[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif You already closed a thread this month. You've been busy trashing other threads and you're continuing your manipulation. Jude already fell for it, but not all the members will fall for your dirty tricks even if you get personal and emotional. So, I'll ask you nicely, please stop it. I'm done feeding the troll, so if you have something informative and inspiring to say about the headphones, great. If not, go back to doing whatever it is that you do.

???

Wow...when you seem to hit rock bottom, you manage to find dynamite and continue to sink even further.

It was your stupid comments that caused Jude to finally step in. Your comments on this are purely laughable and your fault...no "dirty tricks" here...your words alone.

FTR, it was you and your silly K701 faboys who closed that previous thread because you all can't simply take someone else saying that the K701/2's have been surpassed.

You don't have to agree with me (or others who agree with me...BTW the vast majority of head-fiers), but saying "we don't know what we're hearing" is crossing the line. You can criticize the gear, but you CROSS THE LINE when you attack others personally. That is the heart of the issue that you can't seem to get.

Remember, they are YOUR opinions and they are NOT objective, they are subjective and NOT facts/truth. Sheesh.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will say it again. What headphones do studio engineers use to "reference" their recording?

Wow. What a thread. I won't comment on most of the debacle but I will say this. The headphones that I have found to be most prevalent in mastering studios and used by engineers are HD-600's followed by K-701's. That said - I don't know of any engineer who masters exclusively on headphones. Headphones are usually used for double checking and for spot problems.

As for what headphones should be considered reference...that's for each person to decide. Do I feel the HD-800's are reference headphones? Yes. Are they the ultimate reference headphones. No.

We all hear differently and that is why I recommend that everyone listen to any product for him or herself and make an informed decision based upon what they hear. Anything we post here regarding a particular headphone's sound is just an opinion and a subjective opinion at that.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I'm the best person in the world and it is a fact that ibuds are a better reference than your HD 5 million thousand quadruple X. If you don't agree, then it means you haven't had your head up as many musician's butts as I have. I KNOW what it sounds like up there.

 

[LFF]

opps. sorry.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is 100% correct. However there is a problem, the actual source being recorded is being mediated by the sound engineer onto the medium. The engineer then records an accurate representation of the source as depicted by his playback and monitoring chain. To break it down very simply. If an engineer uses the HD650 (hypothetically, as they do use speakers) - the top end may be exaggerated to compensate for its dark nature. Play this material on the K701/HD800 and one may hear this as being too bright - compared to intent i.e. actual performance. Subsequently a performance mastered on HD800/K701 may have the recording in such a way to be accurate to source. Playing this material on the HD650 may render the sound bloated as compared to performance. I believe headphones like HD800/OmegaII/HEV90/R10 can be described as Hi-End phones that can be used for reference. However, to state that reference status is obtained by the resolution of these phones is absolutely false as evidenced by engineers themselves. There are Hi-End recordings that can be downloaded or purchased that can exploit the resolution of Hi-End phones and speakers - a lot of people listen to these style of recordings and they may sound truly incredible - however, there are a large number of people, including myself, that find these recordings mundane. I believe using such resolving phones on conventionally mastered recordings, many of which sound incredible, would not lead to an accurate depiction of the recorded event. In this situation analysing music is not so bad, but analysing details that also exposes errors is far from musical. Hence I believe multiple sets of phones with diverse tonalities to counter the diverse tonalities in recorded material is paramount. I find the list that Acix took the time to compile very informative as should beginners looking into this hobby. I hope owners of Hi-End phones do not criticise hobbyists that elect not to purchase phones of extreme resolution - In my instance, most of my music preferences are mass marketed material. For the record Acix is so incorrect - everyone knows the HD650 is the ultimate reference.

You're absolutely right. And let's take it even a step further. Reference is the same meaning as monitor, but reference is a clever and sophisticated way of saying "We are monitor headphones, but don't hold us to it." Actually some of the headphone companies try to put them in between, like the RS1, for example.

The categories are:

1) Monitor/Reference
2) Playback (as a way of imitating home stereo, audiophile systems, tv, etc.)
3) Audiophile (meaning, have fun boys, the party's starting!)

But of course, after a while the audiophile community starts to catch on that someone has orchestrated the show for them and fed them junk food with a silver spoon. So, in turn, the companies started calling the audiophile headphones "reference" headphones. This is my take on it, anyway.

Now, you're right about the 650 in the mix. It would be the same (but reversed) with the 800 in the mix (and this is why I have a hard time understanding Sennheiser and what they're trying to do). If I were to master a project with the 800, being that they have such strong treble, I would have to decrease the treble in the mastering process in order to be balanced and same goes for the sub. The results would transfer to anemic sounding mastering on more balanced systems. So actually, the coloration on the 800 would be in my way and not accurately define the sound that I am hoping to achieve. This would mean that the project would only sound good (or super boosted) on the 800s or a similar system that has a smile type of EQ with a boost on the bass and treble.

I hope this explains better what I'm trying to convey. I'm sure they're great headphones and there's a lot of music that sounds terrific on them, but maybe better for fun and not for serious reference.

