[headstef]

Hallo,

Yes I see what you mean now. For me, on the HD800, the parts of the recording float in space beside each other about a foot apart. On the HDH 20, it gels into a more cohesive musical whole, with a lovely midrange tone/timber which makes you listen to the music, not the recording. Which I think is a good thing. But both have their merits, depending on what your criteria is for getting your jollies.

Do you mean NDH 20 as you have written or NDH 30? (The question is for the 30 but every comparison is useful).

 

[Beagle]

Do you mean NDH 20 as you have written or NDH 30? (The question is for the 30 but every comparison is useful).

Hallo,

I only have the 20 but I assumed somewhat similar signature with the 30, in comparison with the HD800.

 

[Rob80b]

Well, there is no natural sound in HD800s after NDH 30, and this is already enough to throw them in the trash
.......

Remember though..probably 99% of forum members have no professional aspirations and just wish to enjoy their music as they feel fit, possibly as colorful as possible...so no "one size fits all" and so also probably multiple headsets. : )

 

[Rob80b]

I understand this, that's why I wrote only about those who wrote that ini musicians
By nature and by constant ear training, they should have a strongly heightened sense of the naturalness and correctness of the sound. ......

Theoretically that's how it should work, I've been into audio reproduction and music since I was a young teen but paradoxically all my "classically" trained musician friends always had the worst stereos, they loved mine but they had no inclination to improve their own. It's as if they experience music directly in their brains as opposed to hearing it with their ears....or maybe anything that was reproduced though speakers was a false illusion and therefore the quality of sound if not naturally produced was inconsequential..

 

[indigogo]

Theoretically that's how it should work, I've been into audio reproduction and music since I was a young teen but paradoxically all my "classically" trained musician friends always had the worst stereos, they loved mine but they had no inclination to improve their own. It's as if they experience music directly in their brains as opposed to hearing it with their ears....or maybe anything that was reproduced though speakers was a false illusion and therefore the quality of sound if not naturally produced was inconsequential..

It's true, I have to agree with you. I also noticed this when working with musicians. And I always thought it was weird...
They probably have a very developed abstract interpretation of sound in their heads. For this reason, the source and its quality are not very important for them Unless it's a live sound of course.

But I must say that for me the concept of natural sound from monitors and headphones lies in the same plane as hearing when a musician is out of tune or not.
I just hear it and can't do anything about it. I even tried to make myself fall in love with the unnatural sound. But I couldn't. I also noticed that it is very often difficult for me to work with musicians. Due to the fact that not many of them play correctly and without falsehood. And for the same reason, I almost never go to concerts. Everything is very bad there, almost everything is fake.
Because of this, I don't have much classical live music, singing and playing musical instruments in my collection. I leave only the most impeccable, perfect and sophisticated

 

[Rob80b]

It's true, I have to agree with you. ............
Because of this, I don't have much classical live music, singing and playing musical instruments in my collection. I leave only the most impeccable, perfect and sophisticated

Interesting observations and maybe why I'm more fascinated with making and listening to electronically created music for the last 50 years or so...lol.

........

 

[Mike F]

I also noticed that it is very often difficult for me to work with musicians. Due to the fact that not many of them play correctly and without falsehood. And for the same reason, I almost never go to concerts. Everything is very bad there, almost everything is fake.

Perhaps you should hire different musicians and go to different concerts?

 

[maegnificant]

Theoretically that's how it should work, I've been into audio reproduction and music since I was a young teen but paradoxically all my "classically" trained musician friends always had the worst stereos, they loved mine but they had no inclination to improve their own. It's as if they experience music directly in their brains as opposed to hearing it with their ears....or maybe anything that was reproduced though speakers was a false illusion and therefore the quality of sound if not naturally produced was inconsequential..

Many musicians care more about the music itself than the reproduction of it.

The most powerful driver is our brain.

 

[Mike F]

Many musicians care more about the music itself than the reproduction of it.

The most powerful driver is our brain.

