Audio-Technica ATH-M50: Burn-in and other questions

Squonk07

Someday you'll understand
After a ton of research I finally decided on this set. I was looking for a pair of closed cans mainly for listening pleasure (lots of classic and prog rock, along with some acoustic and classical), along with some occasional studio work. I got my pair about four days ago, so they don't really have a lot of time on them yet. I'd say a little over 24 hours overall.

I did listen to these in the shop (GC) and compared them against a Shure SRH440 and the well-known Sony 7506 and the ATs beat them both hands down, though they all sounded like utter $#!+ straight out of the box. The ATs were the only ones that improved at all in the hour I had to listen, and I liked the direction the sound was going so I bought them.

However, by this point I'm not impressed in the least. The bass seems way too boomy and prevalent to me, especially in the upper bass/lower mids region. The upper mids are recessed (I expected this, so that's probably all right) and the treble sounds piercing and sibilant. Not at all the "neutral" or "fun" (either or) sound the majority of people who mentioned these on the Internet reported (*cough* Head-fi). I did look at the frequency response curve on these and noted the bump in the bass, but I've also learned that FR and other paper specs are of limited importance, especially in the face of so many positive impressions.

Note that I'm not posting a bash thread, as I'm really hoping these will improve--they'd better, or back they go.

So I have a few questions about what to do going forward. I've been running a pink/white/brown noise cycle (25 minutes of each with five minutes rest in between) for the past day, and I'd intermittently given them pink noise and various musical selections prior to that. These phones do a lot of things right, but that treble and boomy bass are huge deal killers for me. So here we go:

-Can anybody who has a pair of these tell me if continued burn-in will have any effect, and if so, how long do I need to proceed?

-I'm hearing a lot of sibilance, which is really irritating. Anybody who has these have that problem?

-Is this all just wishful thinking; is the sonic signature on these really that skewed toward the bass and treble? These aren't cheap consumer-grade cans, and I expected much better--the difference between "slightly recessed mids" and what I'm hearing from my M50s is astronomical.

BTW, I've run these unamped, through my vintage Kenwood receiver, and through a mixer with a separate headphone amp; and while the overall sound has scaled up with each item on this list, the sonic signature remains basically unchanged. I've also tried EQ (I hated even having to resort to this) and couldn't manage anything that way, either.

Finally, two more questions:

-If the answers to the above three questions are no, yes, and yes, can anybody name some alternatives in the < $150 range (possibly stretched to $200 if it's really worth it) that offer a more neutral presentation, preferably with more forward-sounding mids?

-Are there any good hi-fi shops in the SE Michigan (Port Huron or thereabouts) I could visit to try out some cans? The folks at my local GC were very good about letting me try boxed merchandise, but the selection leaves something to be desired and I'd like to try broken-in and properly-amped equipment.

It may be that I'm one of those people who can't stand closed cans, though they never much bothered me before. :scratch2:
 
I have M100s, not M50s, but they're very similar designs. It took about two weeks for the M100s to really sound their best. That's two weeks of regular use, no tone generators.

The M100s don't exhibit any of the characteristics that you describe. To me, they have the best bass response that I have heard from headphones, and they are extremely linear. No sibilance at all.

I have a pair of Grado SR-80s which cost me about double what the M100s did, but I very much prefer the sound of the M100s. They are also much more comfortable to wear over long periods of time, a big issue if you are using them for studio work.

Good luck!

Kelley
 
I have the M30's and wasn't bowled over by them at first either. Way too forward for my taste. Anyway, I burned them in for eight or nine hours the day that I bought them then started using them full time. They improved every day and after a month or so they sounded fantastic.

I guess my advice is just to hang in there. They'll get better.
 
I've switched over to music for the burn-in. Since I've got until the Thursday after next to return them, I'm fully willing to give the M50s the best chance I can. I keep checking in on them--and walking away in dismay. I've read some people say these take anywhere from 50 to 100 hours to properly burn in, so I haven't given up hope.

I've also heard people rave about those Grados--but then, they raved about the M50s, too, so I suppose everybody's different. And I'm curious about these M100s because I've never heard of them before and can't seem to find anything about them (I've heard of M10s).

