or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › K702 in the Studio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K702 in the Studio - Page 4

post #46 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post
And if, as one person wrote, we can't trust the frequency graphs to tell us what sounds flat, how do we even know if the studio monitors are flat?
The sound from studio monitors passes though your ears the normal way, and so your HRTF is already applied, and distance has already taken what it will from the sound. Headphones are generally right on top of your ears, and aimed directly in from the sides. If they are to try to sound anything like speakers in a normal position, they have to find a way to compensate for at least some of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna View Post
"If it sounds good to you, it is good."
Almost exactly my point. More accurately: If it sounds flat to you, compared to studio monitors in an acoustically controlled room, it is flat, for you. I don't actually expect most people to perceive a peak between 6kHz and 10kHz as flat -- was pure speculation as to why anyone would, really.

If someone else started another thread with the subject "HD600 in the Studio" and went on about the virtues of mixing and mastering on the HD600, I wouldn't expect the response to look much different. Just replace "plasticy" with "veiled" and "weak bass" with "over-emphasized bass."

That was the point I was trying and failing to make -- these discussions have a bad habit of generating more heat than light, but ultimately, there's not necessarily a single right answer. It's the reason for all the "heat" that confuses me.
post #47 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post
Of course. When listening for pleasure I will often choose the k240's because they sound 'good' to me...just like I will eat food that tastes good to me, not to you. But when we are talking about mixing we have to use a different standard, no? If we are hoping to have our music heard by someone in the music 'industry' we want it to sound good on studio monitor speakers...and what sounds good to me mixed my k240's will likely sound very deficient in the upper bass when listened to on 'flat' monitor speakers. And what sounds good mixed on my mdr-v6's may sound lacking in the upper mids/treble on 'flat' speakers or headphones. So, who should I believe about which headphones have the most accurate/neutral sound? And if, as one person wrote, we can't trust the frequency graphs to tell us what sounds flat, how do we even know if the studio monitors are flat? Without the plot of the frequency response we have no frame of reference at all to decide what is flat!
MySpace.com - Le Jaz - LONG BRANCH, New Jersey - Folk Rock / Country / Alternative - www.myspace.com/lejaz
Most professionally recorded music is still mixed utilizing studio monitor speakers and not headphones. If you want to be absolutely sure what your music will sound like when played over studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room, I suggest you do the mix / playback utilizing studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room.
With all of the advancements in computer home recording technology, professional studio recording has yet to be completely equaled and replaced. Unless, of course, you happen to have a professional recording facility in your home that would include such things as studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room. Most people do not have this primarily because of the expense of not only the equipment but also the expense, time and the expertise it takes to build an acoustically controlled room.
post #48 of 305
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna View Post
The question now becomes has Acix ever compared thoroughly the sound of the K 701's to "flat" studio monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room? And, if so, does he really think the K 701 sounds "flat"? If he does, Acix would certainly be the first person with whom I've ever communicated who would think the sound of the K 701 sounds "flat". Here, let me point out, that I'm not saying what Acix's actual opinion would be. I'm only asking a question where he is concerned.

The answer to your question is on my original post...
post #49 of 305
Thread Starter 
Now, back to the light. I do have other headphones with flat response. My Pioneer Monitor 10. They're from ''74-''78 and they're really satisfying to me, especially if I need to check the overall sound balance, my Pioneers are equal to the Yamaha NS10, in terms of the flat response. Other headphones I have checked that have given me a flat response are the AKG K240 DF. Regarding the Sennheiser HD 600, I had the opportunity to check them against the HD590, 580 and the 650. Overall, they do sound balanced, but in general, I'm not crazy about the Sennheiser sound. To me, it's not as clean as the 70X, and when I say clean, I mean that they do sound acoustically controlled. Members mention the "deadness", so if it's the same as the clean sound presentation that the 702 offers, it's fine with me. It makes it more easy for me to clean up noise, hiss, clicking, hum, etc.

