Headphones that can reproduce Subwoofer type bass? Head shaking true bass

[swbf2cheater]

The most potent bass I have ever heard was in the Luke Skybeyer DT770

 

[TMRaven]

You said you preferred the DT880's bass response to the T1's bass response, which many consider to have a more accurate bass that extends lower than the DT880's, so I can see where you're coming from too.  It's not to say that anyone's wrong in this instance, but to demonstrate how we all have our own preferences.  Some people have the AKG701 as their neutral, and think their bass is perfectly accurate, others think the LCD-2 is their accurate, everyobdy's ears adjust to a sound signature after a while and it becomes their neutral..  I'm not saying that the Denons are the only headphone out there that extend without rolling off, in fact I don't know where you even got that from, but I'm pointing out that it does it without a huge hump in its bass, and not a lot of headphones do that.  It definitely rolls off, but only starts to roll off at around 25hz.  The only others I really know of are the planar dynamics, but those are out of my budget for now, although they'd be my ideal in this instance. Until then I'll just get my D2000's recabled to bring out the upper mids a bit.  I've way more experience than just the headphones in my sig, those are only the ones I've owned for a while.

 

[Graphicism]

You're being contradictive, using my personal neutral analogy that I explained to you and not understanding it. In short, you're saying any headphone you listen too will become your neutral, and in another sentence "I'm pointing out that it does it without a huge hump in its bass". The Denon has a HUGE hump in the bass; that's what I'm referring too and that's why the OP may like them.
 

Cables, please! 

 

[TMRaven]

No, I'm not.  I'm giving headphones that are near neutral but with slight variations in emphasis and saying different people with differing tastes find them as their neutrals.  I never once exemplified extremely colored headphones as part of my example.  The Beyer DT880 could also be along those lines of a headphone that's close to neutral but slightly colored, and perhaps you've found it as your neutral-- something which you judge other headphones off of.  It's definitely not the end-all, be-all to neutrality, otherwise you'd see literally everybody who strives for neutrality owning the 880 and only the 880.  Instead there's a multitude of different headphones that cater to different people's tastes.  
 
Selectively twisting my posts hasn't been anything new from you, either.  It's honestly a lost-cause to have a discussion with you, as I've witnessed a lot of other head-fiers tire of your posting habits as well through the time I've spent on this forum.  When's it going to end?
 

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

The problem is that far from every people wants to hear perfect neutrality. I wonder what's gotten into people's minds that perfect neutrality is what will sound best to them. I again strongly DON'T believe in that and think most people might not want perfect neutrality when they hear it and can compare like between 10 headphones but for most it's probably reasonably close but I mean like what is saying that one person might not prefer a say 2dB boost in the lows or 1.5dB boost in the mids and maybe -1.5dB reduction in the highs for a slightly warmer sound? I think when we talk about what people concider sounding the best to their ears when listening and just wanting to appriciate music (ie. not trying to produce music for other people) then there's probably almost as many unique "perfect" frequency response curves out there that there is people on this planet.

 

[LugBug1]

I found the bass from the Denon d2000's to be very powerful, too much for me after while but very impressive if thats what you are after.
 
They do have an emphasized top end too, but without that they would sound too warm 

 

[Graphicism]

The problem is that far from every people wants to hear perfect neutrality. I wonder what's gotten into people's minds that perfect neutrality is what will sound best to them. I again strongly DON'T believe in that and think most people might not want perfect neutrality when they hear it and can compare like between 10 headphones but for most it's probably reasonably close but I mean like what is saying that one person might not prefer a say 2dB boost in the lows or 1.5dB boost in the mids and maybe -1.5dB reduction in the highs for a slightly warmer sound? I think when we talk about what people concider sounding the best to their ears when listening and just wanting to appriciate music (ie. not trying to produce music for other people) then there's probably almost as many unique "perfect" frequency response curves out there that there is people on this planet.

