[6yka66RUS]

i found it homorous how RPGWiZaRD felt the need to reply to anyone who said that 700s are better just to state hes personal opinion over and over again through these 10 pages. just like he regrets selling the 700s 

 
i heard 300/500/700 in a shop plugged to amp before buying, i think its obvious that 300 cant even compare. 500s were close, but they have muddy sound, 700s on the other hand have great highs and incredible lows without suffering to much quality. and with EQ they blow your head off. as for comfort - 700s win aswel
 
As i see it - 500s are portable choice while 700s offer most quality for home use.

 

[XB500lover]

hey are the xb500's good for metal music genre?
And how would they sound?

 

[hekeli]

Here's my 2 cents since I have both now to compare.
 
Just go with XB700's if you don't mind the large size. They sound much better me.
 
I mean where are the highs on XB500's? Even with EQ I find it very hard to get the same clarity/air/details. I'm not a treble lover but they are really lacking.
 
Sure there is little less bass by default on XB700's, but with some boost if offers the same and much more.

 

[thecansmancan]

Quote:

I've compared both side by side. XB500 is actually significantly easier to drive than XB700, both SQ-wise and plain loudness wise (aprox 20~25% louder at same volume comparing with Windows 7 vol slider, the slider set to 25% for XB500 and 30-31% for XB700 provides roughly similar volume levels in my case). XB500 is also by far the easiest driven headphone I've tried and then my collection contains only of very easy driven headphones that all play well without any amping. In fact I found XB500 to perform worse when adding my cheap amps FiiO E5 and Gary's PA2V2 to it as they made it sound even smoother and you do not want that, it sounds like it's properly amped without using any, if you use an amp for it, it better be an as neutral sounding amp as possible. XB700 benefitted slightly with those amps to add slightly more punch to the bass especially without making it sound too warm/smooth. I've also tested running the XB500 straight out of an old Creative Zen mp3 player I RARELY use and it sounded very good without amp and it also had a simple 5-band EQ which was enough to improve the sound quality. Basicly you want to have the upper bass range a bit lower than the rest and highs a bit higher.
 
Without taking any EQing into account XB500 is overall more fun / warmer sounding with bigger bass quantity and a lot more punchy upper bass and the bass impact is bigger while XB700 focuses heavily on very deep bass so it remains rather soft in comparision. The highs are smoother on XB500 or slightly rolled off which makes it very soothing to listen to without any hint of sibilance. As an side-effect the midrange sounds actually "fullier" and less recessed on XB500 compared to XB700 but the slightly excessive upper bass on XB500 colors the mids a bit more/making them a bit smoother sounding unEQ'd. XB500 benefits a lot from a little EQing, unEQ'd it may be just tiny bit too smooth/dark sounding for most people I'd imagine but if EQing using a good quality EQ this headphone can be made sound in my ears even better than XB700 and suprisingly good for a headphone for this price. XB700 has slightly better instrument separation and is a bit less warm sounding and has better clarity unEQ'd but my ears still enjoyed the XB500 sound more as I prefer very warm sounding headphones with very forward mids and not any exaggerated highs and balanced deep/mid/upper bass ratio but every1 got their own preferred sound signature anyway.

Thanks bro fantastic comparison. Used this to help another guy out who was curious. Even gave ya credit for it. 

 

[Rocko1]

Anyone own the XB700's and the Audio Technica M50's?

 

[Fearless1]

Quote:

Anyone own the XB700's and the Audio Technica M50's?

****Raises hand******

 

[Rocko1]

Quote:

****Raises hand******

Can you explain the sound differences? Which you prefer and why?

 

[Fearless1]

Quote:

Can you explain the sound differences? Which you prefer and why?

The are both decent budget cans. If I had to pick,  I would choose the M50 over the  XB700 as far as sound stage and tone. The M50 is also built like a tank. The M50 is far from anything other then an entry level HP, but it has it's charm and will always have a place in my collection as my take to the beach or work outside HP.
 
The XB-700 is very bass heavy, especially with a portable amp(c-moy, O2 or Fiio product). It has a closed in sound stage. and is more in your face then the M-50.  It reminds me of a stereo set-up where some one spent all of there money on the sub woofer and skimped on the mids and highs.
 
If you want a better sounding HP for roughly the same budget I would recommend the DNHP700, they are also built like a tank, have better sound stage and separation and do pretty well with bass response. The only downfall of them is they lack a bit in comfort.

