Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › A Concise View of Why The ATH-M50 is No Longer King
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Concise View of Why The ATH-M50 is No Longer King - Page 23

post #331 of 732
I'm just wondering, what kind of gratification do you guys get off of bashing a $130 headphone? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't recommend it. And if someone else wants to recommend it, don't bash them for it - just recommend whatever you want to recommend and move on. This is a subjective hobby (hearing, genres, sound sig preferences, volume preferences, open, closed, portable, at home, head size, ear size, etc.) at the end of the day and if someone owns and enjoys the M50, that's wonderful. Let them be because it's all about enjoying what you have.

IMO Ultrasone's offerings are colored in a very specific way and do not have as natural a tonality as the M50. They have a different tonality altogether that's more suited for electronic music. That said, they're still very detailed and fun. The point is, the M50s are quite a different headphone than the 580 and in the end, whichever headphone you like better solely depends on your preferences. I'd rather have better timbre accuracy (my genre preferences play a big roll here also) than a wider soundstage so the M50 come closer to suiting my all-around needs. I also value the build and seal I get with the M50 over the 580. You see? Preferences.
Edited by roma101 - 8/6/12 at 8:39am
post #332 of 732
Well said. Having owned the Pro 900 and having heard the Pro 2900 (which is supposedly well balanced), and I could easily say the M50 sounded quite a bit more realistic than either. That being said, I liked both those headphones (though the Pro 2900 is grossly overpriced), and I wouldn't knock them. They have a certain sound that will cater to certain people, just as the M50s do.
post #333 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Blue box M50 I'm assuming?

White box
post #334 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

700
Here's Innerfidelity's graph, which makes a lot more sense as to how the M50 actually sounds more like.
Troll harder next time.

 

How do we know that's the white boxed M50? I don't trust graphs at all. Most of them don't match up with what I hear. Just look at the graphs for the HD-598 and HD-600..or DT-880 and HD-600. You'd think they'd sound identical based on graphs, but are total opposites.

I do agree that the M50 is slightly V-shaped. Slightly elevated bass and treble. That's perfectly fine for those that like it. The mids on my white boxed M50 were not too badly recessed. I don't even think the M50's now will even please bass-heads anymore. They still have a tad too much bass for me, but just barely.

 

The white boxed M50 doesn't sound like that graph above at all to me, but no big deal. Thankfully nobody here has called the M50 neutral (yet). I do think it sounds more balanced than the V6 though.

 

BTW I wish the HD-650 really sounded as good as that inner fidelity graphs makes it appear. I think I stopped trusting graphs when I saw the one for the KRK KNS-8400 on Headroom's website. The DJ100 also doesn't sound anything like the graphs past 1k. I wonder why their upper mids peak doesn't show up in graphs. Maybe the crappy stock pads.


Edited by tdockweiler - 8/6/12 at 11:08am
post #335 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

 

That's probably because planars rely on utter and complete openness for optimal performance, since the diaphragm / driver assembly is so simplistic. Anything that improves openness (grill-side or pad side) would be a sonic improvement.

 

You can notice that a peculiarity is that the HE400s don't give a damn about seal in terms of bass quantity / extension, it'll have just as much bass output even if you hover the drivers over your ears without the pads touching, or as a matter of fact without the pads at all.

 

Your experience here is the same as mine, but the HE400 and the Hifimans are the only planar magnetic headphones in history that can do this.  All others actually require a good seal to perform well.  You use the T50rp with a bad seal and it looses all bass.  Same with every other planar.  Some of the hifiman's don't even use damping at all, like the HE500.  They break a lot of rules.  I think it gives them advantages like soundstage and airiness, but I also think there are downsides to that approach.  OT, but I'm just saying.  :-)

post #336 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

How do we know that's the white boxed M50? I don't trust graphs at all. Most of them don't match up with what I hear. Just look at the graphs for the HD-598 and HD-600..or DT-880 and HD-600. You'd think they'd sound identical based on graphs, but are total opposites.
I do agree that the M50 is slightly V-shaped. Slightly elevated bass and treble. That's perfectly fine for those that like it. The mids on my white boxed M50 were not too badly recessed. I don't even think the M50's now will even please bass-heads anymore. They still have a tad too much bass for me, but just barely.

The white boxed M50 doesn't sound like that graph above at all to me, but no big deal. Thankfully nobody here has called the M50 neutral (yet). I do think it sounds more balanced than the V6 though.

IMO, V6 has better detail retrieval than m50. Not as much bass and not as shrill in the highs, but have better mids.
post #337 of 732

I bought a pair of AKG 701's, then a pair of LCD2's, then bought a pair of 50's and then a pair of Grados 325is ...why so I could put them on my head and hear for myself what they sounded like for me.

 

The 50's were used, but having other cans around. the 50's to me are very boomy on the low end....exagerrated bass....but if you have nothing to compare to they do just ok fine...really great overall can for the small amount of money...a great fist headphone.

 

I stopped listening to music and use them to play pc games....I hardly ever use them for music at all....again compared to the other cans they are well....just that ho-hum at best.

 

I would never buy them again with what I know now...

 

Alex

post #338 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazBro123 View Post


IMO, V6 has better detail retrieval than m50. Not as much bass and not as shrill in the highs, but have better mids.

 

The V6 sounds more detailed to you because it has more treble, and a suckout in the lower mids, which emphasizes details.  The V6 is shrill, peircing in the upper mids, sibilant, thin, and basslight.

post #339 of 732
Thanks for beating me to it. ^^
post #340 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

The V6 sounds more detailed to you because it has more treble, and a suckout in the lower mids, which emphasizes details.  The V6 is shrill, peircing in the upper mids, sibilant, thin, and basslight.

 

I disagree with shrill and bass light. It is definitely a bright sounding headphone, but my pair isn't shrill. It is Sub-bass light but has plenty of bass to me otherwise. Just my opinion of course. 

post #341 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

The V6 sounds more detailed to you because it has more treble, and a suckout in the lower mids, which emphasizes details.  The V6 is shrill, peircing in the upper mids, sibilant, thin, and basslight.

yeah i agree 

post #342 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

The V6 sounds more detailed to you because it has more treble, and a suckout in the lower mids, which emphasizes details.  The V6 is shrill, peircing in the upper mids, sibilant, thin, and basslight.


Bass light? Really? Mine had a huge mid-bass hump and was rather annoying. Just a big distraction. I don't remember how good it's low bass was, so maybe that's what you mean.

post #343 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

How do we know that's the white boxed M50? I don't trust graphs at all. Most of them don't match up with what I hear. Just look at the graphs for the HD-598 and HD-600..or DT-880 and HD-600. You'd think they'd sound identical based on graphs, but are total opposites.
I do agree that the M50 is slightly V-shaped. Slightly elevated bass and treble. That's perfectly fine for those that like it. The mids on my white boxed M50 were not too badly recessed. I don't even think the M50's now will even please bass-heads anymore. They still have a tad too much bass for me, but just barely.

The white boxed M50 doesn't sound like that graph above at all to me, but no big deal. Thankfully nobody here has called the M50 neutral (yet). I do think it sounds more balanced than the V6 though.

BTW I wish the HD-650 really sounded as good as that inner fidelity graphs makes it appear. I think I stopped trusting graphs when I saw the one for the KRK KNS-8400 on Headroom's website. The DJ100 also doesn't sound anything like the graphs past 1k. I wonder why their upper mids peak doesn't show up in graphs. Maybe the crappy stock pads.

That I'm not certain, but I did own the old M50s, and my brother owns the white box M50s, and my stepfather (in the same house) owns the M50LE. They both sound more like the graph above than the old Headroom graphs which haven't been updated since I've bought the M50s when I first my journey.

And I agree, it doesn't sound like the graph exactly, but it's a LOT closer than headroom's graph.

Here's the article:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audio-technica-ath-m50-page-2

Considering it's last year, I highly doubt it's the old model.
Quote:
Overall I hear the Audio Technica ATH-M50 as a little uneven and somewhat calling attention to both the bass and the treble at the expense of the mids, but relative to the competition at this price, remarkably well behaved.

Pretty much what some of us have been saying all this time.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 8/6/12 at 3:44pm
post #344 of 732

He has actually 2 different measurements on the site of M50, here's the newer measurement http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50B2012.pdf  I believe here we see the different M50 versions. Some people will undoubtedly come here and say it's probably due to revised testing methologies etc it's different but I can clearly say my pair of M50 was basslight, not even "neutral" to me and didn't think it had such a good extension as some people were speaking about and I actually really liked the midrange which didn't seem recessed at all but the most forward aspect of the headphone except for the spike in the highs and very detailed so but yea it really lacked any kind of bass punch to me and the highs were on the border of being a bit too harsh & shrill.

 

The 2012 measurement also looks very similar to headroom's and goldenear's graphs so this older measurement of M50 is probably the only "basslight" version being captured somewhere in a database so far but my ears agreed very much with that basslight FR graph.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 8/6/12 at 6:02pm
post #345 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiganwazzack View Post

Lighten up. Keyboard Warrior

 

Your chips are wet I take it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › A Concise View of Why The ATH-M50 is No Longer King