joshuadapitan
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2017
- Posts
- 19
- Likes
- 6
Comparison of Pro 82 against M40x in Monitoring and Music enjoyment
Build wise, I feel that the Pro 82 will be more prone to destruction than the M40x, but the Pro 82 has smoother articulation on its moving parts. No squeaky squeaky sounds at all.
On Comfort, Pro 82 wins easy, it was , the only point the M40x would be tolerably comfortable is by the usage of a younger kid. I tried to let my little sister wear my M40x and she has no complaints. Level of isolation is similar to both cans.
In my SQ Evaluation, I plugged both Pro 82 and M40x in a Phonic Mixer Console plugged into Wharfedale Speakers. In my listening outside the console, I use my Cayin N3.
In my experience on the Mixer, M40x sounds accurate on the vocals on my A/B test with headphones on and listening to speakers alternately, but the Pro 82 reveals hissy audio equipment.
SQ Wise, M40x is more of a Mature listener's headphone to the point where some people would call it boring, You won't easily convince a basshead or a normal music lover to go buy new headphones when you let them audition those(Minus the "Audio-Technica" branding, probably). M40x sounds very boring on Eurobeat tracks and Classical Tracks are quite dull on those. Pro 82, on the other hand, has more quirks(like the bass switch), but they seem to be not compromising the quality of the sound as well, and the microdetails, transients are easier to perceive on the Pro 82 than the M40x. You have a basshead friend? Flip that switch on the Pro 82s and convince your basshead friend to our little world of Quality audio(Yes, flipping it all the way may distort other frequencies and may sound fatiguing, but for me it is alright and I believe this was meant for the Basshead audience, to destroy the conception of Audiophiles are mere trebleheads who listen to tube amps on their vinyl full of violin and choral tracks). Sound stage and imaging, I will give it to Pro 82 though the Pro 82 can project sound images outside the cups asymmetrically(like the sound on the right is more present than the left and vice versa) on some tracks to the point that your inner channel imbalance OCD will probably get triggered, making you adjust the placement of cups in your ears.
I would trust M40x in Mixing the final mix, but I would enjoy the results of the mix in Pro 82(And probably use the Pro 82 if I have overdone my mixes in the bass or treble region).
Takstar Pro 82 are a good pair of cans, but They are too much fun to be used in a Studio Setting for me, but then the Pro 82 has more detail retrieval that even your average Monitoring Cans struggle to extract.
IMHO, Takstar Pro 82 should be renamed as "Takstar Fun 82" because of it's fun sound signature.
I equally like both of these cans though.
Build wise, I feel that the Pro 82 will be more prone to destruction than the M40x, but the Pro 82 has smoother articulation on its moving parts. No squeaky squeaky sounds at all.
On Comfort, Pro 82 wins easy, it was , the only point the M40x would be tolerably comfortable is by the usage of a younger kid. I tried to let my little sister wear my M40x and she has no complaints. Level of isolation is similar to both cans.
In my SQ Evaluation, I plugged both Pro 82 and M40x in a Phonic Mixer Console plugged into Wharfedale Speakers. In my listening outside the console, I use my Cayin N3.
In my experience on the Mixer, M40x sounds accurate on the vocals on my A/B test with headphones on and listening to speakers alternately, but the Pro 82 reveals hissy audio equipment.
SQ Wise, M40x is more of a Mature listener's headphone to the point where some people would call it boring, You won't easily convince a basshead or a normal music lover to go buy new headphones when you let them audition those(Minus the "Audio-Technica" branding, probably). M40x sounds very boring on Eurobeat tracks and Classical Tracks are quite dull on those. Pro 82, on the other hand, has more quirks(like the bass switch), but they seem to be not compromising the quality of the sound as well, and the microdetails, transients are easier to perceive on the Pro 82 than the M40x. You have a basshead friend? Flip that switch on the Pro 82s and convince your basshead friend to our little world of Quality audio(Yes, flipping it all the way may distort other frequencies and may sound fatiguing, but for me it is alright and I believe this was meant for the Basshead audience, to destroy the conception of Audiophiles are mere trebleheads who listen to tube amps on their vinyl full of violin and choral tracks). Sound stage and imaging, I will give it to Pro 82 though the Pro 82 can project sound images outside the cups asymmetrically(like the sound on the right is more present than the left and vice versa) on some tracks to the point that your inner channel imbalance OCD will probably get triggered, making you adjust the placement of cups in your ears.
I would trust M40x in Mixing the final mix, but I would enjoy the results of the mix in Pro 82(And probably use the Pro 82 if I have overdone my mixes in the bass or treble region).
Takstar Pro 82 are a good pair of cans, but They are too much fun to be used in a Studio Setting for me, but then the Pro 82 has more detail retrieval that even your average Monitoring Cans struggle to extract.
IMHO, Takstar Pro 82 should be renamed as "Takstar Fun 82" because of it's fun sound signature.
I equally like both of these cans though.
![20180414_203220[1].jpg](https://cdn.head-fi.org/a/10098465.jpg)
