Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2012 20:06:40 GMT
That's how I feel Frans. It's neither one nor the other. It's flattering if you're DI into a mixing board I guess. However, I'd rather use a DT150 because it's more comfortable and the cable comes off!!
I don't understand the hype around the M50 tbh.
The DT1350 is much closer to fitting the bill for both uses. Monitor and music. (Then again, it costs twice as much)
The funny thing is, I like the Beyer as is. Maybe I like that more analytical sound? They definitely help me tune in to different lines in a mix. M50 doesn't.
I can tune in to the M50 easily though and if you wear them for a little while, you kind of forget their limitations; however, I think it's also because both yourself and I know better headphones, Frans and perhaps to people coming from the other side, the M50 is comparatively good?
My feeling is that it's a music headphone and it kind of gives an image of looking solid and professional, although it doesn't really deliver enough to actually be a pro headphone imo.
For me, as disgusting as the Sony is able to sound on music, it is actually a 'useful' headphone. I guess for you, it's not as useful and the Beyer has spoilt you!!
I found that to a great extent with the K701. IO didn't particularly enjoy its presentation of music, although I know many do like it, but I liked the way it got in to the nitty gritty of recordings and you pick out very easily what was going on. That's probably why many think of it as a great headphone, but for me, the guts of the music is missing with them.
I need to hear the bass delivered fully; even at the expense of some detail for music listening. However, it's that deep bass that dies very quickly that I need, not the mid bass humps that so many headphones produce in an attempt to make them 'sound' like they produce a lot of bass.
I think once you've heard a headphone deliver that really low 'whack' and fade back as fast as the better headphones do with not too much 'after ring' you kind of feel that many headphones are basically a little bit lacking.
To me, the Sony gives that ice clarity up top but also delivers the 'impression' of a low bass whack, albeit detached somewhat from the rest. Try the Sony for detecting hum and hiss, Frans - it gets it easily!! (and distortion) Here's the curious thing - if you try mixing with them, the result isn't actually bad at all. They do the job.
I guess the white M50 is the same beast made up for Ipod people? (and pseudo K701 ers) ;D
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 3:11:53 GMT
I find the M50 does quite well as a hifi headphone, and I've given away Senn 800's, 600's, 650's, Shure 940 and 1440. Frankly I think it's a better listen than the Shure 1840.
The comment was made that it doesn't do well in instrument separation. Check out the FLAC copy of Jimmy Smith's Basin Street Blues from HDTracks - about 15 seconds in you get the second mass horn crescendo, and many headphones don't handle this well, but the M50 pulls the detail out nicely.
My recent experience with the M50 and Shure 1840 as well as the Philips L1 and the Beyers etc. has taught me that when I just don't think the M50 has the right stuff, it's pretty much always because my ears and brain are tuned to some other very different headphone, and when I take the time to get readjusted to the M50 I can hear all the good stuff with it too.
As to value, I have not heard anything to date in the $170 USD class that's remotely as good as the M50.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 5:22:57 GMT
They have either changed more than just the color or break-in is very real and completely f..ks up a HP.
The 1840 is bass light and extended. The M50 is bass heavy and not extended. For longer periods a rolled off warmer headphone is usually a better listen and I did mention it can be worn for longer periods without any fatigue setting in, even at higher SPL (as in a studio). It doesn't sound bad, but this one (Ian's studio HP), comes across to me as I describe it. Right next to a HD650, 7506, DT1350 (EQ-ed) that is.
If you feed it music that has a LOT of HF (detail) or even shrillness in it the M50 makes it a much better listen. The question is... does this mean when it changes a certain aspect that other HP's don't reproduce, as we like it but probably is recorded that way, (don't have the music, will check it) that it makes it a good headphone or is it a shortcoming that comes out really well compared to other HP's on this one. a masking effect..
I believe it was Chong that mentioned before every headphone you review seems to be the best you ever heard. We have not reviewed the same headphone (obviously) but IMO the SRH840 is better in general as the M50 to my ears (and sold the 840). It's also clamping like the old M50, warm on the ears, has good isolation and a warm soundsignature (similar to HD650) but isn't muddying the overall sound image.
Ofcourse you can hear every instrument on it and hear it separately, it's not when you compare to 7506 till it becomes painfully obvious it's not a disective tool (but is more musical) for in a studio or a top of the line hifi phone either.
I do hope they improved the driver/system so that aspect has been eliminated and perhaps they have and your version is the result of some improvements.
