Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Studio's sound engineer best headphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Studio's sound engineer best headphones - Page 2

post #16 of 43

 

stv014: I had a listen to the 80 ohm version, perhaps as you mention the 250 ohm version is better.  For me either way, they are out due to lack of comfort (my ear doesn't fit in that tiny space), though I am interested to hear from someone who has heard the 250 ohm that can comment.  Also you're right, the DT880s look particularly bad on the Golden Ears graphs though Headroom graphs do show a similar problem to a lesser degree and also make the HD600s look a little worse...

 

280
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoum View Post

Yes, Zambz, a graph is a simple info

 

I never could stay more than 10mn with a HP on my head, I complain always the musician and artist, who have to suffer that all day long.

 

What do you think about grado alessandro music pro? couldn't find any graph @ goldenears.

 

I'll check @ InnerFidelity and HeadRoom


I'm sorry but I haven't heard the Alessandro / Grado phones myself mate, although I don't hear about them as much for studio use here.  Not sure if they are made to sound neutral.

 

For what it's worth, moving between my SRH-840s and studio monitors is relatively seemless.   I know that I'm going to get a bit more treble on the headphones and that's it.  The amount of bass on the SRH-840s is about right compared to my monitors.  What I will say about the SRH-840s is that they require a decent amount of burn in (between 100 to 200 hours) for the highs to smoothen out.  Initially they were quite harsh in the highs.  For me they are super comfortable, but I have read mixed results with the SRH-840s so you best put em on your noggin at a store to be sure.  The weight of the headband is completely unnoticeable to me (it was at first but not now).  The pads on the SRH-840s are the best pleather pads I have ever felt, they are incredibly soft and just down right cozy! 

 

Here's a thorough comparison of lows, mids and highs vs the ADAM A7s....

  • The ADAMS have a little more bass and punch a little more (probably true of most speakers vs headphones)
  • The ADAMs have very slightly more mids than the SRH-840s
  • The SRH-840s have a bit more treble which makes the monitors sound a little smoother in comparison.  The monitors also produce upper frequencies a little better (17kHz - 20kHz) but that's likely due to the ribbon tweeters that go all the way up to 35kHz and don't roll off at all up to 20kHz.  As such, the ADAMs sparkle better with well mixed material.

 

I was never a firm believer in burn-in, but I use my studio monitors 80% of the time and headphones the other 20% so I did not "get used" to the sound since the sound I am listening to most the time is my monitors and everything is referenced off them.  I truly believe that burn-in is a real and legitimate concept.  I burned them in by playing regular music at slightly louder than regular volume, perhaps pink noise would burn them in quicker but I didn't want to put them through constant pink noise blink.gif


Edited by zambz - 2/19/12 at 3:34am
post #17 of 43
Thread Starter 

May be Acix, but I remember I loved 15/20 years ago a Sony MDR 1000, I think, It was closed but the speaker was placed in angle

post #18 of 43
Thread Starter 

Sorry but I simply hate Adam & Genelec as well...good marketing but too generious

post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoum View Post

May be Acix, but I remember I loved 15/20 years ago a Sony MDR 1000, I think, It was closed but the speaker was placed in angle



Well...20-25 years ago I had the AKG 141, Yamaha RH5MA, and the Fostex-T20. Today hps is like going from 4 track cassette tape to protools.

 

With the hps on your recommendation list you'll need hps amp, try to imagine NS10 powered by Rotel 25W.

post #20 of 43

 

 Good enough for Bob Ludwig - probably good enough for you wink.gif

 

 Bob Ludwig (b. circa 1945) is an American mastering engineer.

He is a well known and respected figure within the music industry.[1] His name is credited on the covers of

albums released across the world, and he has won numerous awards.

Throughout his career, he has mastered recordings on all the major recording formats for all the major record labels,

and on projects for many artists such as AC/DCRushJimi HendrixPaul McCartneyMadonnaEric ClaptonDavid Bowie

Rolling StonesRadioheadDef LeppardFoo FightersNirvanaSmashing PumpkinsGreen DaySupertrampThe Who and 

Dire Straits [2] as well as for more than 1300 other artists .[3]

 

They're getting on a bit but last I heard, he still preferred them to an early pair of HD800's back in 2009.

 

These are Joseph Grados not John Grados

 

 HP1000

 

 hp1000-2.jpg 

 

hp1000-1.jpg

 

 

post #21 of 43

I used to do a bit of mixing in the past and am certainly not on your level but would like to give you my 2 cents. I am always a big fan of neutral headphones and at one point have owned both the DT880 and HD600 at the same time. Both are relatively neutral to me but to my ears, the HD600 is much more neutral than the DT880. The HD600 sounded harsh sometimes but it depends on the recording while on the other hand, the DT880 always sounds smooth and performs well across all genre. By the way, I listen primarily to classical and jazz.

 

Soundstage: DT880 > HD600

Instrument Sep: HD600 > DT880

Neutrality: HD600 > DT880

Forgiving: DT880 > HD600

Detail: DT880 > HD600

Timbre: HD600 > DT880

 

YMMV

 

post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikp View Post

I used to do a bit of mixing in the past and am certainly not on your level but would like to give you my 2 cents. I am always a big fan of neutral headphones and at one point have owned both the DT880 and HD600 at the same time. Both are relatively neutral to me but to my ears, the HD600 is much more neutral than the DT880. The HD600 sounded harsh sometimes but it depends on the recording while on the other hand, the DT880 always sounds smooth and performs well across all genre. By the way, I listen primarily to classical and jazz.

