[tds101]

I love how the main criticism levied at us earlier was that we're so high and mighty that we can't accept low-cost headphones, and yet here we are having a fruitful conversation comparing a bunch of budget headphones.

True head-fi knows no budget, be it big or small my friend. I know that's one thing the Z-Man must be confused about.

 

[Argyris]

I know exactly what you mean. I've read ljokerl's epic threads dozens of times because it's always great to see what you can get for just a few bucks, and it's amazing sometimes what you'll find. My friend recently paid $27 for the HTF600 I mentioned earlier, and those things have no business sounding as good as they do for that price. In my case, none of my headphones are even close to "Summit-Fi" material, and my IEMs cost a whopping $20 and I can still enjoy them quite a bit (with lots of EQ, but still).
 
Good sound doesn't have a brand or a price or a list of requisite equipment. The success of the M50--subject of this thread, and one of the most popular moderately-priced headphones in history--is testament to that.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

I love how the main criticism levied at us earlier was that we're so high and mighty that we can't accept low-cost headphones, and yet here we are having a fruitful conversation comparing a bunch of budget headphones.

 
I've never spent more than $105 cash on a pair of headphones (my former ATH-WS55 that I traded) . My HFI-780s cost more than that, but I got them in a trade.

 

[streetdragon]

Still enjoy the iem's that shipped with the xperia p those things are pretty damn good for a freebie! (about xba 1 level but has a smooth bassy signature yet has some seperation)

 

[Argyris]

The ones that came with my new Roku are surprisingly not horrible. They're definitely a typical V shape (with the usual hyped "treble" at 5kHz), but I expected them to be about the worst thing imaginable and they disappointed by being passable and predictable.

 

[cel4145]

Reading the OP again (I seem to recall coming across it a while ago before the latest festivities), I'm reminded of my futile attempts to debunk the "White-box M50" myth. I'll try again one more time. I'm not picking on you, ssrock64. I'm just pointing this out because I actually know where the myth came from. I'd like everybody to take a look at 
this Headfonia article
 and read it 
very
 carefully. I'll quote the relevant portion here:


Quote:


They are not saying there are two consistently different versions of the M50 design. What they are saying is that the production batch, NOT a redesign or consistent manufacturing difference, produced a single sample that differed slightly from their existing single sample. Think about it. How difficult would it be to make sure every single product in every single production run sounded exactly the same? If it could be done at all (I'm not sure it could--just look at the trouble Audeze and Beyer have had in recent times), it would require a considerable amount of testing and very tight tolerances on production. All of this would be very expensive. Could Audio-Technica really be expected to put all that effort into a $150 mass market design? Certainly not! The "differences" mentioned are not the fundamental, instantly recognizable ones frequently cited on HF. The author makes it clear that if he didn't have both samples right next to one another, he probably couldn't tell the difference. This is consistent with expected differences between samples or production runs--small and subtle, not fundamental, differences.

Now look at the picture at the top of the article page. It's a white box. Search the page and you'll see no mention of "white." The author never made a point of it, and nobody in the comments did, either. What clearly happened is a Head-Fi'er (no clue who) skimmed the article, looked at that picture, and thought wow, the new one sounds different, and my M50 came in a blue box. The white box ones must be different! From there, it's easy enough to convince yourself that if you hear any difference at all, of course you hear the same difference everybody else did (confirmation bias). And, to be honest, until this whole business broke, how many people went around listening to lots of different M50s to see if they could spot a difference between them?

At the time I'm sure the author had no clue this paragraph would spawn a piece of heavily quoted M50 lore. There was no mention of white box M50s before or when this article was published because I remember reading it before ever coming across a mention of the issue. If the phenomenon were already attested, the picture would have jogged my memory and the first thing I would have thought was, "Hmm, I wonder if this supposed difference between box colors might have played a part in their testing." And if not me, somebody would have brought it up in the comments.

Hopefully all this didn't come across as irritable or condescending or anything like that. To be honest, I don't really care what people believe because I didn't like the M50 all that much to begin with. I'm just fascinated at how a chance paragraph could generate this whole mythos. In a way, it proves that our now-departed Z-man was right about us to an extent.

