[OldDude04]

Do bass heavy headphones extend the bass that is not there or is it that most headphones do not reproduce the bass accurately and is lacking?

It's mostly the latter of the two. It's not adding in sounds that aren't there, it has a more elevated low end in its tuning, playing the notes that are already in the music you listen to. There are a few headphones using tactile transducers that physically shake but even then they aren't adding notes, just vibrating along with the music being played.

 

[Fly2High]

What I am getting at is if certain bass centric headphones have the tuning to increase the dB in the low frequency so that they are more prevalent.

How do I know if the sound is an accurate representation of what the artist and engineer wanted?

All too often I have found myself adding bass and eventually wondered if that is either my HP or speakers lacking or am I doing my own mixing for preference.

These days, I am leaning more for an accurate representation. Are bass heavy headphones accurate?

 

[StarTreker]

What I am getting at is if certain bass centric headphones have the tuning to increase the dB in the low frequency so that they are more prevalent.

How do I know if the sound is an accurate representation of what the artist and engineer wanted?

All too often I have found myself adding bass and eventually wondered if that is either my HP or speakers lacking or am I doing my own mixing for preference.

These days, I am leaning more for an accurate representation. Are bass heavy headphones accurate?

OK, if you are after accurate sound, your only going to get that with studio reference cans, Vmoda's new M200 masters are supposed to do exactly that.

If your looking just for a pair of can's that are for fun, loaded with bass, V-Moda LP2 or M100 is what your looking for.

And the only type of headphone that I ever heard of that was supposed to produce high levels of bass and also be accurate, are those ones that cost thousands of dollars. And I simply don't see anybody spending that kind of money on a pair of headphones, during a pandemic. At least, not anybody who proves themselves to be responsible, and want to pay their bills on time that is lol.

 

[SHAMuuu]

What I am getting at is if certain bass centric headphones have the tuning to increase the dB in the low frequency so that they are more prevalent.

How do I know if the sound is an accurate representation of what the artist and engineer wanted?

All too often I have found myself adding bass and eventually wondered if that is either my HP or speakers lacking or am I doing my own mixing for preference.

These days, I am leaning more for an accurate representation. Are bass heavy headphones accurate?

For a bass focused headphone, and accuracy, one would think a heavily heavily modified Fostex would get close.
Like chamber swap, pad swap, foams, type of tinkering. E-Mu teak or 610 IMO

Most studios used cans are not well favored (900st,7506, mx-100z etc etc) though they have professionals who think they are accurate.

 

[GREQ]

Are bass heavy headphones accurate?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Something like Bowers & Wilkins P9 - totally not accurate. Sounds like a wonky, bloated mess.
Beyerdynamic DT1770 Pro - much closer to accurate. It sounds like adding a large sub-woofer to your setup.

In the end, there's no right or wrong answer, since you SHOULD be tuning to YOUR taste, not the artist.
Also, your ears are different to the artists, as are your tastes.
You won't be using the same speakers or headphones used to master the recordings in the studios.
You won't be using the same hifi or headphones as the artists uses at home.
There are too many variables to make it worth worrying about those sorts of things.

 

[Fly2High]

To me, that is what an audiophile tries to accomplish - accurate representation of music.

They want to be an observer of the concert, not the conductor.

 

[JoaquinBenabentos]

Well, finally i got my V-MODA M-100. It’s all true the reference of the users about the bass. I can hear a extreme sub bass, the pads for me are confortable but I have small ears.

I found the treble a bit foward, I prefer a more reccesed treble because I hate ear fatigue, but anyway it’s not harsh and is tolerable. Without that peak on the 10k it Will be the best headphone i ever heard.

The only bad thing is that i bought a used headphone and one of the nut’s that connect the headband to the cops is a bit loose and I don’t have the ítem that v-moda send with the shields to adjust that nut, i Will try to find someone who have that ítem to adjust it…

Now listening last set of Miss Monique, that have huge bass extensión, really enjoying the sound signature.

I found them with a large soundstage and clearly defined mids. Cost / Benefit it’s imposible to find a better bass head headphone.

