or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › V-MODA M-100 & VTF-100 Appreciation Thread: Images, Impressions, Reviews.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

V-MODA M-100 & VTF-100 Appreciation Thread: Images, Impressions, Reviews. - Page 28

post #406 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speakerphile View Post


This is what I was afraid of. I have heard more than a few times that this was supposed to be an "audiophile" headphone, but I guess not. I am sure it will sell well, as most non-audiophile customers prefer this bass-forward ultra-crisp approach. I guess I'll have to wait until I hear them myself, though this definitely weathers my excitement.

 

There's always the Stax 009...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnio View Post

Let's also not forget Val's comment a month or so ago regarding the use of eq's.  After hearing the headphones I have to agree - because the bass on the M-100 has no detrimental side effects (ie, it's not bleeding into the mids or muddy do to excessiveness) all you need to do is turn down the bass in your EQ if you think it's over the top.

 

Ridiculous. You could do that with any headphone. You could use the salt shaker on your organic food if you think it tastes like crap. Headphone manufacturers should listen to what they design and build before releasing them. Or has it got to the point where even they don't know what good balanced sound is?

post #407 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by daphen View Post

Very sarcastic. I love bass. So I guess that makes me a Beatslover to Mr/Mrs, Speakerphile. 

Ridicculous.


OK, lol, that's what I thought after reading it a second time... You should try it though, I actually unhooked the 12's out of my floor standing speakers, sold off my powered sub, and disconnected the 2000 watts worth of bass shakers in the chairs.  You'd be amazed at how much more people enjoy my theater now!

post #408 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

Headphone manufacturers should listen to what they design and build before releasing them. Or has it got to the point where even they don't know what good balanced sound is?


Val did - he specifically tailored the sound on these for a specific signature and he hit it exactly.  Val said that Tyll even was able to pick out specifically what frequencies he messed with and why.  I think for a very large audience they will love the sound signature as is.

 

I would also disagree with your premise that an EQ can be used to tweak the sound on every headphone - EQing down the bass on a pair of beats solos is going to still leave muddy inarticulate bass, just less of it.  Much like if I EQ up the bass on my Shure IEMs it's not going to give a strong punchy bass.  To that end, I don't think there is a lot you will be able to do to get the mids much more forward on the M-100's.

post #409 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

 

Ridiculous. You could do that with any headphone. You could use the salt shaker on your organic food if you think it tastes like crap. Headphone manufacturers should listen to what they design and build before releasing them. Or has it got to the point where even they don't know what good balanced sound is?

So you think that every manufacturer aims for balanced sound for each of their headphones? Completely the opposite is the case. Besides a couple of headphones they all are everything but balanced or flat. On the one hand there is product differentiation and on the other there's limits to mechanical equalization. The latter can be fixed with an EQ within reasonable limits.

 

It's like buying an extra-bass headphone and complaining afterwards that doesn't sound balanced. That is ridiculous.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnio View Post


I would also disagree with your premise that an EQ can be used to tweak the sound on every headphone - EQing down the bass on a pair of beats solos is going to still leave muddy inarticulate bass, just less of it.  Much like if I EQ up the bass on my Shure IEMs it's not going to give a strong punchy bass.  To that end, I don't think there is a lot you will be able to do to get the mids much more forward on the M-100's.

I'm not defending beats here, but what do you think makes the bass so muddy? The nice 30 Hz square wave performance? The low distortion figures which are lower than some high-end headphones? Or maybe the >10 dB bass boost which masks a lot of details in the midrange. It's clearly the last point, the frequency response, the extremely boosted bass which you can cut with an EQ. Boosting is a different story, but also works within limits.

 

More on topic: I'm interested in this headphone as well. Waiting for some reviews and measurements. wink.gif


Edited by xnor - 10/13/12 at 7:04am
post #410 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

There's always the Stax 009...


Ridiculous. You could do that with any headphone. You could use the salt shaker on your organic food if you think it tastes like crap. Headphone manufacturers should listen to what they design and build before releasing them. Or has it got to the point where even they don't know what good balanced sound is?