Just curious how the two different M50 measurements at Innerfidelity fit into this.

Here is the measurement graph from the review from June 2011: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50.pdf

Here is the one in their review database: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50B2012.pdf

Notice the 2nd has a different label of B2012 on the top right. The measured response in the two graphs is quite different.

 

[Argyris]

Poor fit, I'd imagine. The original example is leaking its bass, whereas the newer (2012) one has a good seal. Since the usual wisdom is that the "white box" M50 is somehow more neutral, these graphs, if anything, would contradict that since the newer example's graph indicates a bassier headphone.
 
I would say the 2012 measurements more accurately depict what I heard from my M50, and they more closely match the ones at HeadRoom.
 
EDIT: There's an excellent InnerFidelity article about headphone measurement and the effect the position of the headphone on dummy can have. I'm having trouble finding it at the moment, but I'll update this post when I do.
 
EDIT 2: Here we are:
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/expert-tests-innerfidelitys-headphone-measurement-repeatability-and-reproducibility
 
Of course Tyll used an open headphone (an HD800), where a seal doesn't quite have the same effect on bass response as it would a closed headphone.

 

[wafflezz]

So anyways not to get your hopes up or anything guys, but...I think I found a budget k701 that's easier to drive. Only problem is I've never actually listened to the k701 so I don't know...BUT. Innerfidelity has measurements of both the original hd681 and the k701/q701. And the thing is, the graphs look remarkably similar. The only problem was that the 681 was way too treble tilted, but now they fixed that with the 681 evo by rolling them off sooner.

So what do you guys think? budget k701 or no? I honestly see potential with these cans. Within 2 hours of listening I preferred them over my m50.

 

[Argyris]

The Superluxes have always had their fans. Their main problem is that treble that you mentioned, and if the revision indeed manages to fix that, they might well be an excellent headphone. However, utility-wise they might not be a replacement for the M50 because of their semi-open design. The M50 is what I would consider a good tracking phone--deep bass (to highlight kick drum), decent treble energy and extension, and a bit laid back in the upper mids to take the edge off vocals, guitars, and snare drum cracks at higher volumes. They also isolate decently well and don't leak too much sound. Something semi-open isn't going to really replace the M50 in this sort of application, or in any other place where isolation and minimal leakage are important.
 
Not to knock 'em, though. The HD-681 has caught my eye on multiple occasions. It's simply the fact that I don't need such a headphone at the moment that I haven't snagged one. If somebody had one for me to try I'd love to hear it, evo or otherwise.

 

[cel4145]

Poor fit, I'd imagine. The original example is leaking its bass, whereas the newer (2012) one has a good seal. Since the usual wisdom is that the "white box" M50 is somehow more neutral, these graphs, if anything, would contradict that since the newer example's graph indicates a bassier headphone.

I would say the 2012 measurements more accurately depict what I heard from my M50, and they more closely match the ones at HeadRoom.

Interesting theory. But I would wonder why Innerfidelity wouldn't update their review to include the correct measurements? Doesn't seem like them given how meticulous their work is.

I did post a comment to the M50 review discussion thread on Innerfidelity to get clarification about the measurements, but never got a response. I just emailed Tyll. Maybe he'll join us here and weigh in

 

[MrEleventy]

I think we should get a budget can tour going.

 

[ssrock64]

I think we should get a budget can tour going.

There's usually a small variety of budget options at meets to try.

 

[tds101]

I just ordered the JVC ha-s500-z,...I hope they get here quick from Japan!!!

 

[gikigill]

I just ordered the JVC ha-s500-z,...I hope they get here quick from Japan!!!

Now get them burnin like there's no tomorrow and apply EQ liberally.

 

[TrollDragon]

Quote:

I just ordered the JVC ha-s500-z,...I hope they get here quick from Japan!!!

Sweet Gun Metallic!!!
If you took the standard shipping it will be a while, mine took 3 full weeks to get to Canada...