Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › V-MODA M-100: Discussion/Feedback, Reviews, Pics, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

V-MODA M-100: Discussion/Feedback, Reviews, Pics, etc. - Page 589

post #8821 of 21038

I wish they'd ship them already so the rest of us can review them! LOL

post #8822 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by icefalkon View Post

I wish they'd ship them already so the rest of us can review them! LOL


I  remember feeling your pain.  Hang in there.  They are worth the wait.

post #8823 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by drheadphone View Post

I wouldn't go for either for rock or metal. The M100 is missing at least a half-octave at the top end, a sweet spot for cymbals and electric guitars, while the UE is missing a whole octave. The DT1350, HD25-1-II/Amperior and maybe even a Grado are better for those genres. The M100 is better for pop music.

 

I'm listening to the M100 right now on my go-to pop rig: Walkman Z1050 > Alo RxMkII. First impressions:

 

  • The M80 sounded pretty good on this rig, so predictably the M100 sounds just great. There's something about the Walkmen's mids and RxMII's wide soundstage that opens up the M100 nicely. On the IPod, the M100's mids are marginally recessed and the soundstage narrower, but it's still a good pairing.
  • A/B comparison with the M-Audio Q40: Q40's soundstage is wider, images better, tonally more balanced (more top end detail), while the M100 has more focus, more energy, more forward, engaging sound (especially bass). The M100 handles fast, dense-sounding music with ease, while the Q40 sounds slightly laid back and resolution is sometimes not there (older drivers?)
  • On a desktop amp (Burson HA-150), the M100 opens up a bit but a little underwhelming. You may as well get an Audeze, Hifiman or HD650 headphone if you can afford a good, midrange desktop amp. A portable amp or a compact dac/amp is the way to go with the M100.
  • I would call the M100 "mobile audiophile" for the pop-music-listening crowd.

Very nice comparisons drheadphone! I don't have the technical expertise for audio but your explanation seems to make sense. The UE definitely doesn't have the kind of treble I would like from a headphone.

 

On the contrary, I think the M-100 can do many genres pretty well other than just pop from my experience. Smooth jazz, for example, sounds pretty good through the M-100's while mobile listening.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffery View Post

Photos (Click to show)

 

700

700

 

 

 

 

Its finally here!!

Yay for Portal 2!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon Dota View Post

I haven't really posted a pic of my custom shields yet so....POW

 

1000

That shade of orange actually looks pretty decent on the white silver M-100's.

post #8824 of 21038

I ordered the Shadow but am on v-moda's page almost daily looking at the pics of the matte back and shadow.  I have the Shadow M80 and kind of like the red accents. Still, I have until December before they arrive and hopefully can change my order if I decide that I must have the Matteblink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBomb77766 View Post

Damn, I wish I got the matte black!  That's what I was hoping for but I made a mistake when ordering it, apparently. D:

 

post #8825 of 21038
Well, then how about these against the beyerdynamic dt1350's?
post #8826 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthUnnamed View Post

Well, then how about these against the beyerdynamic dt1350's?


Well all due respect friend you're lumping the M-100 into a battle with headphones that are known for being either analytical or neutral. It's not a fair comparison to make.

post #8827 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickeyVee View Post

I ordered the Shadow but am on v-moda's page almost daily looking at the pics of the matte back and shadow.  I have the Shadow M80 and kind of like the red accents. Still, I have until December before they arrive and hopefully can change my order if I decide that I must have the Matteblink.gif

Maybe we could trade. :P

post #8828 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post


Well all due respect friend you're lumping the M-100 into a battle with headphones that are known for being either analytical or neutral. It's not a fair comparison to make.
Yeah, I know, I apologize. It's just that I listen to both genres with bass and those without it, so either style is fine. But I guess I just want an opinion from someone who has listened to both
post #8829 of 21038

Put on your M-100s and feel the PURRRR

 

post #8830 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBeN8 View Post

Put on your M-100s and feel the PURRRR

 

Dat bass! basshead.gif

Now they just need an "IMMA FIRE-EN MAH LAZAAAARS!!!! *BAAAAAAAHH*" remix. XD

post #8831 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthUnnamed View Post


Yeah, I know, I apologize. It's just that I listen to both genres with bass and those without it, so either style is fine. But I guess I just want an opinion from someone who has listened to both

Alright fair enough then. I know this is off topic but I ask for understanding from everyone else on the thread concerning this post. It's obvious we have a newer member on thread and I think it's best to answer his questions so he doesn't make an expensive bad purchase.

 

Both cans are pretty much apples and oranges to one another. The 1350 has a forward treble while the M-100 has a forward bass. Both of these cans bass extend rather well and rank well past both the HD25 and any entry level Grado. Originally when I got the M-100 I thought the 1350's bass extended deeper but now after I've applied the rolled napkin under the pads mod I'm no longer so sure. The main difference in the bass is the M-100 is more full bodied and resonates (think mid bass rumble) more as well as hits harder. The 1350's bass is leaner but more detailed. Keep in mind although it's more detailed that doesn't necessarily equate to better bass because the 1350 doesn't have the same amount of punch behind it as the M-100 does. It's also what's known as neutral bass which means it only gives out lots of bass when the recording demands it. For songs that have been mixed to be overly bassy that's a good thing but for songs that haven't been mixed to have big bass that's a bad thing. The 1350 can do well recorded bassy songs quite well but there are enough people out there who have been disappointed with the 1350 because they were expecting more bass and don't get it because the music they're demanding it from wasn't mixed that way in the recording studio.

