New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Studio Headphones - Page 8

post #106 of 374

But that's part of what makes beyerdynamic one of my favorite headphones. They are so easy to tweak to your liking. That is of course if you like to try and get the best sound out of your equipment.

post #107 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
 

 

Ha! That might be true of just about anything!

 

Personally I'm not interested in spending $1,400 on a headphone which I then have to modify..............


There's not enough love for the 600 ohm DT880s here. Some people even prefer them over the T1 :P

post #108 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrixnobu View Post
 

But that's part of what makes beyerdynamic one of my favorite headphones. They are so easy to tweak to your liking. That is of course if you like to try and get the best sound out of your equipment.

 

I guess it depends on whether we're talking about which are the best studio headphones for professional use or the best for hobbyists. No working musician wants to spend time tweaking sound reproduction equipment; much more inclined though to tweak sound production equipment.

 

Nothing wrong with having fun modding headphones though, if that's what you like to do!

post #109 of 374
Thread Starter 
post #110 of 374
Thread Starter 
post #111 of 374

Tyll seems to say that the Classic is more neutral; if so, I should have thought he would recommend it--not the Professional--for studio use.

He generally seems to think that we're living in some sort of golden age for closed models, and becomes rather excited about some new model every few months. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it arouses my suspicions though I'm not sure of what. Of course, I hope they sound great: the more, the better.

Besides that, why do so many closed models have small earcups (except when they go in the other direction like K550)? The closed ones tend to be worse with regard to this than open models.
post #112 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post


Tyll seems to say that the Classic is more neutral; if so, I should have thought he would recommend it--not the Professional--for studio use.

He generally seems to think that we're living in some sort of golden age for closed models, and becomes rather excited about some new model every few months. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it arouses my suspicions though I'm not sure of what. Of course, I hope they sound great: the more, the better.

Besides that, why do so many closed models have small earcups (except when they go in the other direction like K550)? The closed ones tend to be worse with regard to this than open models.

 

My take on it: Kids aren't bumping open headphones to and from class, on the subway, on the bus, or on foot around their neighborhoods. The Beats/Fashion headphone phenomenon and the rapid expansion of smartphones as PMPs has pushed a lot of new old players into the game. By "new old", I mean that companies that have been making competent audio products for decades - just not headphones.  Focal and NAD are just the latest two. They have to get into the realm of headphone production because that's where profits are being made and business is being done...but more importantly its where companies are staking their brand recognition.

 

By and large, these new models that are coming out (at a rapid fire pace) are low impedance, high efficiency, closed on-ear and over-ear models. This surge of models is happening coterminus with the new Harmon research coming out and the Olive-Welti-McMullen research to find a new target response curve. Market forces and economics + quality audio and acoustics research = a lot of excellent closed phones, in sequence, with a lot of turnover. I think Tyll's reviews are just reflecting this.

 

On the last point, I think that companies are going small on the earcups because it's easier to assure a proper seal on a smaller cup than a larger cup. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't; either the persons ears won't fit because the pads are too small, or the fit is too positional and head sized sensitive because the pads are too big. They are erroring conservatively, in part because a youth audience is pushing the aforementioned beats/phones markets. Better chance they'll have smaller ears.

post #113 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinValentine View Post

 

My take on it: Kids aren't bumping open headphones to and from class, on the subway, on the bus, or on foot around their neighborhoods. The Beats/Fashion headphone phenomenon and the rapid expansion of smartphones as PMPs has pushed a lot of new old players into the game. By "new old", I mean that companies that have been making competent audio products for decades - just not headphones.  Focal and NAD are just the latest two. They have to get into the realm of headphone production because that's where profits are being made and business is being done...but more importantly its where companies are staking their brand recognition.

 

By and large, these new models that are coming out (at a rapid fire pace) are low impedance, high efficiency, closed on-ear and over-ear models. This surge of models is happening coterminus with the new Harmon research coming out and the Olive-Welti-McMullen research to find a new target response curve. Market forces and economics + quality audio and acoustics research = a lot of excellent closed phones, in sequence, with a lot of turnover. I think Tyll's reviews are just reflecting this.

 

On the last point, I think that companies are going small on the earcups because it's easier to assure a proper seal on a smaller cup than a larger cup. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't; either the persons ears won't fit because the pads are too small, or the fit is too positional and head sized sensitive because the pads are too big. They are erroring conservatively, in part because a youth audience is pushing the aforementioned beats/phones markets. Better chance they'll have smaller ears.

 

You are likely right about the effect of portability on current offerings. It would be regrettable, however, if it resulted in fewer excellent open models, as open will always beat closed. (I expect that this last point has a physical explanation pertaining to the requirements for sound to travel, but I leave that to Sound Science.) The small earcup problem is the self-inflicted result of going closed. These are some of the downsides of portable audio that have been ignored in the “portable audio revolution.”


Olive-Welti relates to this. Regardless of what I enjoy hearing, I don’t see how it can tell us anything other than what today’s majority enjoys. So even if it were an accurate finding of that, we ought not to regard it as some sort of eternal truth. But one consequence of how this research is being received is that we are likely to hear many more models that sound alike. We are at risk of losing the diversity of distinctive house sounds in the homogenization of taste. If any particular driver technology is over-successful and supplants the others, we will have obtained a similar unfortunate result. I should want us to go into the future as open-eyed as we can be.

post #114 of 374

I have the HD 25 1 ii now for studio headphones/monitoring. I want to UPGRADE! Without spending over 400$ and under ~300.

