[xanlamin]

No change to overall SQ. The bass on T40 is more impactful and solid. I got my pair at around 140USD.

 

[grizzlybeast]

  No change to overall SQ. The bass on T40 is more impactful and solid. I got my pair at around 140USD.

Thanks! your status should say headphone supremus more than mine. posts dont mean squat. You get around bro : )

 

[xanlamin]

You are too kind bro i m just lucky to live besides some headphone shops

 

[jude]

  I got to hear the T50RP Mk3 at the Schiit Show (they were Jude's) and I thought they sounded really good.  They were pretty neutral overall (borderline bass-light), with a really nicely defined midrange but had somewhat 'crispy' highs (I think they were brand new).  They were a little too bass-light for my taste (Jude really liked them) and he said that the T40RP-Mk3 had a little more bass than the 50's and would probably be a better match for me.  I told Jude that I had never heard the Mk2's and he said that unmodded they are pretty much unlistenable.  So for around $150, I think the new Mk3's will offer excellent SQ for the $$ once they become available.

 
@XERO1, I apologize if I've caused any confusion--it was the T40RPmk3 (fully-closed) I brought to the show, and it's less bassy than the semi-closed T50RPmk3 (which I didn't bring with me that weekend).
 
Regarding the older T50RPmk2: You're right--I wouldn't listen to it as-is, whereas the T50mk3 I would.
 
The T20RPmk3 (open-back) is my least favorite of the three mk3--it's just too thick-sounding for me.
 
With an expected price of $159 (for any of the three new mk3 models), I think the new 40 and new 50 are pretty killer deals. (As you mentioned, I personally prefer the 40.)

 

[grizzlybeast]

No change to overall SQ. The bass on T40 is more impactful and solid. I got my pair at around 140USD.

 
I got to hear the T50RP Mk3 at the Schiit Show (they were Jude's) and I thought they sounded really good.  They were pretty neutral overall (borderline bass-light), with a really nicely defined midrange but had somewhat 'crispy' highs (I think they were brand new).  They were a little too bass-light for my taste (Jude really liked them) and he said that the T40RP-Mk3 had a little more bass than the 50's and would probably be a better match for me.  I told Jude that I had never heard the Mk2's and he said that unmodded they are pretty much unlistenable.  So for around $150, I think the new Mk3's will offer excellent SQ for the $$ once they become available.

@XERO1
, I apologize if I've caused any confusion--it was the T40RPmk3 (fully-closed) I brought to the show, and it's less bassy than the semi-closed T50RPmk3 (which I didn't bring with me that weekend).

Regarding the older T50RPmk2: You're right--I wouldn't listen to it as-is, whereas the T50mk3 I would.

The T20RPmk3 (open-back) is my least favorite of the three mk3--it's just too thick-sounding for me.

With an expected price of $159 (for any of the three new mk3 models), I think the new 40 and new 50 are pretty killer deals. (As you mentioned, I personally prefer the 40.)

:confused_face_2:

I guess to make you guys agree would mean you both prefer the 40 but the 50, while having more bass, is less strong in punch than the 40.

I would love to have a 40 here or 50 as well as the mt220 and do a shootout. I could do it for undef 300 if I got thdm both. Having 3 headphones here and paying less than 450 total is a killer value.

 

[XERO1]

   
@XERO1, I apologize if I've caused any confusion--it was the T40RPmk3 (fully-closed) I brought to the show, and it's less bassy than the semi-closed T50RPmk3 (which I didn't bring with me that weekend).
 
Regarding the older T50RPmk2: You're right--I wouldn't listen to it as-is, whereas the T50mk3 I would.
 
The T20RPmk3 (open-back) is my least favorite of the three mk3--it's just too thick-sounding for me.
 
With an expected price of $159 (for any of the three new mk3 models), I think the new 40 and new 50 are pretty killer deals. (As you mentioned, I personally prefer the 40.)

 
 
Thanks for the clarification, Jude!  All three of those headphones look pretty much identical to me.  Sorry for the mix-up.

 
 
 
 

I guess to make you guys agree would mean you both prefer the 40 but the 50, while having more bass, is less strong in punch than the 40.

 
 
Actually, Jude thought I would probably prefer the T50RP Mk3 because of its stronger bass output, but as Jude mentions in his post, he personally prefers the T40RP Mk3 because of its overall neutrality.  And if you like extremely tight but somewhat thin sounding bass, you would probably really like the 40's too.

 

[grizzlybeast]

I think Pio kinda over did it with the treble a bit here. It has so much going for it but overall I feel the treble needs to come down and the bass up just a bit to be truly balanced. 

 

[xanlamin]

And that's where u buy the t40rp mk3

 

[Amarphael]

[u][color=rgb(0, 102, 204)]grizzlybeast[/color][/u], Are these Pioneer's close to the Beyer T90 technically? Can they carry weight to notes as the Beyers do?

