CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Headphone Measurements => Topic started by: ultrabike on November 17, 2013, 08:10:10 AM
-
Tode sent these my way, and found them really nice in many ways. Thanks mang! :money:
Sound
I heard and jotted down my impressions about these cans before taking measurements:
These definitively have a warm tilt to them. Deep clean quality bass though. Punchy. Very exciting and involving. They seem to have some mids scoop there. Kind of like an artificial room colouration. Not exactly reverb, but similar. Mids are not annoying at all, but a little odd. The lower treble seems a little emphasized. There is some sibilance for sure. Not Beyertiguing tho. However, they seem to roll off quick at the upper treble. Not much air.
These are very efficient. Lots of headroom.
I like them quite a bit. There are not neutral IMO, but are very involving, and fun.
Comfort
Light. Not too loose, not too tight. Cccrrreamy. Comfy. Pads... :-* :-* :-*
Presentation
The headband is a bit too straight on the top. That said, when I look at these I think Ferrari. Whatever. They are nice.
Price
Competitive. Not a bargain, but not ridiculous given what's out there. They look quality. Wish they were cheaper tho.
Overall
Not shit.
Measurements
Frequency Response (range is the same 30 dB as previous measurements, but not normalized to 100 dB)
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4640;image)
Distortion Right
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4642;image)
Distortion Left
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4644;image)
CSD Right
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4646;image)
CSD Left
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4648;image)
-
These measurements look quite a bit different compared to the ones Tyll posted on IF, particularly the 6khz dip which shows up even on the uncompensated curve.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/NADVISOHP50.pdf
I have a pair as well, and from listening so far I don't hear any siblance at all and no lower treble emphasis, in fact it sounds a bit shelved starting from the upper mids. It's presentation is a lot warmer than say my Paradox, which some people say have a slight low treble peak. Even my HD580 had more treble presence all throughout.
I actually wonder if they've been retuned a bit since the earlier batches. Pretty certain I'd be able to hear that 5khz peak, considering the ringing. I'd provide a serial number but I can't find any. Thanks for posting!
-
You're sure you would? This peak is 4 dB, less if you take 500 Hz as reference, and less than bass boost.
The peaks are wide resonances, so it should sound less like razors of death, more like room reverb.
The mid hole disappears after a short time delay, so does the bass boost.
Do you have any pics of those?
Also, I haven't seen any midrange blip in my Paradox - there is a high treble "less cut" region around 6k.
-
OH I just remembered something.
@ultrabike: What cables were used when performing the measurement? Was it the stock cable?
Because I remember switching cables, and it produced strange effects due to the headphone being dual entry TRRS. When I used a normal TRS to TRS interconnect with the pico and on my clip+, the mids got recessed but the sound was still alright. It was only when I really pressed the plug in with significant pressure that the sound normalized.
Right now I'm using the V-Moda one button cable for TRRS jacks, and the not very good quality stock cable for normal 3.5mm jacks like those on PMPs and amps because the only TRS to TRS 3.5mm interconnect that works fine has been a really stiff audioquest cable.
You're sure you would? This peak is 4 dB, less if you take 500 Hz as reference, and less than bass boost.
The peaks are wide resonances, so it should sound less like razors of death, more like room reverb.
The mid hole disappears after a short time delay, so does the bass boost.
Do you have any pics of those?
Also, I haven't seen any midrange blip in my Paradox - there is a high treble "less cut" region around 6k.
Pics of what? Good point regarding the wide resonances at 5khz, I should test that out first because I'm not sure what that would actually sound like. I imagine that dip at 3k combined with the peak at 5k would result in a distinct sound for the headphone though, one that would be easily audible.
-
I used the short stock cable. I think I measured about 0.5 ohms on the ground connection, and about 0.9 ohms on ring, and 0.8 ohms on tip. It is a 4 conductor connector on the headphone end, and it seemed that the first sleeve was open. It's a pretty short run of cable and would have expected less impedance, but it's not that bad.