Absolutely, neutral would be boring. I wouldn't call a DT880 with a tube amp neutral. What I will try and stay away from is emphatic headphones where one region of the spectrum sounds inflated next to everything else... unless of course I want that flatulence then I'll don my Sony XBs. 

 I have issue with people calling bass-foward headphones flat simply because they've grown use to it.

Quote:

I found the bass from the Denon d2000's to be very powerful, too much for me after while but very impressive if thats what you are after.
 
They do have an emphasized top end too, but without that they would sound too warm 

Yeah it's over-the-top, fun for a while but it spoils everything other than bass-dominant genres.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

^ I think with flat he meant "even" bass response from the lowest bass notes to the upper bass notes. I've also used "flat" in that sense when perhaps "even" would be a better word to use like XB500 has "even" bass response all the way from 15 ~ 300Hz but it's just boosted by 15dB though.

 

[TMRaven]

I never really personally had the problem.  I don't know what more to tell you.  I've A/B'd D2000 with Sennheisers in audio stores and never once felt the mids were overpowered by the bass compared to the Senns.  On the converse side, I saw a straight up lack of bass in the sennheisers.  I get the sensation of the mids and highs being muddied up in the XB series, that's why I don't have one.  But at the same time I don't go around saying to every person recommending a Sennheiser headphone to not get it because the mids overpower the bass.

 

[Graphicism]

Perhaps it would help if I explained my personal D2000 quandary...
 
First of all I enjoyed the D2000s, I thought they were everything I wanted in a headphone as I came from a bass-head background... they had the low bass I craved and sounded really good throughout. Everything I played through them sounding fantastic however this also lead to their ultimate demise. For instance Album A sounded great on the D2000s but lacked body on the HD600. Album B however sounded just as great on the D2000s however also sounded full bodied on the HD600. This occurred throughout my collection of music; they would all sound great on the D2000s but about 20% or so would sound weak and lacking on the HD600.
 
What this came down to was poor recordings, the Denons were filling-in the missing bass and the HD600s were exposing the missing information. From this I gathered that the Denons were not only making everything sound great but colored; pianos were bassier, drums were congested and male vocals in particular were nasal and boomy. Of course these quirks could be ignored for their ability to sugar coat everything and deliver great bass, a super headphone to suggest if you're looking for big bass and don't want the expense of a good source or amp.
 
So we come back to the issue of roll-off, what I attribute to be false lingering bass others attribute as accurate. They might extend further and louder than other headphones but this is a result of reverberation, not information within the music.
 
For me personally if I'm spending hundreds of dollars on a headphone I'd like it to be accurate.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Here's my view on frequency response: it's easier to color a neutral, balanced headphone than the other way around. All you need is EQ.
 
I'd think it's better to start with as true-to-the-source sound as possible and tweak from there, to make it just right to one's preferences and not add color where there shouldn't be any. It would make sense that DSP effects and such could add a bit of reverb here and there while preserving the rest of the spectrum, right?
 
Then again, I'm no basshead. The HTF600 is the closest thing I have to a basshead can, and my main reason for getting that is for review purposes. My primary home listening headphones are Stax Lambdas. Most of my music is not bass-centric; if anything, the bassy things tend to be movies and games. (This doesn't stop me from EQing up the bass on the Lambda a bit, though.)
 
Right now, the only thing I can think of to get deep, reverberating subwoofer bass with headphones is...to run a good subwoofer along with the headphones, like a modified 2.1 system. (Has anyone tried doing that yet?) The HTF600 comes close, but only burn-in can tell whether or not it'll truly deliver in the end.

 

[Lavcat]

Hmm...I find the Denon (D7000) bass clean, full, and satisfying.  If someone told me the mids were recessed I might believe them, but then again, I cut the mids on my speakers too.

 

[anwaypasible]

 
Quote:

 
XB700 only does have whatsoever slightly bigger soundstage but I thought XB500 had better positioning so for gaming I rather used XB500. 
 