I certainly agree that when one uses a headphone for a longer time we get used to it. In some cases we forgive, P5 is rolled off but forgiven by many and the CAL for instance, is also a dark signature but not unpleasant when listened to for longer periods. It's when we compare directly the differences (shortcomings, strong points) start to show and for which purpose it is intended.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 6:08:50 GMT
If you check the old M50 curve, i.e. at Headroom, very bass heavy. But check the two newer curves at Innerfidelity, not at all bass heavy. The second one is what I have. I really dislike bass heavy headphones, and my M50 is not.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 6:10:19 GMT
BTW, the P5 is an utter piece of doggy do compared to my M50, and I have both. In fact I've had two P5's, both the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 6:28:25 GMT
That's what I found , Dale. Your head/ears kind of wear in to the headphone!! I've also found though, switching so many others after it reveals the top end limitations as well though.
I quite like the bass response, it's just the top is skewed too far down as a home listening headphone for me.
That's why I'm curious if the white version is different or whether it's just cosmetic.
It isn't an expensive headphone at about £130 ish in the UK but unfortunately, it's a bit too close to the Beyer DT150 in price for us and the Beyer is bigger, more comfortable and much more modular in construction. However, it also has a skewed down treble so they can be used at 'life' volume without pain and are very flattering to perform into.
However, for home use, I find those not extended enough as well, although they produce a really serious bass!!
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 6:32:33 GMT
When I review a headphone I take the optimistic view of it if I can. If I can't I don't review it, because I'm not reviewing for anyone, not even associated with anyone. But since you mention the reviews I've done I'll recap a few here.
New M50 - excellent after breakin, but does not sound great in direct comparison to neutral headphones that have good bass. Shure 1840 - best presence ever, good highs and mids, weak bass. I've lived with weak bass headphones for years at a time, i.e. Beyer DT48 for example, so I can do it, but after warming up to the M50 I can't go back - at least not now. Philips L1 - with bass reduction (same curve as ipod bass reducer) - an outstanding headphone, as good as or better than M50, probably better. One of these days I'll get around to a relisten. Beyer DT48A with oval pads - Best overall clarity and low distortion, but somewhat harsh and weak in the bass. If I had more time I'd work on an ideal EQ using the Foobar-compatible 30-band equalizer. Even then it's not very comfortable. B&W P5 - soft in highs, murky lows, a real blah! headphone. Very portable though. Sennheiser PX200ii with 'Rock' EQ: Best portable I've heard so far. Not very high fi in terms of clarity etc., but extremely well balanced and musical (with the EQ). Beyer DT1350 - outstanding potential if you modify the pads or whatever it takes to get a good seal. Shure 1440 - as good as or better than the 1840 with the earcup mod. Shure 940 - excellent overall except slightly bright. If I had one now I'd do the earcup mod same as the 1440, and it might be as good then as the 1440. Sennheiser 600/650 - good, but dumped 'em when I got the HD800. Sennheiser 800 - wonderful sound, no complaints about the sound. I didn't use it much because of the heavy cord and I like to move around - too restrictive for me. Great for testing music and gear though. Phiaton MS400 - great sound, needs bass reduction after which makes a good portable with very nice musical midrange. Vmoda M80 - Very good bass and OK mids, highs need a boost, the fit is fiddly and not 100 percent fixable. Grado PS500 - wonderful sound after 100 hz hump is EQ'd down a few DB. No complaints about fit. Contrary to many users' complaints about the build, I love the handmade look. Very pricy though. Bose OE2 - no highs to speak of. None. Boost the highs gives an impression of highs, but amazingly dull. Bose QC15 and AE2 - bass heavy and sound like they're made of a cheap plastic shell with no build at all but EQ'd to sound like what Beats people like. Bose QC3 - worst headphone I ever heard. EQ doesn't help.
