[mak2675]

Note: The title of this post probably informs my audience enough to give a recommendation so feel free to skip my post and come forward with a recommendation on whether I should get the Creative Aurvana Live or something else. 
 
So anyways I started my journey (as documented in my earlier post) as 1. an every-genre music listener, 2. concerned ONLY with audio quality (not build, isolation, portability),  3. trying to find an RX-700 replacement, 4.  a headphone of equal or greater quality than the rx700 in every way except with substantially better bass, 5. for what is now under $130....eventually I tried the mdr-v6's which I had heard were bright and I found out they sure are too bright for me....but recently I bought the m50's which, while perhaps a little less bright, are FAR more aggressive to my ears than even the mdr v6's. I eventually found in my listening experiences that: 6. The headphone I would get would also need to be non-fatiguing - it can't be aggressive and bright (mdr-v6's taught me that lesson which I was otherwise satisfied with). In fact, warmness is perhaps preferred, especially on treble. But neutral is also fine.
 
M50's (about 25 hours in)
 
The good: They are SUPERB headphones for what they are. They have AMAZING detail retrieval and resolution. You experience the intimacy of being IN THE music for sure and in every aspect of it. I also felt it was a balanced headphone. The treble extention was also impressive. In hearing them, my ears were detecting all kinds of interesting sounds in the rear treble, around the percussion range, even at a low volume.
 
The bad (why I'm probably getting rid of them):  One problem I find in a lot of posts I see on here is no one warns the general audience that the m50's are DEFINITELY studio monitors. I mean, for one, they lack sound stage. It may be obvious - considering they are studio monitors - but it doesn't hurt to state the obvious once in a while (kind of like how you'll find advising posts mentioning how sennheiser 500 series leak sound). 
 
Second of all, the m50's - like I said - are quite aggressive headphones. They are an exercise to listen to: its hard to listen and multitask with something else and it can be hard to occasionally just lay back and just enjoy some smooth jazz or classical at a moderate volume (lowering the volume helps and btw these headphones sound excellent at low volumes, which is probably useful for sound industry professionals working all day on the job). Again, that's fine if that is what you are looking for - but it is important for the general audience to be informed about this before they buy these.
 
Shure 840's: I had been recommended the shure 840s for straight vertical upgrade from the rx700's on my previous thread - the poster seemed to imply they are akin to it but a step up. When I tried the shure 840's I agreed, but the shure 840's - like the rx700's - seemed to suffer in the bass department. Remember, I wanted an upgrade that had the same all around quality as the rx700 but with better bass. The rx700's satisfied me in every respect except bass.
 
The CAL!: So, after looking at ljokerl's shootout post, and several other posts, I came to learn the Creative Aurvana Live is supposed to be a balanced, warm sounding headphones with a decent soundstage, comfort, and - importantly in relation to rx700 - strong bass. Some posts mentioned that they are better than the rx700 in every way.
 
My question: So do you guys think that CAL! is the way to go as an rx700 replacement with better bass?

 

[Gwarmi]

M50's aggressive sounding? I can't get my ears around that

 
Most people including myself would say they are as visceral as a lump of marshmallow over a fire.
 
But then again you might have really sensitive hearing.
 
Only thing outside of that is that your source music material must be a combination of bad
recordings and poor quality rips - is this the case?

 

[mak2675]

Um ya the m50's are definitely on the aggressive side, and there are other threads in which people have mentioned this - but they hardly emphasize it.  I don't think blind m50 recommendations should be issued to the public who want a balanced, bass heavy phone without warning about things like this. When I auditioned them, I bought them for their quality sound and expected they would tame after burn in - which they haven't so far.
 
These problems may be because I have the newer white box version.
 
And I was using CD sources or 320 kbps mp3s as my main testing source, although I did delve into some cheaper sources later on (perhaps that is the part that caused some irritation?).
 
