[inthere]

I love the idea of a headphone algorithm, but I was wondering if you do the same for different sources too? For instance I mix on a Metric Halo ULN-8 using its headphone out and other times I'll use a Prism Lyra. When I'm relaxing I'll want to use one of my headphone amps. 
 
Is it possible for me to send in my interfaces and get algorithms for them too?

 

[Sinocelt]

 
I've seen engineers rush out to play mixes on the car stereos, boom boxes, TV's, just about everything with speakers. 

 
Er, yes, but not because those speakers are better or more faithful than good headphones. Those sound engineers just want to play their mixes in "real life situations." A mix that sounds great on 100,000-dollar speakers but not on John Doe's radio isn't a good mix, commercially speaking.
 
 

  So with mixing and mastering taken out of the equation, you'd have to think of what useful function a studio headphone should have. For me, it would be vocals and live instrument recording. For that purpose, I find Marshall Monitors to be the best choice because there's almost no leakage. 

 
Is that your only reason for choosing them? Because with respect to leakage/isolation, drummer's headphones can't be beat.

 

[Sinocelt]

I've added the Koss Pro4S to the opening post. 

 

[inthere]

   
Er, yes, but not because those speakers are better or more faithful than good headphones. Those sound engineers just want to play their mixes in "real life situations." A mix that sounds great on 100,000-dollar speakers but not on John Doe's radio isn't a good mix, commercially speaking.

 
 Ummm, thanks for the explanation, I knew that already but I didn't go into detail *why*, which you just did, thanks. 

 
Is that your only reason for choosing them? Because with respect to leakage/isolation, drummer's headphones can't be beat.

 
 Marshall Monitors beat drummers headphones by wide margin not just because of comfort issues(which can get VERY distracting), but because the sound signature is so much "sweeter" and "musical".  Marshalls have very smooth highs so you can crank them as high as the vocalist/musician wants without getting distortion. 
 
I know that "inspiring" vocals and musicians doesn't sound technical at all, but that's my personal goal. Also, a lot of musicians don't have top notch hearing because of what they're exposed to playing live, and more volume in the cans means they lock into song cues better and more efficiently.
 
*edit* Another thing, Marshall Monitors are marketed as studio monitor headphones, they should probably be on the list. 

 

[inthere]

   
Those sound engineers just want to play their mixes in "real life situations." A mix that sounds great on 100,000-dollar speakers but not on John Doe's radio isn't a good mix, commercially speaking.

 
 Engineers have been telling me this for years, and this is another reason why you don't want to use audiophile headphone to mix and master. 
 
   Audio Technica found out George Massenburg was using ATH-M50's and scrambled to market it as the ultimate "pro" headphone. Lunatique from this forum and this thread posted a headphone test over at Gearslutz that only the ATH-M50's and LCD 2's were able to pass. Only those two cans at the time were able to playback certain bass frequencies. 
 
 Of course since that time more headphones have the ability to play back those bass frequencies, but the fact is headphones have borked physics that prevent accurate mixing-even ATH M50's and LCD 2's. 

 

[Sinocelt]

  I know that "inspiring" vocals and musicians doesn't sound technical at all

 
Meh. Actually, when I started this thread, I didn't specify a particular use for headphones in the studio. So yeah, it can easily be argued that headphones that lead to a better performance are the best choice for performers in the studio, however colored they might be. That would give us three categories for studio headphones: for the performer, for the engineer to record with, and for the engineer to mix/master with (and yes, you could cut those three categories into smaller bits: best for drummer, best for mixing, best for mastering, best for looking cool in promotional pictures ...).
 
On the "inspiring the performer does matter" subject, cool and BIG microphones often get chosen. The excellent Gefell M930 is often overlooked for vocal duties because of its diminutive size (which, on the other hand, has made it popular in radio stations). A shame.
 
 

  Also, a lot of musicians don't have top notch hearing because of what they're exposed to playing live, and more volume in the cans means they lock into song cues better and more efficiently.

 
But musicians with hearing loss usually have problems perceiving highs, no? Wouldn't sweet highs make it harder for them to perceive if their highs are too shrill or if they get sibilant?
 
[Edit:] Actually, this review of the Marshall Headphone Monitor lists "treble might have too much bite for some" among the cons.
 
