Best Studio Headphones

grizzlybeast said:

  This is a good thread however studio headphones would have to have two categories, recording/tracking and monitoring. 
 

Click to expand...

jibzilla said:

  I don't think a thread like this will ever work on head-fi because there is so many categories. What about producing/mixing.

 

Click to expand...

 
Same as mixing/mastering, meaning that you can use open headphones, and that they should translate well to near-field monitors.
 
 

jibzilla said:

  After putting my suggestions in like 10 of these threads

Click to expand...

 
Great! Link me to those threads and I'll go pilfer them.

sinocelt said:

   
1. Yeah, I thought about that. On the other hand, if you're in a place quiet enough to use open headphones, why not use near-field monitors?
 
 
 
 
2. I thought about including other criteria than sound -- i.e. comfort, isolation, durability, price -- but finally decided to downplay (not ignore) those factors, in order to simplify the comparison process. Ideally, I'd be rich, buy all of them, then make a table giving each of them a grade for each criteria, like |joker| does for IEMs and average_joe for CIEMs.
 
3. So, if I understand correctly, you place the Sony and Yamaha above the German Maestro, sound-wise, but would give the German Maestro precedence because of other criteria (durability, isolation). Correct? How would you rate them for long-term comfort, while we're at it?
 
 
 
4. The don't extend as low as headphones? The Sony headphones don't? I'm ... confused.
 
 
 
Yup. Sorry. I meant to check reviews to find out if those were neutrals; I have now, and apparently they are. I've added them to the list.
 
 
 
All right, then.

 I added them.

Click to expand...

1. There is something about just putting on headphones. Also a ton is done from home studios and those studios have the limitation of being able to work on music when family is asleep or while family is doing other things. Also headphones and monitors together provide accountability to eachother and since monitors are big then its harder to use two sets.
 
2. true you are right in keeping it simple...plus it wouldnt be practical unless you added spoilers for each category in on the first page like the bass head threads that have open, closed, amps etc catagories... and it would probably get messy.
 
3. yes I would place those above the germans because their detail and tonal balance is awesome and the least troublesome. With the yamaha I can hear every difference in my gear added or subtracted and the mids are the most balanced. The sony's mids are slightly forward. ---none of them recessed. But yes the German would have a slight precedence if I had to only pick one all arounder because it has the best isolation for tracking, will last the longest, and if one wanted to use them for reference they are balanced and detailed enough to do the job.
 
Long term comfort goes to the Sony for me but I have heard people complain about the fit. for me the fit was perfect. The yamaha is not far behind but has more of a univeral fit because the pads have a larger opening and the cups are bigger. The German stock pads are a bit firm and less forgiving or soft than both but the pads are easily changeable, as german maestro has tons of options. so imo sony>yamaha>german.
 
4.The average specs on hp's are from like 20hz to 20khz... that is without being lenient as there are many options that have a broader range than that. When you look up the range for most 5 inch monitors it is like 45hz to 35khz and 8 inch monitors usually only reaches down to 37hz or so:
Along side the fact that most speakers and monitors are not bass light despite their more limited range,the smaller ones are usually coupled with a subwoofer that reaches lower and stays away from eating the midrange in a properly treated room. That being said... the sony coincidently has its hump at the same place that most monitors give their best bass resolution. The sony reaches lower than most studio monitors but its bass resolution is the best I have heard on a dynamic hp and it translates very well to near field studio monitors. In short its slight bass hump is consistent with near field monitors in general(obviously monitors come in many different sounds but less so that headphones) 
The yamaha reaches low but has less of a midbass hump than the sony but also less texture. 

jibzilla said:

  I don't think a thread like this will ever work on head-fi because there is so many categories. What about producing/mixing.

 I have seen the word mixing on here mean several different things on here and I think until the pro audio world consolidates these words and comes up with better definitions it's going to lead to nothing but confusion. I have seen my formula sound cue18 called a recording console, a mixing console, and a headphone monitoring console. Which is it? Is it all 3 or just one? I own the eff'er and I can't even tell you and there's probably 2 or 3 more names I just haven't come across yet. After putting my suggestions in like 10 of these threads I think I'm going to call it a day. Good luck to you all.

