The Basshead Club
Sep 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM Post #2,671 of 11,286

My3uka

Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Posts
69
Likes
10
Quote:
IMHO there is nothing out there that can beat the Atrio. I have owned some of the basshead IEMs and none of them can touch Atrio. I love them so much that I have ordered a new pair to replace my broken pair which served me nearly two years of daily abuse. I can go as far as saying that I prefer the Atrio's bass over the PRO900 and the Q40 :) The bass just smacks you in the head! :)

 


 You read my thoughts. Haven't heard the pro900, but I own the q40 - they do have massive bass and realy well extended, so it is a big compliment to the atrios to be more engaging for me with their ridiculously deep subbass for such a small unpresentable thingy.
 
Sep 3, 2012 at 7:26 AM Post #2,673 of 11,286

Hawaiiancerveza

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Posts
1,601
Likes
22
Quote:
Wow, can't find anything online about them.  Are these prototypes?  They look way too heavy and bulky with too much metal to be practical.

Ya I actually got the pic off of their FB page.  I can't find anything online about this either but they said they were going to feature it at the IFA
 
Heres another pic of it from the side.
 
 

 
Sep 3, 2012 at 9:13 AM Post #2,674 of 11,286

Craigster75

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Posts
3,598
Likes
164
Quote:
Knowing your preferences I'd think based on the FR graph that they'd be slightly too dark sounding for your liking, would need maybe 3~5dB average boost in the highs for it to be quite suitable.
 
I think the upcoming XB900's FR graph looks quite promissing (maybe add it to your list :p):
 

 
Maybe slightly on the bassier side, measuring aprox 12dB boost. I think the ideal for me personally is around 8~10dB boost and then pair it with ZO2.1 or ZO2.3 with the low contour levels depending on starter quantity in the headphone at lvl 2 - 7. :)


Thanks RPG.  I saw that the Mixmasters fall off a cliff after 10K and was wondering how that impacts the sounds since they weren't described as dark.  I'm also reading they wouldn't have enough detail for my taste.  Everything I research takes me back to the promise of the M-100.  I hope these are en route.
 
Sep 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM Post #2,675 of 11,286

DeanKeith

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Posts
73
Likes
11
Quote:
...I saw that the Mixmasters fall off a cliff after 10K and was wondering how that impacts the sounds since they weren't described as dark...

 
[size=medium]I think it would probably be the 8kHz to 12kHz range that would have to be lacking to cause a "dark" sound.  Most of what we perceive as treble is under 12kHz.  Everything above that is "sparkle" or inaudible to many of us.  I just tested myself with these test tones: http://mdf1.tripod.com/test-tones.html and 16kHz is the highest one that I hear as a "tone" and 18kHz is the highest one I can detect at all.  But I'm 41 years old.  If you're younger, you can probably hear them all, but still would probably not really feel something sounded dark if it was missing a lot above 12kHz.  But if 8kHz and up is lacking, yeah, dark would be a good description, and if 6Khz up is missing, muffled might be the best word.  BTW, the sibilance frequency range is between 6kHz and 7kHz.[/size]
 
[size=medium][size=medium]Wait a minute!  This is the basshead thread and I just spent a paragraph talking about treble.  Blaspheme!  hehehe[/size][/size]
 
Sep 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM Post #2,676 of 11,286

Craigster75

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Posts
3,598
Likes
164
Quote:
 
[size=medium]I think it would probably be the 8kHz to 12kHz range that would have to be lacking to cause a "dark" sound.  Most of what we perceive as treble is under 12kHz.  Everything above that is "sparkle" or inaudible to many of us.  I just tested myself with these test tones: http://mdf1.tripod.com/test-tones.html and 16kHz is the highest one that I hear as a "tone" and 18kHz is the highest one I can detect at all.  But I'm 41 years old.  If you're younger, you can probably hear them all, but still would probably not really feel something sounded dark if it was missing a lot above 12kHz.  But if 8kHz and up is lacking, yeah, dark would be a good description, and if 6Khz up is missing, muffled might be the best word.  BTW, the sibilance frequency range is between 6kHz and 7kHz.[/size]
 
[size=medium][size=medium]Wait a minute!  This is the basshead thread and I just spent a paragraph talking about treble.  Blaspheme!  hehehe[/size][/size]


IMO, it's okay to talk about treble since I consider myself a basshead, but don't enjoy basshead headphones that can't do everything moderately well.  You were saying anything under 12K is audible, but the Mixmasters fall off at 10K, so they would still be dark or at least have softer highs?
 
