[HPLobster]

Yes, those three are a step-up from the M50s, IMHO. No, they certainly aren't the best.

My point was, that I tried to recommend some headphones that are not THAT expensive, so you can see for yourself where this is headed before making a larger commitment from which there is no coming back (referring to the return policy of amazon vs your plan to buy used HD 800s).

So, to answer your question more bluntly: the best headphones to use directly with your smartphone are the HiFiMan Edition X, there you go.

 

[HPLobster]

I really want a big sound stage with a good amount of bass and treble.

Also, talking about v-shape and soundstage, you should consider the Fostex TH-900 (and definitely NOT the Senn 800s).
They are considered to be amongst the best headphones in the world, which is completely relative, so don't say I didn't warn you...

 

[tz0531]

To the OP, you seem overly concerned about having the best headphones bar none, but those may not be the best ones for you. Echoing what others have said, try out as many higher end headphones as you possibly can before making such a large monetary commitment. You may think you know what you want, but what you actually want may surprise even you. As an analogy to headphones, I recently was in the market for a new acoustic guitar. I thought I wanted a Taylor 414ce, which costs $2200, but I made sure to go to a guitar store to try out as many high-end guitars they had before making a purchase. Long story short, the guitar that sounded the best to me in the entire high-end acoustic guitar room was a relatively modest Taylor 214CE Deluxe, which costs $1200 and is not even considered high end, beating out guitars double the price!
 
Note here that in the audio world, higher price does not necessarily mean better sound quality. People in headphone circles rarely talk about diminishing returns; the reality is that once you get past a certain price range, you have to pay exponentially more for smaller increases in sound quality. For example, my most recent upgrade was from the NAD Viso HP50 ($250) to the Oppo PM-3 ($400). Upon initially comparing the two, I actually preferred the sound of the HP50! It was only after a few weeks, when I had acclimated to the PM-3's sound, that I did another comparison and ultimately decided the PM-3 was the better headphone. Even now, I'd say the HP50 has 95% of the sound quality of the PM-3. Was that last 5% improvement in sound quality worth paying 60% more for? Based purely on sound quality, I'd say no. The reason I kept the Oppo PM-3 was because of what it offers as an overall package over the HP50, not just sound quality. In my opinion, the next significant upgrade in sound quality (for closed, full-size headphones) is the Mr. Speakers Ether C ($1500), which costs over three times as much as the Oppo PM-3! Is paying 275% more for, perhaps if I'm feeling generous, a 10% increase in sound quality worth it? You tell me.

 

[chris31605]

So your point is that the best headphones to buy before paying a lot for an upgrade is in the 200-300 euro price range? Is it really that small of a leap from the oppo? Just 10%?

To the OP, you seem overly concerned about having the best headphones bar none, but those may not be the best ones for you. Echoing what others have said, try out as many higher end headphones as you possibly can before making such a large monetary commitment. You may think you know what you want, but what you actually want may surprise even you. As an analogy to headphones, I recently was in the market for a new acoustic guitar. I thought I wanted a Taylor 414ce, which costs $2200, but I made sure to go to a guitar store to try out as many high-end guitars they had before making a purchase. Long story short, the guitar that sounded the best to me in the entire high-end acoustic guitar room was a relatively modest Taylor 214CE Deluxe, which costs $1200 and is not even considered high end, beating out guitars double the price!

Note here that in the audio world, higher price does not necessarily mean better sound quality. People in headphone circles rarely talk about diminishing returns; the reality is that once you get past a certain price range, you have to pay exponentially more for smaller increases in sound quality. For example, my most recent upgrade was from the NAD Viso HP50 ($250) to the Oppo PM-3 ($400). Upon initially comparing the two, I actually preferred the sound of the HP50! It was only after a few weeks, when I had acclimated to the PM-3's sound, that I did another comparison and ultimately decided the PM-3 was the better headphone. Even now, I'd say the HP50 has 95% of the sound quality of the PM-3. Was that last 5% improvement in sound quality worth paying 60% more for? Based purely on sound quality, I'd say no. The reason I kept the Oppo PM-3 was because of what it offers as an overall package over the HP50, not just sound quality. In my opinion, the next significant upgrade in sound quality (for closed, full-size headphones) is the Mr. Speakers Ether C ($1500), which costs over three times as much as the Oppo PM-3! Is paying 275% more for, perhaps if I'm feeling generous, a 10% increase in sound quality worth it? You tell me.