The other reference and studio headphones that I posted on my list might not seem attractive when they listen to them for the first time because they don't have the bass and excitement that many other headphones have. However, over time, they've proven themselves as reliable reference hps. I think they could confidently buy any one of them on ebay and have a good time experiencing a more natural and balanced sound.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now, you're right about the 650 in the mix. It would be the same (but reversed) with the 800 in the mix (and this is why I have a hard time understanding Sennheiser and what they're trying to do). If I were to master a project with the 800, being that they have such strong treble, I would have to decrease the treble in the mastering process in order to be balanced and same goes for the sub. The results would transfer to anemic sounding mastering on more balanced systems. So actually, the coloration on the 800 would be in my way and not accurately define the sound that I am hoping to achieve. This would mean that the project would only sound good on the 800s or a similar system that has a smile type of EQ with a boost on the bass and treble. I hope this explains better what I'm trying to convey. I'm sure they're great headphones and there's a lot of music that sounds terrific on them, but maybe better for fun and not for serious reference. The other reference and studio headphones that I posted on my list might not seem attractive when they listen to them for the first time because they don't have the bass and excitement that many other headphones have. However, over time, they've proven themselves as reliable reference hps. I think they could confidently buy any one of them on ebay and have a good time experiencing a more natural and balanced sound.

This is VERY true. However, as a mastering engineer you should know that you NEVER master solely on headphones. Headphones are a tool to help us attain a better sounding master but they should never be used exclusively to master.

I also agree that you pointed out the difference between a Reference Monitor and everything else. I would wholeheartedly agree that the HD-800 is not a reference monitor headphone with your average studio gear but it is a reference audiophile headphone. Subtle difference there.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is VERY true. However, as a mastering engineer you should know that you NEVER master solely on headphones. Headphones are a tool to help us attain a better sounding master but they should never be used exclusively to master. I also agree that you pointed out the difference between a Reference Monitor and everything else. I would wholeheartedly agree that the HD-800 is not a reference monitor headphone with your average studio gear but it is a reference audiophile headphone. Subtle difference there.

You're right, and that's why the 800 should be called a playback hp and not a reference hp.

Yes, of course I use my speakers to reference my work. I just forgot to add to the list my new Adam A7 and my KRK V8.

 

[Feanor]

my 2 cents: If a sound engineer is not familiar with the frequency response of the gear used to record and mix the music, the music will likely be badly mastered anyway.

If they are familiar with the FR, they will master the music bearing that in mind.

In before teh lokzorz

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor /img/forum/go_quote.gif my 2 cents: If a sound engineer is not familiar with the frequency response of the gear used to record and mix the music, the music will likely be badly mastered anyway. If they are familiar with the FR, they will master the music bearing that in mind. In before teh lokzorz

Very true. But if a sound engineer is doing that, she's/he's already off on the wrong foot. You need a reference response from your gear before you can do anything properly. Double checking and compensation for non-transparent equipment can only go so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're right, and that's why the 800 should be called a playback hp and not a reference hp. Yes, of course I use my speakers to reference my work. I just forgot to add to the list my new Adam A7 and my KRK V8.

Yeah. I completely see your point regarding the HD-800's. I have heard they sound much better with tubes though, such as the RSA Raptor and B-52. However, how many studio's have tube gear like that nowadays?

I have also heard the new A7's are quite good. Never been a fan of KRK though.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif If a reference headphone isn't fun to listen to, it's not a reference headphone. Analytical sound is a coloration and isn't accurate. Musicality is inherent to the music, and if a phone fails to capture that, well then it's the phone's problem.

Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif We all hear differently

No. We hear the same. We care differently.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. We hear the same. We care differently.

I hope you're joking.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very true. But if a sound engineer is doing that, she's/he's already off on the wrong foot. You need a reference response from your gear before you can do anything properly. Double checking and compensation for non-transparent equipment can only go so far. Yeah. I completely see your point regarding the HD-800's. I have heard they sound much better with tubes though, such as the RSA Raptor and B-52. However, how many studio's have tube gear like that nowadays? I have also heard the new A7's are quite good. Never been a fan of KRK though.

Yes, I agree, they sound better with the tubes, but then other faults stand out more. I imagine they would sound great if they were adjusted and balanced to the right equipment. And tube amps have a lot of variables that can be adjusted.

Yeah, the A7 is a two way that sounds like a 3 way. Highly recommended. For my studio size, they are perfect. The V8 are my playback speakers, but I think I'll retire them to the living room and they can live out their life as audiophile speakers. I'd be happy to exchange them for a Magnepan MC1 set up with a sweet subwoofer. This would be a nice set up for tubes.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank you. No. We hear the same. We care differently.

I agree! And I also thought that was an excellent post by catscratch. It looks like there are at least 3 people on head-fi who feel that headphones don't have to be painful to be true.

Acix, you might want to take a lesson from LFF. He just said the same thing as you but wasn't arrogant or insulting in the least bit. And I'm guessing there will be no wars started by his posts even though others may disagree...

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope you're joking.

I hope I'm not.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....There are members here who have bought the HD800 and the T1 and feel they have the best headphones out there, but they don't understand what they're hearing. and this includes you, MacedonianHero, subtle, DavidMahler, (Looks like DavidMahler is in the right direction checking out the K-1000 versions). Maybe the 800 are very fun out of the ipod or some tubes, but they are not reference hp by any means. Even Sennheisers not trying to sell them as a reference hps. So, why you insist?

Acix, I'm not here to change your mind. But let's just say you say a lot I disagree with. Some of the reactions to some of what you post I sort of understand, as you're telling people (like me) we don't understand what we're hearing.

Listen, man, if you think the HD280 is more natural sounding than the HD800, I'm not going to argue with you--and I also won't tell you you're wrong if that's how you hear it, because I believe that's how you hear it (though I certainly do not). But don't try to sell me on the notion that you're more qualified to know what I can and can't hear, as I'm not buying that either. I know what I'm hearing, and I know not everyone will agree with it. When people don't agree with you, you seem to suggest (or say outright) they simply don't know what they're hearing or what they speak of, and/or suggest that you're more qualified to know.

The HD800 rig I've got? No "audiophile hocus pocus." Natural sounding stuff. You may not hear it that way, but don't tell me I don't understand what I'm hearing. I've been around a while.