Click to expand...

lol
the funny part is that the same software DAW is used to do most of it. 
- monitoring=just hearing back what was tracked or played and monitoring is what you do when you mix and master. You watch/hear/monitor the sounds coming out like a tv monitor.
- mixing=adjusting the levels, combining tracks, panning, reverb etc... musicians should have good/neutral monitors to relay their likes and dislikes to the engineer otherwise they may be fighting the sound signatures of eachothers equipment.
I messed up like this before was totally off when I kept asking my vocals to be turned up after I received a cope of the mixdown... it was the cheap heapdhones I used... how embarrasing.
- recording/tracking=playing or singing into the mic (need isolation mainly low leakage to prevent the sound bleeding back into the mic, outside sounds going into the headphones are actually helpful but sound leaking from the headphones are not)
-headphone monitoring console=something from which you can control levels and that has clean sound for accurate playback.
-producing= making the music.. sometimes fun headphones help here neutrality isn't key. Producing is the fun part... but a producer doesn't always have to play music but can actually oversee the creative process...like a chef that doesnt cook. Most modern producers are playing instruments though.

sinocelt said:

   
Same as mixing/mastering, meaning that you can use open headphones, and that they should translate well to near-field monitors.
 
 
 
Great! Link me to those threads and I'll go pilfer them.

Click to expand...

.

jibzilla said:

 
Mang there is a "What headphone is best for producing/mixing/mastering/etc." thread on here like once a month and they last like 3-5 pages and die with a bunch of confused people. Now you want to include the whole studio. Whoo you know that mixing can mean producing, mastering, monitoring, djing, and visa versa and probably a few other words. If you want to join this vicious circle then by all means have at it, please and thank you. Personally I think it is not smart and I'm outtie 5000.l

Click to expand...

lol if it dies its cool but the title has a less restricting than you quoted. Its not what headphone(singular) is best but what headphones are best "best studio headphones".
 
Even if it dies someone can come here and have a starting point to what headphones they should look at. when I first started here it would have saved me a ton of leg work.
 
-1

Kinda just breezed through this thread, but thought I'd put my 2 cents in...
 
I like the HP50 as an all-arouder, tonal balance is close and detail resolution very good.
 
I think the Focal Spirit Pro may be more neutral for pros mixing for tonal balance, but don't quite resolve in the treble as well as the HP50.
 
The HD800 is a great microscope into the details, but its tonal balance is tilted toward the treble to much.
 
LCD-X may be a nice balance between tonal balance and detail, but it's a bit expensive and being open doesn't lend itself to many parts of pro work.

what about the new senns HD6 MIX and HD 7 and 8 DJ

spyruf said:

  what about the new senns HD6 MIX and HD 7 and 8 DJ

Click to expand...

we have to hear them but if the bass is strong and the highs are rolled then its a no go.

tyll hertsens said:

  Kinda just breezed through this thread, but thought I'd put my 2 cents in...
 
I like the HP50 as an all-arouder, tonal balance is close and detail resolution very good.
 
I think the Focal Spirit Pro may be more neutral for pros mixing for tonal balance, but don't quite resolve in the treble as well as the HP50.
 
The HD800 is a great microscope into the details, but its tonal balance is tilted toward the treble to much.
 
LCD-X may be a nice balance between tonal balance and detail, but it's a bit expensive and being open doesn't lend itself to many parts of pro work.

Click to expand...

home studios for the lcd-x
 
how much does the hp50 leak and would it do better than a momentum in that regards for recording purposes?

I would put the Beyerdynamic DT250-250 ohm into the mix. If you can get a pair with matched drivers, I'd say they are really great for professional work. 
 
Don't trust the measurements over at Headroom (they are for the 80 ohm version, just mislabeled). Tyll measured these in November: 
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/BeyerdynamicDT250250.pdf

grizzlybeast said:

  1. There is something about just putting on headphones. Also a ton is done from home studios and those studios have the limitation of being able to work on music when family is asleep or while family is doing other things.

Click to expand...

 
In the later case, though, the environment would certainly be too noisy to use open headphones reliably.
 
 

grizzlybeast said:

   Also headphones and monitors together provide accountability to eachother and since monitors are big then its harder to use two sets.

Click to expand...

 
True.
 
 

grizzlybeast said:

  2. true you are right in keeping it simple...plus it wouldnt be practical unless you added spoilers for each category in on the first page like the bass head threads that have open, closed, amps etc catagories... and it would probably get messy.

Click to expand...

 
That's what I feared, yeah. We can certainly discuss such intricacies within the thread, but I'd like to keep the opening post relatively simple, to serve as a clear starting point ... as you said: 
 

grizzlybeast said:

  Even if it dies someone can come here and have a starting point to what headphones they should look at. when I first started here it would have saved me a ton of leg work.