The K702 has a big sound stage and a very 3D sound image. Some of the new models of the studio monitor speakers do provide some of the 3D sonic image, especially after Genelec introduced the 8XXX series. In the near future, we'll begin to see more and more oval shaped monitor speakers. The oval shaped speakers represent new technology that provides a better 3D image of the sound. My biggest surprise was when I found out that the closest speakers to the 702s were the ADAM Audio S3A speakers. They don't use the oval shape, but they use the ribbon tweeter, which does an excellent job. Maybe I should have another talk with Santa.
LL
LL
post #50 of 305
Also Peter Pinna I would like to point out that in older posts (before you joined the forum, but also while you were here) state that alot of people find the 701 very neutral (I don't like the term flat at all, seems very inaccurate for reasons pointed out earlier). Actually the main reason why people didn't like the K701 is for it being very dull and lifeless sounding, and having one for now almost a year I definetly get what they are saying.

The reason for this 'dull' sounding could be either a true fault of the k701, or us being accustomed to the 'wow loads of bass and treble' sound, though the letter would be a little extreme imo (since we are able to compare to studio monitors here, and if you don't mind me asking as a semi-music producer myself, what monitors are you actually using, in my experience there is even alot of difference between a Yamaha NS10s, some genelecs, mackie's, AKG's etc. thats why most studio's have at least 3 pairs of monitors, they face the same issues as we do with headphones).

Another important factor to take into account is that stuff is being mixed so it sounds great on all sorts of speakers and headphones. This is why if I want to enjoy music I don't listen to my AKG monitors, because they sound again dull and lifeless, not how I enjoy music. On the other hand, if I can make it sound good on the AKG's, I can be pretty sure that they will sound good on both ibuds and energy connesseurs . For the Ultrasone the major issue also seems the s-logic (plus). For the people that it works, they love it and love the ultrasone's. But there are also plenty of people out there that only find the S-logic something annoying, and thus don't like the ultrasone's.

I'm actually happy having both, though my preference atm is more towards the Pro 900 instead of the K701 (the k701's soundstage is huge, thus making my mix into a close sound, when listening to other headphones or monitors (as one should mix!)). Anyway, very informative thread

edit: Acix -> sorry for saying stuff double, you posted just while I was typing !
post #51 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvanrij View Post
Also Peter Pinna I would like to point out that in older posts (before you joined the forum, but also while you were here) state that alot of people find the 701 very neutral (I don't like the term flat at all, seems very inaccurate for reasons pointed out earlier). Actually the main reason why people didn't like the K701 is for it being very dull and lifeless sounding, and having one for now almost a year I definetly get what they are saying.

The reason for this 'dull' sounding could be either a true fault of the k701, or us being accustomed to the 'wow loads of bass and treble' sound, though the letter would be a little extreme imo (since we are able to compare to studio monitors here, and if you don't mind me asking as a semi-music producer myself, what monitors are you actually using, in my experience there is even alot of difference between a Yamaha NS10s, some genelecs, mackie's, AKG's etc. thats why most studio's have at least 3 pairs of monitors, they face the same issues as we do with headphones).

Another important factor to take into account is that stuff is being mixed so it sounds great on all sorts of speakers and headphones. This is why if I want to enjoy music I don't listen to my AKG monitors, because they sound again dull and lifeless, not how I enjoy music. On the other hand, if I can make it sound good on the AKG's, I can be pretty sure that they will sound good on both ibuds and energy connesseurs . For the Ultrasone the major issue also seems the s-logic (plus). For the people that it works, they love it and love the ultrasone's. But there are also plenty of people out there that only find the S-logic something annoying, and thus don't like the ultrasone's.