 

When you go to the mids the differences are even more obvious. The 1350 for vocals in my opinion is probably the best I've ever heard but again only when good source is used. A lot of modern day recordings from the rock metal and pop genres won't sound very good on the 1350, especially in the mids, because everything in the sound signature has been overly compressed and equalized to high hell. You only have to listen to some of the more recent recordings from Metallica on the 1350 to know what I mean when I say it will sound like an overly distorted wall of sound. Go to some other recordings from artists like say The Red Hot Chili Peppers or Arch Enemy and you see more of the same problems with bad source which not only includes a wall of distorted sound but can also include tonality that sounds off and vocals that can be overly sibilant. I think our resident thread thespian scrypt who has worked for years in the music industry will agree with my statement and can even add more to the subject if you so choose to ask him. All that aside vocals on the 1350 can sound quite fantastic when a well recorded song is thrown at it. Pink Floyd, Rush, Michael Jackson, Journey some older Iron Maiden and Motley Crue will sound incredible on the 1350 and you'll hear details in the music you never thought was there before. In comparison the M-100 isn't as capable detail wise as the 1350 and although also hard on source it isn't as relentless on it as the 1350. Because of it's more laid back mids and thicker warmer sound signature (the 1350 sound signature is quite lean) certain deficiencies in the recording are masked to tolerable levels. For instance because the M-100 doesn't have such forward sounding highs as the 1350 it's upper mids isn't as loaded as the 1350's. End result sibilance isn't to much of a problem with the M-100 and if the song is a song that has a lot of sibilance already mixed in the M-100 will control that sibilance better then the 1350 which will sound like a harsh mess. If you ever get a chance to listen to both cans do a side by side comparison using the song Hanging By A Moment by the band Lifehouse and you'll see for yourself what I'm talking about.

 

You get to the highs and both of these cans are even more different. The 1350 has an incredibly energetic treble which translates to a lot of detail upper frequency separation and top end air. While cymbals on the M-100 will sometimes sound like they're being hit 5 steps back from the drummer cymbals on the 1350 will sound more linear and stand side by side with the drum hits. Again I must caution you with good source what I've described is a great thing to listen to but on bad source you're again stuck with a harsh sounding mess. It's not the 1350's fault it's just doing what it was designed for which is to play the music the way it was mixed in the studio.

 

Something else I should mention, the 1350 will play from a DAP such as an iPod but in my opinion it sounds like complete garbage. Throw an amp in the equation and it's capabilities become quite obvious. I can't listen to the 1350 unamped it's sound just grates on my ears. Although I have said the M-100 will sound better amped I can still listen to it unamped and not be bothered to much by it. I can't say the same for the 1350. In short the M-100 is a nice sounding can that's tuned to be fun and rock out to. The DT1350 is a can designed to shine with great source and make it sound incredible by extracting every detail it possibly can from the music. Both cans are meant for two completely different kinds of listeners. My advice to you is think about what kind of music you want to listen to on a headphone and what you expect from the headphone and decide what works best for you from there. Both cans are very good cans but they're only good cans for certain people.

 

All I've written is just my view of coarse and others on here can and probably will disagree with some of what I've written. That's perfectly fine, YMMV is a good motto to have on these boards because everyone hears differently. That's basically all I have to say on the subject. It's best you do a little more research on your own and come to your own conclusions from reading and using your own ears because it doesn't matter what anyone else says on here in the end it's your ears that decide.

 

Bless

 

An now back to our regularly scheduled program


Edited by DigitalFreak - 10/27/12 at 1:48am
post #8832 of 21038

Nice track.

Hopefully you are just not looking to feel "the purr" with the M100s... (because my cheapo Pannies actually "purr" even more! LOL) :-p

 

BTW, this is one of the tracks I usually test bass with:

 

 

My sub goes crazy with this song!!! lol

post #8833 of 21038
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Alright fair enough then. I know this is off topic but I ask for understanding from everyone else on the thread concerning this post. It's obvious we have a newer member on thread and I think it's best to answer his questions so he doesn't make an expensive bad purchase.

Both cans are pretty much apples and oranges to one another. The 1350 has a forward treble while the M-100 has a forward bass. Both of these cans bass extend rather well and rank well past both the HD25 and any entry level Grado. Originally when I got the M-100 I thought the 1350's bass extended deeper but now after I've applied the rolled napkin under the pads mod I'm no longer so sure. The main difference in the bass is the M-100 is more full bodies and resonates (think mid bass rumble) more as well as hits harder. The 1350's bass is leaner but more detailed. Keep in mind although it's more detailed that doesn't necessarily equate to better bass because the 1350 doesn't have the same amount of punch behind it as the M-100 does. It's also what's known as neutral bass which means it only gives out lots of bass when the recording demands it. For songs that have been mixed to be overly bassy that's a good thing but for songs that haven't been mixed to have big bass that's a bad thing. The 1350 can do well recorded bassy songs quite well but there are enough people out there who have been disappointed with the 1350 because they were expecting more bass and don't get it because the music they're demanding it from wasn't mixed that way in the recording studio.

