[JoachimL]

Hey. I write songs (using typically guitar, piano and strings vsts, vocals, and drum software).
I was hoping to make decent sounding demos, beginning this winter.
My room isn't acoustically treated, so I figure it's better to mix with headphones than monitors.
After having researched a bit, it seems the options that interest me, are the following:

1) HD600. (New price in Norway: $325)
2) Avantone Planar ($565)
3) Ollo S4X ($460)

I have experience with tracking and editing, but little experience with EQ'ing and dialing in reverbs.
From what I gather the Planars are the flattest, have the best soundstage, and the best instrument
separation. However, I'm a little concerned about the build quality of the Planars.
Also, I was planning to use them with an audio interface from Solid State Logic (SSL2),
which I'm not sure will provide sufficient power. Ollo S4X are supposedly easier to drive and better built.
The HD600s seem to be regarded as technically inferior to the Ollos and Planars. Though I have the
impression that a lot of people use them for mixing with good results.

Which of the headphones would you recommend?

 

[gimmeheadroom]

HD 600 has timbre accuracy which is difficult to beat at any price, but they need a good amp. I would not mix on planars.

 

[JoachimL]

HD 600 has timbre accuracy which is difficult to beat at any price, but they need a good amp. I would not mix on planars.

Thanks for the input. Do you have any experience with the Ollos? From what I hear, they don't really need an amp.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

No, I would like to hear them but I have not.

 

[PurpleAngel]

For audio production (creating, mixing, editing, etc), check out the Sony MDR-V6 and MDR-7506 headphones (they are around 60-Ohms).
Easy for an Audio Interface to drive.
And you want boring headphones for analyzing audio.

For audio enjoyment (and maybe for audio production).
Takstar HF 580 headphones, with Sendyaudio AVIA ear pads.

 

[ADUHF]

I don't work in audio production. So factor that into what I'm about to say. Imo though, unless you know how to properly equalize a pair of headphones, I think you might still get better and more reliable results with a good pair of near-field monitors, and a sub-woofer. The caveat to that is if you're authoring specifically for a certain type of user, and their particular listening habits.

Ideally though, you should really listen to your mixes on a variety of different transducers, to see how they translate across different listening conditions. Including loudspeakers (both large and small), headphones, IEMs, and also car audio systems. That's how the studio jocks do it... The good ones anyway.

Your room doesn't need to be professionally treated to get good feedback from near-field monitors. The idea is really to replicate the conditions on the listener's end as closely as possible. And end users rarely listen in acoustically treated rooms. If you are using a pair of higher quality monitors which are reasonably flat on axis (measured in an anechoic room), and not too flaky off axis, then your ears should be able to do the rest of the work.

If your room is highly reflective, and you want to damp that down a bit. Then add a carpet or a large throw rug to the floor. And put some drapes on the windows. Or add a couple Persian rugs on some of the walls. And maybe add a small sofa or a pair of cloth-covered chairs behind or on either side of your work station. And maybe a couple plants in the corners. And try to keep things as symmetrical as possible, so that one side of the room is not appreciably different of more reflective than the other.

You do not want to damp all the reflections in the room though. Because most listening spaces on the user's end will have some reflectivity. Most consumer headphones (especially closed on and over headphones, and IEMs) are also now designed to emulate the reflective characteristics of a room, and include a bass boost to better approximate that.

This may be a little too advanced for a newbie, but for more seasoned and in-depth knowledge and advice on this subject, I recommend checking out the books, articles, videos, etc. of this guy...



Including the latest edition of his book on Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms. There is also a freely downloadable PDF here by Mr. Toole which outlines some of the more thorny issues in sound production and reproduction discussed in the video above, if you want to delve a bit deeper into that subject. And get some of the flavor of the kind of thing you'll find in his book...

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17839

Keep in mind that most music that people listen to on their devices is also generally highly compressed in its dynamic range to boost its volume. And factor that into your authoring scheme as well.

How your final product sounds after any potential dynamic range compression and other effects have been applied is what really matters. Because that is what the end user will most likely be listening to on their home and car speakers, IEMs, and headphones. Not the before stages.

 

[ADUHF]

Headphones with a fairly neutral and unbiased sound will have a raw frequency response somewhat similar to the Harman over-ear target...

Open-backs will generally not have as much boost in the bass as the above curve though. So generally speaking you need a closed headphone for that. The open-backs are better at simulating the more open sound of speakers in room though. So at least one of each would be good.

"Neutral" is really a range though, rather than one particular curve. So based on their music and other preferences, some will prefer more or less bass, or treble, or midrange than the above curve.

