[thefitz]

This is a great example of how simply staring at a specs sheet doesn't tell us much.
 
Those measurements are compensated along the Harman target curve, I believe. So, the 'bass emphasis' is that there's more bass content relative to the Harman target curve (which has a marked 3-4kHz treble lift). The HE-400's 'dip' is the headphones staying relatively flat where the Harman curve is expecting a boost. The HE-400s are much, much harder to drive, which may contribute to the fact that the entire HE-400 curve "lies below" the NAD VISO. Don't quote me on that second bit.
 
The single biggest issue when comparing the two graphs is that the HE-400 is known for a crispy ~10kHz spike and some ringing in that area. By that diagram, the NAD VISO appears to have "more of a spike" there too. Frequency response graphs don't do a whole lot to indicate slam and impact, which aren't even comparable between the two sets IMO.
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANHE400.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/NADVISOHP50.pdf
 
The grey lines are the ones the actual frequency response. The HE-400 "rolloff" is below 30Hz, so that's hardly indicative of anything.

 

[amigomatt]

The graph is interesting but I let me ears make decisions about sound.  The NADs have more bass than the HE400s.  I am using modified Jergpads on mine though, and that definitely makes some changes to the frequency response, possibly in the bass region, but I can't be sure as I can't remember what the original velours sounded like.  I do remember the original pleathers being not very good sounding at all though, and pad mods and driving them through speaker taps was the only way I could be happy with them (which I very much am!).  Anyway, that's off topic.  The NADs may be erring on the side of neutral, but they definitely have a slant towards warm/lower frequencies, as anyone should be able to discern.  The HE400 are ruler flat down there (as is the response with a number of other planar drivers), so those are the cans not taking away or adding down there, not the NADs.
 
I truly am not trying to tell you whather you are right or not, I can only simply tell you what I hear from my setup.  My ears are good and I trust them, being a professional musician and music producer.  It's very interesting the differences we do hear and I take your word that that is what you are hearing from your setup.  I wouldn't denounce what other's hear though.  There are other factors involved here.  I'm only writing in this tone to respond to the hint that I am misguided in my heaing.  I'm not.  Enjoy both your HP50 and HE400 - I do!  

 

 

[amigomatt]

Just looking back over the HE400 thread, it seems that some did find that going from the pleathers to velours resulted in a noticeable loss in bass impact, so maybe that is a factor to us hearing the HE400 differently.  I'm using the modified Jergpads with the bass vent mod (which is to increase the bass extension at the expense of losing some bass impact too).  I didn't consider my HE400 pads before this discussion developed. 

 

[cel4145]

This is a great example of how simply staring at a specs sheet doesn't tell us much.

Who is staring? I can read them and understand what they mean in about 30 secs

Those measurements are compensated along the Harman target curve, I believe. So, the 'bass emphasis' is that there's more bass content relative to the Harman target curve (which has a marked 3-4kHz treble lift). The HE-400's 'dip' is the headphones staying relatively flat where the Harman curve is expecting a boost. The HE-400s are much, much harder to drive, which may contribute to the fact that the entire HE-400 curve "lies below" the NAD VISO. Don't quote me on that second bit.

The single biggest issue when comparing the two graphs is that the HE-400 is known for a crispy ~10kHz spike and some ringing in that area. By that diagram, the NAD VISO appears to have "more of a spike" there too. Frequency response graphs don't do a whole lot to indicate slam and impact, which aren't even comparable between the two sets IMO.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANHE400.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/NADVISOHP50.pdf

The grey lines are the ones the actual frequency response. The HE-400 "rolloff" is below 30Hz, so that's hardly indicative of anything.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, because it doesn't matter which set of graphs you look at, compensated or not. The HP50s measure to have more bass emphasis relative to mids and highs.

Slam and impact? Slam is generally considered related to mid bass response compared to other frequencies. Impact will be related to SPL.

 

[bgentry]

Clarity is a weak point of the the HP50.

Be careful listening to people's opinions around here. Some people hear one thing, while others hear another.

I disagree VERY strongly with the above opinion. I don't think you'll find very many people that do agree with it. I'm not going to argue with the above poster though. He's said this same thing over and over again, so why would I argue? I'll just say that I disagree and you should read opinions from more than 2 people.

