[mbwilson111]

We can argue subjective definitions of v-shaped, mid-centric, flat, etc. all day, every day. I think we've beat this horse to death. Time to move on.

yes...please...

 

[KopaneDePooj]

I have experience with about 20 headphones, and 5 different speaker systems. You can objectively gauge headphone/speaker performance, based on a solid reference. The open back 598's are bass lite, and upper mid/treble heavy. Mid-centric? No. If you want to talk frequncies, we can do that, but when using terms like "mid-centric", you are being vague unless you know what certain frequency ranges constitute bass/mid/treble, etc. - What may be mids to you, is treble to someone else. You have to break it down by frequency, to be clear.

The 598cs is a different story altogether. Nasty mid-mids through upper mids with a sharp resonance (I forget exactly where though. I couldnt get rid of those cans fast enough). Treble drop. Murky. Yuck.

Yes, assessing headphones sound is a very subjective matter. I see you also have the Oppo PM-3. I tested them recently and like their sound very much. To me they have a good body from deep lows to middle-mids and the rest of the frequency spectrum is smooth. But I see other reviewers describing them as "mediocre", "boring", wile others find them sounding too thin. I'm curious about your opinion on the PM-3.
I agree about the 598cs mids, I always have to eq there. The highs are just fine for me. I like a darker sig.

 

[MixMasterMan]

Graphs dont tell you how a speaker/driver sounds. They are just a general reference. Not gospel.

As for headphones that translate: If it is a match with the flat base you are using as the reference, then it is not subjectively right. It is objectively right. Its not an illusion! Lol - If I make an EQ adjustment on headphones that match what I hear on my main monitors, it IS correct. It is not subjective. It is relative.

 

[mbwilson111]

Graphs dont tell you how a speaker/driver sounds. They are just a general reference. Not gospel.

As for headphones that translate: If it is a match with the flat base you are using as the reference, then it is not subjectively right. It is objectively right. Its not an illusion! Lol - If I make an EQ adjustment on headphones that match what I hear on my main monitors, it IS correct. It is not subjective. It is relative.

I do not EQ ever. I let all my headphones stand on their own strengths... weaknesses and all. I do have the luxury of owning several headphones...the fault of this forum... I blame all of you! I do seem to adjust quickly to various sound signatures and appreciate my music will all of my headphones... some more than others... much depends on mood...where I am listening... if I want to relax... if I want to be energized... Usually whichever one I put on, I just get into the music and don't wish I was listening to one of the others. Well, except if certain female vocals are too piercing (Silver Swans comes to mind)...then I might find one of my other phones presents it better.

I did have a graphic equalizer back in the day with my stereo system. Played with it a bit. Sold it to a DJ friend of mine. For many years I mainly listened with speakers. I did have one set of headphones that I bought back in the mid 90's (I think) that I loved for late night listening before falling asleep. Those were the Sennheiser HD480s (original not the revised one that someone still mods and sells). Miss those. I would still have them if I had realized that the cables were replaceable. They did not look to me like they were plugged in. Oh well...

 

[MixMasterMan]

Yes, assessing headphones sound is a very subjective matter. I see you also have the Oppo PM-3. I tested them recently and like their sound very much. To me they have a good body from deep lows to middle-mids and the rest of the frequency spectrum is smooth. But I see other reviewers describing them as "mediocre", "boring", wile others find them sounding too thin. I'm curious about your opinion on the PM-3.
I agree about the 598cs mids, I always have to eq there. The highs are just fine for me. I like a darker sig.

I love the PM-3's smooth, fast, tight, and linear response from the bass through the upper mids. Its pretty much spot on up until the treble. This is where it dips a little, before a drop off in the upper treble (air). The soundstage is compromised because of this. It makes things sound closed in. Vocals do sound amazing on this headphone, I have to say. However, I am tortured about the treble dip and air drop. I NEED presence above 10k, or else it will always be a love/hate relationship. I'm considering selling it because of this (small soundstage/lack of air). - Because of their relatively flat response, they can be perceived as "boring". No area is really hyped. There is a minor/tiny bell lift at around 100-120hz, but that's really it until the treble. They have a nice warm sound with gorgeous mid detail. Unfortunately, the treble drop can shroud some of that detail, and the mids can possibly be perceived as slightly "unclear".

