[gargani]

Before I bought my m40x, I read the Amazon reviews, and a majority of reviews said how neutral the bass was. Although a couple said the bass was too much.
I didn't know what to expect. When I got them I was relieved and happy. They had a nice amount of bass for my taste. A bit emphasized, north of neutral.
I think people who were saying the bass was neutral,were comparing or referencing to headphones that were even more bassy or north of neutral.

Frequency response graphs at diy audio, rtings, and golden ears, as well as the graph you linked, all show that little hump in the mid bass. They also show a little trough in the lower mid range.
Except for the graph you linked, they all show a strong peak in the treble at around 9khz. to 10khz.
So a hump in the mid bass , a dip in the low midrange, and apeak in the treble.

Having said all that, I agree with you, and I'm going to stand corrected about the frequency response.It isn't as far from flat,as I made it sound. As you say, It isn't reference or neutral flat, but It's pretty decent for It's price, compared to a lot of other headphones.
I like the m40x. It's my most favourite closed back of the ones I own.

 

[gargani]

I know your post is rather old. The m40x is relatively neutral. It isn't reference neutral or flat. But, for less than $100 it is more neutral than at least 95% of the headphones out there. Here is a link to the m40x FR graph:

http://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/param6.php?idhp2=526

I responded to your post, but somehow it didn't show your quote. See above.

 

[gargani]

I responded to your post, but somehow it didn't show your quote. See above.

I forgot we were in the senn. debuts a bunch of new headphones thread.
The very brief listen I had to the hd 569, didn't make me want to replace my m40x.

 

[LazyListener]

Before I bought my m40x, I read the Amazon reviews, and a majority of reviews said how neutral the bass was. Although a couple said the bass was too much.
I didn't know what to expect. When I got them I was relieved and happy. They had a nice amount of bass for my taste. A bit emphasized, north of neutral.
I think people who were saying the bass was neutral,were comparing or referencing to headphones that were even more bassy or north of neutral.

Frequency response graphs at diy audio, rtings, and golden ears, as well as the graph you linked, all show that little hump in the mid bass. They also show a little trough in the lower mid range.
Except for the graph you linked, they all show a strong peak in the treble at around 9khz. to 10khz.
So a hump in the mid bass , a dip in the low midrange, and apeak in the treble.

Having said all that, I agree with you, and I'm going to stand corrected about the frequency response.It isn't as far from flat,as I made it sound. As you say, It isn't reference or neutral flat, but It's pretty decent for It's price, compared to a lot of other headphones.
I like the m40x. It's my most favourite closed back of the ones I own.

M40x are slightly v-shaped. I could hear the peakiness in the treble. It sounded a bit thin. The 598, for example, also have the peak around 9 kHz, but for some reason, it sounds smoother and not as thin.

 

[gargani]

M40x are slightly v-shaped. I could hear the peakiness in the treble. It sounded a bit thin. The 598, for example, also have the peak around 9 kHz, but for some reason, it sounds smoother and not as thin.

Yes, when comparing the m40x to the 598, that's how I hear it , as well.
Looking at Rtings treble comparison graph for both headphones; the m40x shows a rise starting at 7 khz. and rising to peak at about 9khz. But it's more elevated relative to the treble frequencies below that..The peak stands out more.
The 598 also has a 9khz. peak but it doesn't stand out as much, relative to the treble frequencies below that. Looking at it that way, migtht explain why the 598's sound smoother and less thin in the treble.
Also the 598's have more energy in the low mid range , which could add to them sounding not as thin.

 

[J The Killer]

Anyone compared 599 and 58X?

 

[PeterMac]

I bought HD579 and HD599 and listen they all day and I can't decide which are better and which one keep. What I noticed HD579 have a little cleaner treble and sound is more little more forward, in HD599 sound are closer to my ears. Listening on Xonar STX II and FiiO BTR3.

 

[J The Killer]

I bought HD579 and HD599 and listen they all day and I can't decide which are better and which one keep. What I noticed HD579 have a little cleaner treble and sound is more little more forward in HD599 sound are closer to my ears.

I have used them both and to me HD599 is slightly more detailed while HD579 is more mellow or soft. For easy listening and less fatigue in long listening hours I suggest HD579, for more clarity HD599.

 

[PeterMac]

I have used them both and to me HD599 is slightly more detailed while HD579 is more mellow or soft. For easy listening and less fatigue in long listening hours I suggest HD579, for more clarity HD599.

Hmm, for me HD579 are little more detailed maybe because have a bit little cleaner treble, they are similar overall hard to tell big differences. But I agree HD599 are a bit more fatigue probably because sound closer to ears.
But what I have to say HD579/599 are superior in comfort, more comfortable than my HD600, much less clamping force, also way more comfortable than Sennheiser GameOne headset which I returned (too small earcups)

 

[Sp12er3]

Have you tried bending the Headband on the 600 if you feel the pressure annoying?