 

  *edit* Another thing, Marshall Monitors are marketed as studio monitor headphones, they should probably be on the list. 

 
Good point, and done.

 

[Sinocelt]

RudeWolf,
 
A thought crossed my mind: inthere has mentioned the possibility of flattering headphones being the best choice for performers, with the idea that if they like their voice better through the headphones it can lead to a better performance. Couldn't a program like yours offer such a "sweetly colored" option ... and then reproduce it as EQ on the recording itself, so that what the performer hears (his performance, but better) is transferred as is to the recording? A bit like an EQ preset the sound engineers can use or discard or tweak during the mixing stage.
 
As I said, just a passing idea.

 

[inthere]

   
 
But musicians with hearing loss usually have problems perceiving highs, no? Wouldn't sweet highs make it harder for them to perceive if their highs are too shrill or if they get sibilant?
 
[Edit:] Actually, this review of the Marshall Headphone Monitor lists "treble might have too much bite for some" among the cons.
 

 
They come with pads in the cups called "the FTF system" which basically muffles the sound. I have a bunch of these cans and the top end feels a bit rolled off to me, even without the "FTF system" pads connected. I did notice a long burn in period for them before they started sounding good and I mentioned this to Marshall 
(I contacted them to buy extra cables)

 

[Mike F]

   
 Ummm, thanks for the explanation, I knew that already but I didn't go into detail *why*, which you just did, thanks. 
 
 Marshall Monitors beat drummers headphones by wide margin not just because of comfort issues(which can get VERY distracting), but because the sound signature is so much "sweeter" and "musical".  Marshalls have very smooth highs so you can crank them as high as the vocalist/musician wants without getting distortion. 
 
I know that "inspiring" vocals and musicians doesn't sound technical at all, but that's my personal goal. Also, a lot of musicians don't have top notch hearing because of what they're exposed to playing live, and more volume in the cans means they lock into song cues better and more efficiently.
 
*edit* Another thing, Marshall Monitors are marketed as studio monitor headphones, they should probably be on the list. 

 
Isn't it so ironic that the music which 'audiophiles' go to so much trouble and expense to reproduce as faithfully and accurately as possible is played by musicians, many of whom can't hear most of the high frequencies which they are producing! I certainly know about the hazards of being a musician, although my ears aren't too bad as I've taken great care of them, but still........ At least they're still good enough to complete this challenge:- https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html
 
I totally agree and relate to the point you're making here though. Been there, done that! These days I make sure I have personal control over the volume in my cans, and I've learned to play well with a much lower monitoring volume. It does make things more difficult though.

 

[Sinocelt]

  They come with pads in the cups called "the FTF system" which basically muffles the sound. I have a bunch of these cans and the top end feels a bit rolled off to me, even without the "FTF system" pads connected. I did notice a long burn in period for them before they started sounding good and I mentioned this to Marshall 
(I contacted them to buy extra cables)

 
That rings a bell. I seem to remember having tried them last year in Taipei.
 
Ah yes, I did.

 

[inthere]

   
Isn't it so ironic that the music which 'audiophiles' go to so much trouble and expense to reproduce as faithfully and accurately as possible is played by musicians, many of whom can't hear most of the high frequencies which they are producing! I certainly know about the hazards of being a musician, although my ears aren't too bad as I've taken great care of them, but still........ At least they're still good enough to complete this challenge:- https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html
 
I totally agree and relate to the point you're making here though. Been there, done that! These days I make sure I have personal control over the volume in my cans, and I've learned to play well with a much lower monitoring volume. It does make things more difficult though.

Just imagine what level of genius Beethoven had writing symphonies while deaf!

 

[Mike F]

 
Just imagine what level of genius Beethoven had writing symphonies while deaf!

And he had no loud headphones to help him!

 

[RudeWolf]

  RudeWolf,
 
A thought crossed my mind: inthere has mentioned the possibility of flattering headphones being the best choice for performers, with the idea that if they like their voice better through the headphones it can lead to a better performance. Couldn't a program like yours offer such a "sweetly colored" option ... and then reproduce it as EQ on the recording itself, so that what the performer hears (his performance, but better) is transferred as is to the recording? A bit like an EQ preset the sound engineers can use or discard or tweak during the mixing stage.
 
As I said, just a passing idea.

