[x RELIC x]

But if you're used to the way most music sounds through the M-100, and you produce music -- using your M-100s -- to have a similar frequency response that most other music has through your M-100s, then the production result should be OK, shouldn't it?

Not in my opinion, too coloured, but to each their own.

 

[Tom22]

Not in my opinion, too coloured, but to each their own.

heres a fun question for everyone,
 
as it seem to have stumbled me for a while anyway...
 
lets say your mixing and mastering with your m100s
 
with the intended audience as the average consumer with say your average earphones say your apple earpods, skullcandy ink'd or titans, and klipsch s4---> all of which have a mostly bass centric sound with a relatively dark treble (with the exception of the s4)
 
wouldn't the m100s be fine for these users?
 
cause the m100s is smooth in the treble, and bassy too.
 
hm...... penny for your thoughts fellas...... cause when i heard people mastering with the m100s this thought came up, and i don't recall ever coming up with an answer
 
because the general consensus is that flat/balanced/neutral headphones would be "best" for music production, yet... the m50x isn't necessarily that either..... hm......

 

[x RELIC x]

You ever spend time in a relatively low light room and then walk straight out in to the bright midday sunlight? The sun feels too bright initially because you were used to the low light. After some time you adjust. The reverse is true, bright sunlight to a low light room and it's difficult to see through the relative dark. Same with anything, it's all relative, that's why you want as neutral a starting point as possible to be sure.

Another analogy.... My aging Father had his TV tint over to the green spectrum. I saw it and was amazed that Alex Trebek looked green skinned but he thought it was normal. I adjusted it to neutral and my Father said it was too pink (magenta). After a while he got used to it but why not start with a neutral tint in the first place?

 

[JiDey247]

I also think it's all about getting used to your gear personally. But what's really important is that the listener is able to hear as many details as possible. so that's why i'm hesitating between hd 650 & m100

 

[DooberKnob]

 
You might find this video relevant to your interests.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

   
But if you're used to the way most music sounds through the M-100, and you produce music -- using your M-100s -- to have a similar frequency response that most other music has through your M-100s, then the production result should be OK, shouldn't it?

Finally some1 who gets it. Neutral response is overrated, you just need to get used to a sound, listen to lots and lots of retail releases and make your tracks sound the same (you can also study/compare with waveforms to get a 2nd opinion besides relying on your ears alone which I do equally much and when visual "good looking" waveform matches good sounding waveform, you know you're close to the ideal result). This is from some1 who masters Hardstyle music as a hobby for newcomer producers and often gets praises that it sounds like those releases coming from expensive studios. 

If you're into neutral response, that's fine, but I personally get more enjoyment while tweaking the tracks with my colored response (insert automatic *head-bobbing, foot-stomping* experience that wouldn't quite work with neutral response).

It takes some time but the longer you are listening to that same sound, preferably same volume all the time as I'm doing to develop an ability to better judge mixdowns, you get more and more accurate. Having to rely on gear sounding neutral is a costly and tricky route to go IMO which may or may not give you ideal enjoyment depending on your taste. (doesn't for me). I prefer getting the ideal enjoymeant WHILE working on the tracks personally which the colored response does for my personal taste without hindering my mastering abilities (in fact changing to a neutral response would make me less accurate for a while since it would take some time to develop judgeability in how it "should" sound with such setup).

If retail releases sounds bass bloated on your setup (from a neutral/audiophile listeners point of view) your masterings should sound bass bloated too, then it's down to learning how much of a "bass bloat". I've found my personal preferable amount of "bass bloat" vs "quality ratio" and rollin' with that. Then the old-time audiophiles can preach for the life of of me how I'm doing it wrong and such. All I know it works just fine for me and I'm having so much fun that I don't care working for free.

 

[Danpyre]

   
But if you're used to the way most music sounds through the M-100, and you produce music -- using your M-100s -- to have a similar frequency response that most other music has through your M-100s, then the production result should be OK, shouldn't it?

ALRIGHT, I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!  You always advertise your EQ 20 times a forum in the fasion of a 70s commercial, as if it's the only thing you have to do.  And now you're saying that if someone were to use your EQ presets, where you almost only hear the lowest notes, listened to it every day of their life, then decided to make music, it wouldn't turn out horrible?  I am in a group chat, where we have a running joke about your 9034i38+ custom Rockbox EQ presets.  YOU'RE A JOKE!
 
