[kman1211]

Thank you for the suggestion on this, javertim. I will try to do a little more looking into the DT 150. Things bein the way they are financially at the moment though, I may have to stand pat with my current AKG K553's. And just try to fix them up a little better. Distortion in one of the driver's bass is still an issue. But it seems to be stayin somewhat under control for now. That may not last though, as these headphones are pretty old and beat-up now, from excessive use and abuse, and tinkering on my part. So still lookin to see what else might be out there that could better suit my sound needs.

I've never owned a pair of Beyers, and thought it might be fun to give one a try. Even the DT 770 or 990... with some EQ-ing of course for the treble. Since I already do that with my AKG's, I don't think it'd be a huge deal on the Beyers! Maybe I'm wrong about that though, because the sound is a bit different on them.

If I could find a pair of reliable headphones that's a little more neutral in the treble, and also bass and midrange, with similar qualities to the Beyers (ie low distortion, decent L/R driver balance, good QC, etc.), I'd certainly be open to lookin at that as well. Other than Beyer, Sennheiser, and maybe Audio-Technica though, I don't think there are too many other HP mfrs that offer such great quality control in my price range. Maybe I'm missin somethin though.

Beyers respond very well to EQ and modding. The DT 150 is a great headphone and something I think you will be happy with. Honestly I think Beyers have some of the best quality drivers for their price range. I haven’t heard any other closed backs as good as it in it’s price range.

 

[ThanatosVI]

I think this could take us down a philosophical worm-hole.

For example: let's say Paul McCartney records a song in a recording booth in 1968. Now, his voice, as it came out of his mouth, had a particular sound. But that sound was picked up by a microphone. The microphone cannot pick up 100% of Paul's voice, so the sound of Paul's voice gets "altered" right from the start. The mic sends its signal through a tube amp, which further colors the sound. Then the sound goes to a tape recorder. The tape cannot capture 100% of the signal. Then the signal from tape machine is eventually sent through a mixing board. This further colors the sound. Then the final mix is mastered. This colors the sound again. Then eventually, the master is used to make LP's or CD's or some other delivery vehicle. This process further colors the sound. Then, you get your LP and play it on your turntable. Your cartridge will affect the sound. The amp you use will affect the sound. Your speakers or headphones will affect the sound.

After all those steps, with the sound being colored at every point along the way, how can any of use know what Paul's voice REALLY sounded like as it came out of his mouth in that studio in 1968?

I may be a heretic, but to me, the most important thing is how the music I'm listening to sounds to MY ears, now, in the present.

If I have a choice between:
A - a set of headphones that are somehow more "accurate", but which don't make music sound as good as set B
B - a set of headphones that are less "accurate", but make music sound great

I'm going with set B.

I listen to music pleasure. Not "veracity".

While I totally agree with you in the "I'd choose B any day of the week, every week of my life" part, I can't say that a pair of headphones for 100€ comes even close to the sound quality some higher end cans can produce.

At least to my ears and taste.

 

[peskypesky]

While I totally agree with you in the "I'd choose B any day of the week, every week of my life" part, I can't say that a pair of headphones for 100€ comes even close to the sound quality some higher end cans can produce.

At least to my ears and taste.

My brother has a pair of Grado PS1000's....and I've done side-by-side comparisons with sub-$100 headphones....and I got different results from you.

 

[vmiguel]

(...)

Not a headphone I know much about though... the DT 150.

Besides all that was already said about DT150, there is another plus for it (and other Beyer models): it's easy to get original parts!

I've bought an old DT150, with earpads and headband completely falling apart, only 0,8m of cable, but good drivers. It cost me €20,00, and another €50,00 or so in new original parts.

PS: sorry for the offtopic...

 

[SilverEars]

I quite disliked the M50 honestly, it’s a headphone I always thought was overrated, I do like the R70x from Audio-Technica quite a bit though. Audio-Technica is a brand I haven’t heard many models of. The M50 and M40x (another overrated headphone imho) put me off the brand at first though.

This is exactly the experience I've been having with the M40X being such a big disappointment with people saying it's even better than the M50. At that point, I totally forgot I used to own the ATH-ESW9, and quite enjoyed them when I was a newbie.

Just recently my spark for interested in ATH woodies came about from trying out several woodies lately from somebody's collection. These were rare collectable items that are no longer made though.

I'm trying to figure out which ATH are really worth trying out? Is ATH-MSR7b much better than the M40X? I'm just afraid it will the same crappy DJ headphone quality. How about A1000Z?

Is there any ATH expert out there that has tried many of these that can provide some insights?

