New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Studio Headphones - Page 20

post #286 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post

Very aggressive. I had the v6....same driver as the 7506....very big peak around 4khz. I found them almost unlistenable with some material. But the timbre of the mids sounds very natural to me....more so than the 7509. Better than either is the dt250....going from memory. 
Yeah I would tend to agree, not sure why people call the 7506 flat, they are more like a safeguard to having a bad sounding recording or mix by emphasizing the most sensitive frequencies of the ear, all else being relatively realistic sounding otherwise. Extremely uncolored headphone except for an aggressive upper midrange and significantly rolled off high treble. I think the mids of the K240 Studio are near perfect, and of course the HD600 even moreso just to give a reference point for what I've heard to compare to. I find the SRH440 somewhere between smooth as a 240 and too aggressive like the 7506, but tending a bit towards the aggressive side to give another example. Haven't heard the 250 but I keep hearing it is extremely non-fatiguing which I like. My 280 Pro is very easygoing as well, but really the isolation factor is the only reason I keep that one around. Just some thoughts.
post #287 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal571 View Post

I think the mids of the K240 Studio are near perfect, and of course the HD600 even moreso just to give a reference point for what I've heard to compare to. I find the SRH440 somewhere between smooth as a 240 and too aggressive like the 7506, but tending a bit towards the aggressive side to give another example. Haven't heard the 250 but I keep hearing it is extremely non-fatiguing which I like. My 280 Pro is very easygoing as well, but really the isolation factor is the only reason I keep that one around. Just some thoughts.

I like the k240S mids as well, but the k240DF is even better, but they're discontinued....like taking the 'veil' off the k240S....same goes for the hd600... agree, fantastic mids....my reference phone.

post #288 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal571 View Post
 

So the midrange of the 7509 is a lot more natural than the 7506 then? The 7506 was always sharp and aggressive in the mids in my experience with them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post
 

Very aggressive. I had the v6....same driver as the 7506....very big peak around 4khz. I found them almost unlistenable with some material. But the timbre of the mids sounds very natural to me....more so than the 7509. Better than either is the dt250....going from memory. 

 

Are you guys talking about the 7509 or the 7509HD? They're not the same.

post #289 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
 

 

 

 

Are you guys talking about the 7509 or the 7509HD? They're not the same.

HD since that what was mentioned earlier

post #290 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal571 View Post
 

HD since that what was mentioned earlier

 

Thanks for the clarification!

 

I questioned it because when I first became interested in closed studio headphones a good friend recommended the 7509's. After doing some research I discovered that the 7509 had been replaced by the 7509HD and that they were not the same. However, getting information on the 7509HD, and the differences between it and the 7509 was a highly frustrating and difficult process because people (such as your good self) regularly made no distinction between the 7509 and the 7509HD.

 

I suppose the point is arguably moot since neither headphone is available anymore, although there must be plenty of them available second hand.

 

Unless of course you REALLY want a new pair of 7509HD's!  http://www.amazon.com/Sony-MDR7509HD-Professional-Headphone/dp/B000HHYZV6

post #291 of 353

I belief the V900 and V900HD are also the same as the 7509/7509HD

post #292 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macta View Post
 

I belief the V900 and V900HD are also the same as the 7509/7509HD

 

From what I've read I also believe that to be the case but I can't say for sure as I haven't personally heard them. Bear in mind that the V6 and 7506 are also supposed to be the same, but many people (e.g. have a look at post 284 in this thread!) say they sound different.


Edited by Mike F - 6/6/14 at 3:41am
post #293 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
 

 

From what I've read I also believe that to be the case but I can't say for sure as I haven't personally heard them. Bear in mind that the V6 and 7506 are also supposed to be the same, but many people (e.g. have a look at post 284 in this thread!) say they sound different.

Your absolutely right Mike, listening first is a sound advice :beerchug: 


Edited by Macta - 6/6/14 at 7:47am
post #294 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F View Post
 

 

 

 

Are you guys talking about the 7509 or the 7509HD? They're not the same.

