or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton? - Page 151

post #2251 of 2265
Actually the cable is quite good, there's a purpose why it is like it is. It's easy to manage, doesn't tangle, and can easily be bent or crumpled. Very convenient actually. And since its flat, the capacitance will be higher, which means more transparent and no bass roll off.
post #2252 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liu Junyuan View Post

Thanks guys. I have to admit I was caught by surprise by his comments that focused solely on the cable and not the sound. I am guessing he may not have the ears or recordings to make a difference, as this is his first taste of a decent headphone.

He also is not using any amp or source gear.

Since most of my personal experience is with open-backed headphones for home and desktop usage, I personally struggled to martial a recommendation. The NAD HP50 seemed to be highly competitive at this price-point, and I tend to trust Tyll's reviews.

What I didnt want to do is offer the standard recommendation of the Audio Technica M50, but I cant help but wonder if my brother would have been happier even though I highly suspect the HP50 is superior sonically.

I was also at first considering the Shure 840 and ATH MSR7. Again, I felt fairly confident in spending more for the NAD.

Buying gear for those unacquainted with audio fidelity is challenging. I guess there is a place for the Apple i-buds and Skullcandies (no offense).

I think he will be just returning them for something cheaper. He certainly is not very happy with any step of the process so far.

Thanks everyone for the help. I hope you continue to enjoy these.

 

Quite understandable.  I had a cousin that once tried my NADs, and he says theyre no different from earbuds.  Still, I have coworkers who'd borrow my NADs coz they'll need a headset for a day, and after that they found the sound great and they wont return it.. they finally understood why I spent $250 on it.  

 

Train your brother to appreciate sonically.  He is so used to appreciate only visually that the cable became a deal breaker, when it really is not.  I will admit, you should have started his journey with the M50.  It is also where I started my audio journey, that my taste for sound signature gradually changed from V-shaped (basshead) to balanced (details),

post #2253 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamaVega View Post

Quite understandable.  I had a cousin that once tried my NADs, and he says theyre no different from earbuds.  Still, I have coworkers who'd borrow my NADs coz they'll need a headset for a day, and after that they found the sound great and they wont return it.. they finally understood why I spent $250 on it.  

Train your brother to appreciate sonically.  He is so used to appreciate only visually that the cable became a deal breaker, when it really is not.  I will admit, you should have started his journey with the M50.  It is also where I started my audio journey, that my taste for sound signature gradually changed from V-shaped (basshead) to balanced (details),
Why start with M50? M50 is so colored, that you'll appreciate the HP50 so much? biggrin.gif
post #2254 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondears View Post


Why start with M50? M50 is so colored, that you'll appreciate the HP50 so much? biggrin.gif

 

M50 is V-shaped, so most casual users will definitely appreciate it for modern music.  I started as a casual user ofcourse, and hearing M50 for the first time blew me away.  Yet, as my ears and taste for music matured (hiphop R&B to Classical/Jazz), I greatly appreciated the NADs.

 

The M50 is a great entry-level can, thats why I recommend it for starters who crave for excitement yet not much detail.  For those with a mature taste for music, who have grown tired of the colored cans and want more detail and natural sound, NADs ofcourse.

post #2255 of 2265

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)


Edited by Koibito - 7/23/15 at 8:41am
post #2256 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koibito View Post
 

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)

I think the Creative Aurvana Live sounds better than the HP50s in the mids and highs. They have a bit more bass than the NADs, but bass quality of the NADs is a lot better.

post #2257 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koibito View Post

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)
PSB M4U1. Had the NAD, I like its SQ, but its a pain on top of my head after a while (I have quite a big head). So tried its big brother PSB, whose bass I found to be overall better than the NAD. The NAD's sound is a bit cleaner though.
post #2258 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koibito View Post
 

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)

 

Shure SRH1540, Sony MDR-7520, Oppo PM-3, ZMF Vibro, and Sennheiser Momentum over-ear.  I haven't heard any of these, but they were on my short list before I bought the HP50. 