Brian.

 

[thefitz]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, because it doesn't matter which set of graphs you look at, compensated or not. The HP50s measure to have more bass emphasis relative to mids and highs.

Slam and impact? Slam is generally considered related to mid bass response compared to other frequencies. Impact will be related to SPL.

The HP50 is definitely on the warm side, but however you want to describe "ZOMG BASS" belongs to the HE-400 IMO (and a lot of other people's O, just head on down to the HE-400 page).
 
I stand by my assertion - if someone were to ask me 'what has the better bass' with bass being a primary factor, I would not call the HP50 a good suggestion. This isn't a criticism, just how I see it. I bought the HP50 (and am therefore selling my P7) because it's even-sounding!

 

[BaTou069]

I also have both he400 and nad hp50
I think there is a huge difference between bass volume/presence VS  bass quality
The he400 bass quality and texture is unbeatable, but relatively to the other frequencies it's not elevated.
To my hearing, the hp50 has more bass presence.
I a/b both headphones especially on bass heavy tracks, and I also felt more bass on the hp50. On the he400 the bass was lower, but fuller, it had much more texture and was much jucier. BUT, the hp50 accented the bass and made me hear a certain bass line in a completely different way then the he400, it was more engaging on the nad.
I wanted to sell my he400 since i almost dont use it anymore, since i can't use it anymore at work (open office), and I dont listen to headphones at home.
But I simply can't sell them, since there is nothing out there like it...

 

[thefitz]

  I also have both he400 and nad hp50
I think there is a huge difference between bass volume/presence VS  bass quality
The he400 bass quality and texture is unbeatable, but relatively to the other frequencies it's not elevated.
To my hearing, the hp50 has more bass presence.
I a/b both headphones especially on bass heavy tracks, and I also felt more bass on the hp50. On the he400 the bass was lower, but fuller, it had much more texture and was much jucier. BUT, the hp50 accented the bass and made me hear a certain bass line in a completely different way then the he400, it was more engaging on the nad.
I wanted to sell my he400 since i almost dont use it anymore, since i can't use it anymore at work (open office), and I dont listen to headphones at home.
But I simply can't sell them, since there is nothing out there like it...

I think that's a very fair assessment. The bass on the HP50 didn't LEAP out at me (and I'm thankful for that, since I didn't want it to), but when I tried the HE-400 I couldn't believe my ears.
 
I use Oppo PM-3 at the office, and they are definitely the most "bass shy" out of them all, but incredibly even.

 

[cel4145]

The HP50 is definitely on the warm side, but however you want to describe "ZOMG BASS" belongs to the HE-400 IMO (and a lot of other people's O, just head on down to the HE-400 page).

I stand by my assertion - if someone were to ask me 'what has the better bass' with bass being a primary factor, I would not call the HP50 a good suggestion. This isn't a criticism, just how I see it. I bought the HP50 (and am therefore selling my P7) because it's even-sounding!

Sure. Believing that the HE-400 has better bass, in your opinion, is fine. What I don't understand is what you were trying to say about the graphs. In fact, I'm not sure you know how to read them.

 

[thefitz]

Sure. Believing that the HE-400 has better bass, in your opinion, is fine. What I don't understand is what you were trying to say about the graphs. In fact, I'm not sure you know how to read them.

 
I'm saying since they overlap at a point where the HE-400 has a famous treble spike, simply overlaying them on top of each other is deceiving. 

 

[cel4145]

I'm saying since they overlap at a point where the HE-400 has a famous treble spike, simply overlaying them on top of each other is deceiving.

What overlaying????

 

[thefitz]

What overlaying????

There was a post from HeadRoom with the two frequency responses on top of each other.

 

[cel4145]

There was a post from HeadRoom with the two frequency responses on top of each other.

Yes. I posted that. It's an auto generated graph. There is absolutely nothing deceitful about it. You need to learn how to read frequency response graphs if that confused you.

 

[thefitz]

Yes. I posted that. It's an auto generated graph. There is absolutely nothing deceitful about it. You need to learn how to read frequency response graphs if that confused you.

It didn't, but it might be for those who don't.

 

[cel4145]

It didn't, but it might be for those who don't.

Dude,you thought the lower position of the HE-400 graph line might have something to with its lower sensitivity. LOL