XB500 and XB700 have about as much audible subbass, EQ the midbass down on XB500 and it'll also start sounding deeper. I wouldn't put XB700 as having or hitting the deep bass harder cuz even when listening to hardstyle that focuses mostly around 40~60Hz the XB500 still seemed to hit with more punch and impact and XB700's bass was quite soft in comparision. I tried EQ'ing the hell out of XB700 to get the same punch/impact but it just didn't work despite doing some very major EQing. The XB500 responds a bit better to EQing than XB700, the XB700 also needed at least some amping to shine in my ears while XB500 is among the most efficient headphones I've ever came across and will play very loud out of any source.
 
You know that Bass I Love you track right? Well the XB500 delivers that very deep basstones so you actually can feel them tickling your ears, so I wouldn't worry about bass extension.
 
Since you have a relatively good 10-band EQ you probably can get quite good result when EQing mids and highs a little on XB500. This is how I tweaked it on a Titanium HD soundcard, they both should have the same EQ I think:
 

 
You should also look into digiZoid ZO amp if you're that much into "head shaking" bass. This amp has really impressive bass boost capabilities but offers an improvement in other aspects too. Maybe with this you wouldn't need to change your headphone I think. They are now taking preorders for ZO v2 for $99.95. http://www.digizoid.com/zo/

the equalizer settings are not calibrated anywhere close to the correct standard.
i do realize people want 'even' or extra bass (or extra treble.. with an occasional extra midrange)
i've done the frequency response with a microphone from an acoustic laboratory for the 'audio creation mode' and posted them on this forum.
i've also done the calibration in the 'game' mode, but havent yet posted those results.
 
i believe you want more than 'even' .. and this is alright, because sometimes i enjoy extra bass that shakes the liquid in my torso when i'm doing my car audio system.
other times i want studio standard audio quality.
 
the xbr-500 headphones have a unique characteristic of 'behaving' very fast, but perhaps not as long of a duration as us bassheads enjoy.
in fact, certainly not as long as us bassheads enjoy.
the ability of the speakers to score and pan from left to right is small, but very noticeable.
when i say 'small' .. i am trying to say 'almost like a microwave level where your ears stop perceiving any difference'
that means the subtle details for the 2nd order of harmonics are there, and they are very well behaved.
however, the 'fullier' midrange that was talked about seems to me as the midrange bleed because of the first layer of harmonics being neglected.
i dont know the exacts, and i am simply opening up the 'form' for discussion.
but it goes like this..
the first order of harmonics will be the speaker simply moving in and out.
the second order of harmonics will be the speaker moving in and out for one tone, and moving in and out again for a something else.
the third order of harmonics will be the same as above, but with another layer of moving in and out.
 
the inclusion of 'order of harmonics' allows the speaker to output longer durations of audio (but the layers of harmonics need to be connected .. and not isolated from eachother *or the exact opposite* )
i know you should start confused and let me fill you in, and this is the best way i can share the information with you (generally because it is honest)
a speaker with only one order of harmonics is going to sound like paper.
when a speaker sounds like paper, it is very thin and outputs a range of frequencies.. but the speaker doesnt move much at all when it is doing it.
there are many examples of these speakers from the 1960's to 1980's era ... but be warned, some of those speakers from the 1980's come with two layers of harmonics.
think about those old speakers with the vintage magnet that looks different than todays speakers.
some examples..?
i cant name names because i wasnt around for that era.. but, i do know there was a lot of house speakers built that emphasize what i am talking about.
speakers of the past that showed it.. jensen large paper woofers.
i am saying jensen because i cant think of any other brand names.
however, i can recall a large number of large paper woofers that will show you quite the same paper sound.
the woofer size is usually 15 inches ... the speaker refuses to move in and out .. and you could compare any of the paper thin sounds to a cerwin vega house woofer of the 1990's to give yourself a difference.
 
