[Javierob]

I am planning on buying the Audio Technica M50, but I want to be sure that they are the right headphones for me.
I will us them on a laptop or ipod
I listen to pop, electro, alternative, hip hop/rap
Do they have amazing sound quality, comfort, and overall quality?
I am no professional audiophile and won't be producing music
 
Any other suggestions?

 

[finchouse]

if this is your first audiophile headphone, find them on sale (around $120).
good isolation, great build quality, but be prepared for a million other suggestions for cans at that price range.

 

[Javierob]

Please answer!!!

 

[KG Jag]

They have a "v" shaped EQ, which means that the mids are recessed.  If that's what you like, then they are a good choice for you.  If you like mids, look elsewhere.

 

[Angels and Air]

Quote:

They have a "v" shaped EQ, which means that the mids are recessed.  If that's what you like, then they are a good choice for you.  If you like mids, look elsewhere.

I'm thinking about buying the M50 too, and I already have a Fiio E6. Would using the 3rd EQ Setting on it (which increases the mid frequency range I assume) make it sound any better?
 
Sorry if it's a dumb question, I'm pretty new to this if you can tell by my post count...

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

I'm thinking about buying the M50 too, and I already have a Fiio E6. Would using the 3rd EQ Setting on it (which increases the mid frequency range I assume) make it sound any better?
 
Sorry if it's a dumb question, I'm pretty new to this if you can tell by my post count...

 
I can't speak specifically about the E6, but you can certainly tweak the sound of any set of speakers or headphones.
 
However, it is almost always better to get a can that is within your budget that you can play with no (or a least as few and small as possible) EQ adjustments.  That way you're buying the sound signature that's closest to what you want.  This is especially true when you're talking cans of $100 and more.

 

[Mauricio]

The common mantra about the M50 is that i.) it has "recessed mids", and ii.) a v-shaped frequency response.  A cursory glance at its frequency response graph will lay waste to these spurious claims.
 

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

The common mantra about the M50 is that i.) it has "recessed mids", and ii.) a v-shaped frequency response.  A cursory glance at its frequency response graph will lay waste to these spurious claims.
 

 I'll trust my ears thank you.
 
BTW--there are at least two versions of the M50.

 

[Mauricio]

Then perhaps you should get your ears checked.  Innerfidelity's measurements:
 

 
Please show me the V shape.  Show me the recessed mids from 200-2,000Hz.

 

[MicroNik]

I have the M50's and use them for the same exact purpose. They're amazing cans and WILL NOT disappoint. They are a bit stiff at first but you can easily pull the cans apart a bit and it will stretch the band out to be fine.
 
As for the E6, I have one of those too. I don't recommend the third EQ setting as it only decreases the gain if your inputting at a certain power or something like that. Basically, the third EQ just makes everything quiter. The first (Red) just plain sucks and the bass is way bloated. The second (blue) is perfect.

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

Then perhaps you should get your ears checked.  Innerfidelity's measurements:
 

 
Please show me the V shape.  Show me the recessed mids from 200-2,000Hz.

 Perhaps you should not rely so heavily on graphs.  Tyll doesn't.

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

I have the M50's and use them for the same exact purpose. They're amazing cans and WILL NOT disappoint. They are a bit stiff at first but you can easily pull the cans apart a bit and it will stretch the band out to be fine.
 
As for the E6, I have one of those too. I don't recommend the third EQ setting as it only decreases the gain if your inputting at a certain power or something like that. Basically, the third EQ just makes everything quiter. The first (Red) just plain sucks and the bass is way bloated. The second (blue) is perfect.

But that's the thing.  After reading so many great things about them (M50), they disappointed me.  Not that they are bad; I just don't particularly like their sound signature.  What's great for some is not-so-good for others.  And it is true that the genres you prefer may be a major actor in whether you like that signature.
 
FN: see discussions of Grado's, Ultrasones and other brands.  You'll see very spirited discussions about them.

 

[Mauricio]

Quote:

 Perhaps you should not rely so heavily on graphs.  Tyll doesn't.

 
Perhaps you should address the issue, rather then deflecting it with red-herrings.

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

 
Perhaps you should address the issue, rather then deflecting it with red-herrings.

 
OK--since you like Inner Fidelity so much, perhaps you should should read the text that accompanies the graphs you love so much.  If you do, you will find the following:
 
"The midrange of the M50 is better on paper than it is in the ear. By itself it is uncolored and quite natural sounding, but juxtaposed against the slightly strident highs and full bass the mids seem a bit withdrawn."
 
and
 
"Overall I hear the Audio Technica ATH-M50 as a little uneven and somewhat calling attention to both the bass and the treble at the expense of the mids..."
 
Link: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audio-technica-ath-m50-page-2
 
Have you spent some time listening to these cans, or do you only study graphs?

 

[Gwarmi]

 Just found my M50 pair sitting around in a long lost drawer - lots of dust on them, since they're commonly available around sub $170AUD, I did enjoy mine for
 awhile - but once you get on the upgrade wagon (and it does not take much here) - I cannot bring myself to ever really listening to them again.
 
 Maybe if I lost my marbles and decided top #40 chart was the way to go but insanity aside - I'm happy to leave them in the drawer.