[Moogs]

Everyone's ears are different. Everyone hears things differently. Just buy what sounds good to you. The endless debate of something sounding too sparkly or not enough mid blah blah blah is exhausting and who cares what some computer says the sound wave is. It's all about how your ear interprets it.

 

[Pianist]

  Everyone's ears are different. Everyone hears things differently. Just buy what sounds good to you. The endless debate of something sounding too sparkly or not enough mid blah blah blah is exhausting and who cares what some computer says the sound wave is. It's all about how your ear interprets it.

 
So why do studio monitors exist and why are they used by most professional musicians? In photography, why do expensive cameras exist that can do 12 MP+. Why not use a 2 MP camera for everything and just be content with it? Why use a monitor with accurate color coverage? Who cares about some numbers? What if I like how the world looks with sunglasses on? Also, why not try to get used to cheap stuff if we can be content with it? My friend loves Beats and loves the look of his laptop screen with 50% sRGB coverage and 640*480 res, so if he's content with it, why don't I and everyone else try to be as well? Why search for something better if nothing is perfect and we'll all die anyway? That money people use to buy expensive gear can go to starving people in Africa, where it'll be far more useful.
 
We need to draw a line somewhere in our reasoning right?

 

[Moogs]

   
So why do studio monitors exist and why are they used by most professional musicians? In photography, why do expensive cameras exist that can do 12 MP+. Why not use a 2 MP camera for everything and just be content with it? Why use a monitor with accurate color coverage? Who cares about some numbers? What if I like how the world looks with sunglasses on? Also, why not try to get used to cheap stuff if we can be content with it? My friend loves Beats and loves the look of his laptop screen with 50% sRGB coverage and 640*480 res, so if he's content with it, why don't I and everyone else try to be as well? Why search for something better if nothing is perfect and we'll all die anyway? That money people use to buy expensive gear can go to starving people in Africa, where it'll be far more useful.
 
We need to draw a line somewhere in our reasoning right?

It's the debate in one person trying to tell another person that a particular headphone is "bright" or "lacks bass" where another says it doesn't and one tries to convince the other they're wrong. Your friend likes Beats, then he likes Beats. Just don't try and convince him not to like the way they sound to him. It's pointless.
 
If you like how the world looks with sunglasses on that's great. You proved my point. I never said not to like the world with sunglasses on or that it's better without them did I? It's what looks good to you.
 
Not sure what your Africa point and we all die anyway point is coming from. That's a little out of context.

 

[FullBright1]

   
 
It's true that judging a headphone just by looking at measurements without actually hearing it may seem silly and wrong, but when you do listen to it, how do you know that your subjective experience may not distort the objective reality of how it really sounds?

 
Headphones are determined to be great based on the overwhelming consensus of those who hear them, and NEVER judged to be great based on electronic measurements that are seen by the human eyeball.
Cars are judged to have a comfy ride because when you put your bottom in the seat and feel how the car rides..... you like it, so,  you then know something about the car's reality that no critical measurement you can ever take by a machine is able to teach you.
There is no other way to determine how something feels or how something sounds then to feel it or to hear it.
Bottom line.
Headphones have to be heard to know their reality, and there is no other way to know, ... period.
I hope you get my point.

 

[Pianist]

  Headphones are determined to be great based on the overwhelming consensus of those who hear them, and NEVER judged to be great based on electronic measurements that are seen by the human eyeball.
Cars are judged to have a comfy ride because when you put your bottom in the seat and feel how the car rides..... you like it, so,  you then know something about the car's reality that no critical measurement you can ever take by a machine is able to teach you.
There is no other way to determine how something feels or how something sounds then to feel it or to hear it.
Bottom line.
Headphones have to be heard to know their reality, and there is no other way to know, ... period.
I hope you get my point.

 

  It's the debate in one person trying to tell another person that a particular headphone is "bright" or "lacks bass" where another says it doesn't and one tries to convince the other they're wrong. Your friend likes Beats, then he likes Beats. Just don't try and convince him not to like the way they sound to him. It's pointless.
 
If you like how the world looks with sunglasses on that's great. You proved my point. I never said not to like the world with sunglasses on or that it's better without them did I? It's what looks good to you.
 
