[machoboy]

I wasn't talking about the graph... I'm wearing them right now with a rackmount EQ sitting next to me. Just contrasting how they sound to me vs the graph plus my brief experience with the sennheisers.
 
I love my 240s but they definitely suffer from the old school sound of big mid bass and very little sub bass

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

I wasn't talking about the graph... I'm wearing them right now with a rackmount EQ sitting next to me. Just contrasting how they sound to me vs the graph plus my brief experience with the sennheisers.
 
I love my 240s but they definitely suffer from the old school sound of big mid bass and very little sub bass

 

You hear a steep roll off below 100? That seems a little odd. But you could be right I suppose.  For jazz and classic rock bass I never noticed them lacking, but I didn't analyze the bass very carefully.  I tend to not pay a lot of attention to the bass as long as the mid bass is there. I only sit up and pay attention it if it's severely lacking, or way over done. 
 

 

[vid]

I'd be surprised if the graphs were that badly off in the low frequencies. Usually, from what I've seen, frequency response measurements are reasonably reliable below 1 kHz. But people do differ in their sensitivity to bass among other things...
 
What you might want to do is get some sine waves of, say, 40, 50 and 60 Hz and compare them to a 1000 Hz sine wave. None of the bass waves should be lower in volume than the 1 kHz reference if the graphs are right. Doing a full sine sweep might be misleading due to the shape of the response.

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

I'd be surprised if the graphs were that badly off in the low frequencies. Usually, from what I've seen, frequency response measurements are reasonably reliable below 1 kHz. But people do differ in their sensitivity to bass among other things...
 
What you might want to do is get some sine waves of, say, 40, 50 and 60 Hz and compare them to a 1000 Hz sine wave. None of the bass waves should be lower in volume than the 1 kHz reference if the graphs are right. Doing a full sine sweep might be misleading due to the shape of the response.

Good points. I think what machoboy may be hearing is the relative lack of sub bass compared to the bump in the mid/upper bass. The sine wave at 1000 hz would serve as a reference to compare the lower bass far better than comparing it to the mid bass, which is way above the level of 1000 Hz.

 

[machoboy]

You hear a steep roll off below 100? That seems a little odd. But you could be right I suppose.  For jazz and classic rock bass I never noticed them lacking, but I didn't analyze the bass very carefully.  I tend to not pay a lot of attention to the bass as long as the mid bass is there. I only sit up and pay attention it if it's severely lacking, or way over done. 

 
They have really nice bass for rock and jazz where the bassiest things going on are the kick drum and the bass itself.  They're pretty tight there.
 
Where you really notice the (relative) drop in the sub bass frequencies relative to their midbass hump is in electronica. The difference between the 240s and my shure 840s for example is staggering. The sub bass just falls off of a cliff.
 
It's barely noticeable when going through the entire frequency spectrum with a softsynth than when actually listening to music, so you might be right, it could be that the relatively powerful midbass just drowns out things below it.

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

 
They have really nice bass for rock and jazz where the bassiest things going on are the kick drum and the bass itself.  They're pretty tight there.
 
Where you really notice the (relative) drop in the sub bass frequencies relative to their midbass hump is in electronica. The difference between the 240s and my shure 840s for example is staggering. The sub bass just falls off of a cliff.
 
It's barely noticeable when going through the entire frequency spectrum with a softsynth than when actually listening to music, so you might be right, it could be that the relatively powerful midbass just drowns out things below it.

Since the OP is listening to classical, the lower bass shouldn't pose a problem..... except maybe with a Bach organ piece. I was briefly listening to a Mozart opera with the 240's. They're pretty amazing with female operatic sopranos, and vocals in general.

 

[glamrox]

These are really hard to find nowadays! Last spring I finally got alerted by eBay that a pair went up for sale. With the box they asked for ~$200 which I paid gladly. I know that's way too much but there you go. I was willing to pay that since you just can't find them! So I think $100 is a low estimate but I could be wrong.

 

[glamrox]

Quote:

Look for an AKG K 501 on the used market, should be about $100.

These are really hard to find nowadays! Last spring I finally got alerted by eBay that a pair went up for sale. With the box they asked for ~$200 which I paid gladly. I know that's way too much but there you go. I was willing to pay that since you just can't find them! So I think $100 is a low estimate but I could be wrong.
 
Sorry I meant to quote this post

 

[vid]

Quote:

These are really hard to find nowadays! Last spring I finally got alerted by eBay that a pair went up for sale. With the box they asked for ~$200 which I paid gladly. I know that's way too much but there you go. I was willing to pay that since you just can't find them! So I think $100 is a low estimate but I could be wrong.

 
$100 for the K 501 should be quite doable. Someone got mine for 80 euros in 2009 - and those were mint in a mint box.

 

[glamrox]

Speak of the devil. This popped up today, bidding starts at $150 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200822033956&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123

 

[vid]

I'd wait until a K 501 in good condition popped up for $100 as a buy-it-now.
For $150 you might as well buy a used K 601 and EQ it to get a K 501.

 

[obobskivich]

I'd be surprised if the graphs were that badly off in the low frequencies. Usually, from what I've seen, frequency response measurements are reasonably reliable below 1 kHz. But people do differ in their sensitivity to bass among other things...

Actually measurements become increasingly unreliable as you move into bass and sub-bass regions. Generally assuming there's not a lot of smoothing going on (and I think it's safe to assume that HeadRoom graphs *are* smoothed and compensated) it's the mid-band where you probably have the highest confidence. But FR tells us a very small picture of what a headphone will sound like.

Speak of the devil. This popped up today, bidding starts at $150 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200822033956&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123

Looks like a good deal - just don't pay too much. There's plenty of other options for good open headphones out there at that $150-$250 range, so while you're getting what appear to be a good K501, they aren't the end-all of options here.

 

[vid]

Quote:

Actually measurements become increasingly unreliable as you move into bass and sub-bass regions. Generally assuming there's not a lot of smoothing going on (and I think it's safe to assume that HeadRoom graphs *are* smoothed and compensated) it's the mid-band where you probably have the highest confidence. But FR tells us a very small picture of what a headphone will sound like.

 
Yep, 100-1000 Hz is where I'm confident a graph will be reliable (raw or compensated); up to 2 kHz is decent. Assuming that the microphone doesn't have a wonky response within that region, it seems difficult to get an incorrect measurement. Above 1 kHz and you slowly start getting into ear-related difference territory, where it's anyone's guess what goes.