I'm actually happy having both, though my preference atm is more towards the Pro 900 instead of the K701 (the k701's soundstage is huge, thus making my mix into a close sound, when listening to other headphones or monitors (as one should mix!)). Anyway, very informative thread

edit: Acix -> sorry for saying stuff double, you posted just while I was typing !
As I wrote previously, this is a very "loaded" subject.
There are many different directions one could take to attempt to explain certain ideas about which there is disagreement.
Let's first look at the idea of finding the sound of headphones to be "flat" (or "neutral" if you prefer that term). My question here is "Compared to what?"
When it comes to the idea of human hearing and the supposedly statistically "average" way that a human hears, it is difficult, even for experts in that field to determine at exactly which EQ settings the "average" human would hear the sound of headphones as being "neutral".
Some might answer my "Compared to what?" question with this answer: "Graphs." Really? Theoretically speaking, if one was able to determine the exact graphing it would take to cause the average human to hear the sound from headphones as "neutral", the disagreements about this particular subject would not be as strong as they are. Therefore, there must be other factors to take into consideration.
One of those factors is difference in hearing perception. One of those differences could be a person with some type of deficient hearing versus a person with excellent hearing. It is highly possible that a person with deficient hearing would be unable to discern the difference between the sound produced by a pair of headphones and a pair of monitor speakers in some aspect of the sound. Therefore, to that person, when comparing to "neutral" monitor speakers, those headphones would sound "neutral" (vvanrig, I'm using this term because of your preference). To a person with excellent hearing who could distinguish more of the differences, those same headphones would not sound as similar to those "neutral" monitor speakers causing a difference of opinion.

Another aspect of differences in hearing perception involves the imagination and psycho-acoustic factors. The disagreements over whether or not different cables produce different sounds is a good example of this. I'm not diverting this thread to discuss cables (so, please, no one "go there"). I'm only using this as an example. Some sound experts say that any perceived differences in sound caused by different cables is purely in the imagination of the listener and don't actual exist in fact. Others very much disagree with this opinion. Could it be that a person with excellent hearing could imagine that they hear a strong similarity between the sound of headphones and the sound of studio monitor speakers?

When I've written about the similarity of the Pro 750's sound to that of "neutral" studio monitor speakers, etc., I've always stated that this was "to my ears" or "IMO". And, I've never said that the Pro 750's were "neutral". Indeed they are not. Another area where I have been misquoted is the idea that supposedly, I think that the Pro 750 is the 'the most neutral headphone'. I never wrote this. There is also the misquote that have caused some to believe that I think the Pro 750 produces the closest comparative sound to that of "neutral" studio monitors of any headphone extant. I never wrote this either. Of the one's I've heard, it produces the closest similarity but I have never ruled out the idea that there are possibly (probably) headphones that will produce a stronger similarity. I bring up this issue here because these misquotes have been used against me in "discussions" in the past. It's very difficult to argue against a misquote because, first, it becomes necessary to find out the full content of the misquote. Otherwise, one is not exactly sure what opinionated idea they are discussing and thereafter either accepting or denying as one of their own (opinions).

There are so many variables to discuss and in this post I have barely "scratched the surface". Differences in the sound of monitor speakers is another factor as pointed out by vvanrij. There is also the factor of varying distances between the listener and the speakers. The factors involved in this "discussion" are numerous, to say the very least.
post #52 of 305
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna View Post
My question here is "Compared to what?".

Compared to what? Compared to other headphones. This is what I was talking about regarding having or gaining your own experience.

Graphs are only one aspect, but sometimes there are other factors that need to be considered. As I pointed out, there are a few headphones that may represent the average of what can be referred to as flat or neutral. Some of the older models that I have experience with, and consider to be flat, are the K140, K240 DF, K300, Pioneer Monitor 10. Mostly one can find this flat, neutral response in vintage studio monitor headphones and they'll have a sound that is more up front without an emphasized sound stage. Also there are some newer headphones that can be perceived as flat, just with more extension on the sonic image, like the RS1, K240MKll, QP240 and the HD600.(The RS-1 sound balanced and they are great cans, but not so much of the sound stage as the K70X). Soon I will have more information about the GMP 8.35 D Monitor. I think the most important thing in today's headphones is the overall balance. In the new 3D environment, and a good example is the K70X, and this is the reason I started this post, to offer musicians a tool to gain more knowledge, inspiration and creativity that can be used in the music and added to the mix and to the mastering process.
post #53 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
Compared to what? Compared to other headphones. This is what I was talking about regarding having or gaining your own experience.