All, I would say.....

 

[John Buchanan]

My reasons for not going to live amplified concerts nowadays are related to caring for my ears, because of excessive concert volume and both ear overload and equipment distortion as well as avoiding having to put up with drunk and/or stoned people at the venues. I love the excitement of a live concert, but the temporary high frequency roll off and tinnitus post concert made me decide to avoid them, or lose my hearing. As music is the second most important thing in my life, I don't want to threaten that.
Live acoustic concerts are safe for the ears, sound wonderful and are free of the distortion and loudness of electric concerts. They also provide a re-calibration of my listening back to what real instruments sound in a real space. We all should attend these more.
I still believe that all things being equal apart from sound quality, it's worth chasing a better sounding remaster/remix. Just because you listen to a tin can and enjoy music doesn't mean I can't do the same - however, I choose to aim for better quality sound to add to the enjoyment of listening to music that may or may not be well recorded.
IMHO, really excellent equipment never makes bad quality recordings sound worse than using bad to average equipment. That's one of the many anti-audiophile myths. Good equipment means that the brain has less work to do to fill in what poor equipment can't reproduce.

 

[Rob80b]

My reasons for not going to live amplified concerts nowadays are related to caring for my ears, because of excessive concert volume ......

Believe my ears are still ringing from David Byrne’s American Utopia a few years ago...it was LOUD!!! Now I never go anywhere without a few packs of ear plugs tucked close at hand.
If I was still into recording I don't believe I'd use any of my current phones for mixing , maybe the Sennheiser HD630 (close cousin to the Neumann NDH20) and the AKG K872s, but the HD800S would be slightly too ethereal, the HD660S might work. Probably would go back to one of the AKG K240 series, not sure.

 

[Rob80b]

.........
If I was still into recording I don't believe I'd use any of my current phones for mixing , maybe the Sennheiser HD630 (close cousin to the Neumann NDH20) and the AKG K872s, but the HD800S would be slightly too ethereal, the HD660S might work. Probably would go back to one of the AKG K240 series, not sure.

....and just to clarify...for listening to music all my current phones suite me just fine.... just all different flavours... but I'd leave the K240s in the studio. : )
Maybe in the New Year I'll revisit the Neumanns.

 

[BlueSundays]

In a word, yes!

I agree with your description of the sound of the 20, and the 30, whilst broadly sharing a similar sonic character (extremely resolving and clean) has a very different balance.
The bass sounds light on the 30 directly after the 20, but after a very short time it sounds 'correct' - just as extended, and much more authoritative than most open back hp's, but clean (undistorted) and at the proper level. The mids are much better as well to my ear, being properly balanced. Certainly I was immediately aware of the broad suck-out around 2kHz on the 20 and the 30 is much improved there. There's also an improvement higher up IMO, possibly partly due to the advantages of the open back design. FWIW the 30's do seem more like a semi-open design to me.

I wouldn't say that the 30 is an 'upgrade' to the 20, but a compliment - one being open and the other closed. However, I would say that the 30 would be the preferable headphone for anything other than situations where you need a closed back. The possible exception would be situations where you might want that extra (and incredibly good) bass, such as watching a movie.

Uh, Hold on a sec... Most reviews Ive seen say the NDH-30 has MORE bass than the NDH-20. Are you saying this is not your experience?

 

[maegnificant]

Uh, Hold on a sec... Most reviews Ive seen say the NDH-30 has MORE bass than the NDH-20. Are you saying this is not your experience?

It covers a wider frequency in both directions, but has less bass emphasis overall, tuning wise and because it's not a closed back headphone.

 

[Mike F]

Uh, Hold on a sec... Most reviews Ive seen say the NDH-30 has MORE bass than the NDH-20. Are you saying this is not your experience?

Yes, it has less. See the above post from @maegnificant.

I don’t know which reviews you’re seen, but I had the impression from the reviews that I had read previous to getting them that the 20 has too much bass (relatively at least) and that the 30 corrects that. I would agree.