Ehh, the preset ads are only slightly annoying, though cmon, m8.  Your logic is a bit bs XD
 
Now, for my explanation on why you shouldn't use the M100s for mixing and mastering.  The only thing it's good for is to be a portable beater can.  If you're a basshead and you need something portable, and you like how this looks, that's when you should get it.  It's kind of fun sounding.  The problem with it, is the sounds that come through the cable aren't the sound that come out.  Bass has low distortion, but that doesn't mean the bass is the same.  It doesn't have enough bass detail to be able to replicate all of the little things that make people love planars and such.  They don't monitor, they just let you   There are quite a few things around the $100 price point that will definitely beat the M100's mids.  It's just not very good.  The treble isn't special either.  Soundwise, the only thing special about this can, is pretty good at the price point for how much it's emphasized.  It's like a better Beats headphone (Solo 2 beats it, but it's closer to neutral, so the drivers won't go out of control from excess bass).
 
And about how you adjust to different responses, I can see where your reasoning comes from, but lemme shine some light on why that's false.
 
One, dips and peaks are difficult to account for.  You're gonna end up screwing up the tonal balance if there's a bunch of sibilance that you can't hear, because your headphones put a dip there to make it an easier listen.  Likewise, there could be a peak somewhere in the mids, it could sound weird to you, so you take it out.  Turns out, you didn't want that to be gone, because now people are going to think the mix sounds thin.
 
Two, in the case of DPJ's custom rockbox preset EQs, you'd pretty much only hear the lower bass with a very tiny amount of treble and mids in there.  If you were him, and you decided to make music with said preset, you'd end up having no bass in the mix, and a large amount of treble and mids in the mix. "How could this be?" you wonder, "If I'm only used to low bass, why shouldn't my mix turn out with only what I'm used to?"  Well, DiscoProJoe, let me answer your question.  A 23 db boost of bass at 31 hertz doesn't boost every sound at 31 hertz by 23 decibels.  It's more like multiplying the frequencies than adding them.  A quiet bass sound isn't boosted nearly as much as a loud bass sound.  Likewise, if the treble is lowered by 10 hertz, quieter treble will get slightly quieter, while loud treble will get a lot more quiet.  Now, this isn't nearly as bad with an M100 as a  ou will miss the odd tonal balance.  If this doesn't make sense, just think about it for a bit.
 
Finally, the M100 is crap compared to the HD600.  The HD600 is neutral.  It doesn't mean that a neutral headphone will always be technically superior, but people don't design bass heavy headphones to be technically amazing.  They make them to be enjoyable to the bass heavy crowd.  Val didn't make the M100 to be detailed, he made them to be durable and fun to his desired crowd.
 
Now, for a recommendation, JiDey, neither of those are the detailed in the price.  If you're willing to go the HD650 territory, you can find a cheaper Beyer DT880 that is super detailed, but it'll have an (I think) middle to upper treble peak that lots of people don't like.  It's slightly bright, but it's a great detail whore.  The HD600 is still my recommendation if you're wanting something that will reliably show you what you need to hear.  It's less detailed than the K/Q701 or Beyer DT880, but it's one can that people with HD800s still reach for when they want the tonal balance.
 
Does anyone have any objections to what I've said?

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  ALRIGHT, I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!  You always advertise your EQ 20 times a forum in the fasion of a 70s commercial, as if it's the only thing you have to do.  I am in a group chat, where we have a running joke about your 9034i38+ custom Rockbox EQ presets.  YOU'RE A JOKE!

 
Ahhhhh, am I supposed to feel stupid or something? Oh, OK. Oh! I feel really stupid! Congratulations, Danny Boy, you just scored 25 points in your little game of Misery Loves Company. Hey, you're on a roll, keep it up! 75 more points and you'll get a 1-UP! 

 

[DiscoProJoe]

 
Finally some1 who gets it. Neutral response is overrated, you just need to get used to a sound, listen to lots and lots of retail releases and make your tracks sound the same (you can also study/compare with waveforms to get a 2nd opinion besides relying on your ears alone which I do equally much and when visual "good looking" waveform matches good sounding waveform, you know you're close to the ideal result). This is from some1 who masters Hardstyle music as a hobby for newcomer producers and often gets praises that it sounds like those releases coming from expensive studios. 