I hate the 598cs with all my heart and soul.

 

[mbwilson111]

I hate the 598cs with all my heart and soul.

Awww...tell us how you REALLY feel... LOL

 

[Levanter]

Okay, so I actually now read the Sound section and Imaging section of the Beats Solo 3 Wireless review, and I don't see any contradictions. You said in an earlier post:

The Sound section is describing the frequency response in terms of tonal balance. The Imaging section is describing imaging characteristics, not frequency response, and the phase relationships between the 2 drivers. They are 2 different things, and I really don't see how their description in the Sound section contradicts what they say in the Imaging section. I don't see the contradiction, and you really haven't pointed one out in that statement.

The graph for the 650 is virtually flat from high bass to low treble and then starts to roll off after that. Like I said in earlier post, high treble information is not that important. Again, to my ear, they sounded relatively neutral, more neutral than 598, except for that early treble roll off.

The rtings FR graph for 600 actually shows a slight rise in the high mids and low treble (not a dip). I would characterize them as generally flat, but slightly mid-centric. Based on the graph, haven't heard them.

We can argue subjective definitions of v-shaped, mid-centric, flat, etc. all day, every day. I think we've beat this horse to death. Time to move on.

"they are too heavy on Bass, which tends to sound muddy and overpower the Treble." This statement is already a specific characteristic on the sound quality, nothing to do with FR.
Imaging (instrumental separation, positioning, transparency) correlates with certain sound characteristics. Bass that bleeds and overpowers treble affects imaging attributes, so yes that statement do contradict with each other.
That is the problem with chart/graph groupies. They just look at charts individually without looking at the overall picture.

Look at the highest point at high bass and the lowest point at the mids. There is clearly a 2db difference in drop for both 600 and 650.
598 has a 3db difference, which appears to you v-shaped since they only have a 1+db elevation at the high bass compared to 600/650. Couple that with early hikes in the high mids on the 600/650, they appear more balanced to you.

Like you said, time to move. Some people consider a 1db difference to be significant while others find that subtle to insignificant, so we'll leave it at that.

 

[MixMasterMan]

I do not EQ ever. I let all my headphones stand on their own strengths... weaknesses and all. I do have the luxury of owning several headphones...the fault of this forum... I blame all of you! I do seem to adjust quickly to various sound signatures and appreciate my music will all of my headphones... some more than others... much depends on mood...where I am listening... if I want to relax... if I want to be energized... Usually whichever one I put on, I just get into the music and don't wish I was listening to one of the others. Well, except if certain female vocals are too piercing (Silver Swans comes to mind)...then I might find one of my other phones presents it better.

I did have a graphic equalizer back in the day with my stereo system. Played with it a bit. Sold it to a DJ friend of mine. For many years I mainly listened with speakers. I did have one set of headphones that I bought back in the mid 90's (I think) that I loved for late night listening before falling asleep. Those were the Sennheiser HD480s (original not the revised one that someone still mods and sells). Miss those. I would still have them if I had realized that the cables were replaceable. They did not look to me like they were plugged in. Oh well...

Almost all of the time, I EQ. Ever since I was a kid, I boosted treble and dropped mids. I don't like flat equalization. It's boring. In music mastering, the program audio is EQ'd to have that "flat" response/curve, for average translation. So people like me can boost and cut it to tailor to taste. - For instance, back in the glory days of simple CD walkman's and boombox's, I would always put the 3-tier "mega bass" setting to the middle position. It boosted bass and treble, but not as extreme as position 3. That position would distort everything. Ahhh... simpler times. When there was just a "mega bass" setting, or a 5 band graphic EQ.

