[OmniscientNihilist]

I am talking about the Crossfade 2 Wireless. I think they both have become more neutral than past releases.

ya but originally wasnt the crossfade the more bass heavy one and the m100 the more neutral one? now your saying that has reversed with the new models?

also vmoda is still espousing the greatness of their dual diaphram, or whatever its called, speaker designe. so that hasnt seemed to change much. which leads me to believe the new models are still overly bassy.

 

[subguy812]

ya but originally wasnt the crossfade the more bass heavy one and the m100 the more neutral one? now your saying that has reversed with the new models?

also vmoda is still espousing the greatness of their dual diaphram, or whatever its called, speaker designe. so that hasnt seemed to change much. which leads me to believe the new models are still overly bassy.

Dude I have no skin in the V-Moda game. I am merely saying the last two offerings are the most balanced and are also my favorite. I have never heard comments saying the CF2W are bassy, maybe the original Crossfades.

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

Dude I have no skin in the V-Moda game. I am merely saying the last two offerings are the most balanced and are also my favorite. I have never heard comments saying the CF2W are bassy, maybe the original Crossfades.

it was on the vmoda website itself. vmoda themselves said that the m100 were the more neutral monitor like of the two. thats why i bought them, because i thought they were neutral. poeple on youtube were saying the same thing. but i have not checked their site yet to see what they say about the new models

personally i think its stupid for any headhpone to be anything other then neutral. changes should be made on the software level only per user.

 

[Maukey]

ya but the problem with all these headphones with artificially enhanced bass which are a fad right now is that it creates a minefield for me or anyone like me that wants proper sound reproduction. i have to do hours of extra research trying to find out if a certain model i want has enhanced bass or not. and many places do not take returns on headphones for hygiene reasons

enhancing the bass in the hardware is just as stupid as brickwalling music in the mastering. none of those things should be hard wired. they should be done by the user on the software level

if someone wants enhanced bass they can raise the EQ. i someone wants more loudness they can raise the volume.

these enhanced bass headphones are catering to ignorant young poeple who are listneing to nothing but pop and who dont know how to use an EQ

but even if someone is listening to nothing but pop and electronic the default bass levels should be decided by the artists and engineers mixing and mastering the track. even using EQ is a distortion of what the artist wants you to hear.

First of all, a word of advice, don't call people ignorant who have different tastes from yourself. Not all young people, or people in general, who prefer bassier headphones are "ignorant". I prefer neutral to +4db bass in my headphones, and I can tell you that as a musician of 30 years, I'm far from ignorant. For most people this isn't a hobby as it is for those of us on head-fi. They just want to walk into a store and purchase headphones with the sound they like. They don't care or want to fiddle with an EQ. They want to put on their headphones and dance around their house. They want to feel the emotion and excitement of modern hip hop and pop. Headphones like Beats, Sony, and V-Moda give them that, and to a greater degree than any neutral headphone I've ever heard.

If you're a person who likes to put on your headphones, sit back on your couch with a cigar and scotch, and be able to hear Miles Davis's producer sneeze in the background of a recording, that too is all well and good. That doesn't make your listening preference better than another.

it was on the vmoda website itself. vmoda themselves said that the m100 were the more neutral monitor like of the two. thats why i bought them, because i thought they were neutral. poeple on youtube were saying the same thing. but i have not checked their site yet to see what they say about the new models

personally i think its stupid for any headhpone to be anything other then neutral. changes should be made on the software level only per user.

There are Millions of people who purchase Beats who would disagree with you. There's a reason Sennheiser, Bowers and Wilkins, and many others now make consumer grade headphones with boosted bass, it sells. Again, we here are the minority. It's "stupid" for manufacturers to cater only to us. Be grateful that there are manufacturers like Dali who still cater to the neutral crowd. I promise you, this "fad" will not go away anytime soon, and I myself will continue to purchase both neutral and bassy headphones for different occasions.