Sep 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM Post #2,677 of 11,286

DeanKeith

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Posts
73
Likes
11
Quote:
IMO, it's okay to talk about treble since I consider myself a basshead, but don't enjoy basshead headphones that can't do everything moderately well.  You were saying anything under 12K is audible, but the Mixmasters fall off at 10K, so they would still be dark or at least have softer highs?

 
[size=10pt]Looking at that chart, the resolution isn't that great up there in the higher register, but it looks to me the curve doesn't actually fall off at all until 12-13kHz, and doesn't fall sharply until 15-16kHz. I think it's a pretty handy exercise to familiarize one's self with what each frequency actually sounds like. That link I provided in my last post is pretty good, although some of the jumps are too dramatic... for example it has a 5kHz tone, and then the next one is at 8kHz... and I mentioned earlier that sibilance (or the letter "s") generally falls in the 6-7kHz range which isn't even represented. But it still surprises most people when they hear just how low 30Hz is or how high 12kHz is. 20Hz to 20kHz is stretching the boundaries of human perception... but tends to be downplayed as "oh of course I can hear that, it's within the human hearing range." On the other hand, I have read research that suggests that frequencies below 20Hz and above 20kHz still have some level of perception. I don't like getting too far into that debate... all I do know is when you're talking actual loudspeakers, you can certainly feel vibrations and pressure waves from lower than audible frequencies... and some claim that the reason analog still beats digital is that overtones and harmonics that exceed 20kHz are better preserved. Who knows... but I do find studying sound to be fascinating. But I try not to get too caught up in the frequency response war, since 5Hz to 50kHz is almost silly.  I just wanna know how it sounds and talk to people with similar taste (bassheads).  :D[/size]
 
Sep 3, 2012 at 7:04 PM Post #2,678 of 11,286

DeanKeith

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Posts
73
Likes
11
[size=10pt]Sorry for another post, but I also wanted to add: I'm not saying it can't be done... but I really stink at looking at a frequency response curve and interpreting it as how pleasing the sound will be to me. Even after attempting to memorize exactly what each frequency sounds like (and having some success at it, as I can adjust the parametric EQ of a soundboard live without it being so dramatic the audience would notice)... I still can't look at the curve of an XB900 and think to myself: I bet that sounds warm with a bit of sparkle. I think part of that is that there is more to the signature sound of a particular set of earphones than frequency response. Either that or I don't know the exact appearance of the curve that makes me smile the most. But frequency response curves are certainly good to notice red flags... like dropping off the cliff at 30Hz (would mean no sub-bass). So I value them, but at the quality level I've been shopping for... pretty much all the ones I have considered had acceptable looking curves. BTW, I ordered my Q40s a couple of days ago... I'll be sure and post back when I have some impressions to share... and if I find the time I might write an actual review (no promises). :wink:[/size]
 
Sep 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM Post #2,679 of 11,286

AnAnalogSpirit

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Posts
808
Likes
29
Quote:
[size=10pt]Sorry for another post, but I also wanted to add: I'm not saying it can't be done... but I really stink at looking at a frequency response curve and interpreting it as how pleasing the sound will be to me. Even after attempting to memorize exactly what each frequency sounds like (and having some success at it, as I can adjust the parametric EQ of a soundboard live without it being so dramatic the audience would notice)... I still can't look at the curve of an XB900 and think to myself: I bet that sounds warm with a bit of sparkle. I think part of that is that there is more to the signature sound of a particular set of earphones than frequency response. Either that or I don't know the exact appearance of the curve that makes me smile the most. But frequency response curves are certainly good to notice red flags... like dropping off the cliff at 30Hz (would mean no sub-bass). So I value them, but at the quality level I've been shopping for... pretty much all the ones I have considered had acceptable looking curves. BTW, I ordered my Q40s a couple of days ago... I'll be sure and post back when I have some impressions to share... and if I find the time I might write an actual review (no promises). :wink:[/size]


Hi,
 
Forgot where I nabbed this very useful picture from originally, but it helps me visualize what parts of the frequency spectrum belong to which tonal groupings; it breaks down the regions that make up bass, midrange, and treble, along the (octave?) scale of notes...
 
