[Bazile]

Hi folks;

I know you've done these comparisons forever, but I hope I'm asking the question with a new twist. Picture a recording session...it was done right. The engineer has worked with the singer/group before, and she/he mixes like he/she has never done before. The group/singer is called in to listen, and they agree on the final mix..they think its perfect.

Now for the question..Which phone would the eng/group have used to hear it accurately? What phone most accurately "plays" what the group put on whatever media? I will never get to hear the original session, and I admit I go to dang few live concerts. I trust the eng/artist combo to get it right. There are so many terms reliable folks use to describe these great phones....musical or analytical. Warm or perhaps cool or recessed. Bright. I've tried to read everything about these 3 phones (dang, its a prolific board)..and I think I understand their strengths and weaknesses..but I haven't seen my 1 question ask specifically.

Which phone is most accurate? Thanks in advance.

Bazile

 

[DavidMahler]

Good question. I think a lot depends on the microphones used. If the microphones used had a slightly boosted upper register then the DT880s would probably sound a bit sharp. If the microphones used were a bit tubby or bass heavy, the HD650s would sound a bit muffled. If the imaging of the mix was unnatural then the AKGs would bring that out a bit.

Since there is no such thing as a completely neutral microphone we now assume that there is some unnaturalness in the way it was recorded. Hopefully the engineer fixes most of this by EQing. So now we've EQed everything, except the downfall is that when EQing you are not EQing an acoustical source but actually EQing through a pair of speakers / headphones. Whichever headphone you use to EQ your music will sound best on playback because you are EQing the mix to suit the needs of the headphone.

Assuming the mixdown involves no EQ and you are just recording live to 2 stereo two track then we're back in the microphone situation.

My assumption would be at this point that if you've gotten a perfectly balanced microphone set up and the room is shaped and padded well, the AKG K701s will be the most neutral.

However! I find that almost ALL music these days (with the exception of classical) is mastered to be a little too bright. I think is because of the lack of the upper register in most consumer headphones and speakers. With this in mind, most music sounds best to me on the HD650s. And I believe the HD650s were made with this idea in mind.

 

[pageman99]

Tough question, and a difficult one to answer.

Few recordings are neutral. Heck, few recordings are mixed with anything other than impact in mind these days. The artists and owners demand it. At least in my experience. And that goes for classical as well as rock.

So IMO, there is no right answer.

However if we rephrase the question to say: assuming Bob Ludwig did the mix, which headphones would be the most neutral. (for those who don't know, Bob mixes carefully and neutrally, and still achieves impact. No easy task.)

Then it becomes a matter of taste. If you are sensitive to high frequencies and prefer a warmer richer presentation, go with the Senns. If you prefer a clinical (not necessarily cold) sound go with the K701s. I've no direct experience w/880's so I'll leave that to others.

BTW, the Senns and K701s both demand a lot of your equipment to perform at their best. In my experience, neither are the least bit satisfying without exceptional source and amp. But then, I'm pretty demanding myself.

 

[yuheng]

accurate? AT W5k, i dont think 650,701 or 880 are accurate.

 

[Redo]

Mastering should NEVER be done on headphones alone. There are monitors out there for not entirely too much money that would mop the floor over mastering for headphones aline.

However, more the DT880's would give a more true picture. The treble spike is easy to cope with, and may actually help it stay true to detail (so long as the treble spike isn't compensated for in mastering).

 

[Davesrose]

It depends on the music in question. I know AKGs and the HD650s are used for classical recordings....and Beyers are favs for percussions. "Accurate" is entirely different when reproducing a heavy metal set vs a large symphonic movement.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

It really depends on what kind of music you're talking about. Although from what I've heard, quite a few people use the HD600/50 as their reference can of choice. Out of the three you mentioned, the HD650 is probably technically the most neutral, as it does not have any significant peaks in the response like the other two do.

 

[d-cee]

i think it's impossible to tell

as mentioned mics/mixers probably make a greater difference

at the end of the day it's up to you to decide what sounds realest to you because you will never be able to reproduce the recording setup for each and every artist you listen to

if you pursue this you will probably become frustrated and never reach your goal, so just go with what sounds good to you

but in my experience, the phones i see in studios are often the AKG studio lines of phones, beyerdynamic DT100/DT150s and the odd sony mdr-v6

 

[mofonyx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuheng /img/forum/go_quote.gif accurate? AT W5k, i dont think 650,701 or 880 are accurate.

On the contrary, AT W5k is much coloured.

 

[Spektrograf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pageman99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then it becomes a matter of taste.

In an ideal world, the question may be valid, but in reality, the point is moot. Engineers all use different monitors to mixdown and even mastering houses don't use the same monitors or room setup—Bob Katz at Digital Domain uses Lipinski's for monitors, while Abbey Road Studios uses B&W 801's—both different in their presentation of sound, both different in their interaction with the room they're placed in. All of which effects the acoustics and how the engineer hears the mix.

Throw in the idea that engineers have differ in the execution of their art and you've got even more variability. Bear in mind as well that, depending on the genre and the engineer's professional philosophies, the mix isn't made to just sound good in the mastering studio, but to sound good in the target market's assumed sound systems.

pageman99 got it right when he wrote that it's a matter of taste. At the end of the day, if you're looking to pick between these or other cans, go out there and listen with your own ears, and let your ears/gut make the choice. Cuz if the music isn't bringing a smile to your face or at least moving you, why are you listening?

 

[4N6]

I agree that the question is impossible to answer. The only person who will know for sure is you. Go to as many LIVE UNAMPLIFIED concerts as you can at as many venues as you can. Multiple venues are important as each hall, theater, bar stage, band shell, etcetera has a different sound. Learn what instruments are supposed to sound like with NO electonics behind them (obviously not possible with electric guitars and synths). Then, once you have a baseline for what "real" sounds like, then listen to different systems with different headphones. Hopefully one of them will strike you as the most accurate in reproducing what you know to be real.

The caveat with this is that you also have to have recordings that are well done, and of music that you like. I am not certain, but there is likely a thread in the Music section that lists recommendations for "reference recordings" that people feel are accurate portrayals of the recorded event, to include timbre, soundstage, dynamics, pace and rhythm, and air. These recordings are invaluable in auditioning equipment.

 

[1Time]

To the OP,

I suggest you're more likely to get input at Head-Fi that you can better use if you instead ask which cans folks think you will find more enjoyable with the supporting components you expect to be using and the type(s) of music you listen to the most.

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazile /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which phone is most accurate?

I think you'll find that accuracy is very subjective around here...

 

[1Time]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigglybootch /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you'll find that accuracy is very subjective around here...

Of course; this thread already has demonstrated that.

However, when one's likely supporting components and musical preference (or primary use of the cans) are known, I suggest this is when subjective input at Head-Fi becomes more useful.

A 500+ member now... it's almost like a promotion.

 

[Max F]

I'm pretty sure most sound engineers would use near field monitors rather than headphones - at least I would hope so!