for hot treble - why not?? but when beats want you to pay a couple hundred dollars more, for something that ultrasone (for arguments sake) offer for a lower price - that is what i call overpriced. keep in mind that out of the beats line, i have only ever heard the solos, and have never heard any ultrasones. the examples were only for explanatory reasons.

 

as a related side note, i wonder if anyone agrees with what i said about people getting carried away? ive read crazy arguments people have over slight increase in measurements and impossibly subtle changes. numbers thrown about and graphs pondered upon... i sometimes feel like telling people to calm the hell down, put a song on, and remind themselves why they got into this hobby in the first place - music. i do enjoy learning about the science involved, but as ive said before in a different thread, if i have to, i can enjoy music coming from my phones speaker. 

 

got a bit carried away there didnt i... redface.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregonian View Post
reat example - I got a pair of Mad Dogs last weekend - heavily anticipated their arrival (bought them on the advice of a great resource here), unboxed them, plugged them into my bi-amp setup (yet another thing I've been derided for even trying, let alone loving and listening to for a couple of months now), and.......................sheer, utter disappointment.  Words do not do justice to how bummed out I was immediately.  Tried everything I could..............single amp.................no EQ...............double amp hooked up in every possible combination...............no amp..............different sources................and all to no value.  I just did not like the sound.  Had no thump.  No mid bass hump (as if I know what that is).   Nothing. It was suggested I stop listening to basshead phones and let my ears adjust...............sorry, I know what I like.   


really? im interested to hear what eq settings you tried with the mad dogs, im toying with the idea of getting a pair and trying to (heavily) eq them into bass cans. admittedly, i probably wont do it, but i would very much like to hear what it was that you tried. how much of a boost did you give them, and at what frequencies?

post #5160 of 11183
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post

 


really? im interested to hear what eq settings you tried with the mad dogs, im toying with the idea of getting a pair and trying to (heavily) eq them into bass cans. admittedly, i probably wont do it, but i would very much like to hear what it was that you tried. how much of a boost did you give them, and at what frequencies?

 

 

 

I literally tried adding bass, reducing bass at all levels on a 7 band parametric equalizer (Equalizer) while driving it with an E-11/ZO double amp setup that is very bass heavy (the ZO is on the highest red contour and on high gain) so I went up with the bass sliders, down with the bass sliders, you name it, I tried it.  Tried without the ZO and again, side by side with a known quantity (Q40) I just couldn't have been less impressed. 

 

Let us know if you get them and try - I just don't know if they can be turned into a bass can.  At all.  Ever. 

 

Unless mine were defective, which I doubt, they could not keep up with the Q40's.  Not even close. 

 

I seem to be maybe the only person on the planet who didn't gush over the MD's. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home