Last but not least, this headphones are beautifull. There are few over ear headphones that don’t make you look like a foul in the streets, this make you even look better

 

[StarTreker]

She thinks my headphones are sexy, it really turns her on. Glad you like your M100's, now you can enjoy life. Get yourself some EQ and drop the 10K -4DB, and I bet that be perfect for you.

I been feeling like dog crap lately, so it's back to speakers for me until I get well again, then I can devote my ears to Vmoda again lol.

 

[GearMe]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Something like Bowers & Wilkins P9 - totally not accurate. Sounds like a wonky, bloated mess.
Beyerdynamic DT1770 Pro - much closer to accurate. It sounds like adding a large sub-woofer to your setup.

In the end, there's no right or wrong answer, since you SHOULD be tuning to YOUR taste, not the artist.
Also, your ears are different to the artists, as are your tastes.
You won't be using the same speakers or headphones used to master the recordings in the studios.
You won't be using the same hifi or headphones as the artists uses at home.
There are too many variables to make it worth worrying about those sorts of things.

+1

It's amazing to me how many people fail to grasp this concept

Beyond this fundamental truth, recordings typically have processing that happens after the initial recording that alters the sound from what was originally recorded.

The processing can include:

Compression
Saturation
Equalization
Distortion and Harmonic Generation
Stereo Imaging
Delay
Reverb
Analog Emulation
...and others

So what is more accurate -- the original recording prior to the mixing engineer getting a hold of it or the final product which can sound quite different? One could spend their whole life chasing accuracy of playback at the expense of simply enjoying their music.

Indeed, there are too many variables to worry about.



I stopped being an Audiophile a while ago after spending a lot of $$$$$ in search of audio 'accuracy'. And...I have been much better off for it! For me, it's simply about enjoying the music (a Musicphile I guess).

I own a variety of headphones/iems with different sound signatures and enjoy them all. Honestly, when I hear the term 'Critical Listening' nowadays, I cringe. I'd rather listen to a set of cans that is less accurate if it gets my head boppin/feet tappin.

That said, to each his own. If the wonky, bloated P9 is somebody's thing, more power to them. If it's the DT1770 Pro, ditto. Regardless...hopefully they're enjoying the music first and foremost.

 

[Lolito]

I received a set of dt770 pro 80 ohm... tested them, very comfortable, very nice looking, very good pice, very sturdy looking and well constructed, looks like designed by the same guy that did all the 80's 911 porsche... BUT, mids are scooped, gone, disappeared, not in a 2nd plane, but at the very very back... no thanks. My HD25 in comparison are not as comfortable, not very resolving in resolution or tone compared to hd6xx, but they have ton of bass and mids are there, and treble too, all flat, except elevated sweet tasty bass...

So question is, what should I buy??? DT1770 PRO, or should I plunge those 850€ and get Audeze LCD 2C? Asking this for months now... DT 770 tested, thank you but not interested really.

 

[Mad Max]

ThSometimes yes, sometimes no.

Something like Bowers & Wilkins P9 - totally not accurate. Sounds like a wonky, bloated mess.
Beyerdynamic DT1770 Pro - much closer to accurate. It sounds like adding a large sub-woofer to your setup.

In the end, there's no right or wrong answer, since you SHOULD be tuning to YOUR taste, not the artist.
Also, your ears are different to the artists, as are your tastes.
You won't be using the same speakers or headphones used to master the recordings in the studios.
You won't be using the same hifi or headphones as the artists uses at home.
There are too many variables to make it worth worrying about those sorts of things.

Yeah, but most of the time, a balanced, flat-ish tonal balance gets you closest to the mixing engineer's intentions. Almost always, or else the end product will only sound good on very specific playback setups.

+1

It's amazing to me how many people fail to grasp this concept

Beyond this fundamental truth, recordings typically have processing that happens after the initial recording that alters the sound from what was originally recorded.