Edited by Captain Howdy - 7/23/15 at 3:57pm
post #2259 of 2265
PSB M4U1 or 2 are the closest because they have exactly the same technology, having been designed by one and the same person---Paul S. Barton.
post #2260 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koibito View Post
 

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)

 

Definitely the Focal Spirits, balanced as heck as the NADs, but you may steer to the Spirit Pros since they are more aggressive leaning.  Unfortunately, focal earpads are too small for me to be over ear.

post #2261 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koibito View Post
 

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)


I'm currently enjoying the akg k267 which imo is comparable in sound to the hp50's while looking better and being more comfortable for those with larger heads. I find it really seems to be a good all rounder and is almost nails it when it comes to being detailed without being harsh and being laid back while still being lively and enjoyable. The bass port controls also work very well and i would say it probably has a touch more bass impact when the ports are fully open. Clamping force is quite tight out of the box so i'm working to loosen it up. The only problem with these headphones is the retail price is quite high where i am, normally they are around twice the price of the hp50s but luckily i managed to find them on sale for half price so they cost me the same as a pair of nads.


Edited by chailee80 - 7/23/15 at 9:04pm
post #2262 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by chailee80 View Post


I'm currently enjoying the akg k267 which imo is comparable in sound to the hp50's while looking better and being more comfortable for those with larger heads. I find it really seems to be a good all rounder and is almost nails it when it comes to being detailed without being harsh and being laid back while still being lively and enjoyable. The bass port controls also work very well and i would say it probably has a touch more bass impact when the ports are fully open. Clamping force is quite tight out of the box so i'm working to loosen it up. The only problem with these headphones is the retail price is quite high where i am, normally they are around twice the price of the hp50s but luckily i managed to find them on sale for half price so they cost me the same as a pair of nads.
The K267 Tiesto Stage Setting's FR graph looks like to my liking. Might try this.
post #2263 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondears View Post

The K267 Tiesto Stage Setting's FR graph looks like to my liking. Might try this.
Yeh it's quite similar to the hp50 in terms of sound quality, the soundstage may not be quite as good as the hp50 but it definitely fits my head a lot better. I wouldn't pay retail for them as I think they're way too overpriced normally but if you can find somewhere that's selling them cheap it might worth trying them out. I think they do a good enough job that they'll be able to satisfy me until Paul Barton's next headphone is released which will hopefully fit me better.
post #2264 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koibito View Post
 

What other closed cans would you, folks, say come close to NAD Viso HP50 in sound signature, clarity, overall sound quality, but with a tad more bass?  Oh, and more aesthetically appealing.  HP50's headband makes me look like a walking kettle.  Seriously.  :-)

 

Shure SRH1540 fits those requirements pretty well. It should be a more comfortable fit for most people than the HP50 with its much softer pads although the headband adjustment length is pretty limited, so it may not be suitable for really large heads. The earpads openings on the Shure also still pretty small, so they may still be uncomfortable to wear for those with larger ears. Also, the cups don't swivel on the SRH1540 which is also a pretty serious issue for me as it makes them harder to adjust properly on the head compared to HP50 and other headphones with rotating cups. Once the Shures are adjusted properly on my head, I find the fit very comfortable and secure. In regards to sound quality, SRH1540 is somewhat better sounding overall than the HP50 to my ears. SRH1540 does have more bass, mostly sub bass, compared to HP50, which I actually don't really like. I think HP50 already has plenty of bass and any more than that is basshead territory to my ears. However, if the low end quantity of the HP50 is not enough for you, the Shures may suit you better.

 

My problem with the SRH1540 bass is that it's just too much for many recordings in bass driven music genres such as trance, dance and electronic. It's actually a really odd, unusual sound where the sub bass is already melting my brain, while the rest of the spectrum from mid bass and higher sound nice and neutral to slightly laid back. Bass quality is actually very good on the Shures and comparable to the bass on HP50, unless you turn the volume up really high in which case the SRH1540 low end may get a little loose and boomy compared to HP50.

 

Where I find SRH1540 superior to HP50 is in frequency balance from mid bass and up, resolution and clarity in the midrange, instrument separation, as well as dynamics. I actually feel that except for the sub bass boost, SRH1540 is more neutral and even sounding to my ears than the HP50 in the rest of the frequency range. I don't find the treble to be boosted on the Shures like some people do, and even if it is slightly emphasized, it is also very delicate and smooth sounding without any trace of harshness. I feel that the HP50 is a little dark in highs, relative to the lows and mids, particularly in the upper highs, while SRH1540 has more appropriate presence in the top octave. In terms of treble quality and resolution, I feel that they are quite close, with the SRH1540 sounding a bit smoother and "sweeter", and HP50 being perhaps a bit more natural in tone, but not as pleasant sounding as the Shures.