I'm still interested in finding a good hi-fi shop somewhere local. None of the big box shops around here carry Grados (or a lot of other cans), and I'm not too keen on shipping out for something I've never auditioned. In the mean time, I'm keeping an open mind on the M50s.
 
Sorry, my stupidity. They're ATH-M30s. I don't know why I kept thinking that they were M100s. But great headphones, in any case.

Kelley
 
Physical burn in is total bs imo. I will not argue this here (it's been argued to death), but there is just no empirical evidence to support it (besides that minute speaker "break in" effect that takes place very quickly---hardly hours and hours---which has no or a totally inconsequential effect on sound).

Psychological burn in, however, is real, as in one getting used to the SS of a headphone, speaker, amp, DAC, DAP, whatever. Whenever I switch between components after not hearing one for a bit (just a few days in some cases), I need a bit of time to readjust to the sound. Usually I am a bit disappointed by it, but then after an hour or two at the most it sounds "good" again. I think this is because any component's SS has flaws and they stick out at first. Then they fade as you get used to them and the strengths of the components SS become more prominent.

For instance: I switch between my Grado 225i headphones and my AKG 702 headphones depending on what I'm listening to. Going from the 702's to the 225i's the Grados sound unrefined, bright and harsh, small and narrow sound stage, muddy/colored ("warm") mids, etc. Going from the 225i's to the 702's the AKG's sound cold, distant, with recessed mids, a bit "boring" or sterile. But listen to either for a bit and I start to become unaware of any flaws in the SS and enjoy either a lot. Nothing has "burned in" on them (they both have thousands of hours on them and the hour or two it takes me to get used to them again is NOT some magical burn in that makes a difference on top of all those hours of course!); I just get used to their SS again. Same with about any other component I have that I switch out and use a different one in it's place for a few days at least.

My advice is that the M50's will NOT magically become better with hundreds or thousands of hours on them. If you don't like them now, you probably won't later. Take them back and get your money back, you don't like them. It doesn't mean they are bad headphones, you just don't like their sound (I don't like the "Senn sound" and those can cost a lot and are not bad headphones). You might get used to them and thus they will sound "better" as you get used to their flaws, but I've never had any component that I wasn't that impressed with right away magically become better later on, at least good enough to truly enjoy in the future. If I didn't at least like it at first, I didn't like it later no matter how many hours I put on it. It would remain "ok" at best with glaring flaws. My 225i's and 702's, for instance, I both liked a lot right off. There were a few things I didn't like about each, but the majority of both of their SS I DID like and thus I continue to even if both do have flaws.

I don't know how important headphones are to you, but my advice would be to spend more (I know, I know). About $150 on up is kind of regarded as the entrance to "mid-fi" headphones at least. Those below that price can be good, just not "great". This is subjective of course, and I'm actually not basing it off my experience so much as those of others. Below $100 is one tier, $150 to $300 another, and then around $500 on up you get into the highest tier (which goes to over $1000...insane imo).

So, yea, some audio snobs would say of course you don't like them, they are "merely" $100 dollar headphones! I'm not one of those, I refuse to pay top dollar for anything myself, and if someone enjoys $10 headphones then he/she enjoys them and they are not wrong for doing so. But ime, and talking with honest owners of headphones from $50 to $500 to over $1000, you do need to spend closer to $200 to get into "great" sound, especially if the cheaper cans you tried you don't like much (you have a "hi-fi" ear iow).

Take a look at the Shure 840 and Fischer Audio FA-003. Both are under $200 new and both I have heard are good and respected, even by those who went on to get $500+ headphones. I have to say I have not heard that about the M50's. I've heard they are good "for the money", but not worth keeping alongside more expensive cans. Again, it's all subjective. Myself I will be ordering the FA-003 soon for a closed can because I hear it is truly one of those "cheap" cans that hold up well compared to cans 2 to 3 times as much as it.

Good luck...and remember there are also good deals on used headphones if you are willing to go that way.

Also, a dedicated headphone amp will improve things significantly imo, but it won't make a can you don't like turn into one you do.
 
