[nicholars]

Few questions for anyone who has compared the two...
 
1) Which has the biggest / deepest pads? So my ears do not touch the driver, I have found this to be the downfall of a few headphones I have purchased due to ear ache after a couple of hours!
 
2) I read the NAD has less bass... Is this a significant or a  small difference? I like headphones with good bass / sub bass response.
 
3) Best build quality and fit? Longest cable?
 
Any quick answers appreciated as I am going to get one of these 2 in the next couple of days thanks...

 

[nicholars]

Thanks for all the helpful replies everyone, really have gained some useful information here... lol

 

[depleted]

Afaik the hp50 is slightly better in everything, but never tried them. Try the official threads of both to find more info, it's hard that someone will pop to respond to a question this specific in one day


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[nicholars]

Thanks for reply, after doing some more research I think I will probably go with the HP50 after reading about slightly dodgy build quality on the PSB's (eg. one channel stops working, plastic breaks etc.), also anything that says NAD on it is always good they are my favourite audio brand.
 
Hopefully the differnce in bass response is not much and hopefully the HP50's work well with EQ to boost the bass a bit, everything else about them looks good except reports of "not much bass" etc.
 
Also the pads being a bit shallow might be a problem but there are not many other options around £200 that I have not already owned... So looks like I will give the NAD's a try.

 

[GearMe]

Thanks for reply, after doing some more research I think I will probably go with the HP50 after reading about slightly dodgy build quality on the PSB's (eg. one channel stops working, plastic breaks etc.), also anything that says NAD on it is always good they are my favourite audio brand.

Hopefully the differnce in bass response is not much and hopefully the HP50's work well with EQ to boost the bass a bit, everything else about them looks good except reports of "not much bass" etc.

Also the pads being a bit shallow might be a problem but there are not many other options around £200 that I have not already owned... So looks like I will give the NAD's a try.

I spent some time listening to both of these when I was in the market for some $300ish closed headphones.

Both are nice sounding but I'd give the edge to the HP50s. They sounded more balanced across the spectrum, with tighter bass -- more musical -- to me.

 

[nicholars]

I spent some time listening to both of these when I was in the market for some $300ish closed headphones.

Both are nice sounding but I'd give the edge to the HP50s. They sounded more balanced across the spectrum, with tighter bass -- more musical -- to me.

 
Did you get a chance to try them with EQ? Looking at the FR graphs they do not lose any volume down to 20hz, so they should be capable of good bass if it is increased with EQ. Not as bothered about massive bass, more interested in quality, but if the headphones sound thin and don't have enough bass I cannot be happy with the sound. Anyway only way to know is to try them.

 

[GearMe]

Did you get a chance to try them with EQ? Looking at the FR graphs they do not lose any volume down to 20hz, so they should be capable of good bass if it is increased with EQ. Not as bothered about massive bass, more interested in quality, but if the headphones sound thin and don't have enough bass I cannot be happy with the sound. Anyway only way to know is to try them.

Didn't get the chance to EQ either of them...don't really feel the HP50s needed it anyway. Might have fiddled with the upper treble a bit on the PSBs to take the edge off.

I typically only look at FR graphs to get a general idea of a headphones sound signature and then, if at all possible, find a way to listen to them with my music...especially in the $200 and above category. That said, I looked at the graphs on Headroom and InnerFidelity and they seem to confirm what the overall community is saying about these cans...which is a good thing!

I attached the Headroom graphs for the HP50's along with two cans in your signature -- SE215s and HE400s for reference points (M4Us weren't available)

What struck me is how similar the SE215s curve was to the HP50s (below). This made me look at their Data Sheets on InnerFidelity...same results.

Even more interesting is how similar the InnerFidelity 30Hz and 300Hz Square Wave graphs were for the SE215 & HP50s. BTW, the similarities carry over to Headroom 50Hz and 500Hz graphs as well.

