[oqvist]

  jeepers, you have nice equipment, I am shocked to hear you are not getting treble from the HP-50s.  They have treble, well at least mine do. Are you sure they are not damaged?

Dunno. It sound about the same as the demo headphone I listened to prior to it I just recon it´s how they wanted it or something

 

[Change is Good]

  I previously owned the M500 before purchasing the HP50.
 
I loved the M500, I had also demo'd thr B&O H6 and B&W P7 and for me the M500 were the best all round winner, they were very fun sounding although because they were on-ear I did have some comfort issues.
 
The reason I went for the HP50 is that I demo'd them at my local Apple Store and couldn't walk away without buying them, they sound absolutely awesome with and without an amp. They just made everything seem pristine, accurate and clear. So after that I couldn't go back to the M500's.
 
I think at the end of the day it all comes down to personal preference, I still think the M500 are an excellent pair of headphones and is a worthy competitor to the HP50 and the like.
 
I would strongly recommend you demo'ing them if you can, you may find you still prefer the M500's over them but is definitely worth a try.

 
Can you compare the HP50 and M500 more specifically, please (sound wise)?
 
Anyone else heard these and the M500 that would care to chime in? Thanks...

 

[Sonic Defender]

I have now had several hours of listening on my HP50s and feel confident in the limited impressions I will share. I do not really believe in burn in periods, or not enough so that I feel any audible change can be accounted for due to "burn in" so limited hours will still work for me. First I will say there is no issue with rolled off treble, not to my ears anyway and I am going on 46 so that part of the frequency range should be diminished for me meaning if the HP50 was deficient I would notice it. I owned an HD650 and I noticed the slight, but perceptible veiling, and it was a newer driver HD650 so we can put to bed whether or not I can detect rolled off treble to some extent anyway. I find the treble excellent with the HP50, bang on for me in fact. It is quite present, but never strident or edgy. Plenty of upper frequency energy here.
 
My overall impression is of clarity of sound and balance. Up and down the frequency response this headphone sounds poised and detailed, but all of the elements are presented in a balanced fashion. There is plenty of bass and I mean plenty. I owned a set of D7000 which of course produce tons of bass and the HP50s get that significant pressure going for me. I listen to some pretty low frequency heavy music such as Deadmouse5, Thievery Corporation, Tool, Bluetech, and Phutureprimitive to name a few tested to this point and nobody should fear these are bass shy, unless you are a serious bass head, which thankfully I am not. Sorry, never understood the desire to have one particular element of sound dominate and cover everything else up, makes no sense to me, but what do I know?
 
I find the midrange to be quite nice with vocals more forward than with my current portable cans (V Moda M80). Room Feel as NAD calls it is very nice, and I would have a difficult time explaining the psychoacoustics of it so I hope somebody else more skilled in this area has done so, or will do so. Suffice to say that there is a depth of sound that is quite pleasing and makes the soundstage seem more three dimensional than my last few portables (DT770, HF2, M-80). The bass is slightly less round perhaps than with the M-80, which is another sound signature I quite like, or perhaps it is simply that the bass feels bigger due to the larger driver of the HP50 which may account for this. That would be the only aspect that I could even suggest is not extremely enjoyable with the HP50, that the bass could be a little rounder and wetter sounding. I realise such descriptors don't have a great deal of utility as they may mean nothing to other people so I would be curious to see what others feel about this. That said, I really, really do like the low frequency  capabilities of the HP50.

 

[mcook1970]

  I have now had several hours of listening on my HP50s and feel confident in the limited impressions I will share. I do not really believe in burn in periods, or not enough so that I feel any audible change can be accounted for due to "burn in" so limited hours will still work for me. First I will say there is no issue with rolled off treble, not to my ears anyway and I am going on 46 so that part of the frequency range should be diminished for me meaning if the HP50 was deficient I would notice it. I owned an HD650 and I noticed the slight, but perceptible veiling, and it was a newer driver HD650 so we can put to bed whether or not I can detect rolled off treble to some extent anyway. I find the treble excellent with the HP50, bang on for me in fact. It is quite present, but never strident or edgy. Plenty of upper frequency energy here.
 