Graphs are only one aspect, but sometimes there are other factors that need to be considered. As I pointed out, there are a few headphones that may represent the average of what can be referred to as flat or neutral. Some of the older models that I have experience with, and consider to be flat, are the K140, K240 DF, K300, Pioneer Monitor 10. Mostly one can find this flat, neutral response in vintage studio monitor headphones and they'll have a sound that is more up front without an emphasized sound stage. Also there are some newer headphones that can be perceived as flat, just with more extension on the sonic image, like the RS1, K240MKll, QP240 and the HD600.(The RS-1 sound balanced and they are great cans, but not so much of the sound stage as the K70X). Soon I will have more information about the GMP 8.35 D Monitor. I think the most important thing in today's headphones is the overall balance. In the new 3D environment, and a good example is the K70X, and this is the reason I started this post, to offer musicians a tool to gain more knowledge, inspiration and creativity that can be used in the music and added to the mix and to the mastering process.
Acix,
To quote former President Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!"
In the sense of determining whether or not a headphone sounds "neutral" or "flat" (which term do you prefer?), using a headphone as your original comparative listening source is an invalid method. For this type of listening comparison, one must utilize "neutral" monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room. (Yes, there are variances in the sound of monitor speakers so we're talking in generalities here to some extent. In other words, some monitor speakers will be easier to use as a comparative listening source than others).
If headphones are utilized as an original comparative source, how was it determined originally that those particular headphones sounded "neutral"? If your answer to this question is that they were determined to be "neutral" by you, my response would be that there are too many possibly deception auditory factors involved for someone to just arbitrarily ("out of the blue") determine that a headphone "sounds" "neutral" without the prior original comparative listening source of monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room. And, the person making the comparison must possess excellent hearing ability.
post #54 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna View Post
Acix,
To quote former President Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!"
In the sense of determining whether or not a headphone sounds "neutral" or "flat" (which term do you prefer?), using a headphone as your original comparative listening source is an invalid method. For this type of listening comparison, one must utilize "neutral" monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room. (Yes, there are variances in the sound of monitor speakers so we're talking in generalities here to some extent. In other words, some monitor speakers will be easier to use as a comparative listening source than others).
Now, how do we know if the "neutral" monitor speakers that you speak of are as "neutral" as you think? Especially since you said that there's no definitive answer as to what is "neutral", how do we know that those speakers are "neutral" to begin with? What makes comparing headphones to monitoring headphones more invalid than comparing them to monitor speakers? A headphone may very well be more "neutral" than the speakers, I don't know. Then the question just go back and forth and become meaningless.
post #55 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonboy403 View Post
Now, how do we know if the "neutral" monitor speakers that you speak of are as "neutral" as you think? Especially since you said that there's no definitive answer as to what is "neutral", how do we know that those speakers are "neutral" to begin with? What makes comparing headphones to monitoring headphones more invalid than comparing them to monitor speakers? A headphone may very well be more "neutral" than the speakers, I don't know. Then the question just go back and forth and become meaningless.
This overall question that is the main subject of your post has been answered before but I will answer it briefly again. But, first, here we have another misquote. I never said "...there's no definitive answer as to what is "neutral"". And, I never meant to imply that.
Now to the answer of the main subject:
When monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room are EQ'd "neutral" ("flat"), on average, a person with excellent "normal" hearing will hear the sound from those monitor speakers as being "neutral". (Variances of this to some degree involve such factors as distance from the speakers which is much less of a factor in an acoustically controlled room than it would be in one's living room.)
In contrast and by way of comparison, when the sound of headphones is EQ'd "neutral", a person with excellent "normal" hearing will not hear the sound from those headphones as "neutral". In other words, in order for someone with excellent "normal" hearing to hear a "neutral" EQ sound from headphones, those headphones must be EQ'd at a setting other than "neutral".
I hope this answers your questions.
post #56 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonboy403 View Post
Now, how do we know if the "neutral" monitor speakers that you speak of are as "neutral" as you think?
It's far easier to meaningfully measure the FR of monitor speakers.
post #57 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pinna View Post
This overall question that is the main subject of your post has been answered before but I will answer it briefly again. But, first, here we have another misquote. I never said "...there's no definitive answer as to what is "neutral"". And, I never meant to imply that.
Now to the answer of the main subject:
When monitor speakers in an acoustically controlled room are EQ'd "neutral" ("flat"), on average, a person with excellent "normal" hearing will hear the sound from those monitor speakers as being "neutral". (Variances of this to some degree involve such factors as distance from the speakers which is much less of a factor in an acoustically controlled room than it would be in one's living room.)
In contrast and by way of comparison, when the sound of headphones is EQ'd "neutral", a person with excellent "normal" hearing will not hear the sound from those headphones as "neutral". In other words, in order for someone with excellent "normal" hearing to hear a "neutral" EQ sound from headphones, those headphones must be EQ'd at a setting other than "neutral".
I hope this answers your questions.
Thanks for the answer.
post #58 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnxPrgr3 View Post
It's far easier to meaningfully measure the FR of monitor speakers.
Perhaps without realizing it, you answered your own question.
In a sense, EQ of monitor speakers is determined by measuring frequencies. Actually, most (if not all) are designed that way so that without using any alteration of the EQ adjustment, what they play will be a "neutral" presentation of the source sound. However, this '"neutral" presentation" can be affected by the acoustics of a room possibly causing the "neutrality" of the sound to become an EQ setting other than neutral. In an acoustically controlled room, this type of change, for the most part, doesn't happen. A certain distance from the monitor speakers as compared to a different distance from the monitor speakers can also possibly effect EQ setting (in the sense of how a person would perceive the sound). In an acoustically controlled room, however, this is far less likely to be as much of a factor.
post #59 of 305
Acix you kind of lost me with calling the AKG K300 flat.