 

Im looking at:

 

HIFIMAN HE400

Sennheiser HD 6 Mix

Sennheiser HD 7/8 DJ

NAD Viso Hp50

 

Could someone Please let me know if any of these are an upgrade and which is the best buy? 

Important- I dont care about comfort or design, JUST AUDIO QUALITY. Also I'd like something with clearer highs and more bass power, bigger sound stage, and better isolation than the HD 25 1 iis.

 

If you're experienced with any of the listed headphones, Please Help!!


Edited by port11 - 2/13/14 at 8:00pm
post #115 of 374
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post

Tyll seems to say that the Classic is more neutral; if so, I should have thought he would recommend it--not the Professional--for studio use.

 

I thought so too, at some point in the review, but further on he wrote: "if I had to characterize the differences between the three I'd say: Spirit Classic=Relaxed; Spirit Professional=Neutral; and NAD VISO HP50=Fun."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinValentine View Post
 

On the last point, I think that companies are going small on the earcups because it's easier to assure a proper seal on a smaller cup than a larger cup. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't; either the persons ears won't fit because the pads are too small, or the fit is too positional and head sized sensitive because the pads are too big. They are erroring conservatively, in part because a youth audience is pushing the aforementioned beats/phones markets. Better chance they'll have smaller ears.

 

But 48 mm internal height?? My own ears reach 67 mm in height. That's not a small difference. I don't think my ears have been 48 mm in height since before puberty. And I cannot be such a monster, since I haven't read one review of the Spirit Pro -- including the two I recently linked to -- that didn't deplore the smallness of the cups.

 

Big cups have a better chance to fit small ears than small cups to fit big (or, here, even normal) ears. 

post #116 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinocelt View Post
 

But 48 mm internal height?? My own ears reach 67 mm in height. That's not a small difference. I don't think my ears have been 48 mm in height since before puberty. And I cannot be such a monster, since I haven't read one review of the Spirit Pro -- including the two I recently linked to -- that didn't deplore the smallness of the cups.

 

Big cups have a better chance to fit small ears than small cups to fit big (or, here, even normal) ears. 

 

I'm definitely not disagreeing with the suckiness of the small cup size. (I actually take that up in my review here: http://www.head-fi.org/products/focal-spirit-professional/reviews/10488 as I think that the HP50 has the substantially better cup and pad design.)

 

Most industrial designs are centered on the 50th percentile male anatomical "norm." The military designs its own equipment around a 66mm assumed ear height, care of 1988 set standards.The National Institute of Health estimates that height at 63mm based off of Brucker, Patel, & Sullivan (2003). More recent research in Nigeria found the average ear size there to be 55mm based off of an analysis of 500 students (Salami 2009). All of these are definitely larger than the 48 mm height of the Pro's, which should pose the question: why are these designed for smaller than even the smallest 50th percentile estimates? That wouldn't make much sense unless they were using a small 50th percentile estimate and then reducing it for some reason. Given the substantial depth of the pads, I'm guessing that they expect to gain a few mm extra from the angle of the ear entering the cup. For the rest of the difference, my best guess is for a younger target audience -

but it's just that: a guess.

 

The problem of big cups is that they'll fit over everyone's ears, but then possibly not seal properly against their face/skull depending on their head shape and core facial architecture. The AKG 550 line has had a lot of problems with seal issues because of their large pads. For example, a number of people have taken to rubberbanding the pads and doing other drastic tricks to compensate (see: http://www.head-fi.org/t/630182/an-even-easier-akg-k550-small-head-mod). I really wish we could get something in between fricken huge and claustrophobic. 

post #117 of 374

What's also important is if the earpad opening is deep and there's recess in the pad instead of the pad being straight down.  My HE-400's earpad opening is definitely not my ear height of 64mm tall, but my ears are completely free and never touch any of the padding or the driver structure.  I assume my ears are tucked away behind the padding.

post #118 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

What's also important is if the earpad opening is deep and there's recess in the pad instead of the pad being straight down.  My HE-400's earpad opening is definitely not my ear height of 64mm tall, but my ears are completely free and never touch any of the padding or the driver structure.  I assume my ears are tucked away behind the padding.


Yep, it just fits in there like a pocket.

post #119 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinocelt View Post

 

I thought so too, at some point in the review, but further on he wrote: "if I had to characterize the differences between the three I'd say: Spirit Classic=Relaxed; Spirit Professional=Neutral; and NAD VISO HP50=Fun."

 

Thanks. It gets a little confusing because he's comparing the three back and forth (the video was even less clear).

 

These new models are probably worth trying, especially if you're just getting started in the business. Otherwise, it would be better to use a decent model that you know very well: My neighbor works all day in a studio using one of his six pairs of stock Fostexes. All the other guys he works with use Sonys (V6 or 7506), which he calls bright and "hates."

post #120 of 374

I'd agree with him.  The V6 is a bright headphone.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home