[cel4145]

The big problem with this thread is that the title is wrong. It should be M50s over-rated and over-criticized?
 
The answer to that is YES because
 
1) The M50s are extremely popular.
2) Headphone choice is subjective. 
 
So because the M50s are regularly recommended around the web as a good all around headphone for their class, they get bought so much as someone's first $100+ headphones. Which encourages more recommendations and negative criticism because even more people then own them. It's a snowballing effect. 
 
And there are the people that don't realize how subjective headphone choice is. And they champion the M50s as if they are the best choice for everyone simply because they like them. It's like being in high school again where "my X is always the best" attitude (sorry; I know not all high school students are that way). 
 
And then there are the people that buy their next headphone and like them better, as if somehow the M50 was a problem, instead of the fact that the M50s were just not a good choice for them to begin with. It was a poor consumer choice, not the headphones that are at fault. People that have very little experience with audio equipment that think they can go on an Internet forum and find the speakers/headphones which are the best for them are either naive or just out of their minds (lol). You need to listen to speakers and headphones to know which is the best sound for you. 
 
So is the M50 a good general recommendation? Yes. Because a lot of the people coming on here asking about their first $100+ headphone have no clue how to express exactly what they want or what would best fit their needs. The M50s are good all around for their class. But they are not the only choice for a good all around headphone either. 

 

[Michael10]

The big problem with this thread is that the title is wrong. It should be M50s over-rated and over-criticized?
 
The answer to that is YES because
 
1) The M50s are extremely popular.
2) Headphone choice is subjective.
cel4145
 
I agree!  The M50s are nice headphones for the price and they are well built.  My more expensive AT phones have the wing system which is comfortable but fragile.  I have about a dozen phones and the M50s aren't my favorites but I think they are a good buy.  Someone earlier mentioned the AKG240 which I don't own but I do have the AKG 271 and while I haven't used them very much, I think they are another good relatively inexpensive choice.
 
As I wrote earlier, the "expert" reviews on Headphone Reviews give the M50s a 7.7 overall and that is a very high rating.  On Amazon which is a collection of reviews from all sorts of folks, they get about a 4.5 out of 5.  I don't have any stock in AT but again I think they are decent headphones for the money.  But, and I have never had a pair, if I were into loud rock music then I would look at Grado or maybe the DT-770's. My next purchase will probably be a set of Grado phones just to see how different they really sound.
 
I really wonder if I an tell the difference between headphones that I have paid $750 for (ATH W5000) and phones that I have purchased for $100.  Humans are very good at fooling themselves.   Cognitive dissonance research has shown that the more someone spends on something,the more value they will see in what they have purchased. There are a very few people on this site  that do reviews that I value and even then I may not agree with their  opinion.
 
Also, I think the headphones that you will prefer depend on your taste and your musical preference. If you like metal then you may prefer a set of headphones that are not very revealing and you probably will want something with a lot of bass. Nothing wrong with that preference, but it will probably result in a preference for a set of phones that are very different from what the fan of classical guitar will want.

 

[Rocko1]

I agree. For around $110 the M50 are one hell of a headphone. You really get your monies worth-build quality, sound quality, etc. I would recommend this headphone all day long for someone looking for a closed headphone for around $100 that does not own $200 and up headphones.

 

[jazzerdave]

So I've just recently escalated my headphone purchasing, but I've long owned a pair of AKG K240's and regularly listened to my dad's Koss ESP-9's (for brief periods as they're just damn uncomfortable).  I now have pairs of Q701's, HD650's, Darth Beyer's, and Mr Speakers Mad Dog T50RP (with a second pair on the way) that I use for most of my listening.  I've also long had a pair of ATH M20's and Bose triports that were gifts.  The latter have never been used for more than listening to talk radio, random low-resolution music in the background, or the occasional mobile use.  I would consider the Mad Dogs for mobile use, but the clamping force is light enough that they'll fall off if I were to lean over (I'd also find it hard to enjoy them without adding a portable amp since I know how they are capable of sounding).  
 
I decided to pick up a pair of the ATH M50WH to replace the M20's and Bose for mobile/lo-fi use since most of my other options are either open or really need amplification, and I'm not really into carrying around a mobile amp and all that.  For something that's easy enough to power directly from my phone or iPod, the M50's are just fine.  They're not amazing, but they're far from offensive.  I don't find the mids all that recessed, and I certainly don't find them overly grainy (there was at least one complaint about this early on in this thread).
 
Anyway, I find them to be more than acceptable for my uses.  My Mad Dogs, HD650's, and Q701's all get more use, but I don't really do that much mobile listening.  If someone needed a recommendation for a sub-$150 headphone that's:
 
A) New
B) Closed
C) Easy to drive
D) Relatively flat/detailed
 
I'd be quick to recommend that they try these.  If someone just needed something in that price range but didn't have the closed or easy to drive needs, I'd recommend that they try the K240, K271, and the cheaper Grados.  I don't personally like Grados, but I usually recommend that everyone who is fine with an open headphone gives them a shot to try out a different sound signature.

