1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Beyerdynamic DT 1990 PRO - Beyer's open-back mastering headphone

Discussion in 'Headphones (full-size)' started by xero1, Jul 19, 2016.
156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
  1. Leonarfd
    I prefer the Analytical pads on my questyle, while I prefer balanced with my tube. Also the B pads are deeper since they don't compress as much.

    Don't have the ifi iPurifier, but have the Ifi Audio idefender.
    Wonderful piece of kit, made my USB port completely silent and removed my ground loops.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2019
  2. GraveNoX
    Just got a pair of brand new 1990s, never listened to a beyer before, the sound is INTENSE and too clean and require attention every second I listen to it, music flows very fast. Comfort was meh at beginning but soon after 3 hours I forgot I wear them. Played CSGO for 4 hours straight, they are amazing. I heard that 1770s are more intense and T1s even more. That's insane! I don't think I could handle it.
    The bass is disappointing in quantity (using analytical pads, the stock pads sounded wrong), I'm using chord hugo 2 or chord mojo. It's has my SVS PB-1000 grunt/feel, but I feel it doesn't extend, I was expecting like IEM bass like all the internet is claiming, but nowhere near something like that. They have less bass than ATH MSR7... except that it has that subwoofer grunt to it. With 25hz bass I can't hear the bass, but I hear the driver moving... VERY fast bass overall. It doesn't have that bass pressure in my ears so it's a good thing. Maybe it requires some burn in. I know that chord DACs are very linear that doesn't boost bass, but I don't want to add fake coloration either. Also have an Emotiva TA-100 which is plenty at 60 from 80 volume. My previous ATH MSR7 I used them at 50-55 and they were 32 ohm... so 1990s seems very efficient.
    Well.. 1990s are way more detailed than my STAX L700 and maybe it's because 1990 has boosted highs that emphasize some sounds (most of them..). I can hear the speed way better with 1990s. I find bass on STAX as being sloppy and without resolution... so ... yeah...
    1990s gives me sound I never heard before, ever and if I check with STAX, they are NOT there. I use them with 353X and qed reference audio 40 RCA ($150 cable). The STAX gives a different presentation than dynamic hps, but nothing else! I would advise to stop searching for STAX in this second you read my comment!!
    On 1990s, I find vocals very present, I would never call them laid back...
    It has this... vividness... presence on some songs... if you know what I mean, can you recommend a more vivid headphone?
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
    Mad Max and shahkhan like this.
  3. natalieann
    What would be the closest IEM to the 1990? I know it won’t be exact but what would be fairly close? Xelento???
  4. megabigeye
    Somebody told me that the iBasso IT04 has a very similar signature, though I've not confirmed that myself.
  5. FKSSR
    I've been doing a lot of research, and it really sounds like DT 1990's are going to give me the sound I'm looking for. I bought the M1060's last year, and I enjoyed those, but I found that they don't really give me the sound I'm looking for.

    The only thing about the DT 1990's that don't match what I'm looking for is that I like a wide soundstage, but I know that has trade-offs, and, for example, I'm not willing to take a lot of muddiness that reviews say X2's can have, for example.

    Anyway, I just wanted to post here, because I've been reading a lot of threads here for over a year but never posted, and I want to get more involved and, hopefully, buy some used DT 1990's here.

    So, thanks to all for all the help through your threads and posts! :D
    megabigeye likes this.
  6. Benno1988
    Tried the DT1990 today from a Hugo briefly.

    I guess I was a bit underwhelmed. Build quality is fantastic, spot on. But sound was good, but not wow for me. I was coming from a MrSpeakers Aeon, which is another great bang for buck headphone but at a higher pricepoint, and planar. Wondering if its just that I had unknowingly set my expectations too high. In Aus they are $799 vs Aeon @ $1100. So its a significant difference in price.

    Had a listen to the T1 Gen 2 as well, was definately closer to the quality I was expecting.

    Could also be I dont like the Hugo sound, or that I'm so used to Planars. Not sure.
  7. kman1211
    Honestly on a good mid-tier system or higher end system I find the T1.2 and Amiron Home better than the DT 1990. The DT 1990 is easy to get to sound good on more gear but I personally find it has some consistent minor issues with its upper midrange(with both sets of pads, but moreso with balanced pads) and its not quite as refined the T1.2 and Amiron Home. I’ve owned all three at the same time, synergy does definitely play a factor but I still hear it’s minor upper mid issues(slightly off tonality and what seems like some missing information/fullness in the region) in comparison. The DT 1990 is quite an enjoyable and musical headphone to me, it’s wonderful with more energetic genres, but I prefer its siblings for critical and long-term listening.
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
    DavidA and Mad Max like this.
  8. willham
    So I've been experimenting with an EQ software and pads swapping, and just wanna share some findings.

