[megabigeye]

I'm just saying Queen for example. If Queen and especially Freddie Mercury hadn't dedicated themselves to perfection, works like Bohemian Rhapsody would never have been created. You have tried your best to achieve perfection. So I put works like these in my collection and sort out the bad ones.

That's fine and all, but there's plenty of otherwise great music that's not "perfect" sonically.
There's stuff that sounds bad but could sound better in order to be enjoyable, and there's stuff that's enjoyable in part because it sounds "bad." I don't want to not enjoy (or worse, miss out on it altogether) music because it's unlistenable on my headphones. That's, like, the opposite of what I want.

 

[gibosi]

I wonder if anyone has been able to compare the DT 1990 PRO (which I have and like) to the iBasso SR3? Interestingly, the SR3 also comes with two pairs of pads with different tuning.

 

[frustin]

I'm using balanced pads but i'm finding them a bit uncomfortable after an hour or so, they press my ears to much (big head). What's the remedy? pull the band apart? different pads?

thanks in advance

 

[audiobomber]

I don't want to not enjoy (or worse, miss out on it altogether) music because it's unlistenable on my headphones. That's, like, the opposite of what I want.

What is this music that is too bad to listen to on the DT 1990? I can't relate to what you're saying at all. Music that I enjoy, I enjoy on my mobile phone, on a car radio, or through any of my four audio systems, via iem's, headphones or loudspeakers. The higher fidelity systems are the easiest to enjoy music on, and can even generate interest in music or genres that I would normally avoid.

I mostly listen to compressed YouTube Music through my desktop system, which doesn't sound as good as the music through my NAS. Lossy compression does not stop me listening to whatever music I want to hear.

Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions has sibilant vocals. Should the headphones gloss that over? Not for me. I love the DT 1990 because I can hear what each instrument is playing, what sort of recording venue they are in, and make out the lyrics more clearly. Sibilants are a fact of life with vocals. I don't want a system that dulls them, I want a system that replays them as they are.

I am not a fan of headphones with "consumer tuning", with plumped up midbass that colours the mids, and rolled off treble that hides detail, like the HD 650 or the Amiron I returned. I guess I'm just not mass market material. The DT 1990 Pro with Analytical pads is my cup of mead.

 

[megabigeye]

What is this music that is too bad to listen to on the DT 1990? I can't relate to what you're saying at all. Music that I enjoy, I enjoy on my mobile phone, on a car radio, or through any of my four audio systems, via iem's, headphones or loudspeakers. The higher fidelity systems are the easiest to enjoy music on, and can even generate interest in music or genres that I would normally avoid.

I mostly listen to compressed YouTube Music through my desktop system, which doesn't sound as sound as the music through my NAS. Lossy compression does not stop me listening to whatever music I want to hear.

Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions has sibilant vocals. Should the headphones gloss that over? Not for me. I love the DT 1990 because I can hear what each instrument is playing, what sort of recording venue they are in, and make out the lyrics more clearly. Sibilants are a fact of life with vocals. I don't want a system that dulls them, I want a system that replays them as they are.

I am not a fan of headphones with "consumer tuning", with plumped up midbass that colours the mids, and rolled off treble that hides detail, like the Amiron I returned. I guess I'm just not mass market material. The DT 1990 Pro with Analytical pads is my cup of mead.

Lightning Bolt's first two proper albums— The DT 1990 just sounds too detailed, not warm enough, and overall too "hi-fi." This music is not hi-fi and, to me, doesn't sound right with these headphones. To be fair, it sounds even worse through the stock HD 650 (much too "polite"), but much better with the foam removed and the CC weight mod.
Plaid — Just too bright.
Avalanches — too bright, too thin
Magnetic Fields "The Charm of the Highway Strip" — too bright, much too thin
Group Inerane — Similar to Lightning Bolt, above. Just too "hi-fi" for the music.
'90s hip hop, like Das EFX, Cypress Hill, Wu Tang— again, it's not hi-fi music and these headphones just seem completely inappropriate for the task. Also, DAT BASS is just missing.
Some old blues and jazz that I can't think of off the top of my head.
These are just a few off the top of my head.

Don't get me wrong, I love how "bad" some of this music sounds— that's part of what I enjoy about it, and part of why I bought the DT 1990 in the first place (because nothing sounds "bad" with the HD 650, which, for me, is the far greater sin). But with the DT 1990 it can be too much of a bad thing.
I'm not trying to say the DT 1990 are bad. I'm not trying to say that at all. But for me, for my preferences, they're not the right tool for some of my music, and I'd much (much, much, much) rather change headphones than change my musical tastes.