I think it's best to make that conclusion when you hear the headphone yourself. I'm also not an EQ person and prefer a balanced sound as well, without the need of EQ.

With that said, I don't know why because there's one claim of more bass, this means the headphone will be unbalanced. Everyone hears differently and what's too much for one person might not be enough for another. It doesn't appear that bass is flabby or intruding the mids at all from impressions. It appears the headphone puts out tight, controlled, deeply extended bass. Of course I'm not going to make any judgements till I hear them but so far that seems to be a concensus regarding how well the bass balances out with mids and highs. All I'm saying is those impressions are worth noting.
post #411 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnio View Post


Val did - he specifically tailored the sound on these for a specific signature and he hit it exactly.  Val said that Tyll even was able to pick out specifically what frequencies he messed with and why.  I think for a very large audience they will love the sound signature as is.

 

I guess my post came off as an attack on HP manufacturers when I was really sort of disgusted at the prospect at having to use EQ to correct "flaws" in headphones. Nothing wrong with a deliberate tailored response in a headphone as long as you can offer a more neutral balance in one of your other models. Sennheiser has done this for decades. People do tend to take you more seriously when you have all the bases covered.

 

I get the feeling though that any headphone that has a portability option is going to have some excess bass. I think we are stuck with that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

So you think that every manufacturer aims for balanced sound for each of their headphones? Completely the opposite is the case. Besides a couple of headphones they all are everything but balanced or flat. On the one hand there is product differentiation and on the other there's limits to mechanical equalization. The latter can be fixed with an EQ within reasonable limits.

 

It's like buying an extra-bass headphone and complaining afterwards that doesn't sound balanced. That is ridiculous.

Huh?


Edited by Beagle - 10/13/12 at 7:07am
post #412 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBomb77766 View Post

They are, but there aren't any replacement pads available yet!

Thank you.

post #413 of 924
Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor View Post

 

I'm not defending beats here, but what do you think makes the bass so muddy? The nice 30 Hz square wave performance? The low distortion figures which are lower than some high-end headphones? Or maybe the >10 dB bass boost which masks a lot of details in the midrange. It's clearly the last point, the frequency response, the extremely boosted bass which you can cut with an EQ. Boosting is a different story, but also works within limits.

Well, since the M-100 is reportedly a 9 dB bass boost and has not had one person call it muddy or said that it infringes on the mids I would venture a guess that it's the overall design of the headphone was geared towards having a lot of bass at the expense of clean punchy sound and defined mids.  The design is set there by physics, so just eq'ing down the bass is not likely to make it cleaner, otherwise more folks would say that the beats are acceptable solutions with mild eq'ing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

 

I guess my post came off as an attack on HP manufacturers when I was really sort of disgusted at the prospect at having to use EQ to correct "flaws" in headphones. Nothing wrong with a deliberate tailored response in a headphone as long as you can offer a more neutral balance in one of your other models. Sennheiser has done this for decades. People do tend to take you more seriously when you have all the bases covered.

A tailored frequency response for a specific audience is not a flaw, it's a design choice.  I also don't understand why you have to make a product to meet everyone's needs in order to be taken seriously.  I can't go buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari truck, so does that mean they aren't serious automobile manufacturers?  There is something to be said for finding a niche and doing it better than anyone else.

post #414 of 924

Not every1 wants a completely balanced sound but to me also a "flat line" would sound bass anemic and highs slightly above neutral, I don't want a balanced sound, my personal ideal FR response looks roughly like this (based on testing different headphones, how I ended up EQing them and comparing with their measured FR):

 

 

About 8~9dB bump in the bass, and about 3dB bump in the lower-midrange compared to the average amplitude of the highs with a gentle spike around 8~10kHz area.

