The Audio Technica M50 studio monitor thread

[shane55]

Quote:

 
Aren't Shure products compared to the M50 a bunch?

Yes they are.
The SRH840 is the closest (in my opinion) to the M50 and should be compared.
The sound of the SRH840 is much more linear and 'neutral', but also not as 'fun' as the M50. The 840's are great studio monitors for this reason. They are also the most uncomfortable and unwieldy phones I've had. Emphasis on the 'had'.
 
shane
 

 

[Pianist]

 
Quote:

Yes they are.
The SRH840 is the closest (in my opinion) to the M50 and should be compared.
The sound of the SRH840 is much more linear and 'neutral', but also not as 'fun' as the M50. The 840's are great studio monitors for this reason. They are also the most uncomfortable and unwieldy phones I've had. Emphasis on the 'had'.
 
shane
 

That's not true. SRH840 is not only more neutral, but also warmer, smoother, musically richer and just significantly more realistic sounding. You can ask how it possible that SRH840 is more neutral and yet warmer. It's simply because the M50s have a suckout in the upper mids, lack organic texture and micro detail and have a cold, thin, metallic sounding treble. The SRH840, on the other hand, has a much richer sounding midrange with much more micro detail and no suckouts at all - it actually has a bit of a boost where the M50 is recessed (the upper mids). SRH840 also has much more natural sounding treble that is free of metallic coldness of the M50. Finally SRH840 also has much better bass - it is tighter, more controlled and way more textured than the M50 bass and never intrudes into the lower mids, like the low end on the M50 often does.
 
Sorry if I came off a bit too harsh on the M50 here. I still like them for what they are - good sounding $100 closed headphones. But SRH840 is just in a different league and sounds like at least a solid $200 closed headphone.

 

[shane55]

Yes, I get it. As I said (and have said on many threads) the 840's are great studio monitors and are also an incredible value... if you can wear them.
 
I 'm not exactly sure what you thought isn't 'true' in my post, but whatever... I wasn't trashing the 840's by any means. I would have kept them were they not un-wearable for me.
I think their sound is incredible, though I didn't find them 'warm'.
 
The M50's are not perfect and before they are broken-in, they do exhibit the characteristics you describe. However, after extended use, the bass becomes much less overwhelming and interferring. The highs soften and they behave themselves extremely well.
 
In 'my' definitions, I can't associate warm with neutral. Natural, yes, but not neutral and I define neutral as not being coloured in any manner... warm, cold, sharp, lean, bloated, etc.
 
To my ears the SRH840 is relatively neutral and the M50 is not. The M50 is definately V-curved, which is why I designate it as 'fun'. They are enjoyable, not analytical or clynical (though these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).

 
shane

 

[Ruffle]

Interesting that one of the most trusted recording equipment manufacturer would create a studio headphone that is not analytical.  Somehow I doubt your words and trust the professionals who buy the AT M50s aren't stupid.

 

[tyty5150]

Quote:

 

That's not true. SRH840 is not only more neutral, but also warmer, smoother, musically richer and just significantly more realistic sounding. You can ask how it possible that SRH840 is more neutral and yet warmer. It's simply because the M50s have a suckout in the upper mids, lack organic texture and micro detail and have a cold, thin, metallic sounding treble. The SRH840, on the other hand, has a much richer sounding midrange with much more micro detail and no suckouts at all - it actually has a bit of a boost where the M50 is recessed (the upper mids). SRH840 also has much more natural sounding treble that is free of metallic coldness of the M50. Finally SRH840 also has much better bass - it is tighter, more controlled and way more textured than the M50 bass and never intrudes into the lower mids, like the low end on the M50 often does.
 
Sorry if I came off a bit too harsh on the M50 here. I still like them for what they are - good sounding $100 closed headphones. But SRH840 is just in a different league and sounds like at least a solid $200 closed headphone.

LOL wrong thread, read the title.  Just kidding thanks for the input on the SRH840s.

 
Quote:

Yes, I get it. As I said (and have said on many threads) the 840's are great studio monitors and are also an incredible value... if you can wear them.
 
I 'm not exactly sure what you thought isn't 'true' in my post, but whatever... I wasn't trashing the 840's by any means. I would have kept them were they not un-wearable for me.
I think their sound is incredible, though I didn't find them 'warm'.
 
The M50's are not perfect and before they are broken-in, they do exhibit the characteristics you describe. However, after extended use, the bass becomes much less overwhelming and interferring. The highs soften and they behave themselves extremely well.
 
In 'my' definitions, I can't associate warm with neutral. Natural, yes, but not neutral and I define neutral as not being coloured in any manner... warm, cold, sharp, lean, bloated, etc.
 