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

First of all, a word of advice, don't call people ignorant who have different tastes from yourself.

its not the taste difference that makes it ignorant, its the fact that you can just use EQ to make any neutral headphone sound anyway you want.

but i get it that the majority are too ignorant or lazy to use an EQ so now the market is saturated with headphones with distorted sound signatures (too much lows)

perhaps the market should be offering more and easier EQ softwares, instead of messing up the hardware

 

[Applehusky]

its not the taste difference that makes it ignorant, its the fact that you can just use EQ to make any neutral headphone sound anyway you want.

but i get it that the majority are too ignorant or lazy to use an EQ so now the market is saturated with headphones with distorted sound signatures (too much lows)

perhaps the market should be offering more and easier EQ softwares, instead of messing up the hardware

I mean, with that logic, any headphone can be fixed to be neutral with eq right?

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

I mean, with that logic, any headphone can be fixed to be neutral with eq right?

sure, but then the companies are just catering to the majority instead to whats logical. which is what companies do in the capitalist market.

would be more logical to make neutral headphones then create some very easy and intuitive eq's so people can easily get what they want from a neutral starting point

the main reason people want bass now is because the loudness war has brickwalled all the punch out of the drums and and people cant feel the music anymore unless it has a big bass beat.

so ya, bad mastering and ignorance of eq, has led to a market full of ruined headphones. a minefield to navigate in order to find something. trying to fix two stupid things with another stupid thing. what a mess. luckily capitalism produces sooo much goods that there is still options available despite the fact that it ruined most of it.

 

[Maukey]

its not the taste difference that makes it ignorant, its the fact that you can just use EQ to make any neutral headphone sound anyway you want.

but i get it that the majority are too ignorant or lazy to use an EQ so now the market is saturated with headphones with distorted sound signatures (too much lows)

perhaps the market should be offering more and easier EQ softwares, instead of messing up the hardware

No different than the audiophile world being saturated for years with anemic sound signatures (too little lows or lows below neutral). Why do you think Beats took off? If anything, blame the audiophile manufacturers for letting Beats out the bag by not catering to the average consumer sooner. The whole reason Beats exists, and why now every other manufacturer is trying to make a better Beats with extra bass, is because the fans of modern pop, rock, and hip-hop wanted to know why $500 headphones didn't make their music sound as exciting as it does in the dance club or at the live concert. Beats grabbed hold of this idea, and ran with it. Hate them or love them, they skyrocketed the headphone industry and got average people curious about better sound. Many "audiophile" companies are now profiting because of it.

And for the record, EQ is not the end all, be all. Not all neutral headphones respond well to EQ. There is something to the tuning of the drivers and the enclosure to get the most out of a headphone. It's better for a manufacturer to tune to a signature they like, and get the best components possible to make that signature the best it can be. Just making every headphone neutral and saying go adjust the EQ to how you want it is not consumer friendly, and can itself be seen as asinine.

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

No different than the audiophile world being saturated for years with anemic sound signatures (too little lows or lows below neutral). Why do you think Beats took off? If anything, blame the audiophile manufacturers for letting Beats out the bag by not catering to the average consumer sooner. The whole reason Beats exists, and why now every other manufacturer is trying to make a better Beats with extra bass, is because the fans of modern pop, rock, and hip-hop wanted to know why $500 headphones didn't make their music sound as exciting as it does in the dance club or at the live concert. Beats grabbed hold of this idea, and ran with it. Hate them or love them, they skyrocketed the headphone industry and got average people curious about better sound. Many "audiophile" companies are now profiting because of it.

And for the record, EQ is not the end all, be all. Not all neutral headphones respond well to EQ. There is something to the tuning of the drivers and the enclosure to get the most out of a headphone. It's better for a manufacturer to tune to a signature they like, and get the best components possible to make that signature the best it can be. Just making every headphone neutral and saying go adjust the EQ to how you want it is not consumer friendly, and can itself be seen as asinine.

i wouldnt call overly bassy headphones a better sound. i would call a proper neutral headphone (that didnt have lowered bass) a better sound

i spent 400$ on vmoda m100 because they claimed a neutral sound and i ended up selling them for a pair of sony h.ear on that only costed 125$ (half price sale) that have much better sound. way better mids and still have have great punchy bass without the mudding of the mid that vmoda claimed didnt happen.

