New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Studio Headphones - Page 6

post #76 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinocelt View Post
 

My pleasure. But why the CD900ST? I know it's the standard in Japan, but the MDR-Z1000 is supposed to be Sony's top studio headphones there, much as the MDR-7520 is Sony's top studio headphones in the States (even though the cheaper MDR-7506 is more commonly seen in studios).

 

It's supposed to be more mid-centric and analytical, both qualities I enjoy. (I think it's also much better looking, but that doesn't matter too much.)

post #77 of 331
Quote:

 

From everything I read on Gearslutz, though, the HD800 (in spite of its being hot in the treble) is still the best Sennheiser can for mixing/mastering. Do you disagree?

 

 

I can't speak for mixing and mastering with them, but I definitely don't feel they're the most balanced of the HD series.

post #78 of 331
 

 

 

 

I don't have personal experience with either, so I'm obliged to rely on outside sources of information. According to this graph, the SRH 1840 is only -5 dB at 20 Hz. Is your experience different?

no experience w/either... the 1840 bass is just as infamous but in  opposite direction based on reports. 

the rhetoric wasn't an insult but an observation on the possible over emphasis of balance for studio uses as things like timbre, wetness and dryness etc may be almost as important. Not to confuse things(maybe i should have kept quiet).. but just saying. both of the above were designed specifically for studio usage and may possess other qualities very useful in a studio.

post #79 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

do you guys think that flat measurements are the most important?
would the shure 1840 be just as worthy of being scratched off because it has absolutely no bass? where as the 1540 has too much?
^rhetorical

Studio monitor roll off the bass like the Shure SRH 1840 also, so by that argument every producer and mastering engineer uses the wrong speakers.
post #80 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubs28 View Post


Studio monitor roll off the bass like the Shure SRH 1840 also, so by that argument every producer and mastering engineer uses the wrong speakers.

what I said has nothing to do with roll off and all to do with quantity. I know monitors roll of are worse in most cases than headphones. 

 

 

The shure 1840 is infamous for lacking bass quantity and is called anemic. if one hp is called heavy and the other is called anemic but both are used in studios is balance the only reason for choosing a hp for studios?

post #81 of 331

The HD800 are lauded for their imaging. Their balance isn't their most boasted about quality. I think the reason people like them is because they mitigate the limitations of headphones; decent monitors in a well-treated room probably do better than the HD800. I say "probably" because I have never had HD800's, and don't remember how a well-treated room sounds like. =P

 

Thanks for the link, Sinocelt! I remember seeing that graph now. It wasn't the treble spike that killed me; it was the lack of mid-bass. Takes me back to trying to mix with them, and knackering said mid-bass. It's safe to say that they're "flat, except for the parts that really screw a mix," haha. However, these flaws are the reasons I love tracking with them.

post #82 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

In case anybody hasn't already read it, here's the latest IF article about the research at Harman for a new headphone target response curve: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-target-response-curve-research-update

 

I examined the target curve closely and interpolated its data to innerfidelity measurements, and this is what a headphone measuring very closely to that target curve would look like as per an innerfidelity frequency response measurement (photoshopped depiction-- not 100% accurate)  Yes, I rolled off the response after 10khz and made the channels imbalanced just for realism purposes.

 

 

 

The Harman curve basically calls for a gentle 5db boost from 200hz down to 20hz, a rise in 12-13db to 3khz and then back down 12-13db again at 10khz.

 

The Focal Spirit Professional is very mcuh like this in the bass to middle-mids, but could do without the lower treble null, otherwise is very close.

 

If the HD600 matches well, the HD650 matches better.  The now discontinued D7000 is spot on.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/DenonAHD7000B2012.pdf

 

But here is the thing no one is noticing.  That is how resolving is the midrange?  There are only two correct terms for midrange - midrange and uppermidrange.   I am not talking about uppermids. 

 

As noted by many, the D7000 and the well-known ATHM50 have garnered a reputation for recessed mids, when clearly the frequency response does not show it.  I'm sure on quick audition these cans sound balanced...but upon more critical listening - there is a problem in the mids - it cannot resolve correctly.  Try and EQ out everything else, bass and treble but leave the mids alone and it is real obvious - no amount of EQ can fix this.  This problem exists in my K701, D7000, Grado HF2 - and probably many more and perhaps more than most headphones.

 

This is why I have always loved Sennheisser - they know how to resolve this problem....even their HE60 does better than STAX in this department.  I have never heard a Sen that where this part of the frequency is a weakness.

 

Here, Lunatique, achristilaw and I, feel that planar tech is very noticeably much superior to any dynamic headphone.  This explains the perception of the LCD2s as sounding warm when the graph does not indicate it should.  It is because it resolves and presents significantly more data in this band than other headphones - this extra information is presented to me as a wider soundstage, greater separation and resolute definition unmatched by any in this frequency band.  For those that are familiar with acoustic instruments - these properties give the planars a lifelike quality - along with the uninterrupted bass extension. 