Not sure what your Africa point and we all die anyway point is coming from. That's a little out of context.

 
What do guys you think about studio monitors and accurate sound? Can people who don't enjoy the sound of studio monitors record good music using whatever other kind of audio equipment they do like, such as Beats or iBuds? Surely, it will sound good to other people who also like that type of music and headphones and that's OK, right?

 

[FullBright1]

   
 
What do guys you think about studio monitors and accurate sound? Can people who don't enjoy the sound of studio monitors record good music using whatever other kind of audio equipment they do like, such as Beats or iBuds? Surely, it will sound good to other people who also like that type of music and headphones and that's OK, right?

 
Im a lifelong musician who also operates a mastering studio.
Ive spent thousands upon thousands of dollars for over 20 years on gears including probably an easy $2Gs in the last 2yrs just on plug-ins to mix in the box.
(MacBook Pro 17") I-7 -2.5, SSD, and no longer made by Apple, > unfortunately.
Ive owned over 100 acoustic guitars, many of them high end , and some of them custom ordered.
As a matter of fact, i have 3 coming next week.....One is a Guild OM-150 "Westerly" that i just bought from a dealer in Indiana, and one is a Breedlove OM "Oregon"-Myrtlewood that i bought "as new" from a dealer in WI, and finally out of NYC comes a custom built Koa OM , one owner before me.
Im down to only one Electric these days, its a Semi-Hollow Yamaha AEX-520 dressed in black with 2  P-90s for tone.
For my electric "amp" I use a CLA Guitars plug-in.. (Chris Lord-Alge Signature Series)
Ive owned probably 60 electrics starting with my first "good electric" which was a Gibson Les Paul Custom Black Beauty that i bought at the same time from someone who was also selling a Black-Face Fender Twin Reverb that i ended up purchasing as well.
Ive owned Dynaudio, JBL, & Focal, studio monitors among others.
My entire life has been lived mostly as a musician as well as 2 or 3 "other" careers, but music has always been the center of my existence and my ears are very highly trained devices which know "good sound".
So, to answer your question, the R70X's are a very faithful and accurate set of studio monitors for your ears, and i've mixed on them because you can trust them, especially in the mids and the low bass, which is basically (no pun intended) unheard of regarding mixing on headphones which usually tends to be a "good luck with that" experience.......until these headphones.
They really are special.

 

[Pianist]

  Im a lifelong musician who also operates a mastering studio.
Ive spent thousands upon thousands of dollars for over 20 years on gears including probably an easy $2Gs in the last 2yrs just on plug-ins to mix in the box.
(MacBook Pro 17") I-7 -2.5, SSD, and no longer made by Apple, > unfortunately.
Ive owned over 100 acoustic guitars, many of them high end , and some of them custom ordered.
As a matter of fact, i have 3 coming next week.....One is a Guild OM-150 "Westerly" that i just bought from a dealer in Indiana, and one is a Breedlove OM "Oregon"-Myrtlewood that i bought "as new" from a dealer in WI, and finally out of NYC comes a custom built Koa OM , one owner before me.
Im down to only one Electric these days, its a Semi-Hollow Yamaha AEX-520 dressed in black with 2  P-90s for tone.
For my electric "amp" I use a CLA Guitars plug-in.. (Chris Lord-Alge Signature Series)
Ive owned probably 60 electrics starting with my first "good electric" which was a Gibson Les Paul Custom Black Beauty that i bought at the same time from someone who was also selling a Black-Face Fender Twin Reverb that i ended up purchasing as well.
Ive owned Dynaudio, JBL, & Focal, studio monitors among others.
My entire life has been lived mostly as a musician as well as 2 or 3 "other" careers, but music has always been the center of my existence and my ears are very highly trained devices which know "good sound".
So, to answer your question, the R70X's are a very faithful and accurate set of studio monitors for your ears, and i've mixed on them because you can trust them, especially in the mids and the low bass, which is basically (no pun intended) unheard of regarding mixing on headphones which usually tends to be a "good luck with that" experience.......until these headphones.
They really are special.

