ruinedx
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2016
- Posts
- 936
- Likes
- 1,012
Sennheiser HD600
Best sub-$250 over-the-ear headphones with neutral sound signature?
- Thread starter ADUHF
- Start date
Thanks for these suggestions, kman1211. And also the DT 150 and 880.
arielext also mentioned the Tygr here. Wish I could give these a listen, because they look like one of the potentially better open-back alternatives in this price range.
Fwiw, Zeos recently gave them a very positive review.
Last edited:
In case anyone's wonderin what I mean by "neutral", this is one of my most recent attempts at a graph, based on the raw DRP frequency responses of a number of neutralish headphones on Rtings...
The headphones do not have to be an exact match to this. Just somewhere in the general ballpark. Neutral open-back headphones (like the Sennheiser 58x) will tend to be more rolled off in the bass, for example, which is to be expected. And headphones with more of a Fletcher-Munson curve will tend be more depressed in the midrange and have a bit more emphasis in the bass and treble, which is appropriate for lower volume listening imo.
The main features I look for in a neutral headphone are a fairly well-defined peak at 3 kHz. A gentle valley that's approximately -10 to -12 dBs lower than that peak, forming sort of a bowl shape between 3 kHz and the mid to lower bass. And a series of smaller peaks that follow a gentle downward arc or slope from the 3 kHz peak into the upper treble.
The rise from the lower midrange to the lower bass should roughly follow a high phon F-M/equal loudness contour. Mimicking the low frequency room gain in a pair of neutral loudspeakers with good bass management (with perhaps a bit more emphasis).
And their should ideally be a modest depression in the sibilant range between the primary ear canal resonances at 3kHz and 9 kHz, inverting the ITU-R 468 noise weighting in that area.
A compensated graph, such as a diffuse field plot (which many review sites and DIYers use) would of course look somewhat different. And have more of a smoothly downward sloping shape from the bass to the treble, without the pronounced peaks in the upper midrange and treble.
The above neutral FR plot is still very much a work in progress btw. So there could still be some adjustments to it, particularly around the ends of the frequency spectrum, in the lower bass and upper treble. (I think the above plot is gettin pretty close though in terms of the overall generalities of the shape.)
The features in the upper midrange and treble are more a function of the resonances in the measuring system than the headphones btw. And may vary depending on the measurement rig being used.
The headphones do not have to be an exact match to this. Just somewhere in the general ballpark. Neutral open-back headphones (like the Sennheiser 58x) will tend to be more rolled off in the bass, for example, which is to be expected. And headphones with more of a Fletcher-Munson curve will tend be more depressed in the midrange and have a bit more emphasis in the bass and treble, which is appropriate for lower volume listening imo.
The main features I look for in a neutral headphone are a fairly well-defined peak at 3 kHz. A gentle valley that's approximately -10 to -12 dBs lower than that peak, forming sort of a bowl shape between 3 kHz and the mid to lower bass. And a series of smaller peaks that follow a gentle downward arc or slope from the 3 kHz peak into the upper treble.
The rise from the lower midrange to the lower bass should roughly follow a high phon F-M/equal loudness contour. Mimicking the low frequency room gain in a pair of neutral loudspeakers with good bass management (with perhaps a bit more emphasis).
And their should ideally be a modest depression in the sibilant range between the primary ear canal resonances at 3kHz and 9 kHz, inverting the ITU-R 468 noise weighting in that area.
A compensated graph, such as a diffuse field plot (which many review sites and DIYers use) would of course look somewhat different. And have more of a smoothly downward sloping shape from the bass to the treble, without the pronounced peaks in the upper midrange and treble.
The above neutral FR plot is still very much a work in progress btw. So there could still be some adjustments to it, particularly around the ends of the frequency spectrum, in the lower bass and upper treble. (I think the above plot is gettin pretty close though in terms of the overall generalities of the shape.)
The features in the upper midrange and treble are more a function of the resonances in the measuring system than the headphones btw. And may vary depending on the measurement rig being used.
Last edited:
The term "neutral" is somewhat open to interpretation btw. So you may choose to define it differently than I've attempted above.