 

[chris31605]

For me its unless there is a 20 percent increase, its not worth it

 

[cel4145]

So your point is that the best headphones to buy before paying a lot for an upgrade is in the 200-300 euro price range? Is it really that small of a leap from the oppo? Just 10%?

It is really not possible for anybody to tell you that. The amount of the perceived increase in quality is very much a personal thing.

 

[tz0531]

It is really not possible for anybody to tell you that. The amount of the perceived increase in quality is very much a personal thing.

 
True, perceived increase in quality is subjective by nature. I was just using that example to get across the point of diminishing returns, that the magnitude of difference in price tag does not translate into a similar magnitude of difference in sound quality. If someone were to tell me that the Ether C is more than three times better than the PM-3 in terms of sound quality, I would tell them to get their ears checked out. To the OP, my point is that you should definitely do a cost vs benefit analysis before any major upgrade.

 

[buke9]

   
True, perceived increase in quality is subjective by nature. I was just using that example to get across the point of diminishing returns, that the magnitude of difference in price tag does not translate into a similar magnitude of difference in sound quality. If someone were to tell me that the Ether C is more than three times better than the PM-3 in terms of sound quality, I would tell them to get their ears checked out. To the OP, my point is that you should definitely do a cost vs benefit analysis before any major upgrade.

I won't say the Ether-C's are 3 times better I'll just say they are way better. The PM-3's are very good but I would not put them in a list of best headphones for SQ IMHO. For a closed back can it's hard to find one better than the Ether-C. I just knew once I heard the C's I would judge all my other cans by them and I did. I will not say they are the best as no one can say that about for any can. It all depends on the sound signature that you like. You need to hear all that you can to decide on what you like. Source and amps has a lot to do with it also. As with all things audio YMMV.

 

[chris31605]

Sadly to find second hand headphones other than the hd 800 is difficult. I cant afford to pay more than 640 euros.

 

[chris31605]

So should i buy the a pair of oppo used since its not worth the leap? I can deal with not having 20 percent more. Are they over than 20 percent better than the m50?

 

[cel4145]

The PM3's are generally considered a definite step up in headphone class from the M50s. Percentage amount? That is too subjective. The PM3s have a different sound signature than the M50s. Some people would like that difference more than others.

First, it might be better to figure out some other things about your preferences.

1) What kind of music do you listen to?
2) Would you like more/less bass emphasis than the M50s? More/less treble emphasis?
3) Do you EQ the M50s and how?

 

[chris31605]

The PM3's are generally considered a definite step up in headphone class from the M50s. Percentage amount? That is too subjective. The PM3s have a different sound signature than the M50s. Some people would like that difference more than others.

First, it might be better to figure out some other things about your preferences.

1) What kind of music do you listen to?
2) Would you like more/less bass emphasis than the M50s? More/less treble emphasis?
3) Do you EQ the M50s and how?

i mostly listen to rock and edm. I like more treble, bass and a wider sound stage.

 

[cel4145]

i mostly listen to rock and edm. I like more treble, bass and a wider sound stage.

Open headphones will definitely give you a nice big soundstage in comparison to M50.

If you want more bass and treble emphasis than M50, then I don't think PM-3 will be for you. In a closed headphone, the V-Moda M100 is nice for better bass emphasis. Not sure what would be best for open headphones.

 

[keppes]

I really want a big sound stage with a good amount of bass and treble.

Then the hd 800 won't make you happy. I think they will be too bass light for you. Do you want to use your headphones in public? Then don't buy open cans. For portable use i can recommend you the Momentums 2 Over ear, the beyerdynamic t51p or the audeze sine. If you want open cans than try the Fidelio X2s, the Hifiman 400i or the Sennheiser hd650s. Bit the most important thing for you is that you have to hear the headphones by yourself. Sound is subjective and only you can decide what you like or not

 

[tz0531]

The M50X already has a V-shaped signature. If you want more treble and bass, that implies you want a deep V-shaped signature. For open back cans, the only ones I can think of with a deep V-shape are the Beyerdynamic DT990. For closed back cans, check out the Fostex TH600 and TH900, if your budget can handle them.