Most overrated headphone brands
May 4, 2020 at 5:14 PM Post #91 of 120
The Beyerdynamic DT 770 and 990 can both be had for under $150 street right now. What would you suggest as an alternative in the same price range with comparable build and sound quality, and good bass, that's more neutral in the treble, xRaptorxPunisher?

The open-backed Senn HD 600 & 650 you mentioned above are too rolled-off in the bass for my taste, and that can't really be altered much with an EQ. I've tried it on other Senns, like the 518, and they just end up sounding more boomy and distorted in the upper bass and mids. The only way I know to extend an open-back HP is to close the openings... which sort of defeats the whole purpose of getting an open-back headphone. :) Plus they are generally above my price range new (which I prefer). As are the Audezes you mentioned.

kman1211 has offered one possible alternative, the Beyer DT-150. But I would certainly like to hear some others... if there are any. Something other than the usual AudioTechnica M50X, if possible. I've been lookin for a long time, and so far have come up mostly empty on this question, which is why I've resorted to looking for headphones that I can EQ.

Maybe I should be looking at some of the Monoprice/Monolith HPs? They make some very affordable planar headphones. And even an inexpensive electrostat. And their prices are a little more in line with what I can afford. I wish they had a simple closed-back headphone with a 50mm dynamic driver. But it looks like they only used those in their open-backed HPs. (The closed HR-5C has a 42mm driver, which is respectable. But I like the thump you get with a little larger driver.) No idea if the sound or build quality is any good on any of the above. But that may not matter as much with their lower prices.

Are there any Monoprice/Monolith fans here who are willing to go out on a limb and defend this brand, and offer any helpful recommendations on them?
Bass roll off is a dynamic driver trait, especially open. Even closed back will have a roll off but retain rumble due to obviously being closed.

Closed back if you like a more evenly spread FR the K371 or K361 are decent. A better headphone in terms of timbre is the Creative Auravana live but the old versions, newer ones are too lean, bright with a nerfed bass, sucked the fun right out. You could try the mass drop version with the purple heart wood, they're called EMU purple heart, beautiful timbre, nice wooden character, lush decay, bassy.


M50x sounds like crap in my opinion, don't know why it's even recommended. Would rather an M100 or a used D600. It's hard because there's a lot of bad sounding closed backs and the ones that really perform well are high priced I.e D7200, Eikon.

Open back has so many options. The current HD600 are far from dark infact they're quite bright, I don't like them as the 3k peak and treble are irritating but the overall resolution is good. The HD650 has a 5k peak, treble is smooth, still wouldn't call it dark like say an Audeze due to the upper mid energy, treble is relaxed, depends on your criteria. If you have a good amp, the K612 Pro is a good headphone. Good clean bass, mids good up until about 2k where it peaks then a few rises in the treble. Overall a fairly even response, add some tissue to tame the peaks if needed as the FR doesn't change. That's my recommendation unless you wanna spend more for something like a Focal Clear, 2C or Aeolus.

K612 is really good for the price, it's a headphone that can feel a gap before going up to the big boys but competes with any headphone regardless of price.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2020 at 7:12 PM Post #92 of 120
My experience, my opinion, stop crying and get over it.


Mastering? With brighter treble peaks and basshumps? Hmmmmm interesting.

A recording engineer told me about 25 years ago that mastering headphones had such nasty high ends because it would help wake them up to issues, since they spent hour on hour at the task, and basically zoned out quite a bit.

Might have been joking, but I heard a few monitor speakers used for mastering around that time and all had a notable zing.
 
May 4, 2020 at 9:22 PM Post #94 of 120
No wonder you think Beyers sound so nasty in the treble, those two are some of the worst offenders in terms treble, not good introductions to the brand. My first Beyer was the DT 990 Pro and I was quite put off by their sound and didn't bother with Beyer for years. I didn't find a Beyer I truly liked until I tried the DT 150 much later on and later the DT 1990 (though a bit too bright for me stock) Amiron Home, and T1.2. do want to try the DT 177X Go sometime as it doesn't seem like it really has the Beyer peak on it.

