Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › ATH-M50 vs ATH-M50S LE impressions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ATH-M50 vs ATH-M50S LE impressions - Page 4

post #46 of 176

I think the prob here is that it seems there's 2 different versions of M50 floating around and one is bassheavy like in the graph posted here while the other isn't and has bass and mids pretty much on the same level. (the version I tested, so was like where's the bass boost people are speaking off ^^)

 

Another thing that speaks for that is how Tyll's measurement of M50 used to show no bass boost whatsoever, in fact it gently rolled off in the lower frequencies but never really elevated higher than the midrange but recently that measurement has been redone and how it looks different with an obvious bass peak, it's about 5~6dB difference in bass between the old and new measurements from my memory.

 

EDIT: OK the old M50 pdf is still viewable, nice! Take a look for yourselves:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50.pdf

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50B2012.pdf


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/13/12 at 5:09am
post #47 of 176

 

 

Quote:
I think the prob here is that it seems there's 2 different versions of M50 floating around and one is bassheavy like in the graph posted here while the other isn't and has bass and mids pretty much on the same level

 

This is likely just another isolated manufacturing issue (no one product is exactly the same, there is a manufacturing percentage error) we always had this in our industrial design reports. If there's a change with the M50s, Audio-Technica would have them noted. i.e. the WS55 evolved from the WS50, PRO700MK2 evolved from PRO700s, the greatest proof is the Sony(s) monitoring headphones, etc. Remember this is a monitoring headphone, if they kept changing its sound signature, then it would no longer be a credible monitoring headphone which is the exactly their trump card.

 

More than 90% of M50s were manufactured in Taiwan and China, the plastics were machined, but the assembly are done by hand, there's a big percentage error with that, especially when they are manufactured by volume. Which is why Japan have engineered them to the most finest detail to compensate manufacturing errors. I had two PRO700MK2s, both were made in Taiwan, would I say they are different versions? the one sounds smoother than the other, I investigated and found out that the polarizing material wasn't properly placed.

 

If the hands that made your M50s were better than the other workers, then rejoice, but it likely an accidental manufacturing error. There's so many variables for error and there's simply no way Audio-Technica will gamble in changing a winning formula. This has already been confirmed by their own personnel, unless their own product manager doesn't know a single thing about their own product which is his job.

 

If I painted my car red, would it run faster? Just like in manufacturing engines, no engine has exactly the same output power there's always a small margin of difference.

 

 


Edited by alvincapalad - 3/13/12 at 7:07am
post #48 of 176

^ Did you even compare the two graphs? That is more than a "manufacturing percentage error". Only if we had been talking about a cheap <$50 headphone non-reputable manufacturer I'd buy above reasoning but now we're talking about Audio Technica and possibly the world's most famous studio monitor headphone. Besides we have a widespread reports of users hearing significant differences between some M50 samples and another.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 3/13/12 at 7:11am
post #49 of 176

Did Tyll note that both headphones have equal amount of airtime? padding? same testing equipment? same head and shoulder dummy? there's simply so many factors that is affected with an independent test. I would rather believe what the manufacturer "Audio-Technica" says, than doing an independent testing.

 

It is their own product, and I believe that they are more knowledgeable of their own product than anybody else. You can contact AT-Japan, they do answers questions quite well. And, we all know Japan is the AT's home base, there's no better way in getting a more accurate response but through them. So I'd agree to disagree.


Edited by alvincapalad - 3/13/12 at 7:26am
post #50 of 176
Thread Starter 

Well, I can certainly buy the "your headphones are the exception" case. I have heard 2 more M50's, and none of them sound anything like my M50S LE. They were closer to my dad's M50, which is more prominent bass, more recessed mid, and somewhat more rolled off treble.

 

In that case, I guess it's okay to assume that the intended sonic performance of the M50 is somewhat more like my dad's pair than my LE ones, right?

post #51 of 176

My testing procedures have changed somewhat over time.  Not sure I'd bet on the measurements showing manufacturing changes. Not saying they didn't either, just keepin' it real.  Wish I had the time to test all these sorts of things ... but I don't.

post #52 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-P View Post

Well, it was Fostex T50RP. Thanks, guys.

 

Screen Shot 2012-02-11 at 4.10.26 PM.png



I think that's a T20v2 actually.  The pad and baffle look round, and they look like the pads are the T20v2 kind that sit on the ears rather than around. 

post #53 of 176

I wish i could afford them :/

post #54 of 176

 

If you want to get accurate measurement of these headphones or any other product. Get the mean result of not less than 10 headphones of the same model. Do them how manufacturers test products, if you need a hundred to prove its consistency, then do it. Test them with the ACQUA system and HMS head and torso simulator or any system that can bring you more accurate results, not a hearsay of speculations and conjectures, that way you can cancel out the percentage error in manufacturing such as human assembly error, ear pad sizing, etc.
 
Just like burned-in and break-in. A sound can be burned-in to a person's memory; therefore, we start getting used to that sound and it becomes likeable over time. Same with eating exotic food, our tongue needs to adjust to the taste. And, the human brain is also capable of dictating something that we are pre-meditated with. If we are pre-meditated that this new product is better, then it becomes better because our brain dictates it.
 
Pre-meditation tricks our senses, that's why we need to be objective with the results and break it down with the smallest percentage error. Test products without seeing the graphs and the data first, that way you can cross-reference your initial assessment with the data, after. Do your initial reviews without reading other reviews, then see if they match.

Edited by alvincapalad - 3/14/12 at 8:31am
post #55 of 176

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

Another thing that speaks for that is how Tyll's measurement of M50 used to show no bass boost whatsoever, in fact it gently rolled off in the lower frequencies but never really elevated higher than the midrange but recently that measurement has been redone and how it looks different with an obvious bass peak, it's about 5~6dB difference in bass between the old and new measurements from my memory.

 

I think the headphone on the old graph did not have a proper seal. Note that the isolation is much worse. This, together with the bass roll-off and increased distortion may suggest a problem related to sealing/ear pads. But that is not the only difference, for some reason the newer graph shows 5 dB lower sensitivity (although it now actually agrees with the specs).

 


Edited by stv014 - 3/14/12 at 8:36am
post #56 of 176

 

 

Quote:
I think the headphone on the old graph did not have a proper seal.

Agree, you just need to get the mean results to get a proper data. It is a tiring work, but it will give you the most accurate one. If you need to test the same product 20 times, the better.

post #57 of 176

I think Tyll recently identified an issue with testing that would cause the dip at  around 90 , an issue with "Main Spring" could cause this (headphone bouncing on the ear - fits with seal issue).

 

 

post #58 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by astroid View Post

I think Tyll recently identified an issue with testing that would cause the dip at  around 90


Do you mean a dip like on this graph ? This is not the version I have, though, but I did not find such dip around that frequency.

 


Edited by stv014 - 3/14/12 at 9:21am
post #59 of 176

My problems mostly resulted in a lack of seal and a steep roll-off in the bass.  The mainspring dip is likely really there; the depth and center frequency may change a bit using current methods.

post #60 of 176

I just got me LEs. I listened to them for a few hours and I am going to leave them connected to my computer all weekend to help speed up the burn in process ;) They look and feel awesome so far.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › ATH-M50 vs ATH-M50S LE impressions