 

The midrange is where the Shures come out on top to my ears. HP50 has really good mids and vocals have fantastic body and presence on them, but I also find their mids a tad too forward and slightly lacking separation sometimes, sounding overly bloomy and congested. The resolution is still really good in the mids on the HP50, but sounds just aren't all that well defined and the low mid emphasis gives some vocals and instruments some excessive bloom. In other words while all details are there, the separation and layering of sounds is somewhat lacking. SRH1540 doesn't have this issue and excels at layering and separation, presenting all sounding as clearly defined and free to "breathe" in their own space within the soundstage. I also feel that SRH1540 has more resolution in the mids than HP50 does, presenting more micro detail/texture. In terms of tonal quality/timbre accuracy, I think the Shures are also more accurate. I think HP50 sounds slightly, but noticeably "plasticy" in the mids, which may be due to it's lack of good layering and separation and also because of the low midrange emphasis. SRH1540 doesn't sound plasticy to the same extent as the HP50, but I think they still sound a little smoothed over and still a bit unnatural in tone compared to, say, the HD800.

 

SRH1540 also does have better layering and separation in the lows and highs too, compared to HP50. Everything just sounds more articulate through the Shures. Dynamics are also better on the Shures - I think HP50 can sound a bit strained at times, not being able to present the full dynamic range of some recordings, or at least not as effectively as the Shures do.

 

Overall, I think that the SRH1540 is the better sounding, better looking and more comfortable headphone than the HP50, as it should be for the extra cost, but its excessive (in my opinion) sub bass emphasis and also some ergonomic issues (non-rotating cups, pretty small earpads openings) make it fall short of perfection. If they had more neutral sub bass, I would rate them as the best headphone in that price range to my ears, regardless of type, except perhaps for the HE-500. However, the overblown sub bass spoils the tonal balance somewhat and I would choose an HD600/650 or HE-500 over the Shures if I wanted an all arounder with tonal balance suitable for all music. Would I choose the HP50 over the Shures? No, because I feel that the Shures have better sound quality overall and I would rather just EQ the sub bass down on the Shures than take the hit in other apsects of sound quality by switching to the HP50. I also think SRH1540 is worth the extra cost over HP50 becuase it does sound noticeably better overall, has more solid build quality and comes with nicer accessories. And if you are a bass lover who finds the HP50 lacking in bass quantity, then you may not even need to EQ the bass down on the Shures and they may well be your perfect headphone. SRH1540 is my favorite closed back headphone overall, but compared to good open back headphones like a K612 or HD600, they do lack a bit in soundstage and imaging and still sound a bit congested and colored. I would still take them over the open backs for a lot of music though because of their amazing midrange resolution, which I don't believe I've heard yet from any other headphone except for the HD800, coupled with great dynamics and sweet sounding highs.


Edited by Pianist - 7/24/15 at 11:35am
post #2265 of 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

Shure SRH1540 fits those requirements pretty well. It should be a more comfortable fit for most people than the HP50 with its much softer pads although the headband adjustment length is pretty limited, so it may not be suitable for really large heads. The earpads openings on the Shure also still pretty small, so they may still be uncomfortable to wear for those with larger ears. Also, the cups don't swivel on the SRH1540 which is also a pretty serious issue for me as it makes them harder to adjust properly on the head compared to HP50 and other headphones with rotating cups. Once the Shures are adjusted properly on my head, I find the fit very comfortable and secure. In regards to sound quality, SRH1540 is somewhat better sounding overall than the HP50 to my ears. SRH1540 does have more bass, mostly sub bass, compared to HP50, which I actually don't really like. I think HP50 already has plenty of bass and any more than that is basshead territory to my ears. However, if the low end quantity of the HP50 is not enough for you, the Shures may suit you better.

My problem with the SRH1540 bass is that it's just too much for many recordings in bass driven music genres such as trance, dance and electronic. It's actually a really odd, unusual sound where the sub bass is already melting my brain, while the rest of the spectrum from mid bass and higher sound nice and neutral to slightly laid back. Bass quality is actually very good on the Shures and comparable to the bass on HP50, unless you turn the volume up really high in which case the SRH1540 low end may get a little loose and boomy compared to HP50.