Another possible problem is that my 2i2 is about 10 ohms out and these cans are about 36 ohms according to IF characterization. The impedance peaks a little between 2 to 6 kHz, and then again 10 kHz and above. This may bring the lower treble up a little. I'll test again with my Sansa Zip.
I did not see a 6 kHz null in any of the measurements. Perhaps there is some product variation. These definitively had some sparkle to them when I heard them on my setup.
I thought I heard more sibilance than my HD558s. However, I didn't compare them with my KSC-75s. I will try them/measure them again with the different cable. I will also measure the can's impedance.
-
I did a quick comparo again, and the sibilance
is pretty minor actually. Probably somewhere in between HD558s and KSC-75s. though not offensive seems actually higher than my KSC75s. Dunno if its the combination of roll off around the upper treble and mids that accentuate this for me. The bass on these is really nice and tight however. I did feel it had some mids depression. But IMO these are not lower treble lacking. A little emphasis there, but I think it adds excitement for lack of a better word.
Here are the impedance measurements which seem to agree well with IF. Seems mostly resistive in the audio range:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4650;image)
I unfortunately only have two cables available for these (the ones w and w/o the volume control) and using either did not change the FR much. However, what did change the FR a little was which cup the cable was attached to. This was repeatable (multiple times, even if I use one or the other cable). Is a fairly subtle change between ~250 and 600 Hz of about 1 dB. Cup re-positioning might give more variation that that.
FR of right channel with cable attached to different cups (light blue is right entry, light yellow is left entry - both are right channel):
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4652;image)
Compare FR with KSC-75 (right channel yellow):
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4654;image)
Compare FR with Alpha Dogs (right channel yellow):
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4656;image)
Compare FR with HD558 (right channel yellow):
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4658;image)
-
Nice comparo !
The levelplot differences with the cable swap is a bit suspect....
The 1.5dB difference around 400Hz (as well as 40Hz) cannot come from the cable as:
A: the impedance is almost linear there.
B: The calculated level difference between the 2 cable 'sections' is around 0.025dB, would be between 0.022dB and 0.0255dB depending on the frequency.
-
Nice comparo !
Thanks :)
The levelplot differences with the cable swap is a bit suspect....
The 1.5dB difference around 400Hz (as well as 40Hz) cannot come from the cable as:
A: the impedance is almost linear there.
B: The calculated level difference between the 2 cable 'sections' is around 0.025dB, would be between 0.022dB and 0.0255dB depending on the frequency.
Yup. I don't think it's the cables either since I got the same results independent of the two cables that came with the HP50s. It's likely something in the headphone end... connectors, internal wiring, smurfs, dunno.
Here is a new set of FR measurements (like 10 minutes ago - right driver only) where all I did was go back and forth between connecting the cans through the right cup or the left cup (the NAD in it's awesomeness allows you to use either cup to plug the cable):
2nd time around:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4661;image)
3rd time around:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4663;image)
4th time around (zoom in):
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4665;image)
5th time around with the other cable w volume control (zoom in) - noisiness on the left cable entry is background noise:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4667;image)
It looks a little worse in the original post above (#5) because the FR plot is a little taller there, but the magnitudes seem consistent.
It's really splitting hairs different, and really don't think this is an issue at all.
-
Really weird, especially the repeatability !
It is also in the same magnitude and frequency range.
The impedance plot doesn't give any clues either and would need to vary substantially at that point in order to create this difference in level.
No clues from the HD plots.. hard to tell from the CSD for obvious reasons as well.
What happens if you plot the impedance with the 2 different cables and what happens with HD with the cable L-R swap ?
-
Puzzling right? If I find something I'll post about it. Could be wrong, but don't think it's a problem.