I think you got a bum pair of AT's. I have the M50s and never had any of the issues that you describe. I've run them through a walkman, an iPod, Pioneer and NAD receivers, Nakamichi CR-1A, etc. etc. and they sound great no matter what. I have a piddly little cmoy op-amp that make these shine, but they only amplify what's already there. I've never had sibilance, and the bass is definitely NOT boomy (unless it's a bass-heavy track (read: it's faithful in its representation)).

I agree and disagree with Permanent Waves. Agree that burn-in is (to me) BS. These sounded good within 10 minutes and I didn't waste time with pink noise, etc., I just listened to music. I disagree in that you don't need to spend more money. These are great cans and shouldn't exhibit (unless I own some fluke) the issues that you've described.

My only gripe with these is that these were a tight fit for a long time, and a bit uncomfortable (way too tight on the head). They finally loosened up and fit great.

Is it possible to return your pair for a replacement?
 
Nothing against the M-50's or cheaper headphones in general dodog; personally I haven't owned any full sized cans under or around $100 that have impressed me much (although my $30 IEM's have), but then none I have are highly rated in that price range like the M-50's, just general big box store junk I picked up as a kid not knowing any better (or having the internet to tell me better!) or even got second hand from a friend or relative or something. I do have the Sony MDR-V600's that I first bought as a kid for $100 and replaced later on (the foam coating went to hell) in my college days. They are decent cans and I loved them for many years until I finally got some "higher end" ones later on that I preferred.

What I really meant to convey was that it sounds like Squonk just doesn't like the M-50's for whatever reason and "burn in" is not going to change that imo. That doesn't mean that they are bad headphones (as I said), just that he doesn't like their particular SS. That doesn't have so much to do with price or the SQ of headphones so much as personal preference. I like my $30 IEM's and even Senn PX 100's ok (at least for non critical use), they are perfectly fine (although I did order some new IEM's to finally "upgrade"); I DON'T like my Senn 595's much which cost $170. That's because I don't like their SS and I like those cheaper portable headphones/IEM's SS better. This is subjective.

However, what I have HEARD, from several forum users, is that cans in the $150 to $200 range like the Shure 840 or FA 003 or even Senn 595's are in another tier over the M-50's. I don't own any of these besides the 595's (but I will probably be getting the FA 003's when they get in stock), I am going by what others who have owned some or all of these headphones (and usually more expensive ones) have said. I haven't heard anyone say that the M-50's are bad (well there have been some that don't like them like Squonk), just that those in a slightly higher price range are better. This, again, is subjective. And some would say I can't talk until I've owned and compared all of these cans, but I think that is silly. For even if I did own and compare all of them, well, then I'm still just one person with one opinion (and one set up on top of that). It's always better to get a consensus about a component from as many users as possible with different gear imo, even if ultimately all that matters is if you like it or not.

Btw, I myself have come close to buying the M-50's just out of curiosity. I may do so someday.
 
No offense taken, PM, I understand where you're coming from.

I love my M50's so you can't have them. Perhaps Squounk will sell you his pair...:scratch2:
 
No offense taken, PM, I understand where you're coming from.

I love my M50's so you can't have them. Perhaps Squounk will sell you his pair...:scratch2:

Alas, by buying my M50s from a walk-in shop (GC), I paid rather more than one can find them for on the Internet. They go for around $100-$120 new online (and sometimes less on "that auction site") if PW is really interested.

I'm not going to knock the M50s. I personally didn't like them and will be taking them back, but far be it from me to say they're bad. As PW said, these sorts of things are highly subjective, and the AT sound signature--deep, dark, smooth--just didn't do much for me. It's odd, though, that looking back on my original post I find I was generalizing from some rather bad source material in regards to the treble--for the record it's actually really smooth, except for the sibilance, which isn't universal but crops up a lot more than the descriptions for these noted. Must be I'm just sensitive to it.

On the other hand, the large quantity of upper bass/lower mids is still my main gripe with these, and as PW suggested, it hasn't changed nor will it. Some people love this and refer to it as "warm"--to me, it just seems murky and dull. The recessed upper mids don't help--I imagine these would be tremendous tracking cans, though; I was able to play these at insane volumes without any fatigue (not my usual listening policy, I assure you).