If you're into neutral response, that's fine, but I personally get more enjoyment while tweaking the tracks with my colored response (insert automatic *head-bobbing, foot-stomping* experience that wouldn't quite work with neutral response).

It takes some time but the longer you are listening to that same sound, preferably same volume all the time as I'm doing to develop an ability to better judge mixdowns, you get more and more accurate. Having to rely on gear sounding neutral is a costly and tricky route to go IMO which may or may not give you ideal enjoyment depending on your taste. (doesn't for me). I prefer getting the ideal enjoymeant WHILE working on the tracks personally which the colored response does for my personal taste without hindering my mastering abilities (in fact changing to a neutral response would make me less accurate for a while since it would take some time to develop judgeability in how it "should" sound with such setup).

If retail releases sounds bass bloated on your setup (from a neutral/audiophile listeners point of view) your masterings should sound bass bloated too, then it's down to learning how much of a "bass bloat". I've found my personal preferable amount of "bass bloat" vs "quality ratio" and rollin' with that. Then the old-time audiophiles can preach for the life of of me how I'm doing it wrong and such. All I know it works just fine for me and I'm having so much fun that I don't care working for free.

 
Very well-put, RPGWiz!  5 to 10 years from now, I do plan on writing, composing, and performing my own pop music with a Korg music workstation or something similar. I might tune it to sound best through my portable headphone rig while using the "Optimized Less Treble 4" preset. This would give the recording a slight sub-bass emphasis while still remaining fairly neutral otherwise. Of course, I'd also play it through a stereo system and another pair of headphones to make sure it sounds OK.

 

[Evshrug]

ALRIGHT, I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!  You always advertise your EQ 20 times a forum in the fasion of a 70s commercial, as if it's the only thing you have to do.  And now you're saying that if someone were to use your EQ presets ...

Now, for a recommendation, JiDey, neither of those are the detailed in the price.  If you're willing to go the HD650 territory, you can find a cheaper Beyer DT880 that is super detailed, but it'll have an (I think) middle to upper treble peak that lots of people don't like.  It's slightly bright, but it's a great detail whore.  The HD600 is still my recommendation if you're wanting something that will reliably show you what you need to hear.  It's less detailed than the K/Q701 or Beyer DT880, but it's one can that people with HD800s still reach for when they want the tonal balance.

Does anyone have any objections to what I've said?

Uh, what?
Ok, maaaaybe DiscoPro Joe has mentioned an EQ a few times before (IDK, never met him before, only casually keep track of this thread), but he certainly didn't in response to the guy asking about a headphone for music production. Making fun of someone in a group chat doesn't improve the argument, but rather trying to mention that as persuasive leverage just reflects on your own character and group's character.

Now, I will agree about peaks and valleys in the FR being hard to keep track of, the peak in the DT880 only showed up sometimes (and whoo-ee when it did!).

If someone is just performance MONITORING, almost any headphone that's not crap will do fine.

If you're mixing tracks, focusing on errors and aligning tracks and panning, a headphone/speaker should be detailed but the balance of frequencies aren't super important so long as it's not severely colored to keep the engineer from paying attention to part of the FR.

If a track is being MASTERED, where the engineer/producer is massaging the recorded audio with EQ, THEN you probably want something balanced/neutral or following the Harmon curve smoothly, with few peaks and valleys. The DT880 (studio favourite, but I can't wear them for long before my ears hurt and eventually start ringing) and HD600 are more flat than their higher priced (former flagship) stablemates, and so is the quite excellent K612 (good pick if you've got enough room on the volume dial), but I'd also toss in the suggestion of the Beyerdynamic DT150. Check out the frequency balance of that baby. Something like that, or dedicated studio monitors (speakers).

In reality, most studios have a pair of nice near-field monitor speakers setup for mastering, and they take the song to their cars or their phones with earbuds to check what a song sounds like on something they are familiar with. Spend too much time with super flat & balanced and your mixes will probably not sound right to mainstream playback headphones/speakers. M-100s are fine for monitoring, mixing, and personal use, IMO because of the preceding paragraphs.