 

I really feel this area needs to be explore further.

post #83 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

do you guys think that flat measurements are the most important?



would the shure 1840 be just as worthy of being scratched off because it has absolutely no bass? where as the 1540 has too much?



^rhetorical




Where did you get the idea that the SRH1840 has no bass? The problem with relying on what other people say - is that unless you take their individual preference into account - you'll have a very coloured view of the world. That's why more "reviews" should always state the listeners/reviewers preference. Give a basshead, or someone who is used to orthos/planars, the SRH1840 and they'll call it bass light. Give it to someone who is more used to a neutral can - and they'll tell you the bass is perfectly balanced.

If you wanted an idea of what the SRH1840 sounds like, and have heard the HD600, just imagine an HD600 without the mid-bass hump, and with flatter mid-range, and more 'apparent' detail. I say apparent - because I think the detail is same/similar to HD600 but it shines through more because of the lack of mid-bass hump.

I personally loved it when I owned mine. With the drop in price to sub 500, and the possibility of picking up a used pair for $300 or lower, I'd probably repurchase again.

And no - they have beautifully rendered bass IMO, and would be very good for mixing and mastering - especially because they are so flat.
post #84 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post
 

do you guys think that flat measurements are the most important?


would the shure 1840 be just as worthy of being scratched off because it has absolutely no bass? where as the 1540 has too much?


^rhetorical



Where did you get the idea that the SRH1840 has no bass? The problem with relying on what other people say - is that unless you take their individual preference into account - you'll have a very coloured view of the world. That's why more "reviews" should always state the listeners/reviewers preference. Give a basshead, or someone who is used to orthos/planars, the SRH1840 and they'll call it bass light. Give it to someone who is more used to a neutral can - and they'll tell you the bass is perfectly balanced.

If you wanted an idea of what the SRH1840 sounds like, and have heard the HD600, just imagine an HD600 without the mid-bass hump, and with flatter mid-range, and more 'apparent' detail. I say apparent - because I think the detail is same/similar to HD600 but it shines through more because of the lack of mid-bass hump.

I personally loved it when I owned mine. With the drop in price to sub 500, and the possibility of picking up a used pair for $300 or lower, I'd probably repurchase again.

And no - they have beautifully rendered bass IMO, and would be very good for mixing and mastering - especially because they are so flat.

that is exactly what I mean... it is what I mean so I am asking a rhetorical question as well as just an inquisitive one.

 

is canceling out a hp based solely on what others report as bass heavy or bass light the right thing to do?

 

your opinions aside...most report it bass light and most report the 1540 bass heavy.

 

Also for mixing mass in modern production, using a headphone that most audiophiles call flat is useless for mixing bass.

post #85 of 331

The 10% thd probably goes a long ways in making the 1840 seem more warm in the lower end compared to what its FR says.  That's not a good thing though.  The IF measurements of the 1840 among other measurements show the upper-mids of the 1840 to be a little emphasized in the upper midrange too.


Edited by TMRaven - 2/6/14 at 2:07pm
post #86 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

 

Here, Lunatique, achristilaw and I, feel that planar tech is very noticeably much superior to any dynamic headphone.  This explains the perception of the LCD2s as sounding warm when the graph does not indicate it should.  It is because it resolves and presents significantly more data in this band than other headphones - this extra information is presented to me as a wider soundstage, greater separation and resolute definition unmatched by any in this frequency band.  For those that are familiar with acoustic instruments - these properties give the planars a lifelike quality - along with the uninterrupted bass extension. 

 

I really feel this area needs to be explore further.

LCD-2 is perceived as warm due to the shelf from 2k onwards. There is rapid drop from 1k to 2k, whereupon it maintains a reasonably steady level.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2.pdf. The shelf is less severe on later measurements and models, but still exists. I am familiar with acoustic instruments- these properties make certain acoustic instruments sound thin and lifeless.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinocelt View Post
 

 

I don't have personal experience with either, so I'm obliged to rely on outside sources of information. According to this graph, the SRH 1840 is only -5 dB at 20 Hz. Is your experience different?

 Look at the distortion graph on the same graph you posted. The reason why people complain about their "bass" is too distorted to qualify as bass. A headphone for studio work shouldn't have >5 % distortion from bass to mids.

post #87 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post
 

what I said has nothing to do with roll off and all to do with quantity. I know monitors roll of are worse in most cases than headphones. 

 

 

The shure 1840 is infamous for lacking bass quantity and is called anemic. if one hp is called heavy and the other is called anemic but both are used in studios is balance the only reason for choosing a hp for studios?

 

The weakness of the Shure SRH 1840 is that it doesn't have the bass of a LCD-2 or HE-500 and has high %TDH in the bass area. Probably that is what you have been reading. That doesn't mean it lacks bass quantity since it has plenty of bass. It's a very warm (due to the %TDH), balanced bass. It's not the headphone with the best bass I have, but it does many other things right. 