Those are my permanent impressions, for the record.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 6:35:53 GMT
That's what I found , Dale. Your head/ears kind of wear in to the headphone!! I've also found though, switching so many others after it reveals the top end limitations as well though. I quite like the bass response, it's just the top is skewed too far down as a home listening headphone for me. That's why I'm curious if the white version is different or whether it's just cosmetic. It isn't an expensive headphone at about £130 ish in the UK but unfortunately, it's a bit too close to the Beyer DT150 in price for us and the Beyer is bigger, more comfortable and much more modular in construction. However, it also has a skewed down treble so they can be used at 'life' volume without pain and are very flattering to perform into. However, for home use, I find those not extended enough as well, although they produce a really serious bass!! The M50 I have is only the second headphone I've heard 16-17 khz with, the other being the Beyer DT48 series. But whereas the Beyer is peaky and choppy, the M50 is fairly smooth from the mids up to 16 khz. So how that sounds to you I don't know, but my M50 is definitely not treble shy in any sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 6:56:46 GMT
If you check the old M50 curve, i.e. at Headroom, very bass heavy. But check the two newer curves at Innerfidelity, not at all bass heavy. The second one is what I have. I really dislike bass heavy headphones, and my M50 is not. The graphs from headroom and Tyll (Tyll was the one that measured them for HR) are about the same. They just differ in scale and 'smoothing' is higher in the HR graphs. Both graphs show a +5dB at 100Hz opposite the midrange and a drop of in the highs from 10kHz onward. The comments on the above mentioned site coincide with mine (and Ian's) as well This graph also shows this: www.headphoneinfo.com/content/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Over-ear-Headphones-Review/Sound-Quality.htmGranted it's not the best graph out there and stops at 100Hz but is essentially saying the same (+5dB at 100Hz) and rolled of highs. read the comments about this headphone. They sound familiar to me. Also: goldenears.net/board/1447071see how there is a +5dB at 100Hz and how the highs are rolled off. They are pretty close to their green line but drop below it above 2kHz giving it it's darker sound and loosing 'disective' details with it. These are not needed anyway during mixing and will prompt the one mixing into increasing the highs to get it to sound right. As said they are like-able headphones they just don't cut it when it comes to disecting (DT1350, 7506) and have a tad too much bass emphasis around 100Hz and too rolled of highs to be a really good hifi phone. Other than that they are a pleasant listen, certainly nice with some recordings. The ones you have must be very different from the black version. (black = darker sound? white = brighter sound ?) Perhaps they are different, but cannot find anything about them on the AT website. Perhaps they are a new product and would be promissing indeed and make them into a hifi phone (less bass enhancement and highs extention) That would turn them in excellent hifi phones IMO
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 7:02:22 GMT
Some more detail about the new M50 sound: The deep bass rise I have no problem with, the only fault there is some tracks with boominess get too boomy or muddy so volume goes down a little - not a significant problem for me. The amplifier helps a lot. Highs are generally smooth but I notice more sibilance etc. on some tracks than with the Shure or Philips. Again, not a major problem. If there's anything that I think really picky people won't like it's the sense of balance esp. in the mids - I don't know how to describe it, but the Shure 1840 and Philips L1 (EQ'd) are better in that respect. Normally I would not be very tolerant of colorations esp. in the mids, but somehow I'm getting along well with this headphone.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 7:08:47 GMT
If you check the old M50 curve, i.e. at Headroom, very bass heavy. But check the two newer curves at Innerfidelity, not at all bass heavy. The second one is what I have. I really dislike bass heavy headphones, and my M50 is not. The graphs from headroom and Tyll (Tyll was the one that measured them for HR) are about the same. They just differ in scale and 'smoothing' is higher in the HR graphs. Both graphs show a +5dB at 100Hz opposite the midrange and a drop of in the highs from 10kHz onward. The comments on the above mentioned site coincide with mine (and Ian's) as well. This graph also shows this: www.headphoneinfo.com/content/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Over-ear-Headphones-Review/Sound-Quality.htmGranted it's not the best graph out there and stops at 100Hz but is essentially saying the same (=5dB at 100Hz) read the comments about this headphone. Also: goldenears.net/board/1447071see how there is a +5dB at 100Hz and how the highs are rolled off. They are pretty close to their green line but drop below it above 2kHz giving it it's darker sound and loosing 'disective' details with it. These are not needed anyway during mixing and will prompt the one mixing into increasing the highs to get it to sound right. As said they are like-able headphones they just don't cut it when it comes to disecting (DT1350, 7506) and have a tad too much bass emphasis around 100Hz and too rolled of highs to be a really good hifi phone. Other than that they are a pleasant listen, certainly nice with some recordings. The ones you have must be very different from the black version. (black = darker sound? white = brighter sound ?) Perhaps they are but cannot find anything about them on the AT website. Perhaps they are really new and would be promissing indeed and make them into a hifi phone (less bass enhancement and highs extention) That would turn them in excellent hifi phones IMO The Grado PS500 is heavy around 100 hz, by only 5 db I think. The Bose QC15 and AE2 are bass heavy in that area. The Philips L1 is even more bass heavy around 100 hz. But the M50 I have has none of that. I use no EQ - it sounds perfect with a gentle rise below about 60 hz to 30 hz. I am extremely sensitive to extra warmth around 100 hz, and could not stand the PS500 un-EQ'd. But the M50 has no such problem. And I get a very good seal with sweat buildup in the cups. I do not hear 15 and 16 khz on the Shures, nor on the Senn 800, nor on the DT1350, nor the Philips, etc. etc. But I hear clearly all the way up to 16 khz with the M50. It does not fit your description at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 7:19:37 GMT
Your description does not match mine nor those of the graphs.