 

[Michael10]

I have the 271's but don't use them very much.  Not because I don't like them but they are just not what I normally put on, but I am curious about how they sound compared to the 240's?  Actually, I have the 271 MKII.  I picked them up at a very good price a couple of years ago.  I think I was pleased with them but since I tend to use higher end phones most of the time, I ended up using the M50's for listening in bed as I go to sleep because they are smaller.  When you turn your head sideways on a pillow, big headphones tend to be uncomfortable.  I had a pair of 702s that I thought sounded pretty good (the usual criticisms of weak low end) but they were just so uncomfortable I gave them to a friend.  I now have the Quincy Jones version of the 701s but they also hurt my head.  I have a skull like a Klingon (not really but it isn't flat) and the pads on the 701 and 702s are uncomfortable.  What is a good AKG sounding phone that has a comfortable headband?  
 
Off subject but I am curious about the 240s? And maybe the 601s?

 

[jazzerdave]

Quote:

I have the 271's but don't use them very much.  Not because I don't like them but they are just not what I normally put on, but I am curious about how they sound compared to the 240's?  Actually, I have the 271 MKII.  I picked them up at a very good price a couple of years ago.  I think I was pleased with them but since I tend to use higher end phones most of the time, I ended up using the M50's for listening in bed as I go to sleep because they are smaller.  When you turn your head sideways on a pillow, big headphones tend to be uncomfortable.  I had a pair of 702s that I thought sounded pretty good (the usual criticisms of weak low end) but they were just so uncomfortable I gave them to a friend.  I now have the Quincy Jones version of the 701s but they also hurt my head.  I have a skull like a Klingon (not really but it isn't flat) and the pads on the 701 and 702s are uncomfortable.  What is a good AKG sounding phone that has a comfortable headband?  
 
Off subject but I am curious about the 240s? And maybe the 601s?

I find my 240's more comfortable than the 701's.  That being said, if you're up for a little DIY adventure, it's not that hard to modify/replace the bumpy headband on the 701.

 

[takato14]

Quote:

2 months later still loving the M50's.

One year later, can't believe what I was listening to. The M50 was my first "good" headphone. First time I tried it I was blown away. Now I can't listen to it.

 

[Dragunov-21]

Quote:

I would like to add something to this topic.
 
The M50's mids are absolutely atrocious. Amping my M50s brought the recessed mids out of the dark and showed me what they were like. They're ridiculously boomy and rough, and I constantly hear intense distortion on them. It sounds disgusting. I can honestly say they have the worst mids of any headphone I have. Recessed mids I don't mind, but the M50's mids are absolutely atrocious. Seriously AT?
 
This has proven to me that the M50 really is severely overrated. I can't even use my M50s anymore. They sound like total and utter ****. I can't even stand to listen to them anymore. 
 
Oh, sweet. 500th post.

This.  They're better than a most of "popular" phones under $200, but they only sounded good before I'd listened to something decent.  Boomy but without much actual bass presence.  I thought they were broken when I picked them up after a hiatus listening to IEMs (Shure E2C and Ety ER4P, both of which cost me less than the $150 M50s).  What exactly are they better than, in the price range, from other non-bling manufacturers?
 
*EDIT*  Hah, didn't realise I'd posted something similar back in April...

 

[cel4145]

Quote:

This.  They're better than a most of "popular" phones under $200, but they only sounded good before I'd listened to something decent.  Boomy but without much actual bass presence.  I thought they were broken when I picked them up after a hiatus listening to IEMs (Shure E2C and Ety ER4P, both of which cost me less than the $150 M50s). 

 
I would imagine most people stating that the M50s are a good all around headphone would be cautious about recommending them to someone who prefers the neutral, analytical (and arguably slightly bass light) sound of the ER4Ps. Saying the M50s are no good compared to ER4Ps is sort of like faulting oranges for not tasting like apples. Oranges are still good, just not for people that really prefer apples. I'm actually surprised that an ER4P owner would make this comparison since ER4Ps are also a controversial headphone.
 
Not to mention that they are really not the same price class. ER4Ps are closer to $200 in price--$150 is a steal that is generally not available, whereas M50s are often available for $110 to $130. 

 

[Rocko1]

Quote:

 
I would imagine most people stating that the M50s are a good all around headphone would be cautious about recommending them to someone who prefers the neutral, analytical (and arguably slightly bass light) sound of the ER4Ps. Saying the M50s are no good compared to ER4Ps is sort of like faulting oranges for not tasting like apples. Oranges are still good, just not for people that really prefer apples. I'm actually surprised that an ER4P owner would make this comparison since ER4Ps are also a controversial headphone.
 