 

But you can disregard the HD-600 and HD-800 also since they don't excel in the bass area. I suggest you try out the LCD headphones which also excel with bass. They got a new headphone which is supposedly very neutral sounding. 


Edited by ubs28 - 2/6/14 at 3:08pm
post #88 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

 

If the HD600 matches well, the HD650 matches better.  The now discontinued D7000 is spot on.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/DenonAHD7000B2012.pdf

 

But here is the thing no one is noticing.  That is how resolving is the midrange?  There are only two correct terms for midrange - midrange and uppermidrange.   I am not talking about uppermids. 

 

As noted by many, the D7000 and the well-known ATHM50 have garnered a reputation for recessed mids, when clearly the frequency response does not show it.  I'm sure on quick audition these cans sound balanced...but upon more critical listening - there is a problem in the mids - it cannot resolve correctly.  Try and EQ out everything else, bass and treble but leave the mids alone and it is real obvious - no amount of EQ can fix this.  This problem exists in my K701, D7000, Grado HF2 - and probably many more and perhaps more than most headphones.

 

This is why I have always loved Sennheisser - they know how to resolve this problem....even their HE60 does better than STAX in this department.  I have never heard a Sen that where this part of the frequency is a weakness.

 

Here, Lunatique, achristilaw and I, feel that planar tech is very noticeably much superior to any dynamic headphone.  This explains the perception of the LCD2s as sounding warm when the graph does not indicate it should.  It is because it resolves and presents significantly more data in this band than other headphones - this extra information is presented to me as a wider soundstage, greater separation and resolute definition unmatched by any in this frequency band.  For those that are familiar with acoustic instruments - these properties give the planars a lifelike quality - along with the uninterrupted bass extension. 

 

I really feel this area needs to be explore further.

 

Interesting conjecture. I was supposing that the mids on ATH-M50 are simply overpowered by the lower frequencies. M50 always sounds unbalanced to me.

 

 

I find your EQ experiment interesting and will likely try it on K702 when I have the time. Regardless, I'm not persuaded about planars for classical. I prefer the other drivers types based on overall effect, not a specific frequency range.

post #89 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle 491 View Post
 

LCD-2 is perceived as warm due to the shelf from 2k onwards. There is rapid drop from 1k to 2k, whereupon it maintains a reasonably steady level.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2.pdf. The shelf is less severe on later measurements and models, but still exists. I am familiar with acoustic instruments- these properties make certain acoustic instruments sound thin and lifeless.

 

 Look at the distortion graph on the same graph you posted. The reason why people complain about their "bass" is too distorted to qualify as bass. A headphone for studio work shouldn't have >5 % distortion from bass to mids.

 

I got earphones with an extremely flat bass (it's a flat line to 10 hz) with a %TDH <0.7  The difference between the 2 is that the Shure SRH 1840 sounds warm instead of super clean (and the bass is not as deep of course). There is no distortion at all according to my ears, just extra warmth. 

 

edit: No headphone is perfect. Even a $2000+ LCD-3 has it's shortcomings in certain area's. I agree that the %TDH is too high in the bass area. But it does many other things right as a studio headphone. Especially the extremely flat mids (the mids are even flatter than flagship headphones that costs more than $1500) and great imaging. 


Edited by ubs28 - 2/6/14 at 3:57pm
post #90 of 331

:redface:before I keep trying to explain myself and people try to help me by telling me what headphone to buy(i already know), i will just put it like this:

 

- a bass light headphone can be very useful in a studio

- a bass heavy headphone can be very useful in a studio

- bass has to be slightly above neutral to translate well to most monitors but its extension is less important due to the fact that most monitors roll off quicker than hp's

- studio monitors should be your main tool not headphones

- Frequency balance should not be the sole determining factor of choosing a headphone for the studio. Other things are very important. 

- bottom line know your gear but those headphones made for studio purposes in general have tons of qualities about them that make them more useful than consumer products besides just frequency balance and the 1540 (though I havent heard it may be one of them) so taking off hps based on that alone may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

 

I believe the shure 1840 would be a great tool because of all of the other qualities besides bass that provide an accurate window into parts of the spectrum. There are always trade offs especially in balance. I just used the 1840 as an example because its bass is infamous for being weak though I have never heard it. So if never hearing the 1540 and disqualifying it based on reputation is okay then why not the 1840. I am not saying either should be disqualified but rather reviewed and rated. This list will be extremely narrow if based on balance alone.

 

 A good example for a thread like this would be MADLUST's gaming guide.... and not be whether or not something qualifies or disqualifies, but a rating of its different qualities. 

 

I guess that would need a reviewer though but people can post reviews here for them according to a guidline so that one person doesnt have to do it all like MADLUST and then the thread starter can share links or copy and paste them in a spoiler.


Edited by grizzlybeast - 2/6/14 at 5:08pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home