[wigglepuff]

btw I have to ask, I and dont mean to offend anyone or do I know where to properly post this, But why on earth are people recommending the AT M50's for musical enjoyment when they are audio monitors, audio monitors are tuned neutral and near flat for the m50's case and are clearly not musical. bragging rights for being so called analytical and audiophile? >.>

 

[IzzyAxel]

The ATH-M50s were anything but flat or neutral to me, their FR was a rollercoaster of awful, really.

 

[AUDIOBREEDER]

  btw I have to ask, I and dont mean to offend anyone or do I know where to properly post this, But why on earth are people recommending the AT M50's for musical enjoyment when they are audio monitors, audio monitors are tuned neutral and near flat for the m50's case and are clearly not musical. bragging rights for being so called analytical and audiophile? >.>

Although some headphones are meant for studio use, many can be used for 'non-studio' uses. A perfect example the the Sony MDR-V6 which to me is the best headphone for the buck and sounds phenomenal with dance (trance, house, etc.). Only problem with it is it's long coil (but thats why they're meant for the studio)

 

[Claritas]

But why on earth are people recommending the AT M50's for musical enjoyment when they are audio monitors, audio monitors are tuned neutral and near flat for the m50's case and are clearly not musical. bragging rights for being so called analytical and audiophile? >.>

It's not flat. "Monitoring" That's just marketing most of the time. It's a good value for a closed portable.

 

[wigglepuff]

oh just marketing... how would it compare to the sony 7506, its not available in my country so I could not compare it with.

 

[Claritas]

oh just marketing... how would it compare to the sony 7506, its not available in my country so I could not compare it with.

One could actually use the Sony for monitoring, but it's bright so not really for mixing. M50 doesn't work well for either. But for listening I would prefer M50 because the Sony is too bright. In general (but only in general), you were right in supposing that "monitors" are less pleasant: many of them are too bright or too revealing for casual listening.

See also this thread about headphones for studio use.

 

[MrTechAgent]

One could actually use the Sony for monitoring, but it's bright so not really for mixing. M50 doesn't work well for either. But for listening I would prefer M50 because the Sony is too bright. In general (but only in general), you were right in supposing that "monitors" are less pleasant: many of them are too bright or too revealing for casual listening.

See also this thread about headphones for studio use.

 
Sony's are classic N-Shaped headphones , they are not exactly bright at least the one's I have heard , the monitoring classics have a rolled off upper treble with unnecessary peaks just after the presence region , they are grainy , harsh , and just unbearable ....They are okay due to their fair price but not even close to a Neutral headphone , same case with the m50  

 

[takato14]

  btw I have to ask, I and dont mean to offend anyone or do I know where to properly post this, But why on earth are people recommending the AT M50's for musical enjoyment when they are audio monitors, audio monitors are tuned neutral and near flat for the m50's case and are clearly not musical. bragging rights for being so called analytical and audiophile? >.>

Though the classification of the M50 as an actual monitor headphone is a major stretch, its not the fact that it's a monitor (or "tuned to be flat" as you put it) that makes it bad. Both of my Pioneer monitor headphones (Monitor 10 and Montior 10-II) are flat as a board and still manage to be two of the most musical sounding headphones I have ever used.
 
The M50 sounds bad for music simply because it's a bad headphone; I found it shrill, mid-centric, grainy, harsh, and EXTREMELY claustrophobic. They have no soundstage whatsoever; the sound is basically being smashed into your head with a sledgehammer, and the upper mids are cringe-inducing.

 

[wigglepuff]

  Though the classification of the M50 as an actual monitor headphone is a major stretch, its not the fact that it's a monitor (or "tuned to be flat" as you put it) that makes it bad. Both of my Pioneer monitor headphones (Monitor 10 and Montior 10-II) are flat as a board and still manage to be two of the most musical sounding headphones I have ever used.
 
The M50 sounds bad for music simply because it's a bad headphone; I found it shrill, mid-centric, grainy, harsh, and EXTREMELY claustrophobic. They have no soundstage whatsoever; the sound is basically being smashed into your head with a sledgehammer, and the upper mids are cringe-inducing.

Yup so they really are bad, well it doesn't matter I dont like them either lol. For me any good sounding headphone like the X1 that is also good for watching movies will do just fine. Not really into mixing and monitoring stuff, no to mention (no offence to anyone) that some people mix or monitor for the sake of FEELING or being looked at as cough* pro?

 

[HarleyZH]

I'm not the biggest fan of modern AKG headphones that I've heard, I tend to prefer warmer sound signatures overall - the ones I've tried are a little bit too cold/thin sounding for my tastes (Q701, K702). The K1000 is remarkable however.
 
I'm not much of a Grado fan either as they are too forward and aggressive for these ears, only the Bushmills X are enjoyable for me - being one of the darkest/warmest they ever made. I'd like to try some old blackstar drivers/HP1000 drivers though.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

The Sony 7506 was piercing to me. Couldn't stand it for 2 mins. And what would be Sony "house sound"? I don't think they have one.
 
As others have pointed out, ATH-M50 is anything but flat but neutral. It's comfortable to wear, though. The sound is just what you'd expect from a CLOSED headphones designed for music enjoyment. So I guess it's clearly not for mixing.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Can any1 please explain to me the house sound of Beyerdynamic, AKG and Audio Technica? Grado and Sennheiser, that's easy. Sony don't have one. 

 

[wigglepuff]

Are Sennheiser models mostly like this? - the bass department sounds expanded and sounds more fluid? opposite to AT solid base units especially the ws55x where it sounds ratatatata?
 
I only heard the hd202(the old version) not much senn available here so I can't compare accurately.

 

[Claritas]

We're gonna need another thread called "Which description of a house sound annoys you the most?"

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Or "Which description of a house sound is most confusing" lol.
 
Anw I think the ATH-AD900 and AD1000 certainly has something in common: the huge soundstage and somewhat distant sound. Not sure about the AD700 and the AD2000.
The DT770, DT880 and DT990 I'm not sure, since I've only tried the DT880 and found it to be too lifeless. But I suppose the Beyerdynamic house sound, if there is such a thing, would be based on its flagship the 880?
Can't say anything about the AKG, since I've only tried the K601 (and liked it alot).