To my ears the SRH840 is relatively neutral and the M50 is not. The M50 is definately V-curved, which is why I designate it as 'fun'. They are enjoyable, not analytical or clynical (though these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).

 
shane

I agree with the neutral definition you proffer.
 
What would you say is the difference between natural and neutral?  I thought neutral was keeping every frequency the same level of volume.  Not one voice is louder than any other that way, why is that only neutral?  Or rather, what is natural?

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

LOL wrong thread, read the title.  Just kidding thanks for the input on the SRH840s.

 

I agree with the neutral definition you proffer.
 
What would you say is the difference between natural and neutral?  I thought neutral was keeping every frequency the same level of volume.  Not one voice is louder than any other that way, why is that only neutral?  Or rather, what is natural?

Personally myself I often find 'most', not all, neutral phones to sound unnatural to my ears.  When I listen to the world around me it just sounds much starker in contrast w/ respect to highs and lows (dynamics) than a typical neutral response curve does.  The question is far more complicated however.  'Neutral' only corresponds to a frequency response curve.  'Natural' refers to that plus things like tone/timbre, clarity, weight, decay, imaging, thickness, etc, etc, etc....

 

[Pianist]

 
Quote:

Yes, I get it. As I said (and have said on many threads) the 840's are great studio monitors and are also an incredible value... if you can wear them.
 
I 'm not exactly sure what you thought isn't 'true' in my post, but whatever... I wasn't trashing the 840's by any means. I would have kept them were they not un-wearable for me.
I think their sound is incredible, though I didn't find them 'warm'.
 
The M50's are not perfect and before they are broken-in, they do exhibit the characteristics you describe. However, after extended use, the bass becomes much less overwhelming and interferring. The highs soften and they behave themselves extremely well.
 
In 'my' definitions, I can't associate warm with neutral. Natural, yes, but not neutral and I define neutral as not being coloured in any manner... warm, cold, sharp, lean, bloated, etc.
 
To my ears the SRH840 is relatively neutral and the M50 is not. The M50 is definately V-curved, which is why I designate it as 'fun'. They are enjoyable, not analytical or clynical (though these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).

 
shane

 
Hi Shane,
 
There was nothing wrong with your post at all. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, especially in discussions on such subjective topic as audio. I must admit that I was wrong by saying "That's not true." at the beginning. I forgot to add "IMO". It's just that my experience with the M50 wasn't much fun at all. I just didn;t find the M50s to be musical in most cases. For me, a headphone or speaker sounds musical when it is of sufficiently high quality and colored in the right way, so that no part of the spectrum overpowers other parts with as many types of music as possible.
 
Like I wrote, I consider the SRH840 to be more neutral than M50, but that doesn't mean that it is perfectly neutral of course - there are certainly more neutral phones out there. The Shures are generally quite flat throughout the mids and highs, but the lows and upper mids are certainly a bit boosted which is partially what gives the Shures their warmth IMO.
 
M50 is not warm at all and it is also not fun and musical to my ears because the bass , especially the upper bass is not controlled enough and intrudes into the lower mids. Unfortunately, this problem did not go away with burn in for me. I owned the M50 for almost a year and had well over 500 hours on it. The sound did change significantly compared to how it was out of the box, but the changes were mostly in quantity not quality. At the beginning, I found the M50s to be overly bright and lacking bass definition rather severely. After a few hours of burn in, the bass tightened up and the treble became more tamed and tolerable. After a few hundred hours, the treble became even more subdued and bass quantity increased even more and I was actually not happy with these changes - the sound became darkish and overly boomy IMO.
 
I agree that the M50 has a somewhat V-shaped response with dominating lower bass and upper highs. Although after several hundred hours, the treble is not exactly overemphasized anymore. You think that M50 is not analytical or clinical. I agree that they are not analytical because they simply do not possess sufficient technical ability for critical listening IMO. But I disagree that they are not clinical. They simply lack detail and quality, while at the same time they do not have any interesting colorations either to make the sound more exciting. Overall, I found them to be quite a dull and boring listening experience most of the time.
 
Just my 2 cents.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Personally myself I often find 'most', not all, neutral phones to sound unnatural to my ears.  When I listen to the world around me it just sounds much starker in contrast w/ respect to highs and lows (dynamics) than a typical neutral response curve does.  The question is far more complicated however.  'Neutral' only corresponds to a frequency response curve.  'Natural' refers to that plus things like tone/timbre, clarity, weight, decay, imaging, thickness, etc, etc, etc....

Well put!
 

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Well put!
 

