Abscission Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 After hearing a lot of buzz, especially on head-fi.org, I've got these from a spam site and they're finally here. I did a lot of testing, including a comparison with the m50, as the title suggests. There's the box. Big and pretty, but dinged up by the nosy and careless customs employees. The headphones come packed with a layer of cloth, which I found a nice touch. The build quality is great. You definitely don't expect something like this for 50 dollars. Sturdy, heavy plastic, no creaking. Pretty comfortable, if a tiny bit too small for my head. Then again, I'm not a good judge for this as I find all headphones a bit uncomfortable. If I can put it on and not feel extreme discomfort, I'm happy. The attachable cord is great and obviously, replaceable in case of damage. It's a regular 3.5mm and comes shipped with a 6.3mm extension. Both the 3.5mm connector and the 6.3mm plug look to be gold plated -- they're yellow, in any case. I'm running these directly through Focusrite's Scarlett 2i4. I've noticed no volume discrepancies between the two channels and no noise whatsoever.Let's get this out of the way -- MM163 and M50 are a completely different deal. I've come into this expecting a M50 clone since I've read reports of close comparisons. Couldn't be further from the truth. First and foremost, the M50 are loaded with bass, especially sub-bass. While all of that bass content is definitely there with the MM163, it's given no boost whatsoever. These headphones yield an incredibly flat frequency response throughout the spectrum, bass included. You could chalk this off as a flaw because for monitor purposes, sub-bass needs a little boost to be properly heard in relation to the rest of the spectrum. Having said that, with the MM163, in practice, you won't feel a lack of that bassy groove, simply a relative lack of rumbling impact. Apart from the bass, the biggest difference between the MM163 and the M50 is the midrange. The MM163 doesn't shy away from that "unpleasant", granular mid growl. The M50 sounds scooped in comparison. In comparison to the M50, especially notable is the increased detail in the upper midrange and treble relationship. I listen to a lot of extreme metal with unsanitary, raw guitarwork that's rife with harsh overtones. The M50 makes that presence-y, upper midrange content sort of run together, sometimes even outright melding with cymbals. If you listen to very polished material where everything is neatly separated, this is obviously not an issue. However, when you put on something even slightly raw, M50 makes a royal mess out of it -- crucially: more of a mess than there actually is. This is not good. This brings me to another issue. When I listen to my own electronic music that follows that extra-neat, extreme shelving principle to EQ-ing, the M50 makes me think I'm an expert producer -- which I'm really not. Everything is smooth, crunchy and crispy, especially in the upper middle ranges. The MM163 doesn't mask any flaws like that. In this regard, the MM163 are clearly superior monitor headphones for midrange EQ-ing purposes. If I can coax that crispy mainstream crunch out of the MM163, I know I did my job correctly. I can single out different points in the midrange much more clearly, whereas the M50 seems to emphasize the more "pleasant" and mask the "unpleasant" ones. The treble territory is just as rich as the midrange and very warm. No boosts and no readily apparent roll-off. However, you'd expect the treble to be a bit more harsh given how flat the rest of the spectrum is, so some strategic roll-off is probably taking place. Nothing that gets in the way of proper EQ-ing however. In conclusion, I can only assume that people decided that these are a M50 clone because the MM163 does look very similar. So, if you want the M50, get the M50. If you want a very flat, natural sounding pair, turn to the MM163 instead. This is not implying that the MM163 is inferior as it's price tag would suggest, simply a lot different. Given the MM163's quality, it's a blatant steal for 50 bucks which is, by the way, a third of M50's 150 dollar asking price. I'd say they live up to the hype they receive among enthusiasts and it's about time more people acknowledged them. These are definitely a keeper and will be my go-to for EQing. Ideally, in addition, you'd need a different pair with a bit of a bass boost to work out the sub-bass detail a bit more precisely, but that territory is always tricky volume-wise. You're never quite sure if your headphones are exacerbating sub-bass or doing the opposite. No matter what you use, you're best off relying on numbers here. Nonetheless, I find these amazing for EQ-ing and listening alike. For plain old music listening though, it will always come down to taste and genre and many will probably prefer M50's "modern" flavor. However, if you prefer a flatter frequency response, more midrange and presence detail as well as warmth, get the MM163.
crappyjones123 Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 What if you want a flatter response but less midrange and presence detail as well as warmth?
Abscission Posted February 5, 2015 Author Report Posted February 5, 2015 What if you want a flatter response but less midrange and presence detail as well as warmth? Then you get a pair that has a flatter response but less midrange and presence detail as well as warmth.
Recommended Posts