[Beagle]

Quote:

Im interested, ever since Joker reviewed th ZX700.
 
and to my picky self, sony V6 dethroned the M50 since before the M50 was created.

Sure, if you like your "king's" top end to peak then abruptly cut off around 8kHz..
 

 

[Kukuk]

Quote:

Sure, if you like your "king's" top end to peak then abruptly cut off around 8kHz..
 

 
He probably likes mids that aren't recessed. I know I do.

 

[kiteki]

Quote:

Quote:

From the portable headphone shootout it seems like the Denon HP700, CAL!, Superlux 688b, AKG181 and M-audio Q40 are all right up there with it for about the same price.

For sure, but those are portable headphones, and the ZX700, T50RP and AD700/900 aren't there, thanks for pointing it out though.
 
 

 

[zammykoo]

I demo'd the zx700 at a local Sony store and wasn't all that impressed by it. I felt like even my v6 was much better sounding than that. I have also owned the m50 and while it's been a while since I have last heard it... I think it still sounded better than the zx700.
 
As far as build quality, the m50 owns the zx700. The zx's all plastic body felt light/cheap. Although I would have to say the zx's were very comfortable and would be much better for extended listening than the m50.
 
In conclusion, I think my v6 beats both, and m50 comes in at second. Maybe this still means that Sony still dethrones m50?

 

[kiteki]

Sony seems to like making their headphones very light, which sometimes makes them feel cheap.
 
Example: my EX700 IEM's are very light, which have always made me feel like the build-quality isn't quite up there and it's just some kind of plastic, then when a tiny piece of paint chipped off I noticed they are acutally made out of magnesium alloy which is the lightest metal around after lithium.....

 

[astroid]

I dont think the Sonys seem cheap at all, solid m no creaking few parts , an very well designed product imo.
Most headphonses i have kept dont "wow" you on first listen, ones that do tend to fatigue quite quickly , the HD25-1 was like that for me.

 

[JeckyllAndHyde]

Quote:

I dont think the Sonys seem cheap at all, solid m no creaking few parts , an very well designed product imo.
Most headphonses i have kept dont "wow" you on first listen, ones that do tend to fatigue quite quickly , the HD25-1 was like that for me.

Funny, it was other way with HD-25 to me - I think of them as solid allround headphones - without particular flaws. I prefer my V7 recently - better looking on my head
Tried M50s many times and was unimpressed - "not bad" - was always my opinion. Will try the ZX700 if i got the opportunity.

 

[keanex]

Quote:

Your description of no treble is confusing , i listen to a wide range of genres and a lack of treble would make itself known to me very easily and it just is not the case with the ZX700.
 
The innerfidelity review (http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/sony-mdr-zx700) has measurements for the Sony and while they are not technically great they show no issue with the treble.
 
Tyll describes the Sony as :
 
"I heard the ZX700 as having a moderately forward mid-range; slightly below average bass extension, but good articulation; and slightly grainy, but well-balanced, highs. For a headphone of this price, I felt the Sonys delivered a very nicely balanced sound. When compared to the M50 and SRH440, I found the ZX700 to have a better overall balance. The heftier mid-range did a lot to bring the music together into a unified whole. While it didn't have the meaty bass, it also didn't suffer from the somewhat more strident highs of the other two cans."
 
My milage is more in line with this.
 

I don't know about you, but that shows a very steep treble drop off after 10k.
 
I was excited to find a decent bass oriented headphone for "fun" listening by your misleading thread title, but was left unimpressed.
 

 

[astroid]

The ZX700 is not bass orientated , dont get them expecting PHAT bass.
 
Quote:

I don't know about you, but that shows a very steep treble drop off after 10k.
 
I was excited to find a decent bass oriented headphone for "fun" listening by your misleading thread title, but was left unimpressed.
 

 

 

[keanex]

That's my point, these aren't M50 competitors at all. They don't have nearly the same sound, nor are they really being targeted at the same audience.

 

[astroid]

Ok , they are both of a similar size and price , they are both used for listening to music....
 
I know people love their M50's but you cant disqualify a set of headphones from comparison because the sig is slightly different.
 
M50 users are quiet willing to recommend them to basically anyone and as portables so the ZX700 is a fair comparison IMO. 

 

[keanex]

The signature seems pretty huge in difference from what I'm seeing and hearing. The M50 are heavy in bass, the ZX700 charts show rather weak bass response. The M50 have recessed mids, the ZX700 are being described as mid-centric. The highs on the M50 leave something to be desired, but the ZX700 cut off around 10k and drop pretty fast. Either the Innerfidelity charts are far off, or these headphones aren't even close. 
 
It's obvious I've never tried these, but the glaring differences are the mids and lows, they have a completely different sound signature. They're not comparable.
 
Edit: The only thing they have in comparison is that they both are "portables" which is a rather poor comparison.

 

[astroid]

What are the two distinct audiences you see for these cans?
 
What headphones is it 'fair' to compare?
 
Is it 'unfair' to compare a Grado with a Sennheiser?
 
Can you compare an open with a closed, how about a red pair with a black pair?
 
 
Look Tyll at innerfedelity compared them :
 
In the end, I moderately preferred the Sony MDR-ZX700 to the other two cans. The M50 was close, but it's also somewhat more expensive. Bass lovers should probably go with one of the other cans, but I think the better balance of the ZX700 would win over most folks in the long run .
 
Was he wasting his time?
 


 
Quote:

The signature seems pretty huge in difference from what I'm seeing and hearing. The M50 are heavy in bass, the ZX700 charts show rather weak bass response. The M50 have recessed mids, the ZX700 are being described as mid-centric. The highs on the M50 leave something to be desired, but the ZX700 cut off around 10k and drop pretty fast. Either the Innerfidelity charts are far off, or these headphones aren't even close. 
 
It's obvious I've never tried these, but the glaring differences are the mids and lows, they have a completely different sound signature. They're not comparable.
 
Edit: The only thing they have in comparison is that they both are "portables" which is a rather poor comparison.

 

 

[KaliKot]

The ZX700 has wonderful mids but it has pretty anemic bass. It's good for the price but nothing that would make me pick it over the M50
 
the ZX1000 on the other hand...**** that thing is an eargasm!

 

[200poundsofamp]

Quote:

For sure, but those are portable headphones, and the ZX700, T50RP and AD700/900 aren't there, thanks for pointing it out though.
 
 

He has a real loose definition of portable though, there's quite a few full size on there.
 
And I think he added the ZX700 not too long ago, check it out.