 
++
 

 

[shane55]

 
Quote:

But I disagree that they are not clinical. They simply lack detail and quality, while at the same time they do not have any interesting colorations either to make the sound more exciting. Overall, I found them to be quite a dull and boring listening experience most of the time.
 
Just my 2 cents.

But a very worthwhile 2 cents...

 
[size=10pt]Sometimes some of us (see a particularly stern post above) forget that these are mostly opinions and these opinions are based on experience and HRTF. One man's 'bright' is another man's 'neutral' or even 'natural'. We all hear differently and interpret these stimuli in a multitude of ways.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]I understand all of, and agree with most of your post… thanks for the well thought out details.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]And speaking of details… now for some semantics (almost as bad as opinions!!). To me, if something lacks detail, they are not clinical. Just as: If they are warm (to me) they are not neutral.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]My [/size][size=10pt]definition of clinical is virtually the same as analytical. Detailed to a fault. Able to produce every last detail, for better or worse, of a recording. These are my DT880’s. They are not natural. They are analytical and clinical, and they are tools for a purpose. I don’t kick back and become enveloped in the lush music with these because they don’t produce it. The HD600 do. The D5000 do. But these had their faults that I couldn’t get past (no highs, and overwhelming bass, respectively).[/size]
 
[size=10pt]Clinical, analytical, detailed, whatever... just words to describe observable phenomenon. What matters is what you prefer and the satisfaction of your quest.

[/size]
 
[size=10pt]But I digress from the intent of the thread…[/size]
 
[size=10pt]To me, the M50 produces a great sound. It’s coloured and not ‘neutral’ {it originally said natural but that was a typo, but I really don't think they are 'natural' either}, but very enjoyable. And I enjoy the M50’s like mad.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]And just to reiterate, I really, really liked and appreciated the sound of the 840’s and wished I could have kept them. [/size]
 
[size=10pt]Happy listening![/size]
 
[size=10pt]shane[/size]

 

[shane55]

Quote:

Personally myself I often find 'most', not all, neutral phones to sound unnatural to my ears.  When I listen to the world around me it just sounds much starker in contrast w/ respect to highs and lows (dynamics) than a typical neutral response curve does.  The question is far more complicated however.  'Neutral' only corresponds to a frequency response curve.  'Natural' refers to that plus things like tone/timbre, clarity, weight, decay, imaging, thickness, etc, etc, etc....

Indeed.
 

 

[daltonlanny]

Hi all,
Sorry guys, but I personally don't think the Shure SRH840 is more linear and neutral than the M50, soundwise, or measurement wise.
Actually, the Shure SRH840 does not measure any better than the Audio-Technica ATH-M50, and at several frequencies measures even more uneven than the M50.
Compared to the Audio-Technica ATH-M50, the Shure has a big bass hump centered at 100 hz, a bass roll-off below 40hz, and a bigger peak around 9khz than the M50. The upper treble is also more rolled off.
Granted the mids are alittle more recessed on the M50, and there is a dip around 6khz, but the overall frequency response is no more uneven overall than the 840.
I listened to a very well broken-in pair at a friends house who is not really into audio or recording, and to my ears, the Shure had a slightly boomy mid/upper bass, a rolled off lower bass, and an annoying treble spike compared to my M50. Sibilance was also more present on the 840 to my ears. The M50's were more laid back in the mids, but I liked the bass extension and overall bass smoothness alot more on the M50. I also felt the overall sound of the M50 was livelier and "more fun" than the 840.
I personally did not care much for the 840 sound.
All of my friends who are into music recording and monitoring have choosen the M50 over the 840 and almost all others as well.
Just my 2 cents.
Look at the Headroom measurement comprisons:
=183&graphID[]=913]http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=183&graphID[]=913
LD

 

[Slaughter]

Just to squash that rumor about the M50 going out of production, I emailed Audio Technica and here is their reply:
 
Hi All,

Wow!  Where do these rumors come from.  No truth to this one.  M50 will continue to be an important part of our line-up and the best sounding headphone out there.

Best,

ME


MICHAEL EDWARDS
Director of Product Management
 

 

[Azathoth]

I actually also prefer the M50 over the Shure SRH840. I think the SRH750DJ is the best-sounding out of all the Shure headphones and even then I like how the bass extends deeper on the M50.

 

[Pianist]

 
Quote:

Just to squash that rumor about the M50 going out of production, I emailed Audio Technica and here is their reply:
 
Hi All,

Wow!  Where do these rumors come from.  No truth to this one.  M50 will continue to be an important part of our line-up and the best sounding headphone out there.

Best,

ME


MICHAEL EDWARDS
Director of Product Management
 

lol