5YNTH3T1K

5YNTH3T1K OP t1_ja4sin3 wrote

Yep and that mid range bump had nothing to do with it. Right ? The way the bass end rolls off etc.

We all know that there are horse for courses. I was stupidly sucked into thinking that "this was the way" when really it was not the way at all. Do you use a scalpel for cutting a tree down? A chainsaw to shave with ? If I gave you a tea spoon and asked you to dig a well would you blame the tool? I bet you would.

The HD's are probably getting EQ'd by DJ's and their power rating is such that they can punch through the PA bleed... but everyday driving... yeah na.

If I had know what I was getting myself into... I would have def gone for a Music Lovers headphone not this dry and flat as all fuck "monitor" shite.

You may not like my opinion, I have a few, but damn the HD's are dry, midrangy, gnarly, lifeless phones. Oh god you mean I need a 20 watt headphone amp to make them shine ? Really ?

When I play a bass pad I know it's low. The HD's can kind of get the upper ranges of the sound but the guts... nope.

I Just tested the B&W against the HD and there is no contest at all. The HD's just roll off and wow is it GONE. the B&W's faithfully relay the low lows very well.

there is NO way that the HD's are "flat" down there... they are just not there !

Like I said: they sound like the 1970's "no challange to a 3 watt radio..." frequency bounding. I mean shit if I mixed my tracks like the HD's sound... you may as well through out your bass and sub bass 'cos you won't need them!

Back when BASS was a dirty word... oh no ! not BASS !!!! How lower class...

This is ridiculous. The HD's have no ass. They flat ass.

0

5YNTH3T1K OP t1_ja24abn wrote

I guess so. Let me guess you never turned the bass up in your phones mix. ? you ran then stock. you never put any EQ on your mix. I find that hard to believe. Cut the mids at all ?

That mid bump in the chart that was posted before would get pretty angry at High dbSPL, right ? which is part of the problem as I see it. and hear it. Go figure.

Nice. : - )

0

5YNTH3T1K OP t1_ja1r5l6 wrote

Oh yeah the "charts" awesome. I love it. This just gets better.

Gosh, that mid range bump.. yeah that FUCKER right there. If that was not so fucking pronounced I might ENJOY what bass there is... and yeah go figure.

ok so I will do a test tone test and A/B both sets of fones. See how both sets compare. Best I can do.

and I may be barking up the wrong tree but those are HD-25 PLUS ( new ones ), I have HD-25-1 ( made in Ireland ) which are, heck, maybe 15 - 20 years old. I bet you $100 they do not have the same response as the HD 25 Plus.

−5

5YNTH3T1K OP t1_ja14moi wrote

The HD's ( new ) cost $450 Galactic Bucks and the B&W ( used ) were $70. There were two pairs for $70 GB and I should have bought the second pair.. I am dork x2

The B&W have clear definite bottom end. The HD's do not. They just simply don't.

If I boosted a mix to get the same bottom end sound with the HD's the B&W's would be puking on the same mix and the mix will sound like SHIT on monitors.

Sometimes I have the B&W's on AND the monitors and I can get a really nice surround sound. Like I am swimming in sound.

Since I migrated to the B&W's my mixes are way better, I can enjoy low keys and kicks etc. I might use the HD's for Isolation and maybe a quick scan of the upper ranges... but yeah they are poison to me now.

The driver plugs and the resonating shells are pretty dumb...

0

5YNTH3T1K OP t1_ja13evz wrote

"There" is a very subjective observation. It's response to bass might be very low , but it's still there... uh, sure, you can drive the things if you want, EQ to " increase" the bass volume... but is it "there" well I say only just and they sound like the 1970's... with radio mixes for 3 inch mid range open back speakers...

For mid to high detail yep they will show you the truth... but that's all.

Or turn up the bass... right ?

Do we have to do a response test here?

0