Anyhow, here is the original impressions linky:
http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1211.msg32563.html#msg32563 (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1211.msg32563.html#msg32563)
I think Anetode is right on the spot on the 3-4 kHz weirdness. Definitive good bass extension, and impact is there. I also felt instrument separation was quite good. The clamp is tight, but my head is probably on the narrower side of things, and me likes creamy leathery pads. Again, very good set of closed cans.
-
Do you think there may be an acoustic leak from the jack hole? Maybe try pluging the unused jack with a bit of bluetack and measure. V-Modas come with a rubber plug to seal the unused side. Just curious.
-
Could be production variation? We've been down this road before with the K550 where I heard two nasty ones, one kinda bad, and finally one pretty darn good (confirmed via measurements too.)
-
Tried some more things...
What happens if you plot the impedance with the 2 different cables and what happens with HD with the cable L-R swap ?
Don't think it's cables since same behavior happens if I swap them. Also the HD plots are fairly close with the L-R cable swap. Nothing obvious. Those are good ideas though.
Do you think there may be an acoustic leak from the jack hole? Maybe try pluging the unused jack with a bit of bluetack and measure. V-Modas come with a rubber plug to seal the unused side. Just curious.
That, was it! headbang
For the right driver:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4669;image)
-
Don't think it's cables since same behavior happens if I swap them. Also the HD plots are fairly close with the cable swap. Nothing obvious.
I don't think it's the cables either now. When I questioned the cables, it was because of some jacks worked well with replacement cables despite them having only one ring on both sides. Some didn't though, like the jacks used in the O2. I appreciate that you took the time to repeat the measurements. I never questioned the accuracy, only the differences between the ones you took and the ones on IF...
Do you think there may be an acoustic leak from the jack hole? Maybe try pluging the unused jack with a bit of bluetack and measure. V-Modas come with a rubber plug to seal the unused side. Just curious.
That, was it! headbang
...Which you seem to have figured out? :)p1
Did plugging the hole change the sound any?
Regardless of the outcome, I think the HP50 is a really good headphone as well. I love the bass, it's very well controlled yet with good extension. The treble sounds a little shelved, but it still has enough sparkle and never feels lacking. I'm still thinking it's possible production variation after listening for siblance again in the 3-5k region, which I really don't hear even when compared with other headphones.
-
Had to look for pictures to see why a headphone plug would leak.
I had 'Sennheiser' cable entries in mind but it is a single entry cable that can be plugged in on either earpiece ?
I wonder why NAD did not use 'sealed' connectors or at least had the idea to create a sealed chamber on the inside for the connectors.
-
Could be production variation? We've been down this road before with the K550 where I heard two nasty ones, one kinda bad, and finally one pretty darn good (confirmed via measurements too.)
FWIW, Paul Barton talk quite at length with me about having to beat the shit out of the manufacturer on an ongoing basis about quality and repeatability issues. Seems to me these shouldn't suffer from unit to unit variations...much.
-
Very possible.
-
D'oh! I meant "shouldn't"...fxt.
-
Do you think there may be an acoustic leak from the jack hole?
I have this problem sometimes...
edit: bam, now my sig
-
D'oh! I meant "shouldn't"...fxt.
:)p13 Impressions wise, and going by IF's review, I don't think we see these cans that different though: warm, punchy, with well extended and tight bass, good balance in the mids, slight boost in the mid-treble, and not as airy and open as open headphones.
I felt, like Tode, that there was something going on in the upper-mids and lower-treble, but proly not bad compared to other closed type cans.
-
With hardcore equalization these could perhaps even sound neutral and good. Care to try?
-
They have quite a bit of SNR from bass to mid-treble and no deep nulls, so probably pretty equalize-able. However, the default tuning sounded overall fairly good to me. From Tyll's interview with Paul, I think the goal was to tune the cans to emulate speakers in a good listening room environment, as opposed to uber-flat neutrality.
I do personally prefer a little more neutral overall signature (not ruler flat though), somewhat more upper mids, little less mid treble energy, and perhaps more air, but these cans are fairly good IMO.
-
Thanks ultrabike for taking the time to do all these measurements!