Really makes me want to buy a pair of the SE215s! I think they were $80 over Black Friday...wish I knew this info a couple weeks ago. Oh well, even at $99, I'm guessing I'll like the SE215s...will be interesting to see how they compare to the HP50s soundwise.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/NADVISOHP50.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ShureSE215.pdf



FWIW, the M4U graphs are available on InnerFidelity as well. Comparing them to the HP50 graphs seems to support the HP50s having more accurate bass (i.e. the square waves are a little 'square-er')
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/PSBM4U1.pdf

 

[nicholars]

Thanks for that, I have looked at the innerfidelity specs before and the HP50 does look almost perfect with the frequency response as I do not like bright headphones, also the bass response on the graph is VERY good, which makes a bit odd why people say they don't have much bass or impact, anyway I will just buy some and EQ the bass up a bit and hopefully they will have enough bass to give a full sound as I do not like bright or thin sounding headphones at all, I am used to HE400 bass which is very good (shame about the treble!).
 
With the SE215 I recommend them, Shure products are always good build quality, the SE215 are a little bit too smooth almost but I have owned quite a few IEM's and the SE215 have always ended up being the ones I kept because they are built very well, fit / isolate well, don't hurt my ears with sibilance etc. and sound good with any music. For an all rounder pair of IEM's under £100 I don't think there is anything better. I have tried about 5 other IEM's since buying the SE215 including quite expensive ones (IE8, Atrio, EPH 100) and they have all been sold as I prefer the SE215 overall for the price.
 
 

 

[GearMe]

Thanks for that, I have looked at the innerfidelity specs before and the HP50 does look almost perfect with the frequency response as I do not like bright headphones, also the bass response on the graph is VERY good, which makes a bit odd why people say they don't have much bass or impact, anyway I will just buy some and EQ the bass up a bit and hopefully they will have enough bass to give a full sound as I do not like bright or thin sounding headphones at all, I am used to HE400 bass which is very good (shame about the treble!).

With the SE215 I recommend them, Shure products are always good build quality, the SE215 are a little bit too smooth almost but I have owned quite a few IEM's and the SE215 have always ended up being the ones I kept because they are built very well, fit / isolate well, don't hurt my ears with sibilance etc. and sound good with any music. For an all rounder pair of IEM's under £100 I don't think there is anything better. I have tried about 5 other IEM's since buying the SE215 including quite expensive ones (IE8, Atrio, EPH 100) and they have all been sold as I prefer the SE215 overall for the price.

I really thought the HP50s were spot on...no need for EQ to my ears but we all hear differently!

Also, picked up some SE215s at lunch today $20 off with coupon at local music shop. They also have a $10 rebate if I remember to mail it in!

 

[nicholars]

I really thought the HP50s were spot on...no need for EQ to my ears but we all hear differently!

Also, picked up some SE215s at lunch today $20 off with coupon at local music shop. They also have a $10 rebate if I remember to mail it in!

 
The Se215 are one of those headphones that are not amazing but they do everything well and sound good with every type of music, which is why I bought them twice, also the build quality and service from Shure is very good.

 

[Bansaku]

Didn't get the chance to EQ either of them...don't really feel the HP50s needed it anyway. Might have fiddled with the upper treble a bit on the PSBs to take the edge off.
 

 

 
Edge? What edge? Been listening to the M4U 1 non-stop since Friday and I can safely say no matter what the source was, they have beautiful treble that is sparkly, crisp, detailed yet laid back, very much like the Momentum (which I have also compared). Far less aggressive treble than both my SR60 and T70.
 
Also, don't worry about construction quality of the M4U 1, yes in the beginning they had issues but NONE since they were initially reported. Very much like what the HD598 went through shortly after launch. The M4U 1 are very solid.
 

 
 
Edit: FYI, Paul Barton helped design the NAD HP 50 before designing the M4U 1 with his own company PSB.

 

[Beagle]

Agree, very smooth on top

 

[intlsubband]

I own both HP50 and M4U2 and I feel that M4U2 is simply better in all sound categories.
 
The earpads are pretty similar in size.
 
I love the implementation of the amp in the M4U2 but even on passive mode, with the right external amp, it's terrific. But the integrated amp makes the need for a dedicated portable amp redundant.
 
