[adrjork]

Hi everyone, newbie here.
I usually do Musique Concrète, Soundscapes/Ambient and classic music mixing. I'd need a pair of headphones the most flat and detailed as possible with a budget around 200-400 euros. My place is not silent, so I'd prefer a closed pair. I have a pair of DT770 Pro, and I wonder if I can get something better.

I read great reviews about:
Monolith M1060C;
Shure SRH-1540;
Ultrasone PRO 750;
Audio-Technica ATH-M50 X.

Do you think one of these (or others) could be a real improvement over the DT770 Pro in terms of details and flatness?
Thanks in advance.

 

[pbui44]

Try this amp with the DT770 Pro, first:

https://www.amazon.es/Amplificador-...=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&keywords=sabaj&qid=1638043246&sr=8-30

If you still don't like it, then try the Shure SRH-1540.

 

[trollchu]

I have yet to hear the DT770, but if you want a headset that's both bass flat and extremely detailed, go with MDR-CD900st. They're made and sold in Japan, but they can easily imported because they're now sold on Amazon and also go for under $200, or even cheaper, like $60 if you find a used pair on ebay.

Additionally, if you do pick up a CD900, the stock Sony pads aren't very comfortable. There are these red and blue ringed yaxi pads that a lot of people recommend online, avoid them; the CD900 has a very enjoyable and natural tuning despite being a reference grade headphone, it's very mid and treble focused while not adding too much energy to either region and maintains very good dynamics. Those yaxi pads change the tuning greatly and aren't actually that much more comfortable; I would recommend you spend an additional $40 dollars on some large Meze 99 Classics pads; with those, you get an extremely comfortable fit, and better isolation while also retaining the stock sound signature (looks like they go for $20 now and not $40 anymore).

 

[PurpleAngel]

Audio Technica ATH-M50X is a step down from the DT770.
I would go for the Monoprice M1060C planar headphones, if picking from your list.
Maybe go for the M1070C.

 

[adrjork]

Guys, thanks SO much for your kind replies!!!
From your replies the choice seems to be between MDR-CD900st+pads vs M1060/70C vs SRH-1540 (strangely nobody for Ultrasone...)
OK, between these three, which is the more flat&detailed (and nature/classical oriented)?

 

[pbui44]

I think that the DT 150 250 ohm is best suited for your environment and mixing (you will have to stretch the headband yourself a bit over time to loosen the clamp and not for those who wear glasses:

https://www.thomannmusic.com/beyerdynamic_dt150.htm#bewertung

 

[trollchu]

Well, Cd900st isn't a new headphone, it's been around for a very long time and there's countless reviews of it, if you want more information on it, check some of them out. Probably do so for the others, too, at least one of them will have some property that will constantly show up in reviews that will stand out as important for you and that should help you finalize a purchase decision.

 

[GREQ]

If it didn't have to be a closed back, I would suggest the AKG K612 Pro.
It's just about the flattest headphone ever made.

 

[iFi audio]

If it didn't have to be a closed back, I would suggest the AKG K612 Pro.
It's just about the flattest headphone ever made.

They're flat indeed, but more of a sidestep from DT 770 PRO than a clear upgrade. But then again, if the OP is after flatness in the first place, perhaps that would be a move up to him.

 

[adrjork]

Thanks again guys for your replies!
I tried to compare the freq.response sheets of the various headphones we mentioned. It seems to me that the more “flat” is theoretically the Monolith M1060C. Its sheet is the most similar to the Audeze LCD-2 (taken simply as a reference, of course, being completely out of budget).

But flatness is not the only parameter. I'm searching a “compromise” between flatness AND details. Unfortunately in some review is said that M1060C are muddy... But this is said in comparison with the Audeze LCD-2 (again, an unfair comparison, since the price difference).

So, if you think about details, do you think the M1060C could be reasonably detailed in comparison with SRH-1540 or MDR-CD900st? At least, M1060C could be a good compromise?

 

[GREQ]

So, if you think about details, do you think the M1060C could be reasonably detailed in comparison with SRH-1540 or MDR-CD900st? At least, M1060C could be a good compromise?

Never heard the Monolith, but especially cheaper planars usually tend to lose to dynamic transducers in treble detail and timbre, but planars usually have better bass detail/texture.
So, pick whichever is more important to you.

 

[IDrinkLava]

Why not just EQ your DT 770 flat against a known reference target?

 

[adrjork]

Why not just EQ your DT 770 flat against a known reference target?

Sonarworks? [...EDIT...] Well, I just bought Sonarworks for headphones only, right now with Black Friday discount. Thanks man for your advice!

 

[plmon]

Thanks again guys for your replies!
I tried to compare the freq.response sheets of the various headphones we mentioned. It seems to me that the more “flat” is theoretically the Monolith M1060C. Its sheet is the most similar to the Audeze LCD-2 (taken simply as a reference, of course, being completely out of budget).

But flatness is not the only parameter. I'm searching a “compromise” between flatness AND details. Unfortunately in some review is said that M1060C are muddy... But this is said in comparison with the Audeze LCD-2 (again, an unfair comparison, since the price difference).

So, if you think about details, do you think the M1060C could be reasonably detailed in comparison with SRH-1540 or MDR-CD900st? At least, M1060C could be a good compromise?

I haven't heard the other headphones, but I'd consider the CD900st to be more of a sidegrade to the DT770s as well. It has similar resolution/detail retrieval, the only significant improvement is the tonality. The CD900st has good midrange, quite even and flat.

However, the issue is that it rolls-off quite a bit in the subbass and treble. It is also a slightly dark-sounding headphone because of dips in the treble. This makes it lack some sparkle and can sound slightly "muffled" compared to something more neutral in that area like the HD600 series.

I second the suggestion for the AKG K612 Pro, I think it would be better for the type of music you're mixing than the CD900st. But just based off the FR, the SRH-1540 might be a good potential upgrade as well. It has a V-shaped sound like the DT770, but the SRH-1540's midrange seems to be better balanced than the DT770 (which imo, has sucked out lower mids).

 

[adrjork]

I haven't heard the other headphones, but I'd consider the CD900st to be more of a sidegrade to the DT770s as well. It has similar resolution/detail retrieval, the only significant improvement is the tonality. The CD900st has good midrange, quite even and flat.

However, the issue is that it rolls-off quite a bit in the subbass and treble. It is also a slightly dark-sounding headphone because of dips in the treble. This makes it lack some sparkle and can sound slightly "muffled" compared to something more neutral in that area like the HD600 series.

I second the suggestion for the AKG K612 Pro, I think it would be better for the type of music you're mixing than the CD900st. But just based off the FR, the SRH-1540 might be a good potential upgrade as well. It has a V-shaped sound like the DT770, but the SRH-1540's midrange seems to be better balanced than the DT770 (which imo, has sucked out lower mids).

Thanks for the detailed reply. And if I say... SRH-1540 vs ADAM SP-5???