 

[Rocko1]

Quote:

The are both decent budget cans. If I had to pick,  I would choose the M50 over the  XB700 as far as sound stage and tone. The M50 is also built like a tank. The M50 is far from anything other then an entry level HP, but it has it's charm and will always have a place in my collection as my take to the beach or work outside HP.
 
The XB-700 is very bass heavy, especially with a portable amp(c-moy, O2 or Fiio product). It has a closed in sound stage. and is more in your face then the M-50.  It reminds me of a stereo set-up where some one spent all of there money on the sub woofer and skimped on the mids and highs.
 
If you want a better sounding HP for roughly the same budget I would recommend the DNHP700, they are also built like a tank, have better sound stage and separation and do pretty well with bass response. The only downfall of them is they lack a bit in comfort.

Thanks. I have the M50's and like them. My son has the XB500's and I just wondered how the XB700's stood out. I think there is too much bass in the 500s and not enough of anything else. Thanks again.

 

[Dennito]

Quote:

Anyone own the XB700's and the Audio Technica M50's?

I have both. The M50 is far superior in my opinion. I'm not one for lengthy analysis, but in comparison, the XB700 high-mid to low-high range sound too sharp to me. It is a bit shrill. Also there is a lack of fullness in all but the low end, which lacks warmth. The M50 is better built, more portable, and is a much better value at the comparative sales prices ($75ish for the XB and about $110 for the M50). As always, many people here will disagree. There are many variables such as source, amplification, and listening material so your experience may be different than mine. I think the M50 is hard to beat in that price range.

 

[Rocko1]

Quote:

I have both. The M50 is far superior in my opinion. I'm not one for lengthy analysis, but in comparison, the XB700 high-mid to low-high range sound too sharp to me. It is a bit shrill. Also there is a lack of fullness in all but the low end, which lacks warmth. The M50 is better built, more portable, and is a much better value at the comparative sales prices ($75ish for the XB and about $110 for the M50). As always, many people here will disagree. There are many variables such as source, amplification, and listening material so your experience may be different than mine. I think the M50 is hard to beat in that price range.

Thanks. From what I gather from you and others, it would be a step down. I don't need more bass than the M50's deliver, and the bass from the XB500's(my son has a pair) is just too much, undefined and annoying because of it's level, maybe the 700 would have less obtrusive bass, but still not worth it for me.  Thanks again for the input.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

Quote:

Thanks. From what I gather from you and others, it would be a step down. I don't need more bass than the M50's deliver, and the bass from the XB500's(my son has a pair) is just too much, undefined and annoying because of it's level, maybe the 700 would have less obtrusive bass, but still not worth it for me.  Thanks again for the input.

 
Try something in-between, Q40 is a perfect candidate in this case I think, ~8dB bass bump (compared to ~5dB on M50 and 15dB on XB500) with textured punchy bass and still overall great quality, sounds/feels more significantly bassy than M50 but at the same time significantly more refined than XB500 in all aspects. For some1 who wants a bit more bass than M50, it's a perfect alternative, believe me on this one, I've also had M50 and XB700 and still own XB500 that I don't use anymore.

 

[albazza]

I am thinking about getting this type of headphone. I am just wondering whether the 700's are better with base then the 500's??

 

[Rocko1]

Quote:

I am thinking about getting this type of headphone. I am just wondering whether the 700's are better with base then the 500's??

500 has more, 700 has less quantity, but more detailed. Get what your budget can afford. The 700's are also much larger.

 

[jjcoolaus]

Hi All,
I was looking at these two pairs of headphones and *accidentally* committed to buying the XB700's on ebay - it was a case of user error as I was already logged in and wasn't really concentrating.
 
Anyway, i've been reading everyone's opinions and I wanted to know to those who own a pair, which is more comfortable? What attracted me to the XB500/XB700's in the first place is their rather thick pads. How are they for comfort?
 
I wear glasses and comfort has always been a hit and miss issue for me, which now sees me on a mission to replace all of my on-ear headphones with over-the-ear equivalents.
 
As an example my Beyerdyanmic DT770 Pro's are the most comfortable headphones i've owned, while the Audio Technica ATH-AD700's are a bit too large but also very comfortable (so long as i'm wearing a beanie to compensate for their overly large size).
Cheers,
Jason