 

[Levanter]

Almost all of the time, I EQ. Ever since I was a kid, I boosted treble and dropped mids. I don't like flat equalization. It's boring. In music mastering, the program audio is EQ'd to have that "flat" response/curve, for average translation. So people like me can boost and cut it to tailor to taste. - For instance, back in the glory days of simple CD walkman's and boombox's, I would always put the 3-tier "mega bass" setting to the middle position. It boosted bass and treble, but not as extreme as position 3. That position would distort everything. Ahhh... simpler times. When there was just a "mega bass" setting, or a 5 band graphic EQ.

I think V-Moda M100 is right up your alley. No need for EQ with them according to your preference.

 

[MixMasterMan]

I think V-Moda M100 is right up your alley. No need for EQ with them according to your preference.

I actually DON'T like the V-Moda CF100. I thought I would, from descriptioms of its signature. But when I auditioned them, I found them to be very weird in the bass and uneven in the mids. I liked the Sony MDR-1A way better (loved them actually), considering the sonic description I was anticipating.

 

[Levanter]

I actually DON'T like the V-Moda CF100. I thought I would, from descriptioms of its signature. But when I auditioned them, I found them to be very weird in the bass and uneven in the mids. I liked the Sony MDR-1A way better (loved them actually), considering the sonic description I was anticipating.

Well they were designed with DJs in mind, e.g EDM, Trance, etc. Might sound different when used to play classical, jazz etc lol.

 

[KopaneDePooj]

I love the PM-3's smooth, fast, tight, and linear response from the bass through the upper mids. Its pretty much spot on up until the treble. This is where it dips a little, before a drop off in the upper treble (air). The soundstage is compromised because of this. It makes things sound closed in. Vocals do sound amazing on this headphone, I have to say. However, I am tortured about the treble dip and air drop. I NEED presence above 10k, or else it will always be a love/hate relationship. I'm considering selling it because of this (small soundstage/lack of air). - Because of their relatively flat response, they can be perceived as "boring". No area is really hyped. There is a minor/tiny bell lift at around 100-120hz, but that's really it until the treble. They have a nice warm sound with gorgeous mid detail. Unfortunately, the treble drop can shroud some of that detail, and the mids can possibly be perceived as slightly "unclear".

I hate the 598cs with all my heart and soul.

Thanks, from what you describe it's just the sound I like and also experienced when tested the PM-3. Treble felt perfect for my taste, but relative to the MSR7, M40x, M50x, AKG K550 that I also tested at the same time, the PM-3 were indeed MUCH more relaxed in the treble region, but I consider all the mentioned Audio-Technicas treble killers, so it seems that the PM-3 fits my taste better. Funny, right now out of all the headphones I have, or owned - that you can find in my profile - in terms of sound signature I prefer one of the earliest purchases - the Koss KSC75 with headband mod. They sound transparent but tight and punchy in the bass, great mids and perfect air in the highs for me. And super super light weight, great for summer time. I'll PM you about the PM-3's maybe I'll buy them.

 

[Lost Cosmonaut]

Bass-lite, no, but neither accentuated. The bass is there when needed. Forward in the upper-mids, treble smoothed out. To me, Mid-centric. Regardless, I like the 598s.

 

[mbwilson111]

Bass-lite, no, but neither accentuated. The bass is there when needed. Forward in the upper-mids, treble smoothed out. To me, Mid-centric. Regardless, I like the 598s.

Yeah... rather than go round and round with this debate, I would rather just enjoy my music with this or any of my headphones.

 

[LazyListener]

Graphs dont tell you how a speaker/driver sounds. They are just a general reference. Not gospel.

As for headphones that translate: If it is a match with the flat base you are using as the reference, then it is not subjectively right. It is objectively right. Its not an illusion! Lol - If I make an EQ adjustment on headphones that match what I hear on my main monitors, it IS correct. It is not subjective. It is relative.

Agreed. Your mind tells you how something sounds. Graphs of frequency response measurements tell you just that - the frequency response of a sound system.

If you are EQ'ing (applying correction) by ear only, then it is subjective, not objective. Without some instrumentation taking measurements of the FR of the output, you won't have objective, repeatable results each time. "Relative" simply means you have a reference (your main monitors) that you are comparing to the headphone's output you're trying to correct with EQ. The discussion is subjective vs objective, not subjective vs relative.