The processing can include:

Compression
Saturation
Equalization
Distortion and Harmonic Generation
Stereo Imaging
Delay
Reverb
Analog Emulation
...and others

So what is more accurate -- the original recording prior to the mixing engineer getting a hold of it or the final product which can sound quite different? One could spend their whole life chasing accuracy of playback at the expense of simply enjoying their music.

Indeed, there are too many variables to worry about.



I stopped being an Audiophile a while ago after spending a lot of $$$$$ in search of audio 'accuracy'. And...I have been much better off for it! For me, it's simply about enjoying the music (a Musicphile I guess).

I own a variety of headphones/iems with different sound signatures and enjoy them all. Honestly, when I hear the term 'Critical Listening' nowadays, I cringe. I'd rather listen to a set of cans that is less accurate if it gets my head boppin/feet tappin.

That said, to each his own. If the wonky, bloated P9 is somebody's thing, more power to them. If it's the DT1770 Pro, ditto. Regardless...hopefully they're enjoying the music first and foremost.

Literally nobody not looking to remaster the music cares about the raw recordings the mixing engineers made in order to put tracks together. Bringing this up is ridiculous to say the least.

"True hi-fi" will always be flat-ish tonal balance with a highly clinical sound, and that sure gets folks' heads boppin' and feet tappin'. No coloration imparted by listening gear should be even slightly necessary because the mixing and mastering engineers already took care of making the track great already, usually. This is the general mentality. Nothing cringe about it in the slightest.

Now, this is the Extreme Bass Thread, we want heavy bass boost with punch. F accuracy, lol

 

[JoaquinBenabentos]

I'm in the same direction, i bought the HD 280 pro from sennheiser cause of the "flat" response. They were the most boring headphones i ever listen. Then i bought the HD 25 from sennheiser and they have an absolut lack of sub bass, sharp treble... harsh treble and foward mids... also too boring and fatiguing in extreme ways...

The HDJ x10 from pioneer, again, a lot of detail but no bass. I don't think that "accurate" is a good thing anymore. If the engineer make a song with the bass reccesed and out of context in the mix i will prefer to enchance the bass, because for me bass is the most enjoyable part of music. That's it's simple my taste, it's ok for me that other people love the treble or the mids, i found them violent for my ears and give me fatigue.

 

[SonicFade]

This might be an odd one, but can anyone compare the ath m50x to the th900? I only say that because that’s what I have for bass and was let down by the lcd-x big time

 

[monkey4054]

This might be an odd one, but can anyone compare the ath m50x to the th900? I only say that because that’s what I have for bass and was let down by the lcd-x big time

Hahahah Not even from the same planet. TH900>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M50x

 

[GearMe]

Yeah, but most of the time, a balanced, flat-ish tonal balance gets you closest to the mixing engineer's intentions. Almost always, or else the end product will only sound good on very specific playback setups.



Literally nobody not looking to remaster the music cares about the raw recordings the mixing engineers made in order to put tracks together. Bringing this up is ridiculous to say the least.

"True hi-fi" will always be flat-ish tonal balance with a highly clinical sound, and that sure gets folks' heads boppin' and feet tappin'. No coloration imparted by listening gear should be even slightly necessary because the mixing and mastering engineers already took care of making the track great already, usually. This is the general mentality. Nothing cringe about it in the slightest.

Now, this is the Extreme Bass Thread, we want heavy bass boost with punch. F accuracy, lol

Get what you're saying and I own several 'accurate' headphones in addition to many that aren't as accurate.

But I've been to many live performances -- clubs with acoustic jazz quartets or blues groups, chamber music, rock concerts, and full orchestral classical -- and to my ears, I've found that mixing engineers can often get in the way more than they help records. Often, recordings have been processed with a variety of methods to 'improve' the sound that really don't increase the enjoyment for me.

One simple example of this has been the Loudness Wars (compression)...major cringe!

However, the real point that GREQ was making was that "there's no right or wrong answer, since you SHOULD be tuning to YOUR taste, not the artist" which I wholeheartedly agree with. My example was there simply to amplify his point regarding 'too many variables'. And yes, for me, the added processing that often happens from mixing engineers is not necessarily a plus.