Some folks will prefer a headphone that is a little more toned down in the midrange than the above, for example. Especially the upper midrange, between about 800 and 3500 Hz, which can get a little strident at higher volumes. And also prefer a little more air in the higher frequencies. This is known as the Fletcher-Munson effect. And it reflects the fact that our hearing is less sensitive in the bass and higher frequencies than in the midrange frequencies as volume is lowered.

If you try to master your recordings on a headphone that differs noticeably from a neutral response though, then your content will have a less natural tonal balance. A headphone that is overly boosted at the ends, for example, may result in mixes which are more mid-centered, with less depth to their sound. And vice versa. This is also why it's a good idea to use both open and closed headphones, to check the bass response on different types of transducers. The general trendline in current headphone design though is toward a sound which is better balanced, and more extended across the frequency spectrum. And less noticeably rolled off in the bass and sub-bass than many older open-back designs were.

Comparative mixing can also be another way of overcoming the limitations and potential biases in your mixing and mastering setup.

 

[JoachimL]

Headphones with a fairly neutral and unbiased sound will have a raw frequency response somewhat similar to the Harman over-ear target...

Open-backs will generally not have as much boost in the bass as the above curve though. So generally speaking you need a closed headphone for that. The open-backs are better at simulating the more open sound of speakers in room though. So at least one of each would be good.

"Neutral" is really a range though, rather than one particular curve. So based on their music and other preferences, some will prefer more or less bass, or treble, or midrange than the above curve.

Some folks will prefer a headphone that is a little more toned down in the midrange than the above, for example. Especially the upper midrange, between about 800 and 3500 Hz, which can get a little strident at higher volumes. And also prefer a little more air in the higher frequencies. This is known as the Fletcher-Munson effect. And it reflects the fact that our hearing is less sensitive in the bass and higher frequencies than in the midrange frequencies as volume is lowered.

If you try to master your recordings on a headphone that differs noticeably from a neutral response though, then your content will have a less natural tonal balance. A headphone that is overly boosted at the ends, for example, may result in mixes which are more mid-centered, with less depth to their sound. And vice versa. This is also why it's a good idea to use both open and closed headphones, to check the bass response on different types of transducers.

Comparative mixing can also be another way of over-coming the limitations and potential biases in your mixing and mastering setup.

Thanks a lot for your in-depth responses! Have a great weekend.

 

[ADUHF]

Thanks a lot for your in-depth responses! Have a great weekend.

I'll give it my best. And happy new year to you as well!

Some useful sites for comparing the raw frequency response/sound signatures of different headphones...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/INDEX.md
https://crinacle.com/graphs/headphones/graphtool/
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#/4011
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets

The first link above for AutoEQ includes most of the raw frequency graphs from the three other sites. The other sites give your more viewing options though for the response curves. Including separate plots of both the left and right channels on the Crinacle and Rtings graphs.

Each site will also use slightly different variations on the Harman headphone target shown above for their corrected/compensated frequency response plots. The target curves used by AutoEQ, for example, are 2 dBs lower in the bass than the generic Harman headphone target curve posted above in my last post. So you should expect to see headphones which are close to that generic Harman response running a little above the target curves in the bass and lower midrange on the AutoEQ graphs. One example of that is AKG K371...

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/crinacle/gras_43ag-7_harman_over-ear_2018/AKG K371
https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results/rtings/rtings_harman_over-ear_2018/AKG K371

The headphone's raw frequency response is the thin black squiggly line, and the target response curve is the soft light blue curve.

Also, do not worry if you see some choppiness in the higher frequencies, in the treble. Many of the better sounding headphones on the Rtings plots will have a slight dip in the lower treble between about 5 and 7 kHz, and also at 10-12 kHz. And some peaks at around 3 and 9 kHz, and in the higher frequencies.

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/4012

Some uneveness in the treble is normal though. And it is caused by resonances at certain frequencies in the simulated ear canals of the dummy heads used for doing the frequency response measurements. What really matters is the overall response and shape in the treble. And whether there are any large glaring gaps or peaks, where notes can either get lost, or overemphasized and too piercing in their sound.

A fairly well-formed peak at about 3 kHz is generally considered a good thing btw, for transparency and accurate rendering of vocals. Especially female and higher-pitched vocals. Headphones which lack some kind of a peak at 3k will tend to sound more muffled, "colored", or distant on vocals. While a larger peak there can also tend to give a false sense of clarity, and bring vocals too far forward. So finding the perfect balance in that range and the surrounding frequencies can be somewhat difficult.