Even if my sources were bad, the m50s were more aggressive than the mdr v6's - which you can't argue are non-aggressive - and so that tells you something. Thats not to say they are more fatiguing than the mdr v6's, which were more fatiguing only due to that 2-4 khZ frequency coloration.
 
 
 
 

 

[EpicPie]

If you want something balanced and with a better bass presence checkout the AKG K181 DJ's.

 

[Tacoboy]

Quote:

Note: The title of this post probably informs my audience enough to give a recommendation so feel free to skip my post and come forward with a recommendation on whether I should get the Creative Aurvana Live or something else. 
 
So anyways I started my journey (as documented in my earlier post) as 1. an every-genre music listener, 2. concerned ONLY with audio quality (not build, isolation, portability),  3. trying to find an RX-700 replacement, 4.  a headphone of equal or greater quality than the rx700 in every way except with substantially better bass, 5. for what is now under $130....eventually I tried the mdr-v6's which I had heard were bright and I found out they sure are too bright for me....but recently I bought the m50's which, while perhaps a little less bright, are FAR more aggressive to my ears than even the mdr v6's. I eventually found in my listening experiences that: 6. The headphone I would get would also need to be non-fatiguing - it can't be aggressive and bright (mdr-v6's taught me that lesson which I was otherwise satisfied with). In fact, warmness is perhaps preferred, especially on treble. But neutral is also fine.
 
M50's (about 25 hours in)
 
The good: They are SUPERB headphones for what they are. They have AMAZING detail retrieval and resolution. You experience the intimacy of being IN THE music for sure and in every aspect of it. I also felt it was a balanced headphone. The treble extention was also impressive. In hearing them, my ears were detecting all kinds of interesting sounds in the rear treble, around the percussion range, even at a low volume.
 
The bad (why I'm probably getting rid of them):  One problem I find in a lot of posts I see on here is no one warns the general audience that the m50's are DEFINITELY studio monitors. I mean, for one, they lack sound stage. It may be obvious - considering they are studio monitors - but it doesn't hurt to state the obvious once in a while (kind of like how you'll find advising posts mentioning how sennheiser 500 series leak sound). 
 
Second of all, the m50's - like I said - are quite aggressive headphones. They are an exercise to listen to: its hard to listen and multitask with something else and it can be hard to occasionally just lay back and just enjoy some smooth jazz or classical at a moderate volume (lowering the volume helps and btw these headphones sound excellent at low volumes, which is probably useful for sound industry professionals working all day on the job). Again, that's fine if that is what you are looking for - but it is important for the general audience to be informed about this before they buy these.
 
Shure 840's: I had been recommended the shure 840s for straight vertical upgrade from the rx700's on my previous thread - the poster seemed to imply they are akin to it but a step up. When I tried the shure 840's I agreed, but the shure 840's - like the rx700's - seemed to suffer in the bass department. Remember, I wanted an upgrade that had the same all around quality as the rx700 but with better bass. The rx700's satisfied me in every respect except bass.
 
The CAL!: So, after looking at ljokerl's shootout post, and several other posts, I came to learn the Creative Aurvana Live is supposed to be a balanced, warm sounding headphones with a decent soundstage, comfort, and - importantly in relation to rx700 - strong bass. Some posts mentioned that they are better than the rx700 in every way.
 
My question: So do you guys think that CAL! is the way to go as an rx700 replacement with better bass?

I really like the sound quality of my CALs (Creative Aurvana Live), wish I had not stepped on them.
The cup is on the small side, barely fits around my ear.
 
 

 

[rakfunk12]

For that price range I suggest Ultrasone HFI 680.  They have a good SS and good bass.  They respond well to EQ so you can up the bass if you want.  The highs are bright at first but tame down with burn in.  They have a nice neutral sound. They just keep sounding better the longer you listen to them.  I find that these perform better than many of the higher prices headphones I have owned and gotten rid of. 

 

[jerg]

Just be warned that the CALs have pretty flimsy build quality compared to heavy-hitters like M50, AKG, or Ultrasones.