Some other fairly well-known models for a neutral response include the Harman headphone target, which represents the preferred response for headphones, based on subjective testing.
And the 2013 Olive-Welti curve, which represented the preferred in-room response of loudspeakers, measured at the ear-drum at that time.
The preferred response for headphones represented by the Harman headphone target includes a bit more emphasis in the bass than the preferred in-room response for loudspeakers in the 2013 Olive-Welti curve.
The Harman target is only useful for rough approximation purposes in the treble though, due to the different measurement system use for those curves.
Some other fairly well-known models for a neutral response include the Harman headphone target, which represents the preferred response for headphones, based on subjective testing.
And the 2013 Olive-Welti curve, which represented the preferred in-room response of loudspeakers, measured at the ear-drum at that time.
The preferred response for headphones represented by the Harman headphone target includes a bit more emphasis in the bass than the preferred in-room response for loudspeakers in the 2013 Olive-Welti curve.
The Harman target is only useful for rough approximation purposes in the treble though, due to the different measurement system use for those curves.
Last edited:
Mink
Headphoneus Supremus
Well what do you know, they are still sold:
https://www.amazon.com/AKG-3280H001...os-20&linkId=c19ce9005db138af3edb72f0c45ad6fd
Pretty sure the K553 MkII is. I found one on the shelf at a local GC just a few days ago. People seem to be a bit more interested in the K371 now though.
My K553 Pro (without the detachable cable on the MkII) was fairly bright and harsh-sounding in some spots in the upper mids and lower treble. And a bit lean in some spots in the bass. So they didn't have the best sound out-of-the-box imo. They had good extension in the bass and treble though. And the harshness in the upper mids, and other tonal balance issues were improvable with an EQ. I wish Rtings would at least attempt to do some measurements of the MkII version, because they are still more or less on my radar as a potential replacement for my old K553's. I'd really like to try something new though, preferably by a different manufacturer. And appreciate all the great ideas and opinions folks are posting here.
Last edited:
Mink
Headphoneus Supremus
Well unfortunately there isn't a consensus about whether the K550/553 MKIIs are an upgrade over the 1st generation. Some people claim there is: better bass (maybe due to better fit) and less peaky high mids, but some don't.
I don't know. At the time I didn't go for the orignal K550s because of this annoying high mid peak, I went for the Audio Technica ATH-A900Xs. Years later I bought the K550MKIIs exclusively for their looks, because they were sold cheap (and I am a shallow person). I didn't expect them to sound different than the 1st generation K550s. But I was dumbfounded how smooth they were. No peaks, little to no ringing and their bass, while leaner than my other pairs (with the exception of the Beoplay H6s) was solid enough. And I still feel this, even after getting the NightHawks and Sony MDR-Z7s, which are notorious for their smooth (muffled) sound. Even though the K550MKIIs are brighter than the NightHawks, I don't consider them to be a bright sounding pair, but rather mid-oriented and warm-ish.
Did my hearing change? Does this MKII pair have a better fit than the original MKI? I don't know.
I don't know. At the time I didn't go for the orignal K550s because of this annoying high mid peak, I went for the Audio Technica ATH-A900Xs. Years later I bought the K550MKIIs exclusively for their looks, because they were sold cheap (and I am a shallow person). I didn't expect them to sound different than the 1st generation K550s. But I was dumbfounded how smooth they were. No peaks, little to no ringing and their bass, while leaner than my other pairs (with the exception of the Beoplay H6s) was solid enough. And I still feel this, even after getting the NightHawks and Sony MDR-Z7s, which are notorious for their smooth (muffled) sound. Even though the K550MKIIs are brighter than the NightHawks, I don't consider them to be a bright sounding pair, but rather mid-oriented and warm-ish.
Did my hearing change? Does this MKII pair have a better fit than the original MKI? I don't know.
Last edited:
I got a chance to audition a few of the above headphones at GC today. My ears have unfortunately been a little congested due to allergies, so I'm not sure I was able to hear things as well as I would have liked. Plus it's been awhile since I heard a really decent pair of headphones (because of the covid). Most of the HPs that I listened to sounded like they graphed though, for the most part. I will probably be going back for more listening sessions though, to try to get a better read on some of the more subtle differences between the different models (provided the covid gods will permit it).