Regardless of the outcome, I think the HP50 is a really good headphone as well. I love the bass, it's very well controlled yet with good extension. The treble sounds a little shelved, but it still has enough sparkle and never feels lacking. I'm still thinking it's possible production variation after listening for siblance again in the 3-5k region, which I really don't hear even when compared with other headphones.
There's definite weirdness around the upper-mid/treble boundary, but like the HD800s peak/resonance it's only pronounced in some songs. Glossy pop with boosted treble sounds a little grating and electric guitar doesn't sound quite right.
The bass is quite boosted in the graphs, I think what saves it during listening is that it's fairly tight - quick decay and low distortion, not bloated like a similar response would feel like on, say, a grado or skullcandy.
-
Great measurement and FU's, Ultrabike!
BTW, what curve did you use for the compensation here? (It looks like neither ID-HRTF nor DFE)
Anyway, both IF and these set of measurements point out the followings
- Quite recessed response around 3k comparing with 'flat' compensated by Diffuse-field
- Slightly boosted response on bass regions
I'm seriously guessing that Paul Barton might utilize Dr Olive's findings [2] as well as Dr Lorho's [1] ones.
[1] Lorho, G. (2009, May). Subjective evaluation of headphone target frequency responses. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 126. Audio Engineering Society.
[2] Olive, S., Welti, T., & McMullin, E. (2013, May). Listener Preferences for Different Headphone Target Response Curves. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 134. Audio Engineering Society.
-
I'm seriously guessing that Paul Barton might utilize Dr Olive's findings [2] as well as Dr Lorho's [1] ones.
[1] Lorho, G. (2009, May). Subjective evaluation of headphone target frequency responses. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 126. Audio Engineering Society.
[2] Olive, S., Welti, T., & McMullin, E. (2013, May). Listener Preferences for Different Headphone Target Response Curves. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 134. Audio Engineering Society.
Your guess is right on the nose. Oh and welcome! +Karma for proper citation formatting :money:
-
I'm actually not using compensation in any of the measurements. Coupling materials seem to take care of that to some extent. This makes CSD, FR, and other measurements somewhat comparable. Not necessarily saying this is the right way of doing it, but so far the results seem to correlate more or less with what I hear.
-
I am very sensitive to anything going on in the upper mids to the lower treble section of the sound of cans and speakers so I will report when I get to listen to Sforza's pair whether I can hear what you guys are talking about. If I can't hear it even with my sensitivity to that area then it must mean that there are variations in manufacturing. Anyway, I can't wait to give them a try.
-
UB brought these NAD VISO HP50 over tonight and we had a mini-meet.They don't sound too bad, but they do sound very bassy and a bit trebly. That's sort of what I hear. They also remind me of the Beats Studio (don't laugh - they are actually not as bad as people want to make them out to be.)
So we brought out the Beats Studio (from cold storage) and popped in new batteries. Lo and behold! I think I prefer the Beats - just a more even presentation, although the middle-mids on the Beats seem sucked out more, the overall FR transitions seems smoother than the NAD VISO HP50. Vocals sound much more normal. (Vocals on the NAD sound nasally - just kind of off - hard to describe - probable dip in vocal harmonics region.) And the Beats have more normal bass too.
Also, can't crank these up before the overall treble starts to hurt. Same thing on the Beats too, but to a lesser extent.
-
R Ch measurement. Neighbor just turned some low-frequency device on - so no L Ch measurement.
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4677;image)
Ultrabike's
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1241.0;attach=4642;image)
-
CSD. Not too shabby. Little bit a 5k and 8k. It's the 8k that bothers me once the volume is cranked (also made worse by the fact that the treble is emphasized in FR.)
-
Interesting. Both measurements are quite comparable except top octaves (maybe because of different positioning?).
-
Absorption, positioning, rig construction materials, etc. I believe there are consistent differences between UB and my measurement rig. I think I get more mid- treble but less high-treble.