I used to have the M4U2, when it stopped working I got the HP50, but it was just not as good. Less detailed, and especially less articulated bass. Ever since I got another M4U2, I stopped using all my other portables. In fact I gave away the HP50 to a friend, I just feel that the M4U2 surpasses it in every way.
 
I wrote a longer post about it in a similar thread, I'll try to find it and link to it.

 

[intlsubband]

This is what I posted on the other thread:
 
After many years of listening to headphones, mostly cheap ones, 2 years ago I started to research to buy a truly proper set of headphones. After familiarising myself head-fi and other sites, and digging as deep as I could, I decided to go for the PSB M4U2. I absolutely LOVED them. For more than a year they were my absolute favourite headphones.
 
Then, after a bit over a year, they died - one side just went completely quiet and would not make any sound. I then decided to use this as an opportunity to try a bunch of other headphones. I also updated my portable source, from an ipod classic to ibasso DX90. I even ended up getting the NAD Viso, thinking that they will sound just as good.
 
However, I couldn't get rid of the nagging feeling that even the NAD Viso's, which are reported to be just as good as the PSBs (and some even prefer the NADs), are just not in the same level of the M4U2. I knew that this might just be a bias, that I had M4U2 before I had a chance to listen to many other headphones, and that what I'm interpreting as an inferior sound is more about nostalgia than actual sound differences.
 
But the nagging feeling would not go away, so I finally got another M4U2, and I had a chance to properly compare the two back to back.
 
I'm glad to say that my memory was not playing tricks on me. To my ears, the M4U2 are definitely superior over the NADs.A part of this might be the integrated amp in the M4U2. I think that it just works perfectly well, it matches the headphones perfectly and adds a level of dynamics and realism to the sound that significantly exceeds the NADs. The bass is perhaps the best improvement - it was always a bit lacking in the NADs, and when I used the NADs with an E12, the bass was just too boomy and uncontrolled. The PSBs have wonderful bass, especially in the amped mode. Lush, warm, adds real fullness to the sound, yet clear and controlled enough to be properly detailed.

I might write a more detailed comparison between the two, but in my ears, the PSBs (especially with the amp mode) are definitely superior. I never heard the M4U1, and although I saw some contradicting reports about how they compare with M4U2 in passive mode (some say identical, some say M4U1 better), I just can't imagine the 1 competing with the sound of 2. And the internal amp is so well implemented, sound wise, that I'm surprised I don't see more headphones with integrated amps (I was considering trying the Blue Mo-Fi's but in general the reviews of the sound are pretty mediocre).
 
I might write a more proper comparison between the M4U2 and the NADs, but for now, my "vote" clearly goes to the PSBs. Such a wonderful headphone, the complete package for a full-sized portable in my view. And the sound is actually not very far off from my main home rig (HE-500 + Corda Classic).
 


 

 

[nicholars]

  I own both HP50 and M4U2 and I feel that M4U2 is simply better in all sound categories.
 
The earpads are pretty similar in size.
 
I love the implementation of the amp in the M4U2 but even on passive mode, with the right external amp, it's terrific. But the integrated amp makes the need for a dedicated portable amp redundant.
 
I used to have the M4U2, when it stopped working I got the HP50, but it was just not as good. Less detailed, and especially less articulated bass. Ever since I got another M4U2, I stopped using all my other portables. In fact I gave away the HP50 to a friend, I just feel that the M4U2 surpasses it in every way.
 
I wrote a longer post about it in a similar thread, I'll try to find it and link to it.

 
Which have the biggest amount of space for ears and the biggest pads? I was going to buy some M4u2 but was a bit put off by the build quality problems, if they are a bit brighter than the hp50, have more bass and fit better, then I would probably like them, anyway I will be getting the Shure SRH 1540 tomorrow so might make the decision for me, but if I don't like them for some reason the M4u2 look interesting... IF the pads are a bit bigger / deeper and more comfortable than the HP50, or possibly work with other pads from another manufacturer?