 

[Danpyre]

Originally Posted by DiscoProJoe /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 
Ahhhhh, am I supposed to feel stupid or something? Oh, OK. Oh! I feel really stupid! Congratulations, Danny Boy, you just scored 25 points in your little game of Misery Loves Company. Hey, you're on a roll, keep it up! 75 more points and you'll get a 1-UP! 

If you look to the short line below that whole bit, you'll see what I meant by that.  I was just being exasperated to be comical.
Also, I love me some pointless points!
 

  Words that I was sure to read.

Two people!  I really need to work on getting my point over.  It's a running joke in the chat, because the EQ's that we've seen were... interesting.  One of his treble cut lites had a big boost in the 31 hertz one, and the rest being lowered, capping at 23 hertz or something cut from the top treble.  I found it to be funny how he advertised them at first, because it was silly how he was doing it like an old commercial, but seeing them, like, 13 times made it slightly annoying.  The group chat that I am in has pretty much become banter, headphones, and dank memes.  The only time I really tried to use his EQ as leverage is when I was referring them being pretty horrible if you wanna master anything.  It wasn't my intention to use him as persuasive leverage, even though he insulted my precious neutral cans ;-;
 
It's okay, my dears.  You're not boring.  You're-you're beautiful.  Don't let the bad man get you down!
 
Oh, forgot to add.  The K712 is about as neutral as the HD600.  Q701 + K712 pads = K712.
And I've heard pretty good things about the ER-4S, though I doubt many people would wanna have a long session with those in their ears.
And finally, the SR-009 looks a lot like and HD-600 on super steroids.
 
Also, Val, plz don't delete my posts!  I don't hate your M100, I just think that it's purpose is kind of selective!

 

[Efterlade]

 
heres a fun question for everyone,
 
as it seem to have stumbled me for a while anyway...
 
lets say your mixing and mastering with your m100s
 
with the intended audience as the average consumer with say your average earphones say your apple earpods, skullcandy ink'd or titans, and klipsch s4---> all of which have a mostly bass centric sound with a relatively dark treble (with the exception of the s4)
 
wouldn't the m100s be fine for these users?
 
cause the m100s is smooth in the treble, and bassy too.
 
hm...... penny for your thoughts fellas...... cause when i heard people mastering with the m100s this thought came up, and i don't recall ever coming up with an answer
 
because the general consensus is that flat/balanced/neutral headphones would be "best" for music production, yet... the m50x isn't necessarily that either..... hm......

I'd say to use the most balanced headphones you can get. Last thing you want is a bad master.

 

[flashmp3]

Guys,
 
Do you know if we can have our M100s repaired in Paris, France ?

 

[DiscoProJoe]

Ugh! I've just come down with a cold in the last day or two, and my ears are clogged up! The lower the pitch, the less I can hear it. It sucks to be a basshead (or an audiophile) when you have a head cold! 

 
I'm debating with myself whether to take my rig with me when I go out this evening. One side will probably sound louder than the other because of the unbalanced ear congestion. Argh! 

 

[DiscoProJoe]

  Ugh! I've just come down with a cold in the last day or two, and my ears are clogged up! The lower the pitch, the less I can hear it. It sucks to be a basshead (or an audiophile) when you have a head cold! 

 
I'm debating with myself whether to take my rig with me when I go out this evening. One side will probably sound louder than the other because of the unbalanced ear congestion. Argh! 

 
Well, I decided to take it out with me this evening after all, as it's my first time to hear it with congested ears since Rockboxing my iPod Classic six months ago.
 
My earlobes and eardrums could still feel the sub-bass throbbing plain as day, but I could hardly hear it. The mid-bass sounded really thin and lacked serious detail. The mids & highs I could hear just fine, but they also lacked detail. The dynamic range sounded like less than 10 dB, and the soundstage was definitely weird and messed-up -- not to mention the fact that the left side sounded a little louder than the right, due to the unbalanced ear congestion.
 
My old, fake Beats Pros running directly off my unRockboxed iPod sounded better than this. 

 
Heck, I might as well just turn off the bass boost switch on the amp, turn the EQ off on the iPod, and set everything to flat while my ears are clogged so I won't have to mess with it. I guess some of the audiophiles on here would think it sounds better that way! 

  So......here you go, audiophiles.........time for me to "please you" for a day or two until my ears are unclogged.