if i want extra bass i can use EQ or download music that has it already mastered in. i just downloaded 1700 tracks designed for car stereos and they have amazing and very powerful bass that sounds great on my sony h.ear on wired headphones.

https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/headband-headphones/mdr-100aap

sometimes i am even eq the bass down a bit on these headphones. but the vmoda m100 (non masters) were giving me headaches even on rock music from them putting in too much artificial lows

at least with a more neutral headphone i can listen to a wider variety of music without having to touch the eq

 

[AnakChan]

i wouldnt call overly bassy headphones a better sound. i would call a proper neutral headphone (that didnt have lowered bass) a better sound

i spent 400$ on vmoda m100 because they claimed a neutral sound and i ended up selling them for a pair of sony h.ear on that only costed 125$ (half price sale) that have much better sound. way better mids and still have have great punchy bass without the mudding of the mid that vmoda claimed didnt happen.

if i want extra bass i can use EQ or download music that has it already mastered in. i just downloaded 1700 tracks designed for car stereos and they have amazing and very powerful bass that sounds great on my sony h.ear on wired headphones.

https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/headband-headphones/mdr-100aap

sometimes i am even eq the bass down a bit on these headphones. but the vmoda m100 (non masters) were giving me headaches even on rock music from them putting in too much artificial lows

at least with a more neutral headphone i can listen to a wider variety of music without having to touch the eq

Who's they? I don't recall seeing V-Moda mentioning that the M-100 were neutral. Reviews I've seen of the M-100 often mention they're far from neutral - in fact, if anything the treble may be neutral but still a bass heavy headphone. W.R.T. the word "better", that is mostly subjective as what one listener deems "better" doesn't necessarily apply to the next listener. Each person has different tastes, and in my case I have too many - depending on what I'm listening to, depending on my mood at the moment, etc. It's not even static.

Anyhow, as this is a M-100 Master thread, thought I'd add some preliminary thoughts of the M-100 Master.

I have a refurbished M-100 but I believe it's close if, not the same as the original M-100 so don't pay too much attention to the "refurbished" term. The M-100 Master seems to have cleaned up the sound quite a bit compared to the original M-100. The Master does sound a little more U-shaped, but not void of mids. Before I get into the bass and trebles, I feel slightly deeper U-shape gives wider soundstage perception, and due to the wider soundstage, the bass seems to be punchy with more room for reverberation. It's textured nicely but doesn't sound as woolly as the original M-100. The treble seems to have more sparkle and more air, again I feel due to the perceived U-shape wider staging.

However despite the wider soundstage, the imaging goes deep and has headroom for the music to breath in the virtual space it has created. Mind you this is still a closed pair of headphones therefore it wouldn't compete (not does it intend to) with open headphones.

Whilst all the V-Moda full sized cans (from M-100 onwards) have the V-Moda house signature, they do vary subtly. I find the Wireless editions to have a lighter bass presence to both the M-100 and M-100 Master. The Wireless has a somewhat fuller fleshed mids but the Master's bass has a perceived tighter punch. I find the newer M-100 Master to be the most emotive of all the original M-100, CFW prototype, CFW II Apt X, and CFW II Codex. The Wireless series would probably be for those who want a little more mids in the V-Moda house signature.

I'll spend more time with the M-100 Master for a more fully fledged review and subject to change the more I listen to them!!

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

Who's they? I don't recall seeing V-Moda mentioning that the M-100 were neutral. Reviews I've seen of the M-100 often mention they're far from neutral - in fact, if anything the treble may be neutral but still a bass heavy headphone. W.R.T. the word "better", that is mostly subjective as what one listener deems "better" doesn't necessarily apply to the next listener. Each person has different tastes, and in my case I have too many - depending on what I'm listening to, depending on my mood at the moment, etc. It's not even static.

Anyhow, as this is a M-100 Master thread, thought I'd add some preliminary thoughts of the M-100 Master.