These headphones so seem to lack air. Let me test on better equipment to confirm this.
-
UB brought these NAD VISO HP50 over tonight and we had a mini-meet.They don't sound too bad, but they do sound very bassy and a bit trebly. That's sort of what I hear. They also remind me of the Beats Studio (don't laugh - they are actually not as bad as people want to make them out to be.)
So we brought out the Beats Studio (from cold storage) and popped in new batteries. Lo and behold! I think I prefer the Beats - just a more even presentation, although the middle-mids on the Beats seem sucked out more, the overall FR transitions seems smoother than the NAD VISO HP50. Vocals sound much more normal. (Vocals on the NAD sound nasally - just kind of off - hard to describe - probable dip in vocal harmonics region.) And the Beats have more normal bass too.
This was a post I was not expecting to read. Weird, but interesting and enlightening regardless. I haven't heard a Beats product in years (the all knowing HF wizards told me to stay away!).
-
Here's another measurement from about.com:
(http://0.tqn.com/d/stereos/1/0/1/7/-/-/FR.jpg)
http://stereos.about.com/od/accessoriesheadphones/ss/NAD-Viso-HP-50-Measurements.htm
Something of interest on the link is the method used to get these measurements. They seem to match the uncompensated ones on IF. They also look quite different from the ones UB and Purrin took. I think it's strange because I took a look at some recent measurement data for other headphones from here and on IF, the Abyss and TH-600/900 ones seem to match up very well.
Here's another measurement from: http://www.lesnumeriques.com/casque-audio/nad-viso-hp-50-p16904/test.html
(http://img1.lesnumeriques.com/test/82/8254/viso-hp-50-frequency-response.jpg)
These ones seem to match the UB/Purrin ones.
-
The about.com seems like an ear simulator measurement. AFAIK those typically need some sort of compensation, similar to what Tyll does, to correlate well with impressions.
Lesnumeriques probably is a leaky baffle and has some smoothing going on there.
-
Lesnumeriques probably is a leaky baffle and has some smoothing going on there.
Yep, the Lesnumeriques one seems to have too much smoothing applied and I highly doubt that 8-9k peak. I meant to write similarities only insofar as the gradual dip from 1k to 3k.
-
(http://personalaudio.ru/raa/otchety/naushniki/nad-viso/NAD_Viso_fr_impedance.png)
A Russian measurement or 2 of them in the same plot.
HDM1 = Dummy head
SF1 = 'flat' home made rig
source: http://personalaudio.ru/raa/otchety/naushniki/nad-viso/
-
LOL! Yup, that site sort of takes the two approaches. Their SF1 seems a little treble happy, but could be an indication of product variation.
-
It's the same headphone measured on 2 different rigs.
Both rigs have their good and bad points/assets and tell a different story of the same headphone.
Strangely enough some headphones measure very similar on their 2 different rigs others vary a lot (mostly in the bass and/or treble area).
Not all headphones were measured on both rigs though.
Their Viso measured best on their manekin head.
Somewhere on that site you can find pictures of both test setups.
-
I got the NADs earlier and my impressions are that the 4khz rise isn't anything annoying (maybe because the square wave doesn't have a sharp attack?) anyway, I do hear the transition from the dip to the rise in that area as a slightly hollow sound to the mids. In a direct comparison to a $99 Sennheiser HD280pro, the refinement level is about the same but the bass of the NAD is tighter. I do however prefer the midrange of the Sennheiser and at 100 bucks it is a better value.
-
More listening without swapping instantly from can to can, I am starting to understand the ROOMFEEL. That slightly hollow sound does translate to what you would hear with speakers in a room while the senn 280s have a more standard headphone midrange. The slightly boosted upper midbass on the NAD does bother me a little bit though because it muddles the mids a little. I'll listen to more music and report more later.