The store unfortunately did not have any Beyer DT-990's on display, which was one of the HPs I was most interested in. They had the DT-770 though, so I gave those another listen. And their floor sample (which seemed to be a little old) sounded pretty much exactly like the DT-770's frequency plots... ie bright, analytical, and somewhat grainy in the treble.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012
Lower frequency details were also apparent, but quite recessed vs. the brightness in the treble, which tended to mask most of the other frequencies. I think an EQ could probably be used to trim back some of that treble brightness. But I suspect there are some other HPs with a more neutral sound out-of-the box that would be a little easier to tweak to my particular taste than these.
It's also conceivable that Beyer has tweaked the sound a bit on the DT-770. And the store's floor unit was not totally up to date. I'd have to buy a pair to determine that though. And they aren't allowing returns on any open HPs as this point (for obvious reasons).
The store unfortunately did not have any Beyer DT-990's on display, which was one of the HPs I was most interested in. They had the DT-770 though, so I gave those another listen. And their floor sample (which seemed to be a little old) sounded pretty much exactly like the DT-770's frequency plots... ie bright, analytical, and somewhat grainy in the treble.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012
Lower frequency details were also apparent, but quite recessed vs. the brightness in the treble, which tended to mask most of the other frequencies. I think an EQ could probably be used to trim back some of that treble brightness. But I suspect there are some other HPs with a more neutral sound out-of-the box that would be a little easier to tweak to my particular taste than these.
It's also conceivable that Beyer has tweaked the sound a bit on the DT-770. And the store's floor unit was not totally up to date. I'd have to buy a pair to determine that though. And they aren't allowing returns on any open HPs as this point (for obvious reasons).
Last edited:
SilverEars
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Posts
- 14,488
- Likes
- 6,496
The bottom one is has a large sharp 3k spike unfortunately. That was their early preference response?The term "neutral" is somewhat open to interpretation btw. So you may choose to define it differently than I've attempted above.
Some other failry well-known models for a neutral response include the Harman headphone target, which represents the preferred response for headphones, based on subjective testing.
And the 2004 Olive-Welti curve, which represented the preferred in-room response of loudspeakers, measured at the ear-drum at that time.
The preferred response for headphones represented by the Harman headphone target includes a bit more emphasis in the bass than the preferred in-room response for loudspeakers in the 2004 Olive-Welti curve.
The Harman target is only useful for rough approximation purposes in the treble though, due to the different measurement system use for those curves.
DivineCurrent
500+ Head-Fier
Been said before, but any of the HD 580 style Sennheisers (HD580, HD58X, HD600, HD650, HD6XX, HD660S) will have a somewhat neutral tuning. My favorite of the bunch believe it or not is the cheapest 58X, it has more sub bass extension than all the others and brings down the somewhat forwardness in the 2-4 kHz range. If you are looking for something more on target to Harman in the upper mids though, the HD600 is hard to beat. Another great option is a used Hifiman Sundara. Treble is a little forward, but nothing like a Beyerdynamic.
I believe the Olive-Welti curve was based on in-ear measurements made from actual speakers in a room, as opposed to headphones. And was intended to represent their preferred in-room loudspeaker sound, measured in-ear as opposed to in a room.
I believe it was included in one of their early white papers on the subject of headphones for the Audio Engineering Society (AES) in 2004 (though I can't lay my hands on it at the moment).
The spike at 3 kHz is actually about the same amplitude as on the new Harman target, and my extrapolated response curve based on the Rtings FR plots. Around 11-12 dBs above the midrange. It just looks bigger because the graph is more stretched in the vertical axis than the other plots. And because it drops more precipitously into the sibilant range than the Harman target.
In broad strokes though, the overall features are similar on all three plots. The Harman target just does not do as good a job of capturing some of the finer details in the treble as the other graphs do (imho).
Last edited:
More impressions from my GC listening session... They also had the AKG K361, K371 and K553 MkII. So I gave all three a try. And tried to do some basic comparisons between them. I think this was my first time listening to all three HPs.