 

[Max Choiral]

The mids are not as clear on the yamaha but overall sound sig goes to the mt220 for me. However this one is prob better detailed and overall id go with the pio because it isolates better, is clearer, and has better midrange balance.

 

These two sentences are pretty confusing...

 

 

[grizzlybeast]

  [u][color=rgb(0, 102, 204)]grizzlybeast[/color][/u], Are these Pioneer's close to the Beyer T90 technically? Can they carry weight to notes as the Beyers do?

probably, I found the t90 to take better to eq though than these do. It has been a very long time since I have heard/had that headphone. They can carry weight to the notes but I would say the t90 is a step above it overall. Now the t90 can be had for cheaper so its prob a better deal. 
 

 

The mids are not as clear on the yamaha but overall sound sig goes to the mt220 for me. However this one is prob better detailed and overall id go with the pio because it isolates better, is clearer, and has better midrange balance.

 

These two sentences are pretty confusing...

 

The mids are not as clear on the yamaha (as they are on the pioneer)
 
I find the pio to be a better value but I appreciate the yamaha sound signature over the pios because it has more bass. I don't just choose a headphone based on balance or sound sig thus my slight preference of the pioneer over the yamaha.
 
Plus at the time of that comment I hadn't tried to eq the pio. I didn't know it would be so stubborn to eq. I actually don't know now which one I would prefer now. I am kinda frustrated with its bass not giving me what I want no matter what I try.... Sorry to add to the confusion.

 

[Max Choiral]

The mids are not as clear on the yamaha (as they are on the pioneer)
 

Ok, now it's more clear

 

[Eurobeat]

Spoiler: Post ranks

Originally Posted by grizzlybeast /img/forum/go_quote.gif
  Let me quote myself
"____*Focal Spirit Professional (yamaha= stronger bass and thump, similar attack, less lower mids, less thick, similar soundstage a bit larger, more highs, a little more upper mids, equal timbre and tones, less isolation on the yamaha, more comfortable)"
 
Disclaimer: GOING OFF OF MEMORY and just for you. Dont be mad at me if Im wrong. 

YAMAHA HPH-MT220 VS FOCAL SPIRIT PROFESSIONAL VS PIONEER HRM-7

(=)equals (>) slightly or noticeably more (>>)moderately more
BASS QUALITY/ARTICULATION: HRM-7>PRO>MT220
 
BASS QUANTITY: MT220>>PRO=HRM-7
 
LOWER MIDS: HRM-7>PRO>>MT220
 
MIDDLE MIDS: HRM-7>PRO=MT220
 
UPPER MIDS: HRM-7=MT220>PRO
 
TREBLE QUALITY: HRM-7>>PRO>MT220
 
REVEALING OF SIBILANTS: HRM-7>MT220> FOCAL ( None!! of them are forgiving but the HRM-7 jumped out at me more than the others, it could be because I am aware of it than before nowadays I don't know)
 
TREBLE QUANTITY: HRM-7>MT220>PRO
 
TONALITY: HRM-7>>MT220>>PRO(kinda strident to me)
 
OVERALL NEUTRALITY: PRO>HRM-7>MT220
 
ATTACK(UNCERTAIN): PRO>HRM-7>MT220
 
DECAY(QUICKEST FADE OUT AFTER THE NOTE ATTACKS): PRO>HRM-7>MT220
 
LIQUIDITY: HRM-7>MT220>PRO
 
SOUNDSTAGE: HRM-7>>MT220>PRO
 
SNAP: HRM-7>PRO>MT220
 
IMAGING: HRM-7>HE400S>MT220>PRO
 
DETAILS: HRM-7>>MT220=PRO
 
COMFORT: HRM-7>MT220>>>>PRO
 
BUILD: MT220>HRM-7>PRO
 
ACCESSORIES: PRO>>HRM-7>MT220
 
LOOKS IMO: PRO>>>MT220>HRM-7
 
ISOLATION: PRO>HRM-7>MT220
 
BEST FOR TRACKING(LEAST LEAKAGE): PRO(A+)=HRM-7(great too)>>>MT220
 
PORTABILITY: PRO>>MT220>HRM-7(funky headband)
 
EASIEST TO DRIVE: ALL SIMILAR prob HRM-7 needs an amp the most. 
 
PADS ROLLABLE: MT220>HRM-7>>>>>>PRO
 
ALL OF THEM ARE GREAT FOR MONITORING IMO my monitors cannot be replaced by any headphone here though. 
 
Most bored ME>>>>>wife>son

So a lot of people have told me I should get the MT220's, but someone mentioned they liked this one better.

From your post it seems the HRM-7's are overwhelmingly better than the Yamahas?

Does everyone who has tried the MT220's agree the Pioneers are better?