EDIT: I still prefer my Sennheiser HD280pros overall even without taking price into consideration but the NAD kills the momentum
-
More listening without swapping instantly from can to can, I am starting to understand the ROOMFEEL. That slightly hollow sound does translate to what you would hear with speakers in a room while the senn 280s have a more standard headphone midrange. The slightly boosted upper midbass on the NAD does bother me a little bit though because it muddles the mids a little. I'll listen to more music and report more later.
EDIT: I still prefer my Sennheiser HD280pros overall even without taking price into consideration but the NAD kills the momentum
I think that those two headphones are quite close overall and they're a bit similar sounding too, but I'd probably prefer the NAD because of the comfort (pads) and the portability. Build quality on the NAD seems more classy as well because of the metal headband fixture. I feel that that the 280pro has that hollow sound as well in the mids, possibly even more so than the NAD. On the other hand I think that the major problem of the HD280 is the bass distortion, so possibly with some dampening inside the cups it could sound a lot better.
Regarding the measurements, I wonder if the more neutral looking measurements compensated for them using HRTF? Because that way you'd have a slight null in place of UB's measured 3khz peak, although the treble would still retain some sparkle at 5k. Hope that made some sense.
-
The 280pro doesn't really have audible bass distortion if you speak of a clipping sort of distortion. I mean I can turn it up to ear splitting levels and the bass stays composed.
I don't know what you mean about the hollow mids when talking about the 280s. I don't hear it. Maybe its dependent on seal/headsize? Not sure
EDIT: Oh maybe you mean the closed headphone sound when you speak of the hollow sound. The dt250-250 has less of it due to the velour pads drying up all the reverb. Thats not what i meant though by the hp50s hollow sound. With the hp50, the hollow voicing seems to be deliberate and gives it that 30 degree angle sweet spot ala loudspeakers in a room type of thing. The hd280pro has none of that. The senns sound relatively flat in frequency response and more true in timbre in the mids as if the instrument is in your ear instead of being put in a room acoustic outside of the recordings own acoustics.
-
The 280pro doesn't really have audible bass distortion if you speak of a clipping sort of distortion. I mean I can turn it up to ear splitting levels and the bass stays composed.
I meant harmornic distortion, probably 2nd order. The 280pro actually has a little bass roll-off but the THD numbers for the bass at least are quite high.
I don't know what you mean about the hollow mids when talking about the 280s. I don't hear it. Maybe its dependent on seal/headsize? Not sure
EDIT: Oh maybe you mean the closed headphone sound when you speak of the hollow sound. The dt250-250 has less of it due to the velour pads drying up all the reverb. Thats not what i meant though by the hp50s hollow sound. With the hp50, the hollow voicing seems to be deliberate and gives it that 30 degree angle sweet spot ala loudspeakers in a room type of thing. The hd280pro has none of that. The senns sound relatively flat in frequency response and more true in timbre in the mids as if the instrument is in your ear instead of being put in a room acoustic outside of the recordings own acoustics.
Yep! I meant closed headphone sound. It seems I was thinking something totally different. But yes, I noticed that "room with speakers" type hollowness too with the NAD HP50. I just think it sounds odd, and the NAD RP18 and Paradox both still seem to have a wider presentation; still good for a closed headphone though.
-
The slightly boosted upper midbass on the NAD does bother me a little bit though because it muddles the mids a little.
Yeah, the HP50 suffers from that, as do most dynamics with any sort of bass boost. It goes with the trend of dipping at the very bottom and then continuing too fair through the mids. I'd say that the boost is close to my comfort level for that artificial "beat" feel in headphones without the egregiousness of hip-hop/dubstep demographic headphones.
Listening fatigue sets in with the HP50s sooner than with more neutral phones.
-
The nice thing about the Sennheiser hd280pros for example when comparing it with the NAD is that the bass boost is lower in frequency (around 30 to 50hz) making the mids sound more transparent without that hard upper midbass say around 80 to 100hz of the NAD
-
I switched back to listening to the NAD just now and the bass boost sounds to be centered around 125hz actually, higher in frequency than I stated above.