The K371 also sounded alot like its graphs... Fairly neutral. But a bit lacking in some warmth (due to the low frequency of the bass boost), and a tad uneven in some spots. And perhaps most notably, a bit on the punchy side at the ends of the frequency range...
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4012
They were also one of the loudest headphones in the store.
I can understand why some people are drawn to these HPs, because they have such a big dynamic sound, for such a relatively small (and inexpensive) headphone. They did not come across as totally neutral to my ears though due to the punchiness at the ends of the frequency range, esp. I would say in the treble. So I would tend to put them more in the "better at lower volumes" category because of that. (Which is slightly ironic given they're so easily driven to higher volumes.) I think my ears would become a bit fatigued by the punchiness in the K371's sound at higher volumes after awhile.
They were definitely somewhat weightier, and more premium feeling than the K361's. I didn't really like the hinge and headband extender design though on the K371. It just seemed a bit unwieldy and confusing, and hard to work with.
I also lamented the lack of warmth in the K371 sound sig to some degree. And think a little more emphasis in the mid to upper bass would've given them a little better balance to my ears.
The K371 also sounded noticeably louder to my ears on the left channel. I do have more hearing loss in my right ear though at certain frequencies, esp. in the treble. So most headphones will sound a bit louder or brighter to my ears on the left channel. This imbalance was quite noticeable though. What I should have done was flip the headphones around from right to left, to see if the imbalance was really in the HPs, or my ears. If I give them a listen again, I will definitely give that a try.
The K371 also sounded alot like its graphs... Fairly neutral. But a bit lacking in some warmth (due to the low frequency of the bass boost), and a tad uneven in some spots. And perhaps most notably, a bit on the punchy side at the ends of the frequency range...
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4011
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4012
They were also one of the loudest headphones in the store.
I can understand why some people are drawn to these HPs, because they have such a big dynamic sound, for such a relatively small (and inexpensive) headphone. They did not come across as totally neutral to my ears though due to the punchiness at the ends of the frequency range, esp. I would say in the treble. So I would tend to put them more in the "better at lower volumes" category because of that. (Which is slightly ironic given they're so easily driven to higher volumes.) I think my ears would become a bit fatigued by the punchiness in the K371's sound at higher volumes after awhile.
They were definitely somewhat weightier, and more premium feeling than the K361's. I didn't really like the hinge and headband extender design though on the K371. It just seemed a bit unwieldy and confusing, and hard to work with.
I also lamented the lack of warmth in the K371 sound sig to some degree. And think a little more emphasis in the mid to upper bass would've given them a little better balance to my ears.
The K371 also sounded noticeably louder to my ears on the left channel. I do have more hearing loss in my right ear though at certain frequencies, esp. in the treble. So most headphones will sound a bit louder or brighter to my ears on the left channel. This imbalance was quite noticeable though. What I should have done was flip the headphones around from right to left, to see if the imbalance was really in the HPs, or my ears. If I give them a listen again, I will definitely give that a try.
Last edited:
Between the AKG K361 and K553 MkII, I think the K553 was much closer in sound to the K371. The K361 sounded cheaper to my ears and more mid-centric. And was not as articulate as the other two headphones. Some of that could be attributable to their lighter weight and plastic construction. There may also be some differences in the drivers though. The K361 just sounded sort of "blah" to me, esp. when switching back and forth between the three HPs.
The K553 was much closer to the sound of the K371. But different. And I had to listen to those two more closely to try to discern (and articulate) some of the differences between the two, which were more subtle. Both headphones probably used the same low frequency drivers, with some different tuning and filtering. The K553 MkII was not as loud though. Or as punchy on the ends as the K371. It was a bit warmer and perhaps more mid-centric I'd say. But not to a huge degree. The K553 MkII was also pretty well-extended in both the bass and treble, and able to articulate some more detail than the K361. But not as thumpy in the sub-bass or as glaringly bright in the treble as the K371.
The K553 also sounded more distant on vocals than the K371. My old K553 Pros had a bit of a notch or depression at around 3 kHz. You can see that notch on this compensated plot by Reviewed dot com...
https://reviewed-com-res.cloudinary...chment/4b70dd215133494d/AKG_K553_FR_Chart.jpg
I suspect the MkII version also retains that feature, and that may be why vocals sounded more distant than the K371.