Click to expand...

 
Same for me.
 
 

Originally Posted by grizzlybeast /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
3. yes I would place those above the germans because their detail and tonal balance is awesome and the least troublesome. With the yamaha I can hear every difference in my gear added or subtracted and the mids are the most balanced. The sony's mids are slightly forward. ---none of them recessed. But yes the German would have a slight precedence if I had to only pick one all arounder because it has the best isolation for tracking, will last the longest, and if one wanted to use them for reference they are balanced and detailed enough to do the job.
 
Long term comfort goes to the Sony for me but I have heard people complain about the fit. for me the fit was perfect. The yamaha is not far behind but has more of a univeral fit because the pads have a larger opening and the cups are bigger. The German stock pads are a bit firm and less forgiving or soft than both but the pads are easily changeable, as german maestro has tons of options. so imo sony>yamaha>german.
 
4.The average specs on hp's are from like 20hz to 20khz... that is without being lenient as there are many options that have a broader range than that. When you look up the range for most 5 inch monitors it is like 45hz to 35khz and 8 inch monitors usually only reaches down to 37hz or so:
Along side the fact that most speakers and monitors are not bass light despite their more limited range,the smaller ones are usually coupled with a subwoofer that reaches lower and stays away from eating the midrange in a properly treated room. That being said... the sony coincidently has its hump at the same place that most monitors give their best bass resolution. The sony reaches lower than most studio monitors but its bass resolution is the best I have heard on a dynamic hp and it translates very well to near field studio monitors. In short its slight bass hump is consistent with near field monitors in general(obviously monitors come in many different sounds but less so that headphones) 
The yamaha reaches low but has less of a midbass hump than the sony but also less texture. 

Click to expand...

 
Thanks for sharing. 

austinvalentine said:

  I would put the Beyerdynamic DT250-250 ohm into the mix. If you can get a pair with matched drivers, I'd say they are really great for professional work. 
 
Don't trust the measurements over at Headroom (they are for the 80 ohm version, just mislabeled). Tyll measured these in November: 
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/BeyerdynamicDT250250.pdf

Click to expand...

 
I listed the DT 770 Pro because it's the model Beyerdynamic bills as their top closed model for the studio. Do you think it should be replaced by the DT 250?
 
(Tyll measured the DT 770 [600 Ohm], but not the DT 770 Pro, and I'm uncertain as to the sonic differences.)
 
 

spyruf said:

  what about the new senns HD6 MIX and HD 7 and 8 DJ

Click to expand...

 
I listed the HD6 Mix, since Sennheiser says was designed for studio use: "Designed to cater to the needs of the professional sound technician, the HD6 MIX is constructed of rugged, lightweight parts and built to withstand years of work in the studio. Sound-wise, they deliver an accurate, balanced sound reproduction suitable for mixing and monitoring."

 
The HD 7 DJ and HD 8 DJ are not designed for studio use; they have, confessedly, increased bass.
 
 

jibzilla said:

  Mang there is a "What headphone is best for producing/mixing/mastering/etc." thread on here like once a month and they last like 3-5 pages and die with a bunch of confused people. Now you want to include the whole studio. Whoo you know that mixing can mean producing, mastering, monitoring, djing, and visa versa and probably a few other words. If you want to join this vicious circle then by all means have at it, please and thank you. Personally I think it is not smart and I'm outtie 5000.

Click to expand...

 
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to this thread. I'm sure someone, somewhere, is sorry to see you go.

tyll hertsens said:

  LCD-X may be a nice balance between tonal balance and detail, but it's a bit expensive and being open doesn't lend itself to many parts of pro work.

Click to expand...

 
What about the LCD-XC, then?
 
Between the LCD-2 (which you measured ... and again ... and again ... and again), LCD-3 (which you measured ... and again ... and again ... and again ... and again), and LCD-X (which you measured), which do you think would be best for studio use in a quiet environment (as a secondary reference next to near-field monitors, for instance).
 
 

tyll hertsens said:

  The HD800 is a great microscope into the details, but its tonal balance is tilted toward the treble to much.

Click to expand...

 
That was my impression when I heard it, though John Willet has used them for his own recordings and reports a different experience.

sinocelt said:

 
That was my impression when I heard it, though John Willet has used them for his own recordings and reports a different experience.

Click to expand...

 
He also recommends the HD700 as well, and that headphone has a horrible coloration in the lower treble.