 

[frustin]

Lightning Bolt's first two proper albums— The DT 1990 just sounds too detailed, not warm enough, and overall too "hi-fi." This music is not hi-fi and, to me, doesn't sound right with these headphones. To be fair, it sounds even worse through the stock HD 650 (much too "polite"), but much better with the foam removed and the CC weight mod.
Plaid — Just too bright.
Avalanches — too bright, too thin
Magnetic Fields "The Charm of the Highway Strip" — too bright, much too thin
Group Inerane — Similar to Lightning Bolt, above. Just too "hi-fi" for the music.
'90s hip hop, like Das EFX, Cypress Hill, Wu Tang— again, it's not hi-fi music and these headphones just seem completely inappropriate for the task. Also, DAT BASS is just missing.
Some old blues and jazz that I can't think of off the top of my head.
These are just a few off the top of my head.

Don't get me wrong, I love how "bad" some of this music sounds— that's part of what I enjoy about it, and part of why I bought the DT 1990 in the first place (because nothing sounds "bad" with the HD 650, which, for me, is the far greater sin). But with the DT 1990 it can be too much of a bad thing.
I'm not trying to say the DT 1990 are bad. I'm not trying to say that at all. But for me, for my preferences, they're not the right tool for some of my music, and I'd much (much, much, much) rather change headphones than change my musical tastes.

Are you listening to them without using a DAC? I have a iFi ZEN DAC V2, makes all those listenable. Cyprus Hill Black Sunday, brilliant. Without the DAC, it's pretty flat I agree.

 

[megabigeye]

Eh, this is turning into a discussion that I don't really want to have.

My point was that the DT 1990 (as well as probably every other headphone ever made) isn't perfect, and that tastes and preferences and hearing differ from person to person. My point before that was that I'm unwilling to not listen to the music I enjoy just because it doesn't sound good on a particular headphone, which I think is what @Diethard Kuehrt was saying he does. Or maybe I just misunderstood.

 

[audiobomber]

Lightning Bolt's first two proper albums— The DT 1990 just sounds too detailed, not warm enough, and overall too "hi-fi." This music is not hi-fi and, to me, doesn't sound right with these headphones. To be fair, it sounds even worse through the stock HD 650 (much too "polite"), but much better with the foam removed and the CC weight mod.
Plaid — Just too bright.
Avalanches — too bright, too thin
Magnetic Fields "The Charm of the Highway Strip" — too bright, much too thin
Group Inerane — Similar to Lightning Bolt, above. Just too "hi-fi" for the music.
'90s hip hop, like Das EFX, Cypress Hill, Wu Tang— again, it's not hi-fi music and these headphones just seem completely inappropriate for the task. Also, DAT BASS is just missing.
Some old blues and jazz that I can't think of off the top of my head.
These are just a few off the top of my head.

Don't get me wrong, I love how "bad" some of this music sounds— that's part of what I enjoy about it, and part of why I bought the DT 1990 in the first place (because nothing sounds "bad" with the HD 650, which, for me, is the far greater sin). But with the DT 1990 it can be too much of a bad thing.
I'm not trying to say the DT 1990 are bad. I'm not trying to say that at all. But for me, for my preferences, they're not the right tool for some of my music, and I'd much (much, much, much) rather change headphones than change my musical tastes.

I listened to some of your music through Modius, Asgard 2 and DT 1990 (Analytical pads). I don't hear what you're hearing. The DT 1990 has deeper bass than the HD 650. I think the bass response you're looking for is the HD 650-style pumped up mid-bass, which is detestable to me.

What gear are (were?) you using with the DT 1990? Headphones don't make music by themselves, it's a system. Then of course there is individual hearing response. I have a friend who owns and loves the HD 650, he has a hearing anomaly from his work, can't take hearing a prominent 8-10K range.

 

[megabigeye]

I listened to some of your music through Modius, Asgard 2 and DT 1990 (Analytical pads). I don't hear what you're hearing. The DT 1990 has deeper bass than the HD 650. I think the bass response you're looking for is the HD 650-style pumped up mid-bass, which is detestable to me.

What gear are (were?) you using with the DT 1990? Headphones don't make music by themselves, it's a system. Then of course there is individual hearing response. I have a friend who owns and loves the HD 650, he has a hearing anomaly from his work, can't take hearing a prominent 8-10K range.