I have a refurbished M-100 but I believe it's close if, not the same as the original M-100 so don't pay too much attention to the "refurbished" term. The M-100 Master seems to have cleaned up the sound quite a bit compared to the original M-100. The Master does sound a little more U-shaped, but not void of mids. Before I get into the bass and trebles, I feel slightly deeper U-shape gives wider soundstage perception, and due to the wider soundstage, the bass seems to be punchy with more room for reverberation. It's textured nicely but doesn't sound as woolly as the original M-100. The treble seems to have more sparkle and more air, again I feel due to the perceived U-shape wider staging.

However despite the wider soundstage, the imaging goes deep and has headroom for the music to breath in the virtual space it has created. Mind you this is still a closed pair of headphones therefore it wouldn't compete (not does it intend to) with open headphones.

Whilst all the V-Moda full sized cans (from M-100 onwards) have the V-Moda house signature, they do vary subtly. I find the Wireless editions to have a lighter bass presence to both the M-100 and M-100 Master. The Wireless has a somewhat fuller fleshed mids but the Master's bass has a perceived tighter punch. I find the newer M-100 Master to be the most emotive of all the original M-100, CFW prototype, CFW II Apt X, and CFW II Codex. The Wireless series would probably be for those who want a little more mids in the V-Moda house signature.

I'll spend more time with the M-100 Master for a more fully fledged review and subject to change the more I listen to them!!

vmoda has changed their website somewhat since i bought my m100's (non masters)

but right now on their site page for the m100 (non masters) they say this:

.....without bloated boom or muddy mids

ULTRA-CLARITY & VIVID MIDRANGE......

having owned a pair for several months i would disagree with that.

my sony h.ear on wired headphones have much better mids then them. plus they are cheaper and still have punchy bass.

vmoda m100 actually have me a headache sometimes just listening to buckethead, which is nothing but electric guitar and some drums. im very sensitive to any artificial type sound. i need the sound to be as natural as possible.

now not only are these companies artificially enhacing the bass but they are also adding in that stupid 3D sound crap. sony seems to be doing it too.

wiki calls it virutal surround. it can make small speakers sound a bit better when watching movies. like your tv or laptops speakers, but it makes music sound more artificial and distorted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_surround

nothing new to see here. these are tricks Bose started doing along time ago and was looked down on by the audiophile community

same with the active noise cancelling. another one of boses tricks, which actually lowers the quality of the sound

 

[Applehusky]

Who's they? I don't recall seeing V-Moda mentioning that the M-100 were neutral. Reviews I've seen of the M-100 often mention they're far from neutral - in fact, if anything the treble may be neutral but still a bass heavy headphone. W.R.T. the word "better", that is mostly subjective as what one listener deems "better" doesn't necessarily apply to the next listener. Each person has different tastes, and in my case I have too many - depending on what I'm listening to, depending on my mood at the moment, etc. It's not even static.

Anyhow, as this is a M-100 Master thread, thought I'd add some preliminary thoughts of the M-100 Master.

I have a refurbished M-100 but I believe it's close if, not the same as the original M-100 so don't pay too much attention to the "refurbished" term. The M-100 Master seems to have cleaned up the sound quite a bit compared to the original M-100. The Master does sound a little more U-shaped, but not void of mids. Before I get into the bass and trebles, I feel slightly deeper U-shape gives wider soundstage perception, and due to the wider soundstage, the bass seems to be punchy with more room for reverberation. It's textured nicely but doesn't sound as woolly as the original M-100. The treble seems to have more sparkle and more air, again I feel due to the perceived U-shape wider staging.

However despite the wider soundstage, the imaging goes deep and has headroom for the music to breath in the virtual space it has created. Mind you this is still a closed pair of headphones therefore it wouldn't compete (not does it intend to) with open headphones.

Whilst all the V-Moda full sized cans (from M-100 onwards) have the V-Moda house signature, they do vary subtly. I find the Wireless editions to have a lighter bass presence to both the M-100 and M-100 Master. The Wireless has a somewhat fuller fleshed mids but the Master's bass has a perceived tighter punch. I find the newer M-100 Master to be the most emotive of all the original M-100, CFW prototype, CFW II Apt X, and CFW II Codex. The Wireless series would probably be for those who want a little more mids in the V-Moda house signature.