 

[ADUHF]

I think this could take us down a philosophical worm-hole.

For example: let's say Paul McCartney records a song in a recording booth in 1968. Now, his voice, as it came out of his mouth, had a particular sound. But that sound was picked up by a microphone. The microphone cannot pick up 100% of Paul's voice, so the sound of Paul's voice gets "altered" right from the start. The mic sends its signal through a tube amp, which further colors the sound. Then the sound goes to a tape recorder. The tape cannot capture 100% of the signal. Then the signal from tape machine is eventually sent through a mixing board. This further colors the sound. Then the final mix is mastered. This colors the sound again. Then eventually, the master is used to make LP's or CD's or some other delivery vehicle. This process further colors the sound. Then, you get your LP and play it on your turntable. Your cartridge will affect the sound. The amp you use will affect the sound. Your speakers or headphones will affect the sound.

After all those steps, with the sound being colored at every point along the way, how can any of use know what Paul's voice REALLY sounded like as it came out of his mouth in that studio in 1968?

I may be a heretic, but to me, the most important thing is how the music I'm listening to sounds to MY ears, now, in the present.

If I have a choice between:
A - a set of headphones that are somehow more "accurate", but which don't make music sound as good as set B
B - a set of headphones that are less "accurate", but make music sound great

I'm going with set B.

I listen to music pleasure. Not "veracity".

Excellent post, peskypesky. You make some very good points.

If it's mostly or solely about what sounds good to you, or to anyone else for that matter, then how can we ever agree what makes a good or bad sounding headphone? There must at least be some minimum standards for sound quality that we all can agree on... no? Things, for example, like relatively low distortion, good left-right driver balance, reasonably good extension in both bass and treble, a sound that is not overly harsh or abrasive, or excessively boomy in the bass, nicely rendered vocals & instruments, a sounds that's more open than closed in, and so forth...

Given the choice between an extremely inaccurate headphone with very poor fidelity that does not fullfill any of the characteristics above, but is still in some intangible way highly appealing to your ears, and a headphone that meets or exceeds all the above criteria, with perfect imaging and sound staging, no discernible distortion or phasing issues, and perfect tonal balance, which is maybe slightly less appealing (but still highly pleasing) to your ears, would you still choose the extremely inaccurate pair, or the extremely accurate one, with outstanding sound quality and fidelity, that checks off all the SQ boxes?

 

[peskypesky]

Excellent post, peskypesky. You make some very good points.

If it's mostly or solely about what sounds good to you, or to anyone else for that matter, then how can we ever agree what makes a good of bad sounding headphone? There must at least be some minimum standards for sound quality that we all can agree on... no? Things, for example, like relatively low distortion, good left-right driver balance, reasonably good extension in both bass and treble, a sound that is not overly harsh or abrasive, or excessively boomy in the bass, nicely rendered vocals & instruments, a sounds that's more open than closed in, and so forth...

Given the choice between an extremely inaccurate headphone with very poor fidelity that does not fullfill any of the characteristics above, but is still in some intangible way highly appealing to your ears, and a headphone that meets or exceeds all the above criteria, with perfect imaging and sound staging, no discernible distortion or phasing issues, and perfect tonal balance, which is maybe slightly less appealing (but still highly pleasing) to your ears, would you still choose the extremely inaccurate pair, or the extremely accurate one, with outstanding sound quality and fidelity, that checks off all the SQ boxes?

First, we can't ever agree on what headphones (or speakers) sound best. Because we all have different ears and different tastes.

Second, I would always choose the headphones that make music sound better to me, regardless of "accuracy" or "fidelity". As I said, I listen to music for pleasure. I'm not listening for scientific measurement.

 

[kman1211]

This is exactly the experience I've been having with the M40X being such a big disappointment with people saying it's even better than the M50. At that point, I totally forgot I used to own the ATH-ESW9, and quite enjoyed them when I was a newbie.

Just recently my spark for interested in ATH woodies came about from trying out several woodies lately from somebody's collection. These were rare collectable items that are no longer made though.

I'm trying to figure out which ATH are really worth trying out? Is ATH-MSR7b much better than the M40X? I'm just afraid it will the same crappy DJ headphone quality. How about A1000Z?

Is there any ATH expert out there that has tried many of these that can provide some insights?

The M40X has bloated uncontrolled bass and has grain throughout it's whole spectrum. Just your average dj headphone. Sadly only have real experience with the R70x outside of the M50 and M40X and it's good, not better than the HD 600/650, but I found it enjoyable. Heard some briefly many years ago but don't remember how they sound all that well, but I know the woodies and air ATH's sound absolutely nothing like the M50/40X.