When you go the mids the differences are even more obvious. The 1350 for vocals in my opinion is probably the best I've ever heard but again only when good source is used. A lot of modern day recordings from the rock metal and pop genres won't sound very good on the 1350, especially in the mids, because everything in the sound signature has been overly compressed and equalized to high hell. You only have to listen to some of the more recent recordings from Metallica on the 1350 to know what I mean when I say it will sound like an overly distorted wall of sound. Go to some other recordings from artists like say The Red Hot Chili Peppers or Arch Enemy and you see more of the same problems with bad source which not only includes a wall of distorted sound but can also include tonality that sounds off and vocals that can be overly sibilant. I think our resident thread thespian scrypt who has worked for years in the music industry will agree with my statement and can even add more to the subject if you so choose to ask him. All that aside vocals on the 1350 can sound quite fantastic when a well recorded song is thrown at it. Pink Floyd, Rush, Michael Jackson, Journey some older Iron Maiden and Motley Crue will sound incredible on the 1350 and you'll hear details in the music you never thought was there before. In comparison the M-100 isn't as capable detail wise as the 1350 and although also hard on source it isn't as relentless on it as the 1350. Because of it's more laid back mids and thicker warmer sound signature (the 1350 sound signature is quite lean) certain deficiencies in the recording are masked to tolerable levels. For instance because the M-100 doesn't have such forward sounding highs as the 1350 it's upper mids isn't as loaded as the 1350's. End result sibilance isn't to much of a problem with the M-100 and if the song is a song that has a lot of sibilance already mixed in the M-100 will control that sibilance better then the 1350 which will sound like a harsh mess. If you ever get a chance to listen to both cans do a side by side comparison using the song Hanging By A Moment by the band Lifehouse and you'll see for yourself what I'm talking about.

You get to the highs and both of these cans are even more different.
The 1350 has an incredibly energetic treble which translates to a lot of detail upper frequency separation and top end air. While cymbals on the M-100 will sometimes sound like they're being hit 5 steps back from the drummer cymbals on the 1350 will sound more linear and stand side by side with the drum hits. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Again I must caution you with good source what I've described is a great thing to listen to but on bad source you're again stuck with a harsh sounding mess. It's not the 1350's fault it's just doing what it was designed for which is to play the music the way it was mixed in the studio.

Something else I should mention, the 1350 will play from a DAP such as an iPod but in my opinion it sounds like complete garbage. Throw an amp in the equation and it's capabilities become quite obvious. I can't listen to the 1350 unamped it's sound just grates on my ears. Although I have said the M-100 will sound better amped I can still listen to it unamped and not be bothered to much by it. I can't say the same for the 1350. In short the M-100 is a nice sounding can that's tuned to be fun and rock out to. The DT1350 is a can designed to shine with great source and make it sound incredible by extracting every detail it possibly can from the music. Both cans are meant for two completely different kinds of listeners. My advice to you is think about what kind of music you want to listen to on a headphone and what you expect from the headphone and decide what works best for you from there. Both cans are very good cans but they're only good cans for certain people.

All I've written is just my view of coarse and others on here can and probably will disagree with some of what I've written. That's perfectly fine, YMMV is a good motto to have on these boards because everyone hears differently. That's basically all I have to say on the subject. It's best you do a little more research on your own and come to your own conclusions from reading and using your own ears because it doesn't matter what anyone else says on here in the end it's your ears that decide.

Bless

An now back to our regularly scheduled program

Thank you for the comparisons DigitalFreak. It was particularly interesting to read about how music has changed over the years and consequently provide completely different listening experiences with the M-100 and DT1350. I've been curious as well about the two headphones side-by-side, even though I know they're completely different headphones. From what I read, I've always considered the DT1350 to be an alternative SRH940, but with a much better bass response.

OK this is exactly what I have been meaning to say by the cymbals sound off to me with the unmodded M-100. The snare drums are more forward than the cymbals to my ears which is why I had a problem with a lot of rock songs while at home, it just sounds weird to me to have cymbals farther much back on the stage than the snares.

And this is a random note, but I see you use "coarse" (coarse sandpaper) instead of "course" (of course) in a lot of your posts. XD
post #8834 of 21038

hahah you're right. man m-100 goes DEEP....and no, im not just looking for bass, which is why i love M-100. detailed with nice treble extension (without being harsh), but still has massive bass when it is called for...maybe it's only because i haven't heard them in awhile, but from memory M-80 has more of a punch to its bass although it didn't go as deep it did feel punchier, no? more mid bass?...maybe i just need to listen to them again
 

post #8835 of 21038
Seems even Chris Lilely's getting in on the V-Moda scene

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › V-MODA M-100: Discussion/Feedback, Reviews, Pics, etc.