as a matter of fact, you might be able to consider an intercom speaker in a classroom as being one of those speakers that sounds paper thin.
the paper woofers i am talking about may or may not have a surround that allows them to move in and out a lot.
but obviously, if the surround restricts in and out movement.. the sound has a good chance of being very thin.
 
another good quality about these speakers is how they dont make a room glow with 'mud' like the many speakers of the 1990's did.
because the large woofer isnt moving in and out very much, the air in the room doesnt blow around very much.
it is the air in the room that sounds like 'mud'
 
more layers of harmonics allows the speaker to reproduce air?  no
not unless the speaker's surround allows it (and the voice coil is wrapped to do it)
 
 
when the original poster said they want bass that has details and emphasis and character.. it is the 'amperage' and duration they are searching for.
those paper thin woofers can play loud or soft, but they dont punch hard.
the speakers back then would knock, and the speakers of the 1990's would punch hard enough to blow some air in the room.
 
back in the 1960's and 1970's .. they would brag about a port in the speakerbox that would blow out a candle.
in the 1990's .. almost all of the speakers would blow out a candle.
 
the xbr-500 headphones wont offer much towards vibrant details after any punches IF you are looking for those details to be any long length.
the thin part that is there is accurate, but it leaves something to be desired.
and the majority of the time, other headphones that will play those longer details.. they totally lack the very small thin sound.
 
how can you judge these two with your own ears?
listen to the sounds of rain outside hitting the ground.. because the sounds of rain are very quick, the xbr-500 headphones will do a mighty fine job of that.
if you wanted to listen to a satanic lord with a low rumbling voice, the very small details get confused with the speaker trying to also move in and out a lot to match the low rumble.
 
it is simply a matter of 'energy long' or 'energy short'
a pair of headphones will show different durations of energy throughout the octave band.
that is why headphones get very expensive, because you get it all in all of the octave bands.
and that is why the cheaper headphones offer one or the other, or they fail miserably trying to mix the two together by avoiding perfection towards both durations of length.
these are key points to listen for to get yourself a pair of headphones that match the character you want.
i find the tiny durations a bit annoying and it gives me this strange headache that doesnt offer pain, but instead feels like a void.
however,
i can appreciate the effort the speakers out putting out, and i also enjoy the sound of rain.
rain sounds really good on the headphones, and i know other headphones would struggle.
but
listening to the long durations of energy time after time again, i start to think about how muddy everything is .. because i know what is missing.
 
it takes many layers to make a sine wave.. then add harmonics to raise or lower the volume of the sine wave, instead of simply lowering or raising the size of the wave.
you can go long or short, and in the past.. if you go long, you miss out on the transients.
and if you go short, you miss out on the feeling of 'participation' (and this defines me as a basshead)
it is the slew, or lack of, that either exists or doesnt.
there is a long list of content in audio.. speakers arent generally made to reproduce all of them, that is what the most expensive speakers try to do.
it is as if there are four categories needed for the perfect speaker.
and the expensive ones try to add all four together.
and the cheaper ones are one or the other, and since the 1990's .. the consumer market has been able to buy headphones that do more than one of the categories.
 
since everything is improving and upgrading..
speakers will continue to add more categories, and the amount within those categories will grow.
most of the time, the speaker completely lacks the category at all.. and that is why it doesnt sound very good, even if you try to tweak it with a filter.
you dont need to look very hard for these categories presence.. because they show up like a side dish to a meal.
as i conclude..
most meals are not very big at all.
the size of the table these products offer is embarassing.
think of the word 'feast' instead of 'meal' .. because when there is about 40 different sides to choose from, you know your hamburger, fries, and garlic bread is simply THREE - not fourty.
 
 
below are the studio standard settings for the xb500 headphones when your x-fi soundcard is in 'game mode'
cmss-3d must be turned on for these equalizer settings to be considered valid.
since many video games require rear speakers, it only makes sense to do the calibration with the cmss-3d on.
i also included the bass boost feature as turned on to give the ultra lowest bass some attention.
 