I suspect that the K553 MkII also retains the somewhat flatter bass response shown above on the K553 Pro, with perhaps a bit more warmth in the upper bass than the K371. I'm not sure if the K553 MkII was as forward though in the upper midrange between 1 and 2 kHz as the above plot shows. It's been a long time since I listened to my K553 Pro's with stock pads. But I do remember them being fairly harsh sounding in that area. Maybe I just did not have the volume turned up on the MkII's enough to notice it as much as on the K553 Pro.
The K553 MkII also generally sounded better balanced left to right to my ears than the K371, particularly in the treble. They did not have perfect imaging though. So there were probably some other somewhat less obvious imbalances on the K553 than on the K371. How much of that is due to my hearing loss at different frequencies, I can't really say. My old K553 Pros also had some noticeable imbalances and imaging issues though at different points in the frequency range. So I would not be surprised to see this kind of thing on other similar AKG products in the same price range.
The sound signature of the K553 is somewhat harder to analyze than some other headphones, like the DT 770 and K371, where the dominant sound characteristics are a bit simpler and easier to identify.
They did not have the open-back K245 on display btw. So I could not give those a listen. Those are apparently special order items.
The K553 was much closer to the sound of the K371. But different. And I had to listen to those two more closely to try to discern (and articulate) some of the differences between the two, which were more subtle. Both headphones probably used the same low frequency drivers, with some different tuning and filtering. The K553 MkII was not as loud though. Or as punchy on the ends as the K371. It was a bit warmer and perhaps more mid-centric I'd say. But not to a huge degree. The K553 MkII was also pretty well-extended in both the bass and treble, and able to articulate some more detail than the K361. But not as thumpy in the sub-bass or as glaringly bright in the treble as the K371.
The K553 also sounded more distant on vocals than the K371. My old K553 Pros had a bit of a notch or depression at around 3 kHz. You can see that notch on this compensated plot by Reviewed dot com...
https://reviewed-com-res.cloudinary...chment/4b70dd215133494d/AKG_K553_FR_Chart.jpg
I suspect the MkII version also retains that feature, and that may be why vocals sounded more distant than the K371.
I suspect that the K553 MkII also retains the somewhat flatter bass response shown above on the K553 Pro, with perhaps a bit more warmth in the upper bass than the K371. I'm not sure if the K553 MkII was as forward though in the upper midrange between 1 and 2 kHz as the above plot shows. It's been a long time since I listened to my K553 Pro's with stock pads. But I do remember them being fairly harsh sounding in that area. Maybe I just did not have the volume turned up on the MkII's enough to notice it as much as on the K553 Pro.
The K553 MkII also generally sounded better balanced left to right to my ears than the K371, particularly in the treble. They did not have perfect imaging though. So there were probably some other somewhat less obvious imbalances on the K553 than on the K371. How much of that is due to my hearing loss at different frequencies, I can't really say. My old K553 Pros also had some noticeable imbalances and imaging issues though at different points in the frequency range. So I would not be surprised to see this kind of thing on other similar AKG products in the same price range.
The sound signature of the K553 is somewhat harder to analyze than some other headphones, like the DT 770 and K371, where the dominant sound characteristics are a bit simpler and easier to identify.
They did not have the open-back K245 on display btw. So I could not give those a listen. Those are apparently special order items.
Last edited:
HD600 or DT880(600 ohm) would seem to be the general consensus, just make sure they're amped properly.
Thank you or the reply, gooeyrich. If you had to stretch your mind for some other alternatives to the above, what would they be? This is just my personal take of course, but the HD 600 is a bit out my personal price range. I'm really trying to stay around $150 or less. But will consider some slightly more expensive options if they have add'l benefits, or better accuracy than what I can find in that lower price range. So a new HD 600 is probably more than I can spend, as is a higher quality amp to properly drive a high impedance headphone, like the 600 ohm DT 880. Others here may differ on that though.
In terms of the Sennheisers, the (Mass)Drop 58x Jubilee and 6xx appear to be two of the better open-back options in the lower price range.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