 
Hard to say really. Pretty sure that professional vocalists know how their voice sounds and wouldn't like extra sugar to the mix. We have options to emulate many sound signatures (HD650 could be considered to sound sweet), but there is no way to be sure what exactly qualifies as sweet for all people.

 

[Sinocelt]

  Hard to say really. Pretty sure that professional vocalists know how their voice sounds and wouldn't like extra sugar to the mix. We have options to emulate many sound signatures (HD650 could be considered to sound sweet), but there is no way to be sure what exactly qualifies as sweet for all people.

 
I was thinking of a program that could (1) bring the headphones to neutral then (2) allow the performer to make adjustments starting from there. Those performer's adjustments-starting-from-neutral could then be transferred as an EQ pattern to any kind of recording software or plug-in. This said, as I said, it was only a passing idea. Forced to bet, I'd still put my money on as-neutral-as-possible monitoring. Especially when you've got several performers, plus a sound engineer!

 

[Mike F]

   
 Engineers have been telling me this for years, and this is another reason why you don't want to use audiophile headphone to mix and master. 

 
 

Originally Posted by inthere /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I know that "inspiring" vocals and musicians doesn't sound technical at all, but that's my personal goal.

 

  RudeWolf,
 
A thought crossed my mind: inthere has mentioned the possibility of flattering headphones being the best choice for performers, with the idea that if they like their voice better through the headphones it can lead to a better performance. Couldn't a program like yours offer such a "sweetly colored" option ... and then reproduce it as EQ on the recording itself, so that what the performer hears (his performance, but better) is transferred as is to the recording? A bit like an EQ preset the sound engineers can use or discard or tweak during the mixing stage.
 
As I said, just a passing idea.

 
 

   
Hard to say really. Pretty sure that professional vocalists know how their voice sounds and wouldn't like extra sugar to the mix. We have options to emulate many sound signatures (HD650 could be considered to sound sweet), but there is no way to be sure what exactly qualifies as sweet for all people.

 
 

   
I was thinking of a program that could (1) bring the headphones to neutral then (2) allow the performer to make adjustments starting from there. Those performer's adjustments-starting-from-neutral could then be transferred as an EQ pattern to any kind of recording software or plug-in. This said, as I said, it was only a passing idea. Forced to bet, I'd still put my money on as-neutral-as-possible monitoring. Especially when you've got several performers, plus a sound engineer!

 
 
This very interesting discussion has raised several questions for me. As you know, I'm a professional musician, and I also have a life-long passion for Hi-Fi. As one aspect of my work I have a small home studio which I usually use to record myself over a track which someone sends me. I then send them the dry recording which they then mix and use on a CD project. For me, a studio headphone has to be closed and good for tracking and monitoring. I don't do any music production myself so I don't need headphones to mix on, and in any case I have both near field (PMC TB1 in the studio) and full size (ATC SCM 100 ASL with the Hi-Fi) as well as Sennheiser HD 650 and HD 800 headphones to listen to mixes on if I need to.
 
One thing that has struck me as as result of the recent discussion, some of which I've quoted above, is that it would seem to me that a flat and neutral frequency response is not necessarily desirable in a studio headphone. I can certainly relate to and understand inthere's point about a headphone 'inspiring' singers and musicians. There are headphones, such as the Sony 7506, which are very popular with vocalists because it allows them to hear themselves very clearly in the mix. It's not so much necessarily that they 'flatter' (in the way that a certain headphone algorithm might do) their voices, but, because they hear what they need and want to hear very clearly it 'inspires' their performance (or can do).
 
It also seems to me that the most important virtue of a studio headphone used for mixing (or for some part of that process) is that the mixes done on it translate well. As I've said I don't do any mixing myself, but I can think of one headphone in particular which, according to several respected sources, translates extremely well but doesn't have a flat frequency response.
 
So the main question seems to be, is a flat frequency response even desirable or 'correct' in a headphone? The Harman target curve is not flat for example. Certainly, most 'studio headphones' (especially those good for tracking but also, as I said above, some which are good for mixing) are not flat. I'm wondering why (or if and how) a program which makes the FR of any headphone flat is a good idea? Then, additionally, having a program which makes the FR of a headphone flat and then introduces a 'flattering' response for singers (for example) seems a bit pointless........
 
I'm not being critical of any of the ideas here, and certainly not of RudeWolf's work - I'm just trying to understand..............!