31hz :: -12.0dB
62hz :: -10.0dB
125hz :: -12.0dB
250hz :: -8.9dB
500hz :: -7.8dB
1k :: 4.0dB
2k :: 0.0dB
4k :: -12.0dB
8k :: 5.7dB
16K :: -2.7dB
 
bass boost @ 10hz :: 11.0dB
 
 
**edit**
 
i forgot to mention..
the majority of surround sound and positional audio comes from those very micro differences.
however,
the difference between a video game and movie can be astounding enough to break free from what i said and prove the exact opposite.
 
inevitably, it is always both.
but
if you are finding a serious problem with your positional audio in video games, consider trying a pair of headphones that sound 'brighter' .. or 'like tin' .. but not to be confused with 'thin' because 'thin' speakers cant reproduce rain when the raindrops get larger.
if 'thin' was perfect.. then all sizes of raindrops would come bleching out of the speaker without any problem.
but most speakers prove to have some sort of a problem with the many different sizes of rain drops.
 
voice coil wraps grow to become very complex.
if you unwrap the coil and it looks like a simple fishing line.. then that means the atomic structure of the voice coil has been designed and twisted, then layed perfectly by a robot to fit the puzzle correctly.
and because those voice coil wraps are complex, it can prove difficult (or expensive) to include many options within one voice coil.
so dont sweat it if you are hearing some small chunks missing, and instead think about the average score.
 
how do you find the average?
take each reason to keep the headphones and add it up, then divide by the number of reasons.
then
take each reason to get rid of the headphones and add them up, then divide by the number of reasons.
start with the number of reasons to keep the headphones, then subtract the number of reasons to get rid of it.
if your final number is negative (or close to zero), you should be hunting for new headphones.

 

[anwaypasible]

 
Quote:

Here's my view on frequency response: it's easier to color a neutral, balanced headphone than the other way around. All you need is EQ.
 
I'd think it's better to start with as true-to-the-source sound as possible and tweak from there, to make it just right to one's preferences and not add color where there shouldn't be any. It would make sense that DSP effects and such could add a bit of reverb here and there while preserving the rest of the spectrum, right?
 
Then again, I'm no basshead. The HTF600 is the closest thing I have to a basshead can, and my main reason for getting that is for review purposes. My primary home listening headphones are Stax Lambdas. Most of my music is not bass-centric; if anything, the bassy things tend to be movies and games. (This doesn't stop me from EQing up the bass on the Lambda a bit, though.)
 
Right now, the only thing I can think of to get deep, reverberating subwoofer bass with headphones is...to run a good subwoofer along with the headphones, like a modified 2.1 system. (Has anyone tried doing that yet?) The HTF600 comes close, but only burn-in can tell whether or not it'll truly deliver in the end.

people need to think it is better listening to a true-to-source sound.
why would somebody spend $8,000 on a microphone.. and then you come along to make the person's recording sound like it is high on helium?
it doesnt make any logical sense to listen to the movie or the music with squeeky mouse voices or low monster voices.
 
reverbs and digital delays SHOULD be the new standard for preferences.
and then the industry professionals can work on connecting your eardrum and the headphone speaker by compensating for the air inbetween the two.
(there is also the fact of different ear hole sizes)
 
speakers have proven to be an embarassment for many generations.
everybody has a computer nowadays (most people do, or did) .. and those computers can perfect the speaker's voice coil.
it is only a matter of time before people start to find better speakers that come computer optimized.
the technology today is well enough to simply place a _____ on the speaker's cone and record what is right and what is wrong.
they've been doing that since the 1980's.
your speakers might not be completely computer optimized yet.. but there needs to be a reason for fairness and equality between the many speaker builders.
and that means the computer doing the work will remove all problems of fairness.
(those people will probably move on to custom speaker making, or custom speaker cabinets)

 

[influx.]

I think the best way to compare is to try all 3 myself. And sell whatever I don't like lol
 
What's the cheapest place I can order these to nz? XB500, XB700, HTF600