Anyway, picture is worth a thousand words, so they say. Enjoy:
 

 
Sep 3, 2012 at 9:37 PM Post #2,680 of 11,286

DeanKeith

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Posts
73
Likes
11
[size=medium]That chart is very cool.  I don't think understanding that chart necessarily makes a freq resp chart (short of any glaring red flags) tell the whole story on which headphones sound great, and which ones sound okay, but it certainly helps.  Thanks for sharing it. :D[/size]
 
Sep 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM Post #2,682 of 11,286

nerobass

New Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Posts
20
Likes
10
Hey guys just popping in to say hi (and subbed)

I recently decided some nice sounding equipment would be fun so did my research etc joined here and now my money doesn't seem to stay with me anymore -_-!

Great thread I wish I had read this before my 1st headphone purchase Senn HD598's don't get me wrong they sound fantastic (especially for long periods) but they just lack that oomph that I like in my music.

I have some UE700's (pretty bright but cope with some EQ) and some UE TF10's (sound great hate the fit)

Would something like the Sony mdr-xb700 or do you think I should go down the IEM's track?

NB
 
Sep 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM Post #2,683 of 11,286

A1945

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Posts
120
Likes
10
Quote:
Hey guys just popping in to say hi (and subbed)
I recently decided some nice sounding equipment would be fun so did my research etc joined here and now my money doesn't seem to stay with me anymore -_-!
Great thread I wish I had read this before my 1st headphone purchase Senn HD598's don't get me wrong they sound fantastic (especially for long periods) but they just lack that oomph that I like in my music.
I have some UE700's (pretty bright but cope with some EQ) and some UE TF10's (sound great hate the fit)
Would something like the Sony mdr-xb700 or do you think I should go down the IEM's track?
NB


I personally have never used the XB700 but I would think that it would be more comfortable that IEM's.
 
Sep 4, 2012 at 3:03 PM Post #2,684 of 11,286

A1945

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Posts
120
Likes
10
I bet you guys are beginning to dread when I post lol but I do have a basshead question. Are the Shure SRH750DJ Headphones considered basshead phones, if they are how do they stack up against the HFI580 and the PRO700MK2?
 
Sep 4, 2012 at 3:05 PM Post #2,685 of 11,286

DeanKeith

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Posts
73
Likes
11
Quote:
...but they just lack that oomph that I like in my music...

 
[size=10pt]That quote right there fits perfectly into our discussion about specs vs. listening experience.  What frequencies are lacking that gives the perception of missing “oomph”?   I don’t think there is a correct answer because “oomph” quite possibly means something different to me than it does you.  I LOVE that sound that I like to call “bottomless” where the bass just seems to go deeper than you can hear.  But mid-bass is probably more impactful and provides that chest thump if it were coming from a big speaker.  A lot of the cans discussed in this thread are “basshead” models because the bass is louder, but not necessarily deeper.  I chose the Q40 because many people say they have great sub-bass, and that bass in general (including bass and mid-bass) tends to be a little overstated.  They just shipped today, so I can’t say for sure I made the right choice yet.  But anyway, if you do go the IEM route, the Atrio seems to be the king of sub-bass.  But they are also probably the most uncomfortable because they go deep into your ear canals.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]For headphones, the choices are to vast to give you a specific one, and also because you can spend between $50 and $2000 for basshead headphones.  So I suggest reading this thread (yeah it’s long) and then you’ll have an idea of why people chose what they chose.[/size]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top