My overall impression is of clarity of sound and balance. Up and down the frequency response this headphone sounds poised and detailed, but all of the elements are presented in a balanced fashion. There is plenty of bass and I mean plenty. I owned a set of D7000 which of course produce tons of bass and the HP50s get that significant pressure going for me. I listen to some pretty low frequency heavy music such as Deadmouse5, Thievery Corporation, Tool, Bluetech, and Phutureprimitive to name a few tested to this point and nobody should fear these are bass shy, unless you are a serious bass head, which thankfully I am not. Sorry, never understood the desire to have one particular element of sound dominate and cover everything else up, makes no sense to me, but what do I know?
 
I find the midrange to be quite nice with vocals more forward than with my current portable cans (V Moda M80). Room Feel as NAD calls it is very nice, and I would have a difficult time explaining the psychoacoustics of it so I hope somebody else more skilled in this area has done so, or will do so. Suffice to say that there is a depth of sound that is quite pleasing and makes the soundstage seem more three dimensional than my last few portables (DT770, HF2, M-80). The bass is slightly less round perhaps than with the M-80, which is another sound signature I quite like, or perhaps it is simply that the bass feels bigger due to the larger driver of the HP50 which may account for this. That would be the only aspect that I could even suggest is not extremely enjoyable with the HP50, that the bass could be a little rounder and wetter sounding. I realise such descriptors don't have a great deal of utility as they may mean nothing to other people so I would be curious to see what others feel about this. That said, I really, really do like the low frequency  capabilities of the HP50.

I totally agree with your findings, particularly concerning the soundstage being "three-dimensional", this just goes to prove the "Room Feel" label on the package is not your usual marketing schpeel.
 
In terms of the bass, I have to say that this probably the only headphone where it sounds "natural" and realistic, there are so many headphones out there where there is way too much emphasis on the bass. For example, on the "Who's Next" album where John Entwistle's bass playing is sublime (you can actually can hear his fingers move across the fret) and realise that on this album he is actually playing a lot of the lead! 
 
So I must say for me the soundstage and bass are the main strengths and it is all kept together with a nice clear treble and smooth midrange.

 

[HeretixAevum]

Great impressions, Sonic Defender! I'll be sure to give mine when I get it next week and have some proper listening time. Mine are used so I wont worry about burning them in (though like you, I don't particularly believe in it). One thing about your write up, you mentioned that there was a difference in the bass between the M80 and the HP50, which you thought might be related to different driver size? I believe I'm correct in saying that both headphones use 40mm drivers, so it would be down the tuning and the big difference in acoustic space, I think.

 

[mcook1970]

 

  I previously owned the M500 before purchasing the HP50.
 
I loved the M500, I had also demo'd thr B&O H6 and B&W P7 and for me the M500 were the best all round winner, they were very fun sounding although because they were on-ear I did have some comfort issues.
 
The reason I went for the HP50 is that I demo'd them at my local Apple Store and couldn't walk away without buying them, they sound absolutely awesome with and without an amp. They just made everything seem pristine, accurate and clear. So after that I couldn't go back to the M500's.
 
I think at the end of the day it all comes down to personal preference, I still think the M500 are an excellent pair of headphones and is a worthy competitor to the HP50 and the like.
 
I would strongly recommend you demo'ing them if you can, you may find you still prefer the M500's over them but is definitely worth a try.

 
Can you compare the HP50 and M500 more specifically, please (sound wise)?
 
Anyone else heard these and the M500 that would care to chime in? Thanks...

 
Sure, I would say HP50 has a much wider soundstage, more smooth midrange and natural bass sound, treble is clear and not "sparkly".
The M500 is much brighter and faster, very exciting to listen to, you kind of feel the energy more although the soundstage is much narrower and there is a slight dip in the treble. 
 
Which is why I think it is hard to say which is the better headphone, you really need to listen to both to explore which sound you prefer

 

[alpha10]

Oh no, I think the HP50 and M500 are very different, I have them both, but I must admit I like the M500 more, why?

The M500 is much more comfortable, the sound is more dynamic and I like the rounded treble, makes bad recordings sound tolerable. The HP50 is more neutral and more "correct", but the M500 is more fun to listen to.

Soundstage is best on HP50, no doubt, which is the biggest plus to the HP50 compared to M500.