It's been a very long time since I've heard an LCD-2. The Nighthawk is dark in tuning but wouldn't say inherently as I find it starts sounding a bit bright to my ears with extended use after adjusting to the sound. I haven't heard a lot of planars. Maybe not inherently dark as it may not be the best descriptor of what I'm trying to convey but when on many Beyers with the treble at a reasonable level they never start sounding brighter or slightly grating on my ears. Very often headphones with extended listening start grating on me and come off as a bit bright and/or unpleasant after a while is what I mean. Sadly I find most everything else fatiguing with extended listening outside of Beyers, seems weird to say as so many complain about their treble, I've always had very sensitive ears and the headphones the ended up causing the least issues in terms of fatigue are Beyers with darker or controlled treble. Another inherently dark headphone, I'll have to think a bit on that, I haven't heard so many headphones in so long I've forgotten what some sound like.

Well, the run of the mill Beyers fans here wax ecstatic on the 770 and the 990. I know I don't like those, so I'll try to get exposure to your recommended models.
 
May 5, 2020 at 3:30 PM Post #95 of 120
Bass roll off is a dynamic driver trait, especially open. Even closed back will have a roll off but retain rumble due to obviously being closed.

Probably true. Someone correct me if I'm not using the right terms here. It's been a few years since I was in discussions like this, so my headphone terminology may be somewhat rusty. But I believe the main driver in a dynamic headphone will resonate at a certain frequency, and then falloff from there. And that's why you often see a "bump" in the bass of dynamic headphones. And I believe that frequency is determined by the size of the driver (ie 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, etc.), and whether the headphone is open or closed.

Planars magnetics apparently don't have that.

Closed back if you like a more evenly spread FR the K371 or K361 are decent. A better headphone in terms of timbre is the Creative Auravana live but the old versions, newer ones are too lean, bright with a nerfed bass, sucked the fun right out. You could try the mass drop version with the purple heart wood, they're called EMU purple heart, beautiful timbre, nice wooden character, lush decay, bassy.

Thanks for these suggestions, xRaptorxPunisher. I have never tried the AKG K371 or 361, but have been looking at some graphs and comments about them. I haven't found a reliable raw frequency plot yet of the K361. But there are some good graphs of the K371 on RTINGS...

K371 RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4011
K371 RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4012
K371 L & R COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/3992

The compensated graph was made with RTINGS proprietary target headphone response curve, explained here...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/raw-frequency-response

This target curve is represented by a dashed line on the above graphs. Imo their target curve still needs some tweaking. And may be a bit too bright in the mid and upper treble. So a slight downward title in the average response in those areas, like on the above K371 compensated plot, is not necessarily a bad thing imo. YMMV though on that. Audiophiles who prefer a slightly brighter than neutral sound may prefer an average response in the treble which is closer to the RTINGS target curve.

Imo, their target curve is also not doing a perfect job of modeling the characteristic resonances in the treble on their HATS measuring system. So I expect to see some choppiness on the compensated graphs there as well, even on pretty neutral headphones. And generally will rely more on the raw FR graphs to analyze some of the finer details in the middle and higher treble frequencies.

I have posted the following graphs elsewhere before, so you'll forgive me for repeating myself. But these give an approximate idea of some of the shapes and features I look for in a neutral-ish headphone...

A resonance in the bass. And series of resonances in the low, mid and high treble (at roughly 3 kHz, 9kHz, and 15 kHz). The precise size, shape and configuration of the treble resonances will be depend on the measuring system that's being used though. Because each system has its own characteristic response, which is slightly different than the others...

attachment.php


A series of corresponding "dips", "shelves", or more recessed/depressed areas in between the resonances...

attachment.php


A general arcing flow from the treble to the bass, that looks something like this...

attachment.php


The exact angle, tilt, and size of that arc will depend on the brightness or darkness of the headphone. And the curve on the above graph is probably a little on the brighter side.

The green headphone curve in the above plots is the average (raw) frequency response of the following headphones: AKG K812, Audeze LCD-3, Audeze LCD-X, AudioTechnica M50X, Beats Solo2, Beyerdynamic DT-880, Beyerdynamic T1, Bowers & Wilkins P7, Denon D5000, Focal Spirit Professional, Grado SR-325i, HiFiMan HE-500, KEF M500, Philips Fidelio F1, Philips Fidelio X1, Philips Fidelio X2, Sennheiser PX100-II, Sennheiser HD-800, Shure SRH-1540, Sony MDR-MA900, and Sony MDR-Z7.

attachment.php


No graphs for the Oppos, Stax, NAD VISO HP50, or Senn HD 600 were available at the time this was made. So that's why they were not included.

I would also not pay too close attention to the exact heights of the resonances in this curve, because (as already mentioned above) they are probably a little on the brighter side overall. That's because most of the headphones in the sampling (with a few noteworthy exceptions) were geared more towards audiophiles, and probably a little brighter than a neutral response.

