Originally Posted by blueangel2323
Q40 is all about the bass. The midrange is thicker/warmer. A lot more fun to listen to but obviousy not for monitoring.
I master hardstyle tracks with my Q40 for a lot of newcomers especially. :p For me they work perfectly because due to the ability to feel the bass I can more accurately tell that the bass levels are suitable (when I start to feel it, then I know it's fine). With a more bass anemic pair it would be much more difficult for me and the mids and highs are nicely balanced without the typical rollercoaster frequency response for a bass heavy pair.
I think there is often put a lot of exaggeration on the product used instead of emphasizing one person's ability to interpret what they hear and the ability to put your personal preferences aside and just try to tweak for the "golden middlepath". Golden middlepath means if you've heard a lot of tracks by retail high quality stuff, you know roughly how it should sound like, how loud the mids & highs should be versus the lows etc ON THAT PARTICULAR headphone. If I swapped headphones now to a new one it would take quite a while before I'd be able to master as nicely as on the Q40 as I don't know how retail tracks are sounding on those new headphones so I can't accurately judge, is what I'm tweaking good or not. I mean if your Ultrasone PRO900 has retail tracks sounding slightly painfully bright then your masterings should also sound slightly painfully bright. That is how I work, I compare with professionally company made stuff to get a grasp what it should be like as I believe if you take a large chunk of data, some of it will be slightly "extreme" and out of place but the average value of that data will work best for the biggest amount people. That's how I do my mastering, primarily it should sound like the "average retail hardstyle track", that is the first priority, the golden middlepath rule.
Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 5/29/13 at 9:29am