Build quality is much better on M500, really feels well made. HP50 is just plastic.

 

[mandrake50]

I have had the NAD HP50phones for a couple of weeks now. I can't do much better than Sonic Defender in expressing my high regard for these headphones. Just for reference the phones I have been using most lately are HE 400 and HE500,  the venerable Senn 650s and the HP50. I know there are different phones for optimizing the enjoyment of  different types recordings , but overall I find that I am reaching for the HP50s most all of the time when I just want to relax and listen for a bit.
 
I do have a question for the group. It seems like a real stupid question.. but I have to ask. Can anyone tell me how to identify the left and right side of the HP50? I find no markings at all on the set that I have. It would be nice to know as I like to listen with the sound stage oriented as it is intended to be. I can usually figure this out after a bit of listening... but it would be nice to just pick them up and put them on correctly. So if anyone can let me know how to tell which side is which on these things, I will be grateful.
 
Phil

 

[Kendoji]

Thanks for the impressions guys.  I increasingly think I'll end up purchasing these to hopefully replace my M100s as go-to portable can.  

 

[bixby]

  I have had the NAD HP50phones for a couple of weeks now. I can't do much better than Sonic Defender in expressing my high regard for these headphones. Just for reference the phones I have been using most lately are HE 400 and HE500,  the venerable Senn 650s and the HP50. I know there are different phones for optimizing the enjoyment of  different types recordings , but overall I find that I am reaching for the HP50s most all of the time when I just want to relax and listen for a bit.
 
I do have a question for the group. It seems like a real stupid question.. but I have to ask. Can anyone tell me how to identify the left and right side of the HP50? I find no markings at all on the set that I have. It would be nice to know as I like to listen with the sound stage oriented as it is intended to be. I can usually figure this out after a bit of listening... but it would be nice to just pick them up and put them on correctly. So if anyone can let me know how to tell which side is which on these things, I will be grateful.
 
Phil

 

 

[mandrake50]

Bixby,
Thanks very much for that. I will have to check my set when I get home. I swear I looked at them from all angles and did not see any markings at all.
At least I now know where they should be.
 
Thanks again,
Phil

 

[ninjapirate9901]

Just joined the club
 

 

[AngryGoldfish]

A lot of folks don't like the look of it, but I think the HP50 is one sexy beast.

 

[Change is Good]

Sure, I would say HP50 has a much wider soundstage, more smooth midrange and natural bass sound, treble is clear and not "sparkly".
The M500 is much brighter and faster, very exciting to listen to, you kind of feel the energy more although the soundstage is much narrower and there is a slight dip in the treble. 

Which is why I think it is hard to say which is the better headphone, you really need to listen to both to explore which sound you prefer

Oh no, I think the HP50 and M500 are very different, I have them both, but I must admit I like the M500 more, why?

The M500 is much more comfortable, the sound is more dynamic and I like the rounded treble, makes bad recordings sound tolerable. The HP50 is more neutral and more "correct", but the M500 is more fun to listen to.

Soundstage is best on HP50, no doubt, which is the biggest plus to the HP50 compared to M500.

Build quality is much better on M500, really feels well made. HP50 is just plastic.

Thanks for the replies, guys! Guess the M500 is more for me since you say it's more "fun" in the sense that its slightly warmer/bassier.

Preciate it!

 

[Sonic Defender]

My bad, M80s also 40mm driver. The more time I get with the HP50 the more I like them. I shall even retract my earlier feeling that the bass wasn't round enough. I am like most people here very, very happy with this headphone and I fully expect that to continue. Here is the real kicker, I own the fabulous (to my ears anyway) NAD M3 Integrated, but it has no headphone input! I would love to hear a NAD driving a NAD! Wasn't meant to be I guess. Perhaps this is heresy, but like my VModa M80, I like to use a parametric EQ to shave back the low frequencies of the HP50 just a hair. I find it allows even more articulation. I never add with EQing, but subtracting just a tiny bit in a few select, and narrow frequency ranges seems to improve things. Perhaps I have just trained my ear and anything that is more energetic in these frequencies seems more pronounced as a result? I was not an EQ user by principle until I had my D7000s, and gorgeous bass or not, I needed a little less of it and that is when I started to learn the value of minor cuts.