Peter Pinna thanks for your informative answers, the reason why I prefer the term neutral to flat, is because neutral is how we perceive the sound, and flat would suggest a straight line on all frequencies. As pointed out before a flat line on all frequencies will not give us a neutral sound spectrum (we are way more sensitive towards the 1000hz range for isntance).
post #60 of 305
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvanrij View Post
Acix you kind of lost me with calling the AKG K300 flat.

Peter Pinna thanks for your informative answers, the reason why I prefer the term neutral to flat, is because neutral is how we perceive the sound, and flat would suggest a straight line on all frequencies. As pointed out before a flat line on all frequencies will not give us a neutral sound spectrum (we are way more sensitive towards the 1000hz range for isntance).
I've used the term "flat" for the last 20 years, ever since the Yamaha NS10 started being perceived as the music industry standard. And yes, the term "flat" suggests a direct connection as a straight line on all frequencies.This is much more easy way to describe the sounds. Neutral reminds me more of a political term...like Switzerland, but I do very much like what Switzerland represents, but I would definitely prefer the term balanced and could be applied also to many situations in life. Whatever people want to call it is okay with me. The more important point here is for us to have an understanding of what's being discussed and to clear away the confusion and disinformation.

Yes, about the K300...Well they are maybe not the K240DF, but they are very inexpensive and very fun to work with.
Now, To compare the vintage K141 Vs K702...is almost like watching a 20 inch black and white TV and comparing it to the new monster flat screen HDTV...With surround sound! I got rid of my TV 6 years ago, and I do love the vintage monitor headphones to be able to cross reference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › K702 in the Studio