The position of the bass bump may also be a little higher in frequency, and lower in amplitude than is ideal as well, because of the somewhat brighter overall tilt of the above headphone sampling. So the tonal balance in the above curve is not necessarily what I would consider to be an "ideal headphone response" (whatever than may be). It's simply to give a rough idea of some of the features I look for. And their relative positions on a raw frequency plot. Most of the roll-off in the bass (if there is any) should be below about 30 Hz imo.

Imo, a headphone with a raw FR similar to the one shown on the above graphs would probably have a fairly transparent, but somewhat brighter than neutral sound, with perhaps some coloration in the bass due to the somewhat high frequency and rolloff of the bass resonance. I will try to post some other examples of curves that I think are maybe a little closer to neutral another time.

M50x sounds like crap in my opinion, don't know why it's even recommended. Would rather an M100 or a used D600. It's hard because there's a lot of bad sounding closed backs and the ones that really perform well are high priced I.e D7200, Eikon.

Open back has so many options. The current HD600 are far from dark infact they're quite bright, I don't like them as the 3k peak and treble are irritating but the overall resolution is good. The HD650 has a 5k peak, treble is smooth, still wouldn't call it dark like say an Audeze due to the upper mid energy, treble is relaxed, depends on your criteria. If you have a good amp, the K612 Pro is a good headphone. Good clean bass, mids good up until about 2k where it peaks then a few rises in the treble. Overall a fairly even response, add some tissue to tame the peaks if needed as the FR doesn't change. That's my recommendation unless you wanna spend more for something like a Focal Clear, 2C or Aeolus.

K612 is really good for the price, it's a headphone that can feel a gap before going up to the big boys but competes with any headphone regardless of price.

Thank you for these suggestions as well, xRaptorxPunisher. I may have a few more thoughts to share on all the above at another time.
 
Last edited:
May 5, 2020 at 4:21 PM Post #96 of 120
A recording engineer told me about 25 years ago that mastering headphones had such nasty high ends because it would help wake them up to issues, since they spent hour on hour at the task, and basically zoned out quite a bit.

Might have been joking, but I heard a few monitor speakers used for mastering around that time and all had a notable zing.


^ That actually makes perfect sense. Thanks for posting this, bagwell359.
 
May 5, 2020 at 4:32 PM Post #97 of 120
Why do people keep referencing this? It's getting so old. What amazes me most, the presentation and paper is old. And yet it seems to be thing for so many to keep referring to. I don't get it.

Also no idea how anyone realistically can do this without EQ, considering his curve is elevations in the sub-bass flat through mids and then rolls off in the treble. Of course, this would enrage anyone at Head-Fi or Audiophool screaming at their screen pointing at response graphs, look at the roll off! Last I checked heaphones universally have steap roll off in the bass and having their highest peaks through the treble.

And what's more ludicrous, this paper is about listener's preference for sound through headphones. Who the hell needs a paper for this? If you are too afraid to experiment with EQ to change the sound a bit to your liking, then that's the listeners problem. But the idea people need a paper from Harmon to justify their EQ is bizarre to me.

Also all the paper really did for me at least is justify what JBL, Bose and Beats have been doing with their headphones. Dr. Olive's research did IMO is prove JBL consumer sound is what the general populace wants. Shocking.

Not sure exactly what paper you're referring to. But I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this, SSandDigital.

Hopefully some of the info and images in the above posts will help to clarify a little better some of the kinds of things I look for on the graphs. Imo, they can be a very useful tool, up to a point. But at some point you just have to start listening, and making judgements based on what your ears are telling you.

There are some pretty smart cookies on this forum, who also have alot more experience than me, and have probably listened to far more headphones than I have, whose opinions I will also take into account as well.
 
May 10, 2020 at 11:15 PM Post #99 of 120
I will try to post some other examples of curves that I think are maybe a little closer to neutral another time.

Okey-dokey, Fenokee. Lessee if we kin find a few more or less neutral type cans in ye ole Rtings filing cabinet.

I do not necessary recommend any of these btw. Just using them as sort of examples of what I consider to be a close to neutral response. In fact, I don't even think I'll tell you what they are. :) You can find that info on the graphs, if you need it. And I'm only posting the channels (either left or right, in some cases both) that I think are the best. Plus, the compensated graphs (which contain both), so you can see how those look as well. Start with a few of some of yer better-lookin closed-back HPs...