 
That's impressive of course. Surely I can put more trust in your opinion on headphones than in that of an average joe. However, in your previous post, you stated that headphones are judged based only on consensus of their owners and never on measurements and it's similar with cars. I assume you also have the same opinion regarding speakers? So what about studio monitors then? How do audio pros decide what makes a good studio monitor headphone or speaker and that it has a sufficiently accurate sound reproduction? Actually, what is accurate if measurements don't matter? Can a standard for accuracy be derived only from subjective impressions of the sound? In that case, does the overwhelming consensus that Beats sound good among consumers these days mean that Beats can also be called accurate? If I like some fake earbuds I picked up on the street the other day and I think they sound accurate, can you prove me wrong? Also, can you prove that your R70X is more accurate than Beats or my fake earbuds?

 

[FullBright1]

 So what about studio monitors then? How do audio pros decide what makes a good studio monitor headphone or speaker and that it has a sufficiently accurate sound reproduction? 

 
Pros decide everything based on what other Pros are doing or using.
Everything "gear" wise, is basically a rebranded copy of what is already working good and this is why there is never really anything that is radically different being invented, unless its for the purpose of trying to sell it to you based on it being radical.
See, within "sound" there is the tried and true and then there are slight adjustments to the tried and true branded as "new and improved" to keep Capitalism alive, and to make it slightly better which is designed by teams of Marketing pros who know how to snag your money.
Thats the game, and you are their player.
This is the way everything distills down to the 'best" in life,  or regarding headphones, >  the best sounding @anygiventime.
See, regarding the consumer's mantra, the name of the game is getting the best end result no matter what it is in life., headphones, education, surgery, pizza, ...whatever. @etc.
Its all about what gets you the straight wire thrill and satisfaction experience in life, no matter the experience.
Thats why you breath, thats why you exist.
So, for $350 - $1000, get the ATH-R70x as your best and unequalled straight wire ear hole experience.
s
----
 
here is another review, from a Mag, and you'll note the person sounds as if im talking, and that is because everyone who understands good sound, good headphones, and hears the R70x, has the same epiphany...
It'll sound as if he is describing the perfect headphone.
 
-
..
""" I'm hearing a neutral sound signature with a natural tonality and a very accurate retrieval of details, a great extension at both ends of the spectrum, and very non-fatigue sound (no sibilance or harsh analytical brightness). I know it's a mouthful, but I just never heard anything that sounded so crystal clear, accurate, and natural, and at the same time enjoyable for extended listening period. There are no cuts or boosts, no extra warmth of low end or extra sizzle at top end, just accuracy and quality.

Starting with a low end, there is no lack in bass response though it's more about quality than quantity. The bass does extends down to sub-bass level which is nicely balanced with mid-bass and both of which have a high level of accuracy with quantity approaching neutral level where you hear the bass rather than feel it, yet still it's tight and well controlled. Nothing is exaggerated, nothing spills into mids, and it's surgically separated from the rest of the frequency spectrum.

Mids are crystal clear, surprisingly not as thin as I expected with just a touch of warmth in lower mids to give them some body and high level of detail retrieval without too much of analytical brightness. Vocal delivery, both male and female, is crisp and organic.

Treble extends high up with a very crisp and clear delivery of sound that is not too harsh or sibilant. Any instrument that falls within treble range sounds natural and transparent, absolutely no harsh peaks.

With a help of open-back design, soundstage is open and airy, with a great width and depth. Sound separation is phenomenal with layering/separation of each individual instrument and vocals that could be easily singled out in a mix. Also, the imaging is very accurate with a precise position of every sound in the open 3D space. For studio mixing and mastering - this is a valuable tool that can substitute (though not replace) monitor speakers. """

 

[Pianist]

@ FullBright1: Let's just agree to disagree. I would prefer not to continue this conversation. Enjoy your headphones. I would like to try out the R70x sometime in the future. For now, I enjoy my MSR7 and other headphones.

BTW, have you tried NAD HP50, Fidelio X2, HD600 and HD800? If so, can you briefly post your impressions of those against MSR7 and R70x here? For me, HD600 and HD800 are currently my references for the most neutral and accurate sound I've heard. However, Fidelio X2 and HP50 are more accurate in a way, because they provide a fuller sound and seem more natural, even though HD600 and HD800 are more strictly neutral. MSR7 is definitely colored, but I like its high technical capabilities.