So... they are either quite different M50's (color AND drivers !) or we (you?) just perceive things differently.
It seems it is a slightly more expensive limited edition version of the normal ATH-M50 as far as I can see. There is also an even more expensive version in silver color.
It seems it is being targetted for a different group (fashionable young people, think Monster Beats).
from headroom: the M50 White offers the same remarkable clarity and musical detail with a cleanly reproduced extension both high & low that will surprise many when comparing to other sealed headphones near this price. So it seems to be similar to the black version.
Ian has more of these ? and I expect them all to sound the same ? They sure seem to sound exactly how they measure though... very puzzeling.
I think Ian was right on this point he made: I think it's also because both yourself and I know better headphones may actually account for the perceived differences in character and extension (which HR claims is there but is not shown in their graphs).
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 13:33:56 GMT
Your description does not match mine nor those of the graphs. So... they are either quite different M50's (color AND drivers !) or we (you?) just perceive things differently. I think Ian was right on this point he made: I think it's also because both yourself and I know better headphones may actually account for the perceived differences in character and extension (which HR claims is there but is not shown in their graphs). I don't think my unique perceptions account for the differences I can hear in the different headphones. The quantity of differences I hear are subjective, but where they occur in the spectrum should be accurate like other headphones I've evaluated. Looking again at those graphs, Headroom has one graph and Innerfidelity has two. Headroom shows +/- 1 db from 300 to 2000 hz, and +6.5 db broadly in the bass except for a dip at 75 hz. So bass heavy by about 6.5 db. IF's old M50 shows a broad rise in the mids and falloff in the lower bass - the opposite of what everyone reports including me??? The M50 '2012' graph -2.5 to -5 db from 200 to 2000 hz and about zero from 20 to 150 hz, so about 3.5 db bass heavy is my best guess, or 3 db less bass heavy than Headroom's graph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 15:03:52 GMT
I can only see 1 graph from IF (Black 2012)
I agree with you, it shows indeed the new version (so the white one also I reckon) has a 2dB increase between 200Hz and 2kHz which the older type (the one I have) doesn't have. Effectively lowering the excess lows by 2dB compared to the older M50 which is quite audible, and aside from the rolled of top end, it confirms your findings about bass, muddyness and separation being accurate.
You should try to see if you can borrow an old one somewhere just for a comparison side by side.
When looking at the grey raw plots these do not appear to have overblown bass which is muddying and masking mids and highs resulting in less separation. The other plots (older types ?) on the other 3 websites show exactly what I am hearing (too much lows and rolled of highs)
The newer version you have seems MUCH more desirable as the old version (because of the more accurate bass levels). Even the rolled of highs appear to be slightly better and are also less masked by the relatively lower bass levels as well. They certainly only seem to have a mild roll-off similar to an HD650. Not in the way the other plots (and my ears) show for the older model.
Compare the M50 (grey lines) with the grey lines of the DT1350 and see how the DT1350 is smoother and has higher (flatter) levels above 10kHz (not rolled off).
I will audition a new one when I can find one on display somewhere as it seems they did improve the drivers lately. It has peaked my interest. I concur with your shortlist in post #33 as far as I know the ones you tested. Effectively it is more telling than lengthy write-ups.
What's strange is I can't find anything official on AT's website about the drivers or something being changed lately. One would think it could be used as an 'improved' argument for sales purposes.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 16:23:18 GMT
Check the 'Allgraphs' PDF at Innerfidelity for the May Update. You'll see the 2012 M50 first then below that the old M50.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 16:30:29 GMT
I would add that the new M50 is nothing like the DT1350. The 1350 sounds almost sterile in the warmth zone, unless you get a better seal than me. The 1350 also has tighter and better defined deep bass than the M50. But even though the M50's lower end from about 150 hz down isn't very tight, well defined, highly detailed etc., I'm finding it to be very satisfactory even though all of the other headphones I hear as "bassy" I don't like the bassy effect. This is a perfect example of why I don't do the head-fi schtick in my reviews - reading page after page of nitpicking on a lot of these details, in the end I don't feel I've made good use of my time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 17:02:05 GMT
Yes, I agree Dale. I get a great seal with the standard earpads on the 1350 and bass indeed does hit hard. I can see though that many may find getting a seal a bit difficult and it's something that I notice straight away if the pads aren't in the right place for me. They sound almost like a cheap pair of headphones with loads of mids and not a lot else. Once the seal is right, they lift a lot.