Thanks for taking the time. I applaud you for listening to some of my music. I realize it may not be everybody's cup of tea.

I agree that the DT 1990 has deeper sub-bass than the HD 650. It's the HD 650's mid-bass emphasis that gives it the warmth that I like with some music.

I've used the DT 1990 with my iPhone, my MacBooks, a JDS Atom stack, a Peachtree Nova65se, a Bottlehead Quickie+Quicksand combo, and probably a couple of setups I'm not thinking of at the moment. With the exception of the Bottlehead, it's all pretty transparent.

I'm inclined to chalk up our differences of opinion to just different tastes and hearing. I think that's kind of apparent from our respective preferences for analytical or balanced pads. I do have tinnitus and hyperacusis, which are probably affecting my experience, too.

 

[hierobryan]

What is this music that is too bad to listen to on the DT 1990? I can't relate to what you're saying at all. Music that I enjoy, I enjoy on my mobile phone, on a car radio, or through any of my four audio systems, via iem's, headphones or loudspeakers. The higher fidelity systems are the easiest to enjoy music on, and can even generate interest in music or genres that I would normally avoid.

I mostly listen to compressed YouTube Music through my desktop system, which doesn't sound as sound as the music through my NAS. Lossy compression does not stop me listening to whatever music I want to hear.

Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions has sibilant vocals. Should the headphones gloss that over? Not for me. I love the DT 1990 because I can hear what each instrument is playing, what sort of recording venue they are in, and make out the lyrics more clearly. Sibilants are a fact of life with vocals. I don't want a system that dulls them, I want a system that replays them as they are.

I am not a fan of headphones with "consumer tuning", with plumped up midbass that colours the mids, and rolled off treble that hides detail, like the HD 650 or the Amiron I returned. I guess I'm just not mass market material. The DT 1990 Pro with Analytical pads is my cup of mead.

You're my type of guy. The DT 1990 is one of my all time favorite headphones for the same reasons. Can you recommend me a highly detailed planar that you've tried?

 

[audiobomber]

You're my type of guy. The DT 1990 is one of my all time favorite headphones for the same reasons. Can you recommend me a highly detailed planar that you've tried?

Sorry, I'm not the guy to advise you. I've heard some of the planar big-hitters, but only at a hi-fi show. My conclusion was that the DT 1990 Analytical is my end-game headphone.

 

[Jonne Haven]

You're my type of guy. The DT 1990 is one of my all time favorite headphones for the same reasons. Can you recommend me a highly detailed planar that you've tried?

Hey @hierobryan,


I have owned the DT1990 for over 3 years now...I bought it as my first step into higher end studio reference monitor headphones from owning all of the ohm variations of the DT770s...I still use the DT770s to put on the heads of clients or friends I am recording just as reference monitors but otherwise I never touch them.

Before I go any further, know that I am an audio engineer and I DO meticulously EQ all of my headphones...

I found the DT1990s quite a step up as would be expected and quite surprisingly euphonic sometimes seemingly out of nowhere and when I least expected it...but I decided to try some planars...

First was the Hifiman Ananda for around $600 i think at the time I bought it...it may be cheaper now (edit: yes I just checked Amazon and it is now $400...that should tell you something)...it had fun, incredible soundstage but it was unnatural and the bass was there but also unconvincingly unnatural...I returned them rather quickly, ultimately.

Then on to the Audezes...The LCD-X 2021 was my next purchase and has remained my favorite headphone not just for engineering but for leisure listening as well. For $1200 it is not TOO much of an investment over the DT1990 considering the difference in overall quality in every area IMO. As a mastering headphone it is unparalleled IMO, as it responds majestically and with incredible sensitivity to any DSP effect I might add to my mixes...including the all important EQing. It is an offshoot of the Audeze LCD line specifically designed for engineers who want open backed headphones that sound like Studio monitors. I've owned them for nearly 2 years now and have hardly touched the DT1990s since. (maybe twice in 2 years just to get another look at a mix)

Now I realize that the LCD-5 is out there somewhere...but for $4000 it just doesn't seem like a practical investment for me when I'm so happy with the LCD-X. But I understand that it's resolution is even more remarkable than the LCD-X and comparable to the Utopia.

