[djayjp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverlethe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you try the foam inserts?

Ok, I'm just going by general consensus on that one...

 

[intoart]

I don't get this. 10 people voted for the AKGs. I owned a pair of 701s. They are excellent in many ways, but bass is not one of those ways. In fact, they hardly have any bass at all!

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't get this. 10 people voted for the AKGs. I owned a pair of 701s. They are excellent in many ways, but bass is not one of those ways. In fact, they hardly have any bass at all!

Some people prefer that presentation. the k601 and k701 may need a beefy map to play nice, but they can both produce nice bass when it is called for - my k601 can still produce an audible 30hz tone at normal listening volumes, albeit slightly quieter than a 50hz tone.

I don't expect anything under 30hz out of a headphone, its just "pretend" at that point anyway.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by djayjp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regarding the whole frequency response graph issue-- I firmly believe that what you see (in the graph) is what you'll get/hear within a reasonable degree of accuracy.

You've either just joined or you aren't aware you've made a contradictory statement just there. The HeadRoom graphs you talk so much about have just recently been changed. They look very different to how they used to. Clearly then, either they're wrong now or were wrong before. And then there's Ryumatsuba's graphs, which in turn differ from both the older and newer HeadRoom graphs. So I suggest you do a bit more listening before jumping to conclusions about graphs.

 

[thornygravy]

I think the M-Audio Q40s have pretty accurate bass response.

 

[pinkpanther]

Are you sure that the bass on the GS1000 doesn't go below 100hz, that doesn't sound right. (pun intended). Can you expand on why you think they are "crap."


Quote:

Originally Posted by djayjp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, exactly. Headphones need to actually emphasize the bass in order to portray a realistic reproduction of it-- this is because the bass from a subwoofer, those sound waves, will hit your body and will reach your eardrum/cochlea from outside your ear canal. And this doesn't even mention the whole psycho-acoustic aspect of needing to emphasize the bass due to the felt sound waves, as though they were occupying the space/soundstage. GS1000s are crap imho. They are more U-shaped than any headphone i am aware of (and the bass doesn't even go below 100hz).

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkpanther /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you sure that the bass on the GS1000 doesn't go below 100hz, that doesn't sound right. (pun intended). Can you expand on why you think they are "crap."

don't quote me on this but i recall Skylab saying that the GS-1000 went down pretty low...comparable to the DT990s which hit 25hz audibly (20 hz too with severe rolloff).

 

[pinkpanther]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shahrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif don't quote me on this but i recall Skylab saying that the GS-1000 went down pretty low...comparable to the DT990s which hit 25hz audibly (20 hz too with severe rolloff).

I've read similar

 

[Acix]

For the K-70X you will need some amp to driver bass...
From my experience in my studio most of the headphones that mention here go nicely under 40hz, you just missed the bass rolloff issue.

About the HeadRoom graphs...Something definitely change there.

 

[djayjp]

Regarding the GS1000 controversy-- At 60hz, it is 5db quieter than at 100hz, thus the heart of the bass (60hz) will be LESS THAN half as loud as the upper bass (100hz)-- pair this with a MASSIVE emphasis at the highend and you end up with crap bass imho.

 

[djayjp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You've either just joined or you aren't aware you've made a contradictory statement just there. The HeadRoom graphs you talk so much about have just recently been changed. They look very different to how they used to. Clearly then, either they're wrong now or were wrong before. And then there's Ryumatsuba's graphs, which in turn differ from both the older and newer HeadRoom graphs. So I suggest you do a bit more listening before jumping to conclusions about graphs.

I do believe you are somewhat mistaken. I looked at Ryu's graph for the hd595 and compared to headroom's-- they are very similar, but different. I doubt that Ryu's equipment is as high end as headroom's (e.g., probably doesn't use a dummy head with a simulated human ear canal, etc.).

Even if Headroom's graphs have changed substantially, it doesn't effectively matter, as one can still compare the relative differences between phones and compare their relative sound signatures. What I do is look at the bass peak and compare the angle between that and the treble peak-- you'd be surprised just how accurately this predicts a can's sound signature (this is rather over-simpified, however). E.G., compare the sennheiser hd650 or 600 with the akg 701 as mentioned above (having little bass) and this matches perfectly with the charts (even though they are both reference phones and the differences are rather slight).

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by djayjp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if Headroom's graphs have changed substantially, it doesn't effectively matter, as one can still compare the relative differences between phones and compare their relative sound signatures. What I do is look at the bass peak and compare the angle between that and the treble peak-- you'd be surprised just how accurately this predicts a can's sound signature (this is rather over-simpified, however). E.G., compare the sennheiser hd650 or 600 with the akg 701 as mentioned above (having little bass) and this matches perfectly with the charts (even though they are both reference phones and the differences are rather slight).

Each headphones have is own characteristic/color sounds. So, the Graphs are only one aspect of the sound, and sometimes there are other factors that need to be considered...

 

[hawat]

I don't think k701 can be considered for perfect bass with their lack of impact.
Saying that the k701 has perfect bass is like saying that a pie without apple is a perfect apple pie, it may taste like the best pie in the world to some people but that's not a perfect apple pie

 

[panda]

so by your logic, louder treble and a quieter bottom end = crap bass? that's a pretty shallow train of thought as there are many more determining factors to how something sounds... but im guessing you let numbers tell you how things sound because clearly you trust math/science more than your own hearing.

 

[djayjp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif so by your logic, louder treble and a quieter bottom end = crap bass? that's a pretty shallow train of thought as there are many more determining factors to how something sounds... but im guessing you let numbers tell you how things sound because clearly you trust math/science more than your own hearing.

I know what I like. I know what 100hz sounds like. I know what 60hz sounds like. This is indisputable. I like a FLAT frequency response from top to bottom (~20hz), with a slight bass emphasis as discussed above. If you like upper bass (100hz) and no response below that, then by all means...

EDIT: I think that also maybe a slight boost at high frequencies (~16khz+ perhaps?) to make up for everyone's general hearing degradation might be a good call (though of course everyone is different in this regard).