AT were a bit quiet about these changes. I can confirm that all my M50's sound the same and with a slight lift at the top, they'd be better. I guess the new ones are all white? I must admit, you have me curious now. It sounds like the M50 is in a new 'improved' version.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 17:06:27 GMT
AT were a bit quiet about these changes. I can confirm that all my M50's sound the same and with a slight lift at the top, they'd be better. I guess the new ones are all white? I must admit, you have me curious now. It sounds like the M50 is in a new 'improved' version. It looks to me like what they did was, they took a look at all the M50 discussion on the Web and said "Hey, let's make the white one, and while we're at it, improve the sound, and let's make a million of them and set the price to beat all of our competition." Mine does not need a lift at the top. Not at all. Just a slight fix in the mids.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 17:17:11 GMT
I just did an instant reality check on the M50, to qualify what I think is the only significant problem. Using Cat Stevens' Morning Has Broken, the EQ'd Philips L1 (which has an almost perfect signature except maybe a little too much treble) sounds just right in the midrange, very clear, perhaps a little forward, but very nice. The M50 sounds not so much distant in the mids as slightly muffled. And the M50 has a slight boominess that the EQ'd Philips does not have. So given the EQ'd Philips' treble emphasis, if I reduce that the M50 does not sound quite as muffled in the mids then by comparison. But the slight boomy sound isn't subtle, so maybe that would bother people more than me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 17:45:12 GMT
I hope not!! What a way to work - reactive rather than proactive. They could have a few disgruntled old M50 owners out there who could feel diddled!! You'd think they'd test/listen to it properly themselves before release wouldn't you? For me, the treble on the old version takes on a 'mushy' timbre and isn't a nice clean sound but if that were cleaned up on the new, it would be a much better headphone; especially at that price level. The construction is tough and they passed my' RG known' sit test. I have a terrible habit of taking headphones off and forgetting only to find them later in a place I'd rather not find them after sitting down!! Many a good headphone has ended up gaffer taped after that. The M50 is a nice comfortable one to sit on because it goes flat!! It would be nice to find a less warm pad for them too. Does the new version have that dip in FR between 5 and 6 Khz? It's a little bit low. Normally, to make a headphone sound mellow, the dip is slightly higher up to compensate for ear canal resonance (if they have a dip there).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 18:51:25 GMT
I took all the graphs I could find. Matched them in amplitude and FR and lined them up. This is the result. When overlaying Tyll's and Golden ears graphs they appeared to be extremely similar in shape. The older Headroom and headphone info graph also seem to match between the 2 and show an increase in bass levels opposite GE and IF graphs. It looks like something changed along the way but is not related to the white version as the black GE version aready is similar as well. The GE is from jan 2012 so the change was probably not that long ago. en.goldenears.net/10034Also scroll down and read 6. reviewers opinion. The new ones are available in white, black and silver. It appears as though the roll-off is the same in the new and old version and only the bass level is reduced. Since the resonance also is reduced, the little dip shifted from 70Hz in the old version to 100Hz in the new version and is reduced in amplitude, it appears as they did some dampening in either the membrane, housing or port action to reduce the lows. I will try and see if I can mod the M50 to obtain somewhat similar results in the lows. It having less lows also brings out the mids and highs a bit more. The dips in the higher frequencies can also come from the mechanical earcanal towards the microphone to 'show' what is heard. The roll-off is real eventhough it may not appear to be that rolled off as it is masked by the peak near 9kHz.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 18:53:28 GMT
I'll have to do some tests for that dip, although I don't hear anything amiss now. The dullness in midrange may be just a drop in the presence region like the Shure 1840 has, but where the Shure doesn't sound dull it's probably because the Shure doesn't have that full low end like the M50 has. So it's not really easy separating the actual sound qualities because they impact on each other.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 18:55:57 GMT
How can you have a rolloff in a headphone that produces more highs above 10 khz than a Sennheiser 800?
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Jun 21, 2012 18:57:23 GMT
BTW, the -20 db dip at 5.5 khz is less than the 1350's dip in that region.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 19:08:39 GMT
Hmm this is weird... Acc to Tyll's graphs the old version has considerable less bass than the 2012 version... here you can download ALL of Tyll's graphs collected in one 'book': www.innerfidelity.com/images/AllGraphs.pdfIt also shows the 2012 version of the D2000 has more and deeper bass than the previous version. It seems pad related as you can see in the graph book above.
|
|