I own a $3000 Focal Stellia and though it is not a planar (it is Beryllium) it does have better resolution than the LCD-X and I absolutely love it!...especially for more intimate vocal based recordings...but to be honest I appreciate what the LCD-X can do in other areas that make up for that small amount of resolution loss...such as sub-bass that replicates very closely my 550 watt SVS PB2000 subwoofer which rates down to 16hz. This makes me think I may not be missing too much from the LCD-5's resolution which also has a smaller diaphragm than the LCD-X as well.

I also own the LCD-XC 2021 the closebacked version of the LCD-X. It has even more bass magnitude but requires a headphone amp to truly understand what it is capable of... that planar is a little more expensive than the LCD-X at $1300 but if you need a closebacked headphone like I do for microphone use (to avoid feedback looping), then it's worth it. Also if you need your headphones silent to not disturb anyone that might be nearby then that might be the headphone for you.

So to sum up all of this, I have found planars to be just majestic all around headphones vs. dynamic. While I can't see myself blowing $4000 on some of the flagship models out there...the LCD-X and XC have been my favorites and I have hardly touched my DT1990s since. Yes the DT1990s are exceptional especially for its price...but it is also only that good as well if that makes sense.

So I REALLY want to make it clear that I do not at all knock the DT1990s, in fact I've had MANY good years with the DT Beyerdynamics Series. They are great dynamic headphones in general!

So that's just my 2 pennies. I would encourage you to investigate planars on your own and not just take my word for it, but you if actually ended up reading all my crap (lol) then you can add my word to your own research and make your own judgments.

Blessings and happy journeys in your quest for sound!
-J

PS - The forum best to investigate the LCD-X and XC and to find my posted EQs for them on this site is:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lcd-x-and-xc-update.956949/page-173#post-17793011

 

[hierobryan]

Hey @hierobryan,


I have owned the DT1990 for over 3 years now...I bought it as my first step into higher end studio reference monitor headphones from owning all of the ohm variations of the DT770s...I still use the DT770s to put on the heads of clients or friends I am recording just as reference monitors but otherwise I never touch them.

Before I go any further, know that I am an audio engineer and I DO meticulously EQ all of my headphones...

I found the DT1990s quite a step up as would be expected and quite surprisingly euphonic sometimes seemingly out of nowhere and when I least expected it...but I decided to try some planars...

First was the Hifiman Ananda for around $750 i think at the time I bought it...it may be cheaper now...it had fun, incredible soundstage but it was unnatural and the bass was there but also unconvincingly unnatural...I returned them rather quickly, ultimately.

Then on to the Audezes...The LCD-X 2021 was my next purchase and has remained my favorite headphone not just for engineering but for leisure listening as well. For $1200 it is not TOO much of an investment over the DT1990 considering the difference in overall quality in every area IMO. As a mastering headphone it is unparalleled IMO, as it responds majestically and with incredible sensitivity to any DSP effect I might add to my mixes...including the all important EQing. It is an offshoot of the Audeze LCD line specifically designed for engineers who want open backed headphones that sound like Studio monitors.

Now I realize that the LCD-5 is out there somewhere...but for $4000 it just doesn't seem like a practical investment for me when I'm so happy with the LCD-X. But I understand that it's resolution is even more remarkable than the LCD-X and comparable to the Utopia.

I own a $3000 Focal Stellia and though it is not a planar (it is Beryllium) it does have better resolution than the LCD-X but not by much...and to be honest I appreciate what the LCD-X can do in other areas that make up for that small amount of resolution loss...such as sub-bass that replicates very closely my 550 watt SVS PB2000 subwoofer which rates down to 16hz. This makes me think I may not be missing too much from the LCD-5's resolution which also has a smaller diaphragm than the LCD-X as well.

I also own the LCD-XC 2021 the closebacked version of the LCD-X. It has even more bass magnitude but requires a headphone amp to truly understand what it is capable of... that planar is a little more expensive than the LCD-X at $1300 but if you need a closebacked headphone like I do for microphone use (to avoid feedback looping), then it's worth it. Also if you need your headphones silent to not disturb anyone that might be nearby then that might be the headphone for you.

I also own the Sendy Peacock Planar at $1500 which while being a beautiful headphone I have little else to say about it...other than if you are all about looks (It's plated in 24k gold for one) rather than sound then...well then.

So to sum up all of this, I have found planars to be just majestic all around headphones vs. dynamic. While I can't see myself blowing $4000 on some of the flagship models out there...the LCD-X and XC have been my favorites and I have hardly touched my DT1990s since. Yes the DT1990s are exceptional especially for its price...but it is also only that good as well if that makes sense.