I love the PM-3's smooth, fast, tight, and linear response from the bass through the upper mids. Its pretty much spot on up until the treble. This is where it dips a little, before a drop off in the upper treble (air). The soundstage is compromised because of this. It makes things sound closed in. Vocals do sound amazing on this headphone, I have to say. However, I am tortured about the treble dip and air drop. I NEED presence above 10k, or else it will always be a love/hate relationship. I'm considering selling it because of this (small soundstage/lack of air). - Because of their relatively flat response, they can be perceived as "boring". No area is really hyped. There is a minor/tiny bell lift at around 100-120hz, but that's really it until the treble. They have a nice warm sound with gorgeous mid detail. Unfortunately, the treble drop can shroud some of that detail, and the mids can possibly be perceived as slightly "unclear".

I hate the 598cs with all my heart and soul.

Then I guess you think that rtings.com frequency response curve of the PM-3 is "misleading" or just flat out wrong, since it shows a treble rise and excess treble up through 10kHz (except for a narrow dip around 4-6kHz)? Innerfidelity graph also shows this dip before rising quite a bit to around 9-10kHz.

http://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/oppo/pm-3

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/OppoPM3SampleB.pdf

When I had the PM-3 my initial impression was that they sounded very neutral, maybe the most neutral of any headphone I heard. Then I started noticing thin vocals. I became convinced when I heard Metallica's Master of Puppets, a track I'm very familiar with. James Hetfield's vocals sounded way too thin. It wasn't his voice I was hearing. The broad treble accentuation could explain this. As far as soundstage goes, rtings.com measure that too. I think it sucks because it's closed back and the cups don't have much room inside, among possibly other factors. The FR is not primarily responsible for soundstage. It has an effect, but minor, compared other factors, like physical space in the cups, distance of driver from ears, closed vs open design, how well matched the drivers are, etc.

I didn't like the 598Cs myself, mostly due to to the hot mids, but also lack of clarity and "air."

"they are too heavy on Bass, which tends to sound muddy and overpower the Treble." This statement is already a specific characteristic on the sound quality, nothing to do with FR.
Imaging (instrumental separation, positioning, transparency) correlates with certain sound characteristics. Bass that bleeds and overpowers treble affects imaging attributes, so yes that statement do contradict with each other.
That is the problem with chart/graph groupies. They just look at charts individually without looking at the overall picture.

Look at the highest point at high bass and the lowest point at the mids. There is clearly a 2db difference in drop for both 600 and 650.
598 has a 3db difference, which appears to you v-shaped since they only have a 1+db elevation at the high bass compared to 600/650. Couple that with early hikes in the high mids on the 600/650, they appear more balanced to you.

Like you said, time to move. Some people consider a 1db difference to be significant while others find that subtle to insignificant, so we'll leave it at that.

Their comments on the sound characteristics you quoted have EVERYTHING to do with frequency response. "Too heavy on bass that.... overpower the treble" is a subjective description of a portion of the frequency response. No coincidence those comments were made directly below the FR chart.

Imaging has more to do with phase error between the left and right drivers, and how closely the left and right drivers are matched and perform. The "bass overpowering the treble" comment is just a subjective statement. It doesn't quantify anything. It doesn't tell you by how much. The FR measurements they took, do. They are simply saying that these are bass heavy headphones (more bass than treble). That doesn't mean they can't have good imaging as they've defined in their Imaging section. The phase error and driver mismatch measurements they take affect the Imaging score, not the frequency response measurements.

You are essentially insisting that a bassy headphone can't have good imaging, which is just flat out incorrect. FR and Imaging. 2 different things. End of story.

As far as the 598 vs 600 vs 650 frequency response curves go... Like I said earlier, try applying EQ corrections by only 2-3 decibels on the frequencies (all of them) that deviate above and below the target response curve (dotted line) to get the response to match that target curve. You will then hear a VASTLY different sounding headphone. 1-3 decibels may not seem like a lot, but if you apply it to a broad range of frequencies, it's a very noticeable difference in terms of what you hear.

Glad we've moved on from the whole v-shaped argument.