    Setup: Sonarworks Reference 4 (+6db bass boost and +6 tilt for treble boost, 100% wet)>SDAC>O2>DT1990. I used Sonarworks to set the EQ of both balanced pads and analytical pads to have the same frequency response so I can compare the two pads by itself. I also don't completely remount the pads when I swap them and hold it in place with my hands to minimize the delay between listening.

    - Balanced pads sound stuffier just overall. It feels like a step towards being a closed headphone. It makes me feel like I'm in a smaller room; the width of the soundstage is relatively the same, but depth definitely feels smaller. Before the standardized test, I thought this was because the pads increased the FR of mid-bass and vocals so it made it feel this way but, even normalizing for that, this effect stays. Another effect this has is the sub-bass becomes more prominent and fills out the 'space in the room' lost to the thicker pads. This doesn't result in more resolution, just more quantity. Whether this is good or bad is up to taste, personally, I prefer A pads more in this regard, which is hit hard and retreat fast.

    - Mids are pretty similar to me, both are pretty amazing now that EQ got rid of the recessed midrange

    - At the same frequency, the treble on the balanced pads is noticeably more clear but also sharper. The 'sss' sounds stays on the balanced pads but is pretty much gone on analytical pads. I find this interesting how they can sound so different even though they're at the same volume.

    Bonus: Impressions of Dekoni Fenestrated Sheepskin pads. Note Sonarworks doesn't have a profile for this so I'm using the analytical pads profile.
    It mostly loosens everything up. Bass is noticeably less tight compared to both pads. The change in soundstage is kind of like what A pads is to B pads, just imagine the Fenestrated Sheepskins reduce the 'stuffiness' even further and imagine yourself move two rows behind from the front row of the room. Vocals are too distant for me so it's definitely a step-down. Treble resembles balanced pads the most, which I really enjoy.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019
  9. Mad Max
  10. audiobomber
    And now back to Analytical pads. The plummy bass from Balanced pads was fun most of the time, too much at other times. Mainly I changed back because of increased sibilance with Balanced pads. This was highlighted by a change from 6' Belkin USB 3.0 to 3' StarTech USB 3.0 cable. The StarTech has a slightly punchier sound and more revealing highs than the Belkin, a better match with Analytical pads.

    Changing pads sure is frustrating. It only takes me about 5 minutes now, but the plastic rings on both sets of pads already have a couple of nicks, after only a few pad changes. I guess I really shouldn't complain about the dual pad feature, which very few others offer.
  11. willham
    I highly recommend trying Sonarworks Reference 4 (free trial) with the balanced pads to get rid of any sibilance. It's basically an auto EQ software based on their in-house variation of the Harman response. This fixes your complaints about mid bass muddiness, makes sub bass more flat rather than a roll off, and levels the 1-2k recess that makes voices sound thin.

    The thing about balanced pads is that it has much more holes than analytical pads and so the treble comes in much clearer even when you equalize them to be the same volume. This translate into higher perceived resolution in the highs for me. The analytical pads attempt to do this via less holes but also less dense foam for the treble to pass through, which, when not EQ'd, results in higher raw quantities of treble to pass through, but not necessarily higher quality.

    After a lot of back and forth, I finally settled on balanced pads with Sonarworks EQ.
  12. audiobomber
    Sonarworks sounds interesting, especially with the free trial. Worth a look.

    To be clear, I certainly did not complain of "muddy" bass.

    muddy Ill-defined, congested.

    I said that bass with the Balanced pads was plummy:

    plummy (British) Fat, rich, lush-sounding.

    I do not hear sibilance with the A pads, only with the B pads.
  13. Arniesb
    You need better amp than Hugo 2 thats for sure.
  14. kelly200269
    The Chord Hugo range are completely capable of driving the DT1990’s.
  15. Arniesb
    Im not talking about wolume. There is no dynamics, punch, bass with hugo 2 amp.
    Beyerdynamic amps sound a lot better.
156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174

Share This Page