[kofman13]

A lot of friends in audio production world who have the original M50 headphones for 10+ Years recommend that I get them and i definitely will but the only thing available is the newer redesigned M50x. All I want to make sure is the actual drivers and sound and EQ is the same on both M50 and M50x? Only thing different is detachable cable and new head band? Anyone here owned both M50 and M50x?

 

[PurpleAngel]

I would say to check out the Sony MDR-V6 or MDR-7506 headphones, less biased then the ATH-M50(X).
The ATH-M50(X)'s bass is somewhat loud and crude.

 

[ADUHF]

The M50X has some bumpiness/unevenness in both the bass and treble. It is more neutral overall than the older M50 version without the X though, imo, which had a brighter sound.

The Sony MDR-7506 is also noticeably on the brighter side in the low treble. And it's too rolled off in the high treble (where the M50x is noticeably brighter). But its bass is pretty decent.

Both headphones have a bit too much of a dip in the lower midrange or upper bass which makes them somewhat V-shaped. And not in a particularly good way imo.

I wish there was a good alternative that I could suggest in the same price range that was a slam dunk in terms of its neutrality, fit, and out-of-the-box sound. But all of the headphones in this price range have a few issues to contend with, of one kind or another. So none are really perfect solutions.

The AKG K371 is sort of the flavor du jour, but it also has some issues to contend with, both sonically and in terms of its construction.

If you use some EQ to fix some of the FR issues on the above, then any one could potentially deliver acceptable sound. (I think I'd probably tend to favor the AKG and AT over the Sony, for sound quality generally. But your mileage could well vary on that.)

I have both the AT M50X, and the 250-ohm Beyer DT-770. And have used the MDR-7506 on a few different occasions. I keep the M50X around mainly as a backup, in case my DT-770's fail. And so I have another set of headphones that are easy to drive without an amp.

The DT-770's are on the brighter side, but I use EQ to correct that. And their large fluffy velour earpads are quite a bit more comfortable on my head than the M50X, which doesn't really surround my whole ear. So I pretty much always use the DT-770's. They have some issues to content with as well though, and aren't for everyone.

 

[ADUHF]

Is there a reason that you are only considering closed headphones btw? And not an open headphone, like say, the Sennheiser HD560S, or one of the less costly open planar magnetic headphones by HiFiMan?

 

[PurpleAngel]

Maybe the ATH-M40(X) might be better then the M50(X), for audio production?

 

[HalloweenJack]

In my experience there are actually 3 "generations" of the M50.
M50 (approx. 2007 to approx. 2010): Bassy and V-shaped. Very good.
M50 (approx. 2010 and forwards): Less bassy and V-shaped. Also very good
M50X: Even less bass and very different sound signature. I don't like it.

IMO: try to to find a non-X M50 in decent condition used.

 

[ADUHF]

In my experience there are actually 3 "generations" of the M50.
M50 (approx. 2007 to approx. 2010): Bassy and V-shaped. Very good.
M50 (approx. 2010 and forwards): Less bassy and V-shaped. Also very good
M50X: Even less bass and very different sound signature. I don't like it.

IMO: try to to find a non-X M50 in decent condition used.

Interesting.

It's been too long since I used the original M50. And never actually compared them side by side. Most of the plots that I've seen of the two headphones make the M50X look more bassy and darkly tilted though. Some examples would be these pairs of plots from Tyll at Inner Fidelity, and also plots from Headphonedotcom.

INNER FIDELITY
M50: https://www.stereophile.com/images/ifmeasure/AudioTechnicaATHM50B2012.pdf
M50X: https://www.stereophile.com/images/ifmeasure/AudioTechnicaATHM50x.pdf

HEADPHONEDOTCOM
M50: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/headphonecom/headphonecom_harman_over-ear_2018/Audio-Technica ATH-M50
M50X: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/headphonecom/headphonecom_harman_over-ear_2018/Audio-Technica ATH-M50x

The brightest looking measurement I have seen for the M50X is Oratory's.

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Audio-Technica ATH-M50x

^ This is with diffuse field compensation (top solid red curve), and raw (dashed red curve) vs. the DF curve in light gray. And it makes the M50x look like it follows the DF curve in the mids. And is even brighter than the DF curve in some spots in the treble. Which would suggest it is well to the brighter side of a neutral response there. The brightness in the treble and mids is somewhat balanced out by the rather sizable shelf in the lower frequencies though. The dip in between the bass and mids is somewhat problematic though.

I've always sort of suspected that this was either a defective unit. Or possibly an older M50 that might've been mislabeled as the X version. Here are apparently three different units though of the M50X measured on Crinacle's GRAS rig. And they all have different responses in the bass, ranging from low to more bassy. The raw response curves are the solid black curves on these...

Crin's single measurement on the Ears rig looks bassier though...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/crinacle/ears-711_harman_over-ear_2018/Audio-Technica ATH-M50x

Some more plots of the left and right channels of the M50X by Rtings...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-5/graph#295/7917
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-5/graph#295/7918

Rtings takes their bass measurements in the ears of their staff btw. While they do the midrange and treble on a simulator.

The condition of the pads could be a factor in some of these disparate M50X measurements. Some headphones will start to sound bassier, for example, as the pads become more worn and compressed, and the user's ears begin to get closer to the drivers. That is the sort of thing that could potentially show up in the measurements as well.

It is probably difficult to achieve a reliable consistent seal on the M50X though, because its earpads are so small for an over-ear HP. So that's probably a more likely explanation for why some of the measurements in the bass, and also people's perceptions of the HP's tonal balance can be somewhat all over the map.

The unevenness in its response can also make it seem brighter with some content, and bassier with other kinds of content, depending on the spectral/timbral balance of the recording. Without EQ, it can be a somewhat chameleonic sounding headphone in that respect.

The seal on this headphone is probably important though to achieving adequate bass.

 

[ADUHF]

Tyll's reviews of the M50 and M50X.

 

[ADUHF]

Amir's GRAS measurements also make the M50X look on the bassier side. But it also shows a bit of peakiness/uneveness in some spots in the treble.

This is from March of this year. But the unit was a used loaner from an ASR member. And he has noted below that the pads were indeed rather worn, which could be having some effect on the bassiness of the response.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hnica-ath-m50x-review-closed-headphone.20880/

I haven't really tried this, but simply compressing the earpads more against your ears might possibly increase the headphone's warmth a bit.

Another trick you could try is to flip the headphones on your ears from left to right. They won't fit perfectly that way because the cups are not symmetrical and reversible. But the drivers are slightly angled. And flipping them will direct some of the treble energy more away from ears.

EQ is probably a better solution than either of the above though.