Not to mention that they are really not the same price class. ER4Ps are closer to $200 in price--$150 is a steal that is generally not available, whereas M50s are often available for $110 to $130. 

An IEM costing $200 should by all intents sound better than a $110 headphone. It has what, 1/10th-1/30th the material?

 

[Dragunov-21]

Quote:

 
I would imagine most people stating that the M50s are a good all around headphone would be cautious about recommending them to someone who prefers the neutral, analytical (and arguably slightly bass light) sound of the ER4Ps. Saying the M50s are no good compared to ER4Ps is sort of like faulting oranges for not tasting like apples. Oranges are still good, just not for people that really prefer apples. I'm actually surprised that an ER4P owner would make this comparison since ER4Ps are also a controversial headphone.
 
Not to mention that they are really not the same price class. ER4Ps are closer to $200 in price--$150 is a steal that is generally not available, whereas M50s are often available for $110 to $130. 

 
When I bought them, $150 was the going rate for a pair of M50s.  And I actually don't prefer the ER4P sound sig at all - I enjoy listening to my UM3Xs far more when I'm not stuck with a huge boner for micro-details.  I just listen to them and find them muddy, but without any richness or impact.  Just a bad headphone.
 
 
Thing is, I'm pretty sure that the $50 Gamecom 777s a friend has provide equal SQ (in terms of clarity and detail while maintaining richness of mids and bass).  I'm going off old memory, but I have a pair for myself coming in soon, so I'll do a comparison when I get them.  Perhaps I'm just being too harsh because of the gear I have now and the fact that I have a far better idea of what I'm listening to/for than I did two years ago.  
Quote:

An IEM costing $200 should by all intents sound better than a $110 headphone. It has what, 1/10th-1/30th the material?

Reeeally?  Miniaturisation costs nothing, huh?  I'm under the impression that headphones were generally the best bang for your buck.  That said, I paid $150 for the M50s (2-3 years back I think) and the same for the ER4Ps.

 

[cel4145]

Quote:

 
When I bought them, $150 was the going rate for a pair of M50s.  

 
They aren't now, though. For the last few months, they've been moving around in the $110-$130 range on Amazon. 

 

[briskly]

Quote:

Quote:

 
I would imagine most people stating that the M50s are a good all around headphone would be cautious about recommending them to someone who prefers the neutral, analytical (and arguably slightly bass light) sound of the ER4Ps. Saying the M50s are no good compared to ER4Ps is sort of like faulting oranges for not tasting like apples. Oranges are still good, just not for people that really prefer apples. I'm actually surprised that an ER4P owner would make this comparison since ER4Ps are also a controversial headphone.
 
Not to mention that they are really not the same price class. ER4Ps are closer to $200 in price--$150 is a steal that is generally not available, whereas M50s are often available for $110 to $130. 

 
When I bought them, $150 was the going rate for a pair of M50s.  And I actually don't prefer the ER4P sound sig at all - I enjoy listening to my UM3Xs far more when I'm not stuck with a huge boner for micro-details.  I just listen to them and find them muddy, but without any richness or impact.  Just a bad headphone.
 
 
Thing is, I'm pretty sure that the $50 Gamecom 777s a friend has provide equal SQ (in terms of clarity and detail while maintaining richness of mids and bass).  I'm going off old memory, but I have a pair for myself coming in soon, so I'll do a comparison when I get them.  Perhaps I'm just being too harsh because of the gear I have now and the fact that I have a far better idea of what I'm listening to/for than I did two years ago.  
Quote:

An IEM costing $200 should by all intents sound better than a $110 headphone. It has what, 1/10th-1/30th the material?

Reeeally?  Miniaturisation costs nothing, huh?  I'm under the impression that headphones were generally the best bang for your buck.  That said, I paid $150 for the M50s (2-3 years back I think) and the same for the ER4Ps.

 
All depends on priorities. Headphones I'd say are perhaps more detailed, and tend to have superior bass extension, but tend to fall way, way short with respect to linearity of FR and soundstaging. Furthermore, there's that visceral impact a speaker system will deliver that a headphone can never match. Earphones have their own boat of issues.
 
The M50 mids aren't that recessed though. They have a sharp, narrow dip around 4k or so and peak shortly after. These don't have have the violent V-shaped skew some people seem to be suggesting.
 
Oh and balanced armatures are easy to come by, as they don't make their own drivers, saving them a fair bit of R&D expense. But they need to be tuned, tested and matched, which is the justification for companies that do this.

 

[takato14]

Quote:

 
Furthermore, there's that visceral impact a speaker system will deliver that a headphone can never match. 

*cough*SR-009*cough*

 

[briskly]

Somehow I doubt a stat of all things will pound your head harder than , say, an audeze or something.