CLOSED-BACK - PART 1

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#322/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#322/3992
This is pretty close imo. There are maybe a few small issues goin on in the treble. And the bass could maybe rise a few dBs higher. But really not bad. The left channel on this headphone is not quite as pretty though.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#295/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#295/3992
Transition from the mid-range to the bass could be smoother, like the first three headphones. And the treble could use some fine-tuning. But the overall shape is good. Maybe a bit U or V-shaped due to the dip in the lower midrange, and brightness in a few spots in the treble.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#707/4011
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#707/3992
Probably too bright in the low to mid treble, and a bit rolled off in the high treble. And could maybe use a bit more bass. But otherwise pretty exemplary imho.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1671/3992
A little too flat in the midrange imo. And maybe a tad too rolled off in the upper treble. But otherwise pretty good. Imo, this headphone lacks some of the "flow" from treble to bass of the other headphones above, because of the rather flattened out midrange.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2020 at 11:59 PM Post #100 of 120
Neutral-ish HPs continued...

These have a few more issues than some of the above. But are still more or less in the ballpark.

CLOSED-BACK - PART 2

RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#762/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#762/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#762/3992
Pretty good cept for the little kink in the lower bass, and maybe a couple slightly bright spots in the mid and upper treble. Treble resonances are in the right spots though. And overall this is quite good imo.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#348/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#348/3992
Needs some smoothing out in the transitions between the midrange and both the treble and bass, and a bit more emphasis in some spots in lower treble.

RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#256/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#256/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#256/3992
Interesting response with the high sweep in the lower bass. Think I'd tone that down a little. Treble isn't perfect, but is in the ballpark.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#299/4011
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#299/3992
Depressed in the lower treble, and upper half of the bass. And the peak at 9 kHz is a little prominent.

RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/3992
Transition between midrange and bass needs some smoothing. And there are some bright spots in the treble that need to be toned down, especially the peak at 9 kHz in the mid-treble.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2020 at 12:04 AM Post #101 of 120
Neutral-ish HPs continued...

These have a few more issues than some of the above. But are still more or less in the ballpark.

CLOSED-BACK - PART 2.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#762/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#762/3992
Pretty good cept for the little kink in the lower bass, and maybe a couple slightly bright spots in the mid and upper treble. Treble resonances are in the right spots though. And overall this is quite good imo.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#348/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#348/3992
Needs some smoothing out in the transitions between the midrange and both the treble and bass, and a bit more emphasis in some spots in lower treble.

RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#256/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#256/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#256/3992
Interesting response with the high sweep in the lower bass. Treble isn't perfect, but is in the ballpark.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#299/4011
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#299/3922
Depressed in the lower treble, and upper half of the bass. And the peak at 10 kHz is a little prominent.

RAW: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/4012
COMPENSATED: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#440/3992
Transition between midrange and bass needs some smoothing. And there are some bright spots in the treble that need to be tamed, especially the peak at 9 kHz in the mid-treble.
I wonder if there is a precise way to compute how close the compensated line is the reference? Would be nice if somebody comes up with an algorithm to compute it.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2020 at 12:07 AM Post #102 of 120
I wonder if there is a precise way to compute how close the compensated line is the reference.

Do you mean how close the headphone response is to Rtings' target curve? Or how accurate (ie "neutral) the Rtings target curve is on its own?
 
May 11, 2020 at 12:09 AM Post #103 of 120
Do you mean how close the headphone response is to Rtings' target curve? Or how accurate (ie "neutral) the Rtings target curve is on its own?
I mean how relatively close the measured response is to Rtings target. I believe Rtings has their reason for their target looking like the way it does. The guy that does the measurements obviously knows what he's doing. Their subjective impressions, however....

If they can compute from the values from the database, it's easy to sort and rank stuff based on measured values. Closest to more deviant measurements from the target.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2020 at 12:13 AM Post #104 of 120
I mean how relatively close the measured response is to Rtings target.

Rtings assigns a separate value to the bass, midrange and treble in each one of it's headphone reviews. The value ranges from 0-10. And that's how they ultimately compute their overall score for neutrality. How they arrive at the scores is probably explained in more detail in their Test Results & Methodology articles...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2020 at 12:14 AM Post #105 of 120
Rtings assigns a separate value to the bass, midrange and treble in each one of it's headphone reviews. The value ranges from 0-10. And that's how they ultimately compute their overall score for neutrality. How they arrive at the scores is probably explained in more detail in their Test Results & Methodology articles...

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests
How do they give those values? Is it based on computation of the precise deviations or by eye and subjective observation? I don't like their data based on their subjective observations.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top