I didn't really know what to think regarding burn-in (hence the questions and the bit about wishful thinking). Half the audiophile world swears by it, and the other half says it's total BS. I can't personally say I've ever had gear improve from hours long burn-in, though I have experienced what somebody on here called "mechanical burn-in." Basically, it's a < 30 minute period (usually much less) when new equipment is run for the first time. Even then, I can't be sure if it's real, though it did occur on gear I wasn't actively monitoring and which I had listened to briefly before walking away and returning. It certainly doesn't take long, if it exists at all.

Nonetheless, I figured it couldn't hurt much to run the M50s for a while, though I have to say my experience here pretty much accords with what I've found in the past: after the first half an hour of time I had on them, they didn't change appreciably in sound. I'll keep an open mind on the subject, though I imagine a lot of factors (psychological burn-in, physical burn-in (literally the headband loosening, moving the drivers further from the ear), etc.) might play a role in the phenomenon.

But in the end I'm still just a n00b, so I've got a lot to learn. :D I can say I learned quite a bit from this experience, and I'd like to thank everybody who posted here for taking the time to weigh in and offer suggestions.

P.S. I'd still love to find a hifi shop near where I live where I can try out equipment at will--preliminary searches turned up nothing closer than an hour's drive away, and I have no idea if they even carry headphones. I don't mind using a site like HeadRoom, except that the turnaround will be a hassle if it turns out, as all indications would seem, that I'm a picky customer. Plus, while their selection is pretty decent, I've come across mention of a lot of cans HR doesn't stock.
 
Last edited:
Thanks yourself for your impressions of the M-50's. :thmbsp:

I don't like that "dark, smooth, and warm" description, I too don't like that type of sound (hence why I stay away from Senns). Some like it, but it always sounds too veiled or muddy, unclear and unexciting to me.

I've known for awhile how much the M-50's go for; they have been on my list for awhile of "Under $100 cans" to try. Several others are on there as well, ranging from $30 to $100ish. But I really don't need any new cans, so that's why I just don't buy them I guess. I am looking for closed back cans for quiet time, and have decided on the FA-003's, but they have been out of stock for over a month now! I'm also playing around with under $100 IEM's right now so I'm busy with that.

As to burn in, well it's fine if you believe in it and it's fine if you don't. I personally don't, because, first and foremost, there is no empirical reason to. So all we have is personal testimony "verifying" it's existence. Well, of course personal testimony/human experience is highly subjective, notoriously error ridden, and unscientific. So, given that there is no good empirical evidence/data for burn in and that all there is to support it's reality is highly dubious psychological "evidence" and that I personally have never experienced any significant burn in at least, I'm going to proportion my belief to the evidence and thus go with the (tentative and subject to revision!) conclusion that it doesn't exist in the external world, only in the faulty perception of the inner psycho-acoustic world. The phenomenon of burn in also has the logical problem that it is unfalsifiable, nothing can ever prove a proponent of it wrong...you can't, of course, get inside their heads or hear with their ears to prove they are mistaken or lying (the philosophic "private minds" problem). Also, of course, truth or reality is not to be decided by taking polls; (i.e. how many believe or don't believe in burn in), that's the ad populum logical fallacy of course.

Again, I won't argue this here and I don't care if someone is convinced of the reality of the phenomenon of burn in, just as they shouldn't care that I am not. Whatever works for you in this case applies. :thmbsp:

As for HeadRoom: Don't order from them! They usually have higher prices than elsewhere (Amazon and B&H Photo for 2). Not always, but most of the time. Search around online first at least. I like HeadRoom for their descriptions/pics of cans; they are actually fairly accurate imo, even though they put a very positive slant on all of them (they are trying to sell them of course!). But I've never ordered from them and probably never will.

