Thanks for such an amazing response. I appreciate it. I actually have the 7550, but I damaged them, so I'm mainly using the DT1350 right now. I ordered the Aurisonics Rockets from Inner Sanctum the other day, which isn't a monitor, of course, so it'll be interesting to see how that compares. I hope I like it and I don't go back to my usual habit of preferring a monitor sound. I don't know what it is - when I had the T51i, which looks similar to the 1350 (T50p actually came out first), I didn't fully like it because it seemed like the frequency response was adjusted for certain kinds of music. It had kind of a mild bass hump and maybe accentuated treble. It also had sort of a "3D" sound to it, that I don't know the word for, but since no one else mentioned it, I wasn't sure if I was imagining things (DT1350 sounds drier, more closed in, less colored). It could be mainly the difference that the pads made; I don't know.
I had the Amperior for a while, and similarly it was tuned up in the high-end and bass-range. It was a nice headphone, but the HD25 had the more neutral signature. So perhaps similar to the T51i vs DT1350. One is more for studio, and is less exciting.
Quote:
I guess I wonder if headphones that provide a more open, spacious sound, a more "euphonic" sound (LCD?), if in some ways they aren't more accurate and true to the music, or intent, of the musicians. Of course, I assume the manufacturers do not intend for monitors to be used for music enjoyment. Beyer's page for the DT1350 is in an entirely different category and is described as being used for "control and monitoring applications, musicians and DJ's." (I've wanted to know what "control" means). Do more controlled (restrained?) headphones make some music more listenable? Why is it electronic music seems to excel with these? ("and DJs" - if the DJ is wearing them while mixing live, it makes sense they may be appropriate and I know the HD25s are old standbys in this usage).
I guess all this doesn't matter that much it's just something I've wondered about. The headphone companies usually put their studio/professional stuff in different categories and won't them sold separately. But the DT1350 honestly sounds better to me for most music in comparison to the T51i, and for some things I liked the V6 more than some others, like Grado SR60i, so it depends. There is a sense that some music doesn't leave the editing stage very far... more obviously with electronic music, maybe. So the most direct listening experience makes the most sense. But then maybe the musicians hate headphones and want them listened on very large loudspeakers outside on a mountaintop, or their favorite headphones are Grado and they hate closed-back, or they prefer IEMs. I guess there's no way of ever knowing.
So much music has a beat to it, so it's seeming to expect a bass boost. It's interesting that even studio monitors like Sony's seem to provide that. (7520 vs Etymotic: the Sony would be seen as having a large boost there). Bass is interesting to me because I often hear it as non-musical. As a room-filling sound or space-filling. It thickens the music and the other sounds. I never know how important it is because the mind adjusts to it a fair bit over time.
First off, there isn't really a 'true intent'. You'll see marketing along the lines of 'hear music the way the artist intended'. Honestly, that is marketing bull. Most artists aren't the ones behind the control booth, and don't really have the ears / experience for mixing / mastering. Some do. Most artist / musicians are busy creating, and not worrying about things like dithering, dynamic compression, limiting, EQ, side-chaining, mix levels, mic placement, convolution reverbs, etc.
So what the mastering engineer intends, for most commercial music, is that the music translates as good as possible across the broadest range of preferred listening devices. Unfortunately / fortunately? this also may include Beats headphones.
But even most peoples 'entertainment systems' are hyped in frequency response. Essentially sweetened to make up for their lack of dynamic performance. In this sense, using studio monitors, headphone or speakers, is like using a calibrated monitor for graphic design - something I'm even more familiar with. At least with visual design, I can be assured that most people have pretty solid screens and color reproduction with the many iDevices out there (Apple has been good for this). With audio, its a bit of crapshoot. From car speakers, to ear buds, to Bose systems, the engineer has a bit of work cut out. And for the most part the work requires dynamic compression and limiting to squash those dynamics and increase the volume - heightening the perception of discernable sound, at the expense of dynamics.
TL;DR - listening through studio monitors is closer to what you'd hear in the control booth, or final stage of mastering for the engineer. I would say euphonic presentations are trying to recreate a different reference, that of the 'real' experience. In such way the HD700 excels. It less close to the neutral studio response, but closer to the real-world reproduction within an environment.
Bass reproduction is incredibly important, even to boost perception of tactile response of bass instruments - both natural and electronic. For HD700, HD800 it needs to be accurate, but they don't have the volume levels required to reproduce modern heavy bass music genres. So in actuality, they fail to reproduce both the studio sound and intended real-world/club sound of some of this music! The MDR-7520 on the other hand, captures both studio sound (with a sub thrown in) and a bit of real-world sound. Like I've alluded to, it is a bit of the real sleeper in my headphone collection, and ultimately may 'the best' even if it isn't the best sounding all the time. There isn't a genre the MDR-7520 will completely fail at.
sony 7520
i've no idea why people talk of creakiness issues....
i've not had a problem...others do, so i presume it exist.
but not once has this issue appeared to me.
many on sale all over various used site, ebay, etc.
just listened to them again last night....nice cans...and for their price
they're a keeper...sure i wish the stage was more 3D like and larger, more 'speaker like' but
in the future we'll have technology to help make it such.
Hey Canali
Unfortunately, my 7520s I bought used (but mint) were as creaky as a pirate ship. No problem taking it apart though and adding a bit of oil to the gimbals. Amazingly, WD40 did work, even though I probably should have used another type of oil. It's been good for many months now, through heat and cold.
As far as 3D-like. Unfortunately, to achieve this requires a change in frequency response, and spectral delay of select transients to simulate a room space. The very nature of doing this would ruin what the 7520 are truly designed to do.
My D2000 are much more spacious, but now, not all the sounds are within 'arms reach'. With the 7520, all the sounds are laid out and represented equally in measure for the mix engineer to balance and hear. Makes an incredible listen
but not very spacious.
The HD700 are awesomely designed to create a sense of room space, no small feat considering headphones have no channel cross-feed for stereo imaging.
But perhaps you are right, in the future, new technologies may allow us to dial in complete HRTF and realistic responses for the music. In fact, music may come with this tailored psychoacoustic presentations from cathedrals for classical, warehouses for techno, small room spaces for jazz. i feel something that will push this technology is the advent of VR and AR. Those technologies require simulation of 3D spaces, and it only makes sense that it will be a media/experience that people create content for.
Well, the closest I get right now is HD700 playing Battlefield 1, incredibly immersive