 

[woodpecker]

  If so, can you briefly post your impressions of those against MSR7 and R70x here?

From the comparison of the MSR7, R70x and X2, the MSR7 are the most analytical, R70x the most neutral and the the X2 the most fun of the three. It really depends what you're looking for. If you have the MSR7 and you add an open back while reducing the treble and upper midrange you will essentially have a R70x. How the AT are able to utilize this much from a 45mm driver while everybody else is using 50+mm drivers (except for the HP50 and maybe some others) is beyond my understanding. Currently the MSR7 (for me) are a closed back alternative to the R70x. Honestly, I would prefer the closed back version of the R70x because their comfort is unmatched. However I like the more metallic sound of the cymbals from the MSR7 and female vocals are just extraordinary.

 

[Hi-Fi EDU]

  From the comparison of the MSR7, R70x and X2, the MSR7 are the most analytical, R70x the most neutral and the the X2 the most fun of the three. It really depends what you're looking for. If you have the MSR7 and you add an open back while reducing the treble and upper midrange you will essentially have a R70x. How the AT are able to utilize this much from a 45mm driver while everybody else is using 50+mm drivers (except for the HP50 and maybe some others) is beyond my understanding. Currently the MSR7 (for me) are a closed back alternative to the R70x. Honestly, I would prefer the closed back version of the R70x because their comfort is unmatched. However I like the more metallic sound of the cymbals from the MSR7 and female vocals are just extraordinary.

 
I have to agree, the MSR7 have quite impressed me the more I've been recently listening to them. I'm fortunate to own the K7XX and on first impression I thought the MSR7 were basically an intimate K7XX minus the latter's spacious soundstage and smoother presentation in comparison. That wasn't a bad thing to me. Not that the MSR7 have poor staging (their high end help) but the K7XX's soundstage is something else. I found imaging on the MSR7 to be excellent though. The MSR7's intimacy, though not overly-done, really helps brings sweet vocals and its ability to retrieve detail to the fore. Most impressive to my ears, I think the MSR7 executes the low-end very well [non-basshead]. It extends deeper and is a touch more defined and controlled than my K7XX. I started feeling like my K7XX had more to give. I'm currently on a DACport Slim but I'm looking forward to something "better" soon. Overall, IMO the MSR7 are a great closed set of cans [period] I also think they look stunning; I have the gunmetal gray. They compliment open, airy headphones like the K7XX well. Happy listening folks.

 

[ehsan1986]

I have had msr7 for about 5 month and i must say they are great as a closed back headphone for the price asked. Im using it with fiio x3 2nd. Now im looking to upgrade my cans. Has anybody here compared msr7 with t90?

 

[roguepp88]

I have had msr7 for about 5 month and i must say they are great as a closed back headphone for the price asked. Im using it with fiio x3 2nd. Now im looking to upgrade my cans. Has anybody here compared msr7 with t90?

Don't get the T90, I tried it and its highs are very bad.
I think you would benefit more from something that compliments the msr7,
i.e some fun sounding cans like the TH-x00 on massdrop or some mad-dogs.
They would be much easier to drive than the T90 as well.

 

[Pianist]

I have had msr7 for about 5 month and i must say they are great as a closed back headphone for the price asked. Im using it with fiio x3 2nd. Now im looking to upgrade my cans. Has anybody here compared msr7 with t90?

 
What do you find lacking with MSR7? If you want better soundstage/sense of space, better dynamics and a more relaxed, natural sound, I can recommend HD600 as a nice upgrade over MSR7 is those aspects. Also consider Fidelio X2 for a more open, natural sound with better dynamics, as well as more bass presence and fullness than what MSR7 offers. However, with HD600 or X2, as well as almost any other sub-$1k headphone, you will lose some definition and clarity compared to MSR7. It's not an issue though, unless you are a very analytical/critical listener. I do find HD600 and X2 quite a bit more pleasant and natural sounding than MSR7. However, if you want an upgrade in resolution, clarity and definition, than it's actually nearly impossible to upgrade from MSR7, because it's already one of the best headphone out there in those aspects, regardless of price. Even my HD800 is hardly an upgrade from MSR7 in clarity and resolution, if an upgrade at all. The main issues with MSR7 in my opinion is its upper midrange boost that can make it sound somewhat shouty and hard, and a lack of spaciousness. There are many sub-$200 headphones that can beat MSR7 in tonal balance and soundstage, but most of them don't even come close to MSR7 is other aspects, like clarity, so I can't recommend them.
 