I'll spend more time with the M-100 Master for a more fully fledged review and subject to change the more I listen to them!!

Thank you for your thoughts!

Looking forward to hearing what you have to say once you get more of a chance to use them.

 

[AnakChan]

Probably easier to break this down into different points :-

vmoda has changed their website somewhat since i bought my m100's (non masters)

but right now on their site page for the m100 (non masters) they say this:

.....without bloated boom or muddy mids

ULTRA-CLARITY & VIVID MIDRANGE......

having owned a pair for several months i would disagree with that.

my sony h.ear on wired headphones have much better mids then them. plus they are cheaper and still have punchy bass.

So none of the V-Moda headphones are neutral and correctly they don’t state it anywhere (and AFAI remember, I don’t think they did anywhere on their site).

With regards to their sites saying “without bloated boom or muddy mids”, and “ultra clarity & vivid midrange”, I would expect every maker would say such positive qualities about their product - that’s just normal advertising. I’ve not come across any maker who would state that their headphones have boomy bass or anaemic trebles, etc. That would be a rather detrimental approach to advertising if they did. I hope you didn’t buy your M-100 solely based on the maker’s advertising. This is where reviews help (although not solely authoritative).

I’ve not heard the Sony H.ear so I can’t comment/compare (but used to own the Sony WH-1000XM).

vmoda m100 actually have me a headache sometimes just listening to buckethead, which is nothing but electric guitar and some drums. im very sensitive to any artificial type sound. i need the sound to be as natural as possible.

now not only are these companies artificially enhacing the bass but they are also adding in that stupid 3D sound crap. sony seems to be doing it too.

wiki calls it virutal surround. it can make small speakers sound a bit better when watching movies. like your tv or laptops speakers, but it makes music sound more artificial and distorted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_surround

nothing new to see here. these are tricks Bose started doing along time ago and was looked down on by the audiophile community

same with the active noise cancelling. another one of boses tricks, which actually lowers the quality of the sound

So you alluded in your previous posts that V-MODA artificially enhances sound - and I’m not certain what you mean by “enhance” - hopefully not meaning “virtual sound” that you’ve posted above ‘cos V-MODA doesn’t do that. If you mean EQ, there’s no EQ going on either. However the different V-MODA models are tuned through more normal/analogue means - with any kind of dampening, cavity design and size ports in the ear cups, ear pads used, and of course the driver material ,etc. Other headphone makers do the same. There’s nothing special there.

To my ears all the current V-MODA headphones sound natural and analogue, just each to their own tuning. If anything, it was my former Sony WH-1000XM sounded digital especially with its enhanced ANC. And of course for as long as I’ve been on Head-Fi, I have not come across any member that has publicly voiced liking enhanced virtual surround especially for music (vs THX for movies).

Anyhow, from your posts, I think simply the V-MODA house sound isn’t to your tastes. But it does appeal to a wide range of audio enthusiasts.

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

So you alluded in your previous posts that V-MODA artificially enhances sound - and I’m not certain what you mean by “enhance” - hopefully not meaning “virtual sound” that you’ve posted above ‘cos V-MODA doesn’t do that.

any headphone that claim to have 3D sound, which vmoda does, is basically altering the sound with that artificial virtual surround and or reverb etc... sony is calling it 360 degree audio or something. vmoda is calling it 3D sound. and its all a distortion of the natural accurate sound. and if they are building it right into the headphone then in my mind they are ruining their product. any of these effects should be added in on the user software level only. or mastered into the audio track according to the artists desire.

 

[plakat]

I've had every V-Moda over-ear model, starting with the M-100, and yes, I just like them. Retaining their overall signature the Codex and the Master are indeed better in my opinion and while I can fully understand that they may not appeal to someone looking for a neutral headphone, there are numerous offerings catering to different needs already. I for one are quite happy with the Master, especially its strong but quite tight bass. EQ is a whole other thing, and one I don't use (and don't want to either).