 

Soundstage: DT880 > HD600

Instrument Sep: HD600 > DT880

Neutrality: HD600 > DT880

Forgiving: DT880 > HD600

Detail: DT880 > HD600

Timbre: HD600 > DT880

 

YMMV

 


Fascinating stuff indeed!  Did you find it beneficial to own both at the same time while working on a mix?  Which cans translated better in your experience? beyersmile.png

 

post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by zambz View Post


Fascinating stuff indeed!  Did you find it beneficial to own both at the same time while working on a mix?  Which cans translated better in your experience? beyersmile.png

 

 

Sorry I've left it a bit vague, it's live mixing. Both are excellent cans but I'm in favour of the HD600 for its much more defined presentation and timbre. The DT880 isn't far behind though. It's always my first choice when it comes to movies. But when it comes to mastering, I personally think the HD600's soundstage might be too closed in.

 


 

 

post #24 of 43
Thread Starter 

Yeah Bob Ludwig..... Great Mastering he make on my mixing...normal he still use what he like

post #25 of 43

I am not a recording engineer, just a guy who owns the Sennheiser HD600, HD650 and Audeze LCD-2, which I use with professional equipment, a Benchmark DAC1, Bryston BP25 pre-amp (as a headphone amp), as well as a Behringer DEQ2496 and, recently, Metrum Octave DAC. Out of those three I think there is a case for both the LCD-2 and HD600, but for entirely different reasons. This is an unscientific opinion, based purely on listening, but I would concur that the HD600 must be one of the most neutral headphones around. My music collection is eclectic, including rock, pop, classical, jazz, folk etc., mostly popular non-audiophile recordings, and the HD600 is the one that works best across the widest variety of CDs. Aside from the frequency balance however, the LCD-2 beats the crap out of the HD600 to my ears. It is far more accurate and revealing, especially with dense and complex rock and pop mixes. Easier to tell instruments and voices apart, easier to understand lyrics, more revealing of enunciation, of reverb, of panning effects and so on. It's not something that smacks you over the head if you listen casually with your mind on something else, but something that became obvious within 5 minutes of getting the LCD-2 all the same. It's about subtlety. Perhaps counter-intuitively the LCD-2 manages this despite a shelved-down treble.

When it comes to differences in equipment, there's a lot of stuff I don't hear. I've tried different DACs. I've also tried the Apex Peak/Volcano headphone amp with Shuguang tube. Any of those electronics, I felt, were too close to what I already owned to be worth the investment, if I could tell the difference at all. I am not a golden-eared audiophile and I think my hearing peters out around 12.5kHz. The Audeze LCD-2 was the exception for me, a component that made an unarguable difference.

Please let me be clear that I don't mean this as an endorsement for the LCD-2 specifically. That headphone has been called 'dark' by some. Personally I would go further and say it's frequency response is quite obviously flawed in the treble. It doesn't verge so far from neutral as the difference between the brightest and dullest CDs in my record collection, but far enough that it typically works much better with bright pop recordings than, for example, classical. I use it with a digital equalizer to redress this.

My personal conclusion is that, when it comes to headphones, paying for something in the ballpark of the LCD-2 is worthwhile and that, perhaps, technology has moved on since the HD600. That said I don't have the experience to truly back this up. High-end headphones have always been around, Stax comes to mind, nor can I say whether something cheaper won't get you there as well. What I think the HD600 has going for it is it's apparently accurate frequency response and a sound that puts it close to an average mid-fi system. This is no doubt useful, but if you want to hear what's really going on in a mix then, I think, something like the LCD-2 and, I would assume, HD800 etc. etc. is much better.

post #26 of 43

.


Edited by WarriorAnt - 5/2/12 at 10:38pm
post #27 of 43

Look into the older AKG K240M/ K240 Monitor ( 600 ohm )    ( even the K240DF )   They pop up in decent condition a bit. FLAT response and if you look around for impressions you'll find they have a great history of use in pro studios.


Edited by nick n - 2/19/12 at 12:19pm
post #28 of 43


If you equalize the SRH-840 and SRH-940 to have near-identical FR, the 940 is still an easy victor in overall sound quality.

 

The Tesla T1 has extreme note definition and refinement, compared to the DT series, IIRC.

 

Not sure about Sony CD900ST / MDR-7520 and Fostex T50RP,  LCD-2 rev.2?

 

 

Edit:  May as well put Fostex TH900 out there.

 


Edited by kiteki - 4/30/12 at 7:49pm
post #29 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post


If you equalize the SRH-840 and SRH-940 to have near-identical FR, the 940 is still an easy victor in overall sound quality.


 

 

I wonder how close both would sound if you used SRH-840 pads on both headphones.

 

I've noticed that on my DJ100, the SRH-940 pads made the bass go out the windows. Maybe this is why the SRH-840 has more bass than the SRH-940. Highly unlikely, but you never know..

post #30 of 43

Just a sidetrack. I would think all equipment colors the sound in some way or another... be prepared to know your equipment and the consumer's quipment, and cross check with other props to make sure your desired effect would he represented nicely in most set up.

 

(Serious sidetrack) And heck, Genelec is flat as a real ruler.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Studio's sound engineer best headphones