 

However then it's a matter of what is percieved as "balanced" and not too, I don't think a straight FR line would be balanced to every ear either but by "balanced" I merely speak of a flat FR which might not sound balanced on a subjective level, however that again I think is more to taste that percieved balance.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 10/13/12 at 7:49am
post #415 of 924

I'm wondering if the ZO2 might work well with the M-100 since I wouldn't want to change the mids or highs at all, but would like to boost the bass with some genres.
 

post #416 of 924

I'm staying out of the debate of what the M-100 is supposed to be and what it's not. All I can say that I enjoy my M-100 very very much. I'd recommend people to just have a listen to it and make it out for what you will for yourself. If you're not in the pre-order, find ways to get access to one either at local meets, or at events/shows, etc (but don't go around bidding for the $2500 on eBay ;-)).

 

Despite having more headphones than heads, there's still a place for the M-100 in my collection and I'll be grabbing it very often before I walk out the door for the day.

post #417 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnio View Post

Well, since the M-100 is reportedly a 9 dB bass boost and has not had one person call it muddy or said that it infringes on the mids I would venture a guess that it's the overall design of the headphone was geared towards having a lot of bass at the expense of clean punchy sound and defined mids.  The design is set there by physics, so just eq'ing down the bass is not likely to make it cleaner, otherwise more folks would say that the beats are acceptable solutions with mild eq'ing.

I guess the bass boost doesn't start at 500 Hz, which the beats one does thus making it sound really muddy. EQing the bass down not only will reduce distortion (the driver has to do less work), but also make it sound clearer which is a matter of psychoacoustics.

 

The beats headphones have much bigger problems than just the frequency response. The brand's image, price, lack of construction quality .. all this make it a non-popular choice regardless of using an EQ or not.

 

Quote:
A tailored frequency response for a specific audience is not a flaw, it's a design choice.  I also don't understand why you have to make a product to meet everyone's needs in order to be taken seriously.  I can't go buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari truck, so does that mean they aren't serious automobile manufacturers?  There is something to be said for finding a niche and doing it better than anyone else.

I agree, but tailoring (mechanical equalization) the frequency response has its limitations. So not every "feature" might be a design choice.

post #418 of 924
Quote:

Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

 

If you're not in the pre-order, find ways to get access to one either at local meets, or at events/shows, etc (but don't go around bidding for the $2500 on eBay ;-)).

 

 

Yeah, if anyone wants to drop $2500 on a set let me know.  I absolutely love mine, but everything is up for sale for a price, and well, I can wait 6 months on headphones for $2200 profit...lol

post #419 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by daphen View Post

Very sarcastic. I love bass. So I guess that makes me a Beatslover to Mr/Mrs, Speakerphile. 
Ridicculous.

I don't recall mentioning Beats. Also, I have no problem with Bass, if the artist intended for it to be there. I just feel like too many cans these days are coming out with the "U-shaped" FR curve that AnakChan describes in his review. I am not saying that these will be a poor quality set of headphones either. Just disappointed to hear that it is there. Also a little disappointed to hear everyone give a pass on it even though that is not what we were lead to believe these would be. Obviously I have not heard them(not that most people commenting have either), so there is a possibility that this is all for naught. Funny though. I say that I am now less excited based on the review and everyone jumps down my throat to defend a product that most people have not even heard yet. Settle down guys/gals. I may even like the headphone, just might not consider it the most accurate headphone out there.
post #420 of 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speakerphile View Post


I don't recall mentioning Beats. Also, I have no problem with Bass, if the artist intended for it to be there. I just feel like too many cans these days are coming out with the "U-shaped" FR curve that AnakChan describes in his review. I am not saying that these will be a poor quality set of headphones either. Just disappointed to hear that it is there. Also a little disappointed to hear everyone give a pass on it even though that is not what we were lead to believe these would be. Obviously I have not heard them(not that most people commenting have either), so there is a possibility that this is all for naught. Funny though. I say that I am now less excited based on the review and everyone jumps down my throat to defend a product that most people have not even heard yet. Settle down guys/gals. I may even like the headphone, just might not consider it the most accurate headphone out there.

Just do what people out side of this thread is doing. Wait for an unbias review. I said it earlier in the thread, the first wave of impressions/reviews will be from people trying to justify a $300 purchase.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › V-MODA M-100 & VTF-100 Appreciation Thread: Images, Impressions, Reviews.