 
I have to agree, the MSR7 have quite impressed me the more I've been recently listening to them. I'm fortunate to own the K7XX and on first impression I thought the MSR7 were basically an intimate K7XX minus the latter's spacious soundstage and smoother presentation in comparison. That wasn't a bad thing to me. Not that the MSR7 have poor staging (their high end help) but the K7XX's soundstage is something else. I found imaging on the MSR7 to be excellent though. The MSR7's intimacy, though not overly-done, really helps brings sweet vocals and its ability to retrieve detail to the fore. Most impressive to my ears, I think the MSR7 executes the low-end very well [non-basshead]. It extends deeper and is a touch more defined and controlled than my K7XX. I started feeling like my K7XX had more to give. I'm currently on a DACport Slim but I'm looking forward to something "better" soon. Overall, IMO the MSR7 are a great closed set of cans [period] I also think they look stunning; I have the gunmetal gray. They compliment open, airy headphones like the K7XX well. Happy listening folks.

 
MSR7 is nearly unbeatable is resolution, clarity, refinement and control. The low end is about as tight as it can possibly be, although it's not 100% linear - there's a bit of roll off below 50 Hz and a bit of a mid bass emphasis. Still, the bass is tighter than that of most headphones. Likewise, the treble is much more refined and clear than that of most headphones. The mids are also impeccable in quality, but the tonality is a bit off, as the upper mids stand out too much. This makes MSR7 sound too shouty and hard sometimes. It can be quite annoying when switching directly from a good headphone with a neutral tonal balance, like HD600. Also, MSR7 does lack quite a bit in terms of spaciousness. It can sound quite closed in sometimes. Like you said, it's pretty decent for a closed headphone, but most decent open back cans easily beat MSR7 in this regard. An open back version of MSR7 with a more open sound and a flatter tonal balance through the mids would easily be a world class headphone on par with the best available today IMO.

 

[Hi-Fi EDU]

Quote:

  MSR7 is nearly unbeatable is resolution, clarity, refinement and control. The low end is about as tight as it can possibly be, although it's not 100% linear - there's a bit of roll off below 50 Hz and a bit of a mid bass emphasis. Still, the bass is tighter than that of most headphones. Likewise, the treble is much more refined and clear than that of most headphones. The mids are also impeccable in quality, but the tonality is a bit off, as the upper mids stand out too much. This makes MSR7 sound too shouty and hard sometimes. It can be quite annoying when switching directly from a good headphone with a neutral tonal balance, like HD600. Also, MSR7 does lack quite a bit in terms of spaciousness. It can sound quite closed in sometimes. Like you said, it's pretty decent for a closed headphone, but most decent open back cans easily beat MSR7 in this regard. An open back version of MSR7 with a more open sound and a flatter tonal balance through the mids would easily be a world class headphone on par with the best available today IMO.

 
I haven't yet had the pleasure of listening to as many headphones as you have, so I'll take your word for it. I'll definitely give the MSR7 the edge over the K7XX in those particular categories (the only headphones I have to compare), but not by a large margin when the K7XX are giving what I imagine to be all they've got (now running off an m9XX)...
 
...And the likely consequence of the K7XX taking a back seat in those areas is evidenced by your second bolded statement. When switching directly from the comparatively relaxed and more neutral, tonally balanced K7XX to the MSR7 I observe exactly what you said. Not to mention the K7XX's spaciousness aids in its more natural presentation (obvious benefits of open). For sure there's a noticeable difference in the listening experience but after the first few minutes I find I can quickly acclimate.
 
"An open back version of MSR7 with a more open sound and flatter tonal balance through the mids." Maybe the HD800S will approximate just that? Even the K7XX don't sound too far off from that target to me. You ever listen to the K7XX? Of course the HD800S will likely cost 6-8x more at MSRP...thus bringing us back full circle with regards to what makes the MSR7s impressive.