So I REALLY want to make it clear that I do not at all knock the DT1990s, in fact I've had MANY good years with the DT Beyerdynamics Series. They are great dynamic headphones in general!

So that's just my 2 pennies. I would encourage you to investigate planars on your own and not just take my word for it, but you if actually ended up reading all my crap (lol) then you can add my word to your own research and make your own judgments.

Blessings and happy journeys in your quest for sound!
-J

PS - The forum best to investigate the LCD-X and XC and to find my posted EQs for them on this site is:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lcd-x-and-xc-update.956949/page-173#post-17793011

I appreciate the reply! I briefly demoed the XC & X at www.schezade.co.kr last month and felt they were both a bit dark, plus too heavy for long listening. Super well built and definitely look high end though. They didn't have an LCD-5 available to demo
I haven't heard any Focal and I'm kinda hesitant to buy another dynamic after having fallen in love with planars. My PS500e, 58X, & 1770 get no head time anymore. Currently 90% of my listening is through a Diana TC and Aeon 2 Noire on an ADI-2 DAC FS. The Noire isn't as detailed as the TC but I love them both for different reasons.
I demoed an Arya Stealth for only about 5 minutes (wife wanted to leave) at www.thegrabsound.com and I remember it being very detailed with soundstage better than the TC. So yesterday I gave in and bought one after contemplating it for months.

 

[Jonne Haven]

I appreciate the reply! I briefly demoed the XC & X at www.schezade.co.kr last month and felt they were both a bit dark, plus too heavy for long listening. Super well built and definitely look high end though. They didn't have an LCD-5 available to demo
I haven't heard any Focal and I'm kinda hesitant to buy another dynamic after having fallen in love with planars. My PS500e, 58X, & 1770 get no head time anymore. Currently 90% of my listening is through a Diana TC and Aeon 2 Noire on an ADI-2 DAC FS. The Noire isn't as detailed as the TC but I love them both for different reasons.
I demoed an Arya Stealth for only about 5 minutes (wife wanted to leave) at www.thegrabsound.com and I remember it being very detailed with soundstage better than the TC. So yesterday I gave in and bought one after contemplating it for months.

I agree, the X and XC are dark without EQ...and probably not for you then if you don't EQ. As for their weight, in my experience, at first wear they may seem too heavy for long listening but I listen to my X for a few hours maybe 3-5 times a week and find that they are extremely well balanced and I do not suffer any neck strain from them whatsoever...but I do get that if you only had a few minutes with them you might come to that conclusion.

Good luck with the Stealth...if it's soundstage you're after you may have found your planar!
JFYI (from my experience with the similarly shaped Ananda you might find that you'll want to make sure it fits snug on your head and doesn't move too much because if there is the slightest gap between your head and the pads the sound changes considerably)

But if you do find the Stealth unsatisfactory...or perfect for that matter, I'd loved to know what you like and/or dislike about it as I've never heard them!!!

Blessings,
-J

 

[Diethard Kuehrt]

Yesterday at the Mitteldeutsche Hifi Days in Leipzig (Germany) I was able to compare my DT1990Pro and DT1770Pro with different headphones. Unfortunately, from different sources, which made the comparison incredibly difficult. But I knew some titles and was able to form an opinion. The choices were Sennheiser HD 800S, Sennheiser HD820, Focal Celestee, Focal Clear Mg and finally Dan Clark Audio Stealth.

The Sennheisers, especially the HD800S, couldn't hold a candle to the Beyerdynamic. The HD820 failed completely because the midbass was thick and imprecise. I don't know why these headphones are so hyped everywhere. In my opinion, the price for both headphones is completely unjustified.

The Focal, especially the Clear MG, are great and impress with their fine resolution and spatiality. What really bothered me there was the high frequency range, which became tiring over time. More with Celestee than with Clear Mg.

The Dan Clark Audio Stealth was absolutely outstanding. I have never heard such fantastic headphones. And that as closed headphones. Not at all intrusive, finely defined and not over-emphasized in any frequency range with a nice and precise bass foundation, which should by no means be considered over-emphasized. The high-quality workmanship and fit match this, although I would rather have headphones that I don't have to readjust to my head every time, because there is no permanent locking mechanism. But all in all, this would currently be the Holy Grail for me if it weren't for the fact that it's ten times the price of my Beyerdynamic.

So I continue to practice humility and abstinence, am happy about the Beyerdynamic, which is inexpensive for its quality, and maybe try the Audeze LCD-XC or LCD-X.