I liked the Bamboo (it's a grass) look more.
>based on what i think is appropriate so sorry if its kinda poor/hard to understand
It's fine and better than the audio press. It might help that I know what each headphone does.
>there is less bass i think
>that or since it appears to be more punchy it doesn't last as long and appears as if there's less of it
Flatter bass implies quicker bass (single driver, no other resonator, no ports).
To go on a tangent:
You can break down the bass of a headphone to the mechanical resonation of a driver. When you talk about a resonator, or the simulated resonators in a parametric EQ (use one, they're great), you define it by center frequency, amplitude, and Q.
Q has definitions of:
-how "focused" a resonator on a frequency range, its center frequency divided by the range in Hz
-how long it takes to decay, how long it lingers around
High Q means the resonator is sharply focused on one specific frequency, and lingers around for a long time. Low Q means the resonator, the headphone's bass bump, will be spread out over a wider frequency range, and decay more quickly.
The time and frequency have a relation that gives them an inverse relation to each other, one goes up, the other goes down. You could say it like this:
>(time)*(frequency) = a constant*
Time in seconds, frequency in Hz.
For headphones, a moderate Q bass lift leaves a fair bit of slow decaying bass. If this were the treble, the same Q would spread the bump over several thousand Hz, and would decay faster. An extremely low Q would give a response that is spread out enough to look flat, with very quick decay.
For your headphones, the HD 600 bass has a fairly low Q, with a few dB of amplitude at resonance. LCD-2 has a much lower Q than that, with less amplitude, and faster decay.
If you're wondering how the frequency stuff can tie so much into the temporal, they aren't separate
*This has a non-coincidental similarity to Heisenberg's Inequality