Where I find SRH1540 superior to HP50 is in frequency balance from mid bass and up, resolution and clarity in the midrange, instrument separation, as well as dynamics. I actually feel that except for the sub bass boost, SRH1540 is more neutral and even sounding to my ears than the HP50 in the rest of the frequency range. I don't find the treble to be boosted on the Shures like some people do, and even if it is slightly emphasized, it is also very delicate and smooth sounding without any trace of harshness. I feel that the HP50 is a little dark in highs, relative to the lows and mids, particularly in the upper highs, while SRH1540 has more appropriate presence in the top octave. In terms of treble quality and resolution, I feel that they are quite close, with the SRH1540 sounding a bit smoother and "sweeter", and HP50 being perhaps a bit more natural in tone, but not as pleasant sounding as the Shures.

The midrange is where the Shures come out on top to my ears. HP50 has really good mids and vocals have fantastic body and presence on them, but I also find their mids a tad too forward and slightly lacking separation sometimes, sounding overly bloomy and congested. The resolution is still really good in the mids on the HP50, but sounds just aren't all that well defined and the low mid emphasis gives some vocals and instruments some excessive bloom. In other words while all details are there, the separation and layering of sounds is somewhat lacking. SRH1540 doesn't have this issue and excels at layering and separation, presenting all sounding as clearly defined and free to "breathe" in their own space within the soundstage. I also feel that SRH1540 has more resolution in the mids than HP50 does, presenting more micro detail/texture. In terms of tonal quality/timbre accuracy, I think the Shures are also more accurate. I think HP50 sounds slightly, but noticeably "plasticy" in the mids, which may be due to it's lack of good layering and separation and also because of the low midrange emphasis. SRH1540 doesn't sound plasticy to the same extent as the HP50, but I think they still sound a little smoothed over and still a bit unnatural in tone compared to, say, the HD800.

SRH1540 also does have better layering and separation in the lows and highs too, compared to HP50. Everything just sounds more articulate through the Shures. Dynamics are also better on the Shures - I think HP50 can sound a bit strained at times, not being able to present the full dynamic range of some recordings, or at least not as effectively as the Shures do. Hea

Overall, I think that the SRH1540 is the better sounding, better looking and more comfortable headphone than the HP50, as it should be for the extra cost, but its excessive (in my opinion) sub bass emphasis and also some ergonomic issues (non-rotating cups, pretty small earpads openings) make it fall short of perfection. If they had more neutral sub bass, I would rate them as the best headphone in that price range to my ears, regardless of type, except perhaps for the HE-500. However, the overblown sub bass spoils the tonal balance somewhat and I would choose an HD600/650 or HE-500 over the Shures if I wanted an all arounder with tonal balance suitable for all music. Would I choose the HP50 over the Shures? No, because I feel that the Shures have better sound quality overall and I would rather just EQ the sub bass down on the Shures than take the hit in other apsects of sound quality by switching to the HP50. I also think SRH1540 is worth the extra cost over HP50 becuase it does sound noticeably better overall, has more solid build quality and comes with nicer accessories. And if you are a bass lover who finds the HP50 lacking in bass quantity, then you may not even need to EQ the bass down on the Shures and they may well be your perfect headphone. SRH1540 is my favorite closed back headphone overall, but compared to good open back headphones like a K612 or HD600, they do lack a bit in soundstage and imaging and still sound a bit congested and colored. I would still take them over the open backs for a lot of music though because of their amazing midrange resolution, which I don't believe I've heard yet from any other headphone except for the HD800, coupled with great dynamics and sweet sounding highs.
Very interesting how we all hear things differently...

I agree with you on the part were you said that they're a bit dark on the upper treble, but that's not something EQ can't fix.

I fully disagree however were you said that the mids are forward. To my ears, they're recessed (well, atleast the vocals, both male and female)

When I listened to the HP50s for 1 week exclusively, I thought to myself ''These cans sound pretty pleasing with a bit of treble EQ, but the vocals seem a bit recessed. I don't know if it's in my head or that they're REALLY recessed'' and then after that 1 week, I came back to the creative aurvana live, and the first things I thought were ''Hell yeah, my music sounds alive again. Vocals are nice and forward, VERY natural timbre, very clear and crisp sound that overall is even smoother than the NADs'''

The only negatives I noticed from switching from the HP50s to the CAL was that the cals bass quality is a lot worse, and that the sound was ''smaller'' than that of the NADs, which sounded more spacious and roomy.
Edited by dakanao - 7/24/15 at 3:03pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton?