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 26

post #376 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post


Why do I feel like i'm just reading youtube comments in here now?

 

You completely ignore the idea that some people prefer a slightly V-shaped signature. I don't. That doesn't exactly make the headphone bad. Funny how the people who claim the M50 is so bad due to it's signature go on to suggest the DT-770 Pro 80 or HFI-580.

 

The M50's mids of the white boxed version are not that badly recessed. The bass is much better controlled with a decent amp. Sounds like you had the old version like I had. Even the soundstage improves with a good computer DAC and amp.

 

OK, so you don't like it's signature? Big deal. Move on and find something else. Don't make a big deal out of it .I must go through a ton of headphones before I find something I like.

 

Maybe you're one of those people who thinks there must possibly be a headphone that's perfect for everyone. I sure wish this was true. What's good to you is not good to me.

 

People have a specific sound signature they like, different ears and listen to different genres. I wish there was a perfectly neutral headphone that everyone could like, but so far this hasn't happened. It doesn't help that nobody ever agrees on if a headphone is really neutral or not. I've yet to hear a perfectly flat headphone. Wasn't the K240, V6, Q701, K601 or HD-600. Maybe i'll hear one eventually. I was thinking maybe the DT-250 250. I hope it is..

I agree, but maybe you won't agree with me, but the m50 has a v shaped signature, which people crave, but other headphones, which have v shaped signatures, have better sound than m50s.

post #377 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Forgiving? Are you serious? The Pro 900 is RUTHLESS on less than master quality audio. It's also a lot more metallic sounding on the treble, and a LOT more midbass heavy. It sounds better if you want a very bright, very mid bass heavy headphone. The M50 is downright polite next to the pro 900. The Pro 900 is VERY V shaped.
I love both, BTW, but that comparison is absolutely STUPID. Not to mention the Pro 900 costs about 3x as much.

I never said PRO 900 are forgiving. I said they are more forgiving than the m50s. 

post #378 of 732
That is just absolutely false. The Pro 900 is a lot more ruthless to lower quality than the M50. What in the...

The Pro 900 is notorious here on being merciless to less than quality files. The M50... not so much.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 8/9/12 at 9:08pm
post #379 of 732
Are you actually serious dude? Do you even hear yourself?

First of all what makes you say that other headphones with a shape sound better? I know you love your ultrasones but s-logic doesnt work for everyone. And the M-50s have a very polite V shaped curve IMHO.


Also I am assuming you have heard the PRO900 and that is why you are making statements that dont make sense. The M50 is NOT unforgiving and the pro900 is very unforgiving.


Again nobody said that the M50 is the best headphone for pure sq. Its a combination of build, decent looks and good sq.
post #380 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

That's is just absolutely false. The Pro 900 is a lot more ruthless to lower quality than the M50. What in the...

Well, I owned m50 and listened to pro 900. For poor recordings, the pro 900 picked up more detail than m50. That is what I heard. 

post #381 of 732
My comment is directed at Lazbro123, not you Mad Lust Envy. Sorry if that creates any confusion. My phone hates quotes
post #382 of 732
Lol, and that's what I'm trying to tell you... the Pro 900 is ruthless for poor recordings BECAUSE it picks up all that detail, no matter how terrible. The M50 is more forgiving, because it doesn't make issues in bad recordings as obvious. You're confusing forgiving with analytical there.
post #383 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazBro123 View Post

Well, I owned m50 and listened to pro 900. For poor recordings, the pro 900 picked up more detail than m50. That is what I heard. 

I got on my computer to quote this... *facepalm*
post #384 of 732
Prakhar, I picked up on that. XD

No worries.
post #385 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazBro123 View Post

He is trying to prove how the m50s are better than the pro 900s....I mean, come on. Pro 900 are a lot more forgiving than m50 and sound a lot better.

Forgiving = doesn't pick up as much detail, so bad recordings don't sound as bad as all the garbage in bad recordings aren't as highlighted in comparison to more detailed cans.

To say they are more forgiving than the M50, and then say they pick up more detail than the M50 is a contradiction.

I agree with you, the Pro 900s are more detailed than the M50s. They better be, considering it costs 3x as much. Yet, they are a lot more v shaped, and the treble is a lot more screechy. Balanced, they are not. The M50s are downright balanced when put next to the Pro 900s.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 8/9/12 at 9:16pm
post #386 of 732
Haha, just making sure.
post #387 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prakhar View Post

Are you actually serious dude? Do you even hear yourself?
First of all what makes you say that other headphones with a shape sound better? I know you love your ultrasones but s-logic doesnt work for everyone. And the M-50s have a very polite V shaped curve IMHO.
Also I am assuming you have heard the PRO900 and that is why you are making statements that dont make sense. The M50 is NOT unforgiving and the pro900 is very unforgiving.
Again nobody said that the M50 is the best headphone for pure sq. Its a combination of build, decent looks and good sq.

I do not make statements about something I have never tried. If I have never tried or owned the m50s, I wouldn't have anything to say, as I am unreliable when it comes to that subject. I have owned the m50s for a year, and I have my reasons as to why I do not like them. I think you are misunderstanding something. When you say "First of all what makes you say that other headphones with a shape sound better?", that is not what I mean lol :). What I mean is that other V-shaped headphones sound better than m50. I can name so many v shaped headphones that sound better than m50 for the same price.


Edited by LazBro123 - 8/9/12 at 9:26pm
post #388 of 732
The Pro 900 is the absolute opposite of forgiving. SMH.
post #389 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post


Forgiving = doesn't pick up as much detail, so bad recordings don't sound as bad as all the garbage in bad recordings aren't as highlighted in comparison to more detailed cans.
To say they are more forgiving than the M50, and then say they pick up more detail than the M50 is a contradiction.
I agree with you, the Pro 900s are more detailed than the M50s. They better be, considering it costs 3x as much. Yet, they are a lot more v shaped, and the treble is a lot more screechy. Balanced, they are not. The M50s are downright balanced when put next to the Pro 900s.

that I 100% agree with. PRO 900 are a bit too bass heavy for my taste, and treble is bright. M50s were much, much more easy to listen to, I just did not like their sound. And about the above statement, I think I did mix it up. I will know for next time! biggrin.gif

post #390 of 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

The Pro 900 is the absolute opposite of forgiving. SMH.

I deleted what I wrote at the end of that comment about the 900s. I shook my head after mixing it up lol!

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