This post explains what I'm looking for in a pair http://www.head-fi.org/t/779971/need-help-finding-a-great-pair-of-headphones-please-details-inside#post_11892491 so any advice is appreciated.

Also someone mentioned the more expensive HDJ-2000mk2's, just curious about those vs these?

There seemed to be other models mentioned here, but confused about the convo (possibly because I didn't read this entire thread)....

Thanks all

 

[grizzlybeast]

Spoiler: Post ranks

 
Let me quote myself
[COLOR=3B3B3B]"____*[/COLOR][COLOR=3B3B3B]Focal Spirit Professional[/COLOR][COLOR=3B3B3B] (yamaha= stronger bass and thump, similar attack, less lower mids, less thick, similar soundstage a bit larger, more highs, a little more upper mids, equal timbre and tones, less isolation on the yamaha, more comfortable)"[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]Disclaimer: GOING OFF OF MEMORY and just for you. Dont be mad at me if Im wrong. [/COLOR]

YAMAHA HPH-MT220 VS FOCAL SPIRIT PROFESSIONAL VS PIONEER HRM-7

(=)equals (>) slightly or noticeably more (>>)moderately more
[COLOR=3B3B3B]BASS QUALITY/ARTICULATION: HRM-7>PRO>MT220[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]BASS QUANTITY: MT220>>PRO=HRM-7[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]LOWER MIDS: HRM-7>PRO>>MT220[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]MIDDLE MIDS: HRM-7>PRO=MT220[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]UPPER MIDS: HRM-7=MT220>PRO[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]TREBLE QUALITY: HRM-7>>PRO>MT220[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]REVEALING OF SIBILANTS: HRM-7>MT220> FOCAL ( None!! of them are forgiving but the HRM-7 jumped out at me more than the others, it could be because I am aware of it than before nowadays I don't know)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]TREBLE QUANTITY: HRM-7>MT220>PRO[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]TONALITY: HRM-7>>MT220>>PRO(kinda strident to me)[/COLOR]

OVERALL NEUTRALITY: PRO>HRM-7>MT220

[COLOR=3B3B3B]ATTACK(UNCERTAIN): PRO>HRM-7>MT220[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]DECAY(QUICKEST FADE OUT AFTER THE NOTE ATTACKS): PRO>HRM-7>MT220[/COLOR]

[COLOR=3B3B3B]LIQUIDITY: HRM-7>MT220>PRO[/COLOR]

SOUNDSTAGE: HRM-7>>MT220>PRO

SNAP: HRM-7>PRO>MT220

IMAGING: HRM-7>[COLOR=A9A9A9]HE400S[/COLOR]>MT220>PRO

DETAILS: HRM-7>>MT220=PRO

COMFORT: HRM-7>MT220>>>>PRO

BUILD: MT220>HRM-7>PRO

ACCESSORIES: PRO>>HRM-7>MT220

LOOKS IMO: PRO>>>MT220>HRM-7

ISOLATION: PRO>HRM-7>MT220

BEST FOR TRACKING(LEAST LEAKAGE): PRO(A+)=HRM-7(great too)>>>MT220

PORTABILITY: PRO>>MT220>HRM-7(funky headband)

EASIEST TO DRIVE: ALL SIMILAR prob HRM-7 needs an amp the most. 

PADS ROLLABLE: MT220>HRM-7>>>>>>PRO

ALL OF THEM ARE GREAT FOR MONITORING IMO my monitors cannot be replaced by any headphone here though. 

Most bored ME>>>>>wife>son

So a lot of people have told me I should get the MT220's, but someone mentioned they liked this one better.


From your post it seems the HRM-7's are overwhelmingly better than the Yamahas?


Does everyone who has tried the MT220's agree the Pioneers are better?


This post explains what I'm looking for in a pair http://www.head-fi.org/t/779971/need-help-finding-a-great-pair-of-headphones-please-details-inside#post_11892491 so any advice is appreciated.


Also someone mentioned the more expensive HDJ-2000mk2's, just curious about those vs these?


There seemed to be other models mentioned here, but confused about the convo (possibly because I didn't read this entire thread)....


Thanks all

They are comparable...it's just that when you break it down like that it seems that way. The Yamaha should have more body to the sound and stronger bass but the Pio has better soundstage, clarity and control.

Also don't ignore the huge disclaimer of me saying my memory could be off there. Not having both and going off of memory for these headphones can be tricky.

 

[Eurobeat]

They are comparable...it's just that when you break it down like that it seems that way. The Yamaha should have more body to the sound and stronger bass but the Pio has better soundstage, clarity and control.

Also don't ignore the huge disclaimer of me saying my memory could be off there. Not having both and going off of memory for these headphones can be tricky.

Thanks... SO what's the difference between "body to the sound" vs "Soundstage?"