The bass amp is an interesting solution lol, my sub is "only" 150w and that's plenty. I imagine it's just out of curiosity and not an intended fix.

Didn't even tought about wavelength, my studio isn't anywhere close to 32 feet but i had a crazy peak in 33hz, i wouldn't know what to make of this. Have you tried moving the amp around ?

Well, as i say, the important part is that you're happy.

Despite all i've written, having a good room to listen your stuff does make quite the difference. It's a little sad that you only have your garage to listen on speakers. I bet there's a lot you can do to improve your experience but if there is too many logistical constraints, you might still end up with a somewhat poor setup.

Personnally, i do have some dips in the lower bass, not horrible ones tho, and it still beat any of my headphones including the 650 and other ones with close to perfect frequency response measures on the low end of the spectrum.

It's really something else to listen to cello or double bass in good conditions. the absolute best of course is to listen to it live in a good venue. Listening to orchestral stuff in a church is pretty damn wild. I usually hate stadiums or big industrial type of venues.

Hey man, to each his own.

The lower frequencies can be tricky to treat. But i feel that with that amount of money you should be able to get decent monitors plus a sub. You can usually move around the sub, more so than front speakers.

In my studio, i use a 500€ sub. There's really no headphone in the world that can make you feel those kick. But in my living room i use a 20€ sub that i got from second hand market, it goes down to 40Hz. I won't go on a long ass piece on how the difference in price is really justified between those two, but if you just want to hear the kick and you don't care about other considerations, it would fill the task.

I'm pretty sure there is a (cheap) solution to your problem, even tho i couldn't tell exactly what it is without more informations.

I wasn't being fully serious.

I like to keep it light, i swear i'm not a troll.

But to be a little more serious, speakers is just a better way to listen to music and sound in general. I don't know a single sound engineer that mix primarily on headphones. Sure if the room acoustic is dogshit and your standing 30 feet from the speakers it won't be great. If you poke random holes in your headphone then soak it in bath water, it won't be great either. I understand those two things are not the same, i'm sorry i like to keep it light.

I also got studio monitors, and i have those 5 feet from me, it cost 200€ and it was already better than any headphone i tried before i treated my room and bought a sub and did EQ. if you are close to the speakers and are a little careful about where you place it, the room treatment is less important in my experience. I get plenty of details too.

I understand why it might get people upset on the headphone sub, but OP question was fair. Most people that go deep in buying gear will tell you that after a certain threshold, the money spend isn't proportionate to the upgrade. As far as i know, i'd rather spend 400€ for a good sub than the same money for a new headphone that will do some stuff better than my hd650 but some things worse. Even if i spend a thousand € on a hd800, i'll probably get a great soundstage but it will never be as good as the soundstage i'll get with my 200€ speakers. So to me the room treatment isn't really a valid reason. If you got a really shitty room acoustic, unless your living in a stadium it will cost you much less to treat it than a thousand bucks headphone.

Don't get me wrong, i love headphones and i definitely would buy a focal clear and a hd800 and one of those planar if i ever get plenty of cash for it. But that would not replace the good old speakers. It would be for quiet listening sessions and to get a great listening experience abroad or on a trip.

wrong answer

i tought you meant mind-blowingly low

oh well

Right, it seems we're basically saying the same thing as far as opinion goes.

I'm definitely not offended as i pretty much know for a fact that i rely a lot on brand and word-to-mouth. I have little tools, time or money to make much empiric researches for the gear i use. Or even read and understand released documents.

The main point i was making was that the language you used implied some self-evident truth in how a neutral sound is basically good sound, and that goes for everyone. Why would anyone even make any research if it was indeed self-evident ?

I'm glad researches point toward that being the case though, i would really like to convert everyone i know to using more neutral gears.

not by definition.

While i agree with your premise, given the chance i believe most people would rather have a neutral sounding headset. it's not self evident either.

First i tought most people would rather have bassy gear like Bose or Beats. A quick search showed me that the most sold earpiece was apparently the airpods (i couldn't fact-check), which have a treble bias.

But frankly, this doesn't prove that most people like either bassy or trebly headphones. To me it only show that people react more to brand recognition and/or to the "fashion" element of their gear. Also i believe there's a mass production element to it. It's easier and more efficient to have a controlled bias than go to accuracy for accuracy's sake (as in, TRYING to be accurate).

But whether most people would rather want unbiased gear or not is left to be proven.