Come to think of it, I would be fine with the 125hz bump if the upper mids before the rise back up around 4khz wasn't as recessed. The tightness in the bass due to that 125hz bump would be quite nice if it didn't mask the upper mids.
EDIT: and after more than a few minutes of listening straight, the boost in the lower highs becomes noticeable. Not totally fatiguing but not totally natural either. Overall, the headphone is nice and sounds more nimble than the cheaper Senn hd280pro I have but the 280 pro gets better with longer listening sessions while the NAD seems to be the opposite. The NAD is weird in this way because it isn't totally natural the first moment you put them on then the mind acclimates after a minute or so then for some reason my mind quits jiving with it and finds the sound a little unnatural again but this time I notice whats wrong with the mids and highs more than the upper bass boost. Also, I find the sound of the NAD to distort more than the hd280pro in the mids and upper bass which is weird since the distortion measurements are better on these vs the senns. I wonder if this could be due to a lower power handling capability hmmm.
-
You know what the upper bass boost reminds me of, It reminds me of the sound of a speaker port. A small sub sat system's sub port or a front firing speaker port etc... Billy Joel's song "My Life" for example (from first press CD) highlights that bass port sound. Also, for the highs try the Psychedelic Furs song "Until She Comes" for example as a good song for showing off the lower treble boost.
For vocals some recordings can sound a little nasal. An example of a decent recording that can sound nasal just specifically on the NAD would be Tori Amos's Silent All these years version from the Gold Dust CD.
-
Agree with the nasal carasteristic. A little deepbass EQ seems to fix this nasal problem for me. Tori Amos gets much more natural. Actually everything does.
20,0 Hz Gain 11,0 dB Q 0,7
200,0 Hz Gain -6,0 dB Q 0,4
The jury is still out and I have not decided what to think of these headphones. I like the balance with the EQ changes, but without it gets a little bit too bright.
-
Big but clean bass, a little recessed in the upper mids, a little elevated in treble.
How do these compare to the M50?
-
Big but clean bass, a little recessed in the upper mids, a little elevated in treble.
How do these compare to the M50?
I think it depends on the use case, since they're about even as far as sound quality. Overall I feel that the M50LE (don't know about the original) is more balanced for studio use, while the HP50 is better as an everyday portable headphone. I like the HP50 better for movies and gaming as well because of the bass and wider sound. As a bonus the HP50 comes with a nice pouch and it's foldable too, with more cables and adapters. I'd be fine with both.
-
The last M50s I heard sounded dull by comparison to the HP50. Decent bass quantity with medium-low bass quality. The M50 has a comfortable sound signature though, I can see why people adopt it as an everyday phone. I agree with Sforza that the HP50 is an excellent portable as well, and one I would choose over the M50 to get a more "exciting" tonality.
-
So it's sounding like the HP50 has more bass than the M50? That's at least the impression I'm getting. The M50 I owned was a bass-cannon almost. I'm not sure if it was a blue-box one or white-box one though.
-
The M50s I was referring to are the newer model, they didn't sound bass cannonny.
-
I finally found the box for that M50 of mine, and it is a white box. I'm not sure whether that's the bass-heavy version of the M50 or not, but either way I still find this thing a little bassy and well-extended down low compared to my HE-400.
-
I'm curious of people's preference between the HP50 and the SRH-1540. I know they're slightly different price points, but I like the design/materials better on the Shure.
I suppose best place to ask is on inner fidelity.
-
I know two people who owned the SRH-1540, and both ended up selling it. They indicated it was quite bassy. Just from their impressions I really don't have any desire to try the SRH-1540, but hey maybe it's a sleeper.
-
I'm curious of people's preference between the HP50 and the SRH-1540. I know they're slightly different price points, but I like the design/materials better on the Shure.
I suppose best place to ask is on inner fidelity.
No better to ask here, but I think I'll be reviewing the 1540 in the not too distant future.