[Iamgag7]

the m50 are about 100 US dollars more. are they that much better than the m40? if anything..i read that the M40FS goes down to 5hz while the m50 was at 15hz? any ideas? thank you.

p.s. i am looking for which is most accurate/flat/true sounding.

 

[Philco]

The M40FS sounds like there is a sharp peak in the midrange, which is really annoying. Other than that, they sound better than the M50 IMHO. THe M50 has too much bass to be useable, although treble is also very nice and detailed.

And about which one is the most accurate and flattest sounding ? Neither is. Both are very couloured.

 

[rapier84]

The A-T Japan webpage used to have all the response graphs, not seen them in a while. I have had the chance to test both; cdp to amp to phones. M40FS has a more 'exciting' and forward mids, bass is there just that its enough to hear and not as thick on the bottom end as the M50. Tracking wise I'd prefer to use the M40FS although the downside is that it can be a little fatiguing. 5hz is something that most of us are not able to hear anyway, so I'm not too worried (although that may indicate less falloff(db) at the audible range, again no freq response to check). For monitoring and stuff (i.e. studio with a sufficiently powerful amp) then the M40FS gets the vote (amping opens up the highs and bottom end and smoothens the midrange peak that Philco said...burn in might help too from what my experience with AT cans indicate).