 

[ADUHF]

I realize this was posted in 2011 but Monster made some sick IEMs in those days. I still use their flagship from time to time (Monster Miles Davis Trumpets). Turbine Pro Golds got me started in this hobby. And Sony? Really??!! Makers of some of the most legendary headphones the hobby has ever seen? MDR-R10, Qualia, IER-Z1R, IER-M9 to name a few. All of which are very highly regarded either for their time or currently.

My only experience with Sony has been at the very low-end. And I can't say I've been overly impressed with the SQ there so far. They seem to make fairly durable, sturdy, long-lasting products though. I wouldn't really know where to begin with the Sony line though. Maybe I should try a pair of MDR-7506 or 7510's? Or maybe the 1AM2? Z7 looks out of my price range.

The frequency response on this model doesn't look too terrible to me...

SONY MDR-100AAP RAW LEFT EAR: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#346/4011
SONY MDR-100AAP RAW RIGHT EAR: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#346/4012
SONY MDR-100AAP L & R COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#346/3992

The bass is obviously a little over-done and/or too high in frequency, and bleeds into the mids. But it's closed, so I could probably tinker with that, and maybe adjust the tonal balance a little better with an EQ. Same goes for the little bit of emphasis in the mid-treble.

These seem like your average, everday plastic consumer headphones though, designed to compete with Beats and other similar headphones, given the similarities in sound signature. So they probably, look, feel and sound a little dated at this point. And are sort of 2014/2015-ish. That doesn't necessarily mean they would not perform well though.

Perhaps there are some other newer, and better-sounding Sonys now though in a similar price range. What other Sonys am I forgetting in the approximately sub-$250 price range? I'm afraid the Z1R is a bit out of my price bracket. Or am I simply barkin up the wrong tree even considering a Sony, because they're designed more with the hardcore bass fans in mind?... As I say, I really have no idea where to begin with the Sony line.

 

[ADUHF]

Perhaps I haven't given Bose a fair shake either. The frequency response on this wireless model doesn't look too bad, for example. At least in the right channel anyway (the left channel looks a bit more wonky)...

BOSE SOUNDLINK AROUND-EAR II
RAW LEFT EAR: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#322/4011
RAW RIGHT EAR: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#322/4012
LEFT & RIGHT COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#322/3992

And if not Bose, Beats, Skullcandy or AKG, then who else can really compete with Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, AudioTechnica, and Sony on the lower-end, or across the price spectrum in terms sound and build-quality? Samsung? JVC? Apple? (Does Apple make over-ears?) Somebody else? I know I'm forgettin a couple brands there.

 

[peskypesky]

And if not Bose, Beats, Skullcandy or AKG, then who else can really compete with Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, AudioTechnica, and Sony on the lower-end, or across the price spectrum in terms sound and build-quality? Samsung? JVC? Apple? (Does Apple make over-ears?) Somebody else? I know I'm forgettin a couple brands there.

Grado, Takstar, Blon (BossHifi) to name three.
Superlux is another star in the low-price market.

 

[ADUHF]

Besides all that was already said about DT150, there is another plus for it (and other Beyer models): it's easy to get original parts!

I've bought an old DT150, with earpads and headband completely falling apart, only 0,8m of cable, but good drivers. It cost me €20,00, and another €50,00 or so in new original parts.

PS: sorry for the offtopic...

Not OT, vmiguel! I think that makes three so far in the pro-DT-150 column... Is there a 4th?

 

[ADUHF]

Grado, Takstar, Blon (BossHifi) to name three.
Superlux is another star in the low-price market.

So one of those brands I am familiar with, and know something about, at least anecdotally. The others I know very little about. Maybe you can tell me some more about Takstar, Superlux and Blon, peskypesky.

 

[ADUHF]

I'm trying to figure out which ATH are really worth trying out? Is ATH-MSR7b much better than the M40X? I'm just afraid it will the same crappy DJ headphone quality. How about A1000Z?

Is there any ATH expert out there that has tried many of these that can provide some insights?

I wonder the same thing, Silver. Even though they are fairly close to neutral and relatively low distortion, for some reason I have never really liked the fit, feel and SQ of AudioTechnica's midrange studio monitors. And don't think I could really use them for pleasure-listening. I have never tried the MSR7B though. Or the open-back R70X for that matter, which kman1211 mentioned.

AT is at least fairly consistent in their manufacturing. Or so it seems anyway, from the few I've tested and looked at.

 

[SSandDigital]

My top 5 most overrated
GRADO GRADO GRADO GRADO APPLE