Sorry about the confusion. I have the older model....non HD. I have the v900 actually, which has the identical driver as the 7509.....like the v6/7506 do. I actually prefer the timbre of the V6 midrange....would buy another pair if not for the awful peak in the upper mids/low treble. I'm a singer and on my voice the v6 sounds more 'true to life' than the 7509/v900. YMMV.


Edited by lejaz - 6/6/14 at 7:29am
post #295 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post
 

Sorry about the confusion. I have the older model....non HD. I have the v900 actually, which has the identical driver as the 7509.....like the v6/7506 do. I actually prefer the timbre of the V6 midrange....would buy another pair if not for the awful peak in the upper mids/low treble. I'm a singer and on my voice the v6 sounds more 'true to life' than the 7509/v900. YMMV.

Interesting. The 7506 sounded true to life once I got used to it...then I swapped to an SRH440 and was like holy hell, the upper mids suck in the 7506. That's really the only flaw other than the rolled off treble. I've never heard a 7509 or 7509HD.

post #296 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal571 View Post
 

Interesting. The 7506 sounded true to life once I got used to it...then I swapped to an SRH440 and was like holy hell, the upper mids suck in the 7506. That's really the only flaw other than the rolled off treble. I've never heard a 7509 or 7509HD.

As a singer the v6 was very natural sounding in my range. I don't have much going on above 2K as a male baritone, so the phones didn't ruin my vocal sound. But with some piercing electric guitars they are really way over the top harsh sounding phones, imo. Sorry I never got to hear the Shures....they don't carry them in any of our local stores here. I'm very interested in the dt1350 for it's supposedly balanced and flat frequency response...and I need a good portable to replace the v6. I'm glad it finally went dead in one channel, so I have an excuse to replace it with something better :biggrin:

post #297 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post

As a singer the v6 was very natural sounding in my range. I don't have much going on above 2K as a male baritone, so the phones didn't ruin my vocal sound. But with some piercing electric guitars they are really way over the top harsh sounding phones, imo. Sorry I never got to hear the Shures....they don't carry them in any of our local stores here. I'm very interested in the dt1350 for it's supposedly balanced and flat frequency response...and I need a good portable to replace the v6. I'm glad it finally went dead in one channel, so I have an excuse to replace it with something better biggrin.gif
Quite a few people are saying the ATH-M40x is really good as an upgrade for the 7506 or V6.

Finally someone that can validate how harsh distorted electric guitar is on them, my God I hated it for that especially since I do listen to a decent amount of metal.
post #298 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal571 View Post


Quite a few people are saying the ATH-M40x is really good as an upgrade for the 7506 or V6.

Finally someone that can validate how harsh distorted electric guitar is on them, my God I hated it for that especially since I do listen to a decent amount of metal.

I'm a guitarist myself, so I can verify your finding re the v6! I had the m30 many years back....supposed to sound very similar to the m40. Didn't care for the midrange timbre. The v6 is a lot better, imo, other than that insane peak. I once did a test with my k240DF just for the hell of it. I tried to make the v6 sound as natural as the DF. I cut 4dB at 4khz and that did the trick....honestly....that's how big a peak mine had. I'm assuming the DF is pretty 'flat' since that's what they were engineered to be. They're very natural sounding to my ears, anyway....like the k240S in the mids, but with much greater clarity....and definitely less bass....could use a bit more, imo.


Edited by lejaz - 6/7/14 at 7:47am
post #299 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by lejaz View Post

I'm a guitarist myself, so I can verify your finding re the v6! I had the m30 many years back....supposed to sound very similar to the m40. Didn't care for the midrange timbre. The v6 is a lot better, imo, other than that insane peak. I once did a test with my k240DF just for the hell of it. I tried to make the v6 sound as natural as the DF. I cut 4dB at 4khz and that did the trick....honestly....that's how big a peak mine had. I'm assuming the DF is pretty 'flat' since that's what they were engineered to be. They're very natural sounding to my ears, anyway....like the k240S in the mids, but with much greater clarity....and definitely less bass....could use a bit more, imo.
I always wanted a DF lol I have the Studio right now but if they are that simular but the DF is ridiculously power hungry I will probably stick with the Studio.
post #300 of 353
Thread Starter 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home