Sorry these didn't work out for you, but with much gear you have to try it to know whether or not you'll like it. Not always, user/pro reviews can be very helpful in describing the SS of a speaker, headphone, amp, DAC, etc. that you will know you will either probably like or probably not like based on the description of the SS, but the only way to truly know is to try a few for yourself. This, of course, is not practical for many who don't have the time or money to try a dozen or half a dozen contenders of any piece of gear. But it is the best way...order a bunch of cans, try them all out for about a week, and then keep the one(s) you like the best and sell back the rest. Or you can do what I do: single out the best option based on your SS preferences, price, and comfort and then order it and forget about the rest. So far at least 4/6 of the cans/IEM's I've ordered have been good enough for me to be satisfied with for years. The ones that weren't my gf now uses happily lol (both Senn's btw, the PX-100 for portable and the 595's for full sized cans). :music:
 
Last edited:
I own a pair of Shure SRH-840 and I've just purchased an AudioTechnica ATH-M50. I love my SRH-840, but they broke after a year of use, althought I manage to repair it. So I decided to try with the ATH, and compared with the SRH, it sound almost identical (just out of the box), but with slightly more bass. I really like the sound of the ATH just as they are, with no burn in, but still prefer the SRH, because they have more detailed mids: voices and guitars just shine with exquicit detail. So if you are looking for a replacement of your ATH-M50 I recomend you the SRH-840.
 
"Deep, dark and smooth" used to describe the M50's? Hmm - not my experience at all.

Deep bass and smooth overall, but I would drop "dark" as a descriptor. JMO, naturally!
 
I have the white pair of M50's with the coiled cord. I personally use them mostly for personal listening as well as studio work and mixing. About 50/50 I'd say. For the mixing I do they are perfect, with everything I was looking for in studo work. As far as personal listening goes, after giving them a good amount of time they have flattened out a TON and now give great sound un-amped on my phone and laptop, as well as excellent sound from my Sony Receiver. I have owned them for about 6 months and will attest to the long "burn in" process. It took me a good two weeks to really get the best sound out of them. I would say give them time, they make up for it.
 
I'm not a fan of the M50s at all, and I've heard several different pairs.

I'd take the SRH840s over them any day...they sound better balanced and more articulate to my ears.

Of course, everyone hears differently...it's what makes this hobby simultaneously very exciting AND very frustrating.
 
I've owned my ATH-M50s for several years now and I'd hardly describe them as "deep, dark and smooth". They have a lot of low end, sure... it's the nature of a closed-back design with large drivers, but the entire frequency range is highly expansive and responsive on them.

The only part where they lack is in the midrange, but once again, that's the nature of closed-back cans.

You have to remember, these are studio monitors first and foremost: they are designed for accuracy, not "fun". They are incredibly revealing to both source material and hardware and as you noticed, the difference between switching amplification alone changed the sound dramatically.

Honestly, these are the best headphones you can get for under $200 if you're looking for accurate headphones for a variety of purposes. They're also the only headphones in their price range that have lasted me longer than a year, which really speaks of the build quality.
 
You have to remember, these are studio monitors first and foremost: they are designed for accuracy, not "fun". They are incredibly revealing to both source material and hardware...
Again, interesting how people see things differently.

Accurate is precisely what I feel the M50s are NOT. Especially in the low end where I find them to be a bit boomy and muddy.

To each his own, and happy listening. :music:
 
BTW, they now make a Limited Edition M50 in Red. I call it Lill Wayne M50s like the Lill Wayne Beats Pro.

Ok, I admit it. I like the Lill Wayne ATH-M50. :D

41aVcQ8CNqL._SX300_.jpg
lil-wayne-red-cherry-beats-no-problems.jpg


484667_498701766834833_162495299_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never thought I'd see a pair of M50s that I found to be unappealing. :no: Definitely prefer the classic black and the limited editions in silver.

Again, interesting how people see things differently.

Accurate is precisely what I feel the M50s are NOT. Especially in the low end where I find them to be a bit boomy and muddy.

To each his own, and happy listening. :music:

I've tried pretty much every commonly available studio-grade headphones you can think of up to $200; of all these, the ATH-M50s are the only ones that give a nearly accurate representation of what you're monitoring. The others I auditioned were too colored (Sennheiser), offered poor bass response (AKG) or simply didn't provide enough detail (Beyerdynamic) to be used for actual studio purposes.

With that in mind, I'd blame your source material and/or other hardware for that before I would the headphones. Then again, I suppose it's moot if you're only using these for listening and not actual music making (and yes, I actually use these on studio gear for my own amateur musings).

Like I said, they're not perfect, but at this price point? You'd be hard pressed to find anything that outdoes them in their respective category.
 
Back
Top Bottom