[BobG55]

I ordered them from Thomann and they were shipped from Frankfurt.

I live in Montreal Canada.

I'm leaving for a 6 month ''trip/work'' on September 30th at 4 am. (in 9 days).

I'm pretty sure I won't have time to send them back and get a new pair before I leave.

I think I'll just try them for 2-3 more days and if the obvious issues don't get resolved for whichever reason (Break-in period, if that's even a thing), I will just return them and get a refund. (I think Thomann offer a refund but I'm not sure)

I don't think I have any other choice.

EDIT:
Update, Ok there's definitely an issue with the NDH 30 I received.

First I just noticed a locking mechanism on the cable end that goes in the headphone.

When I push the cable in, it doesn't lock. Whichever side I turn it in, I can pull it right out so it never lock.

If I gently pull it out without actually being out (as in not moving at all) , I lose the right side.

If I push the cable end from left to right, I also lose the right side.

You could have ordered them from Studio Economik, right in Montreal.

 

[martel80]

You could have ordered them from Studio Economik, right in Montreal.

I've tried to do business with them for years and always received under par customer service.

Contacted them 2-3 months ago in regards to the MT 48 pricing and they never got back to me.

I'm all about supporting local businesses but for that, they need to actually DO business.

Also, buying from them would have cost me 964$ CAD including taxes.

Buying from Thomann cost me 926.81$ CAD including taxes , custom and duties.

 

[martel80]

Ok, so now that I calmed down in regards to that stupid build quality issue I was experiencing, I'm currently having another listening session with the NDH 30, counter referencing with my other devices.

I feel the width is natural. Not overdone like on my AKG Q701 but not narrow like on my HD650. It still struggle with width in the low mids and it's obvious on FKA Twigs - Two Weeks. It's a tad recessed.

The depth is lacking a lot. Very 2D like. Also reminiscent of the HD650. Not necessarily bad per se as I do find that desirable in a lot of cases when mixing. Less when mastering as you need a clear representation of instrument separation. This is something you can clearly hear on Royksopp and Robyn - Monument.

The frequency representation (after Sonarwork correction) is only lacking in the sub frequencies. It become mushy like a cheap sub. The rest seems well integrated. Without EQ, it is still very acceptable ''as is''. I would actually advise NOT to EQ correct the cans when mastering as it seems to give some extra flexibility to the cans Headroom as they sound like they are not working as hard to achieve a good representation. Also, the 3khz and up seems to be more dynamic without EQing. I prefer the HD650 Mid high frequencies but prefer the Mid lows on the NDH 30. More on that later on.

I find the NDH 30 to be a lot more detailed in the Mid lows then the HD650 but on the other hand, The HD650 sound more detailed in the Mid highs to highest frequencies. But seems to lack a lot of definition and details in the bass frequencies.

The NDH 30 gives better step response then the HD650 but both are seriously lacking under 400hz.

Overall, I think the NDH 30 are an upgrade to the HD650 but staying in the same ''comfort zone''. Just a different representation.

Now I did compared both the HD650 and the NDH 30 because they are very similar in many ways. I would call them both Great cans. Even put them both in the ''must have'' or ''essential'' categories.

The Build Quality ( putting aside the stupid Jack insert issue on the cans ) of the NDH 30 is Great. The clamp is a little strong for my head but I believe it will get better as time goes. The headband does hurt the top of my head as well but again, I will probably get use to it.

In nowadays market, I believe there is many MANY cans that can be better tools then those 2 excellent cans. Some of them will undeniably be a lot more expensive but others can still be found in the same price range.

One that come to mind and that use are the Hifiman Anando Nano. I know it's quite controversial as Hifiman has many report of bad quality control and return/exchange issues with their customer support but I am not experiencing any of that as we speak. Compared to the NDH 30, the nanos are everything a mastering engineer would love if used to work in a well treated environment and monitoring on high end, flat and low distortion sealed cabinet monitors like the Lipinski's L-707. This is something the NDH 30 fail to deliver. It is very obvious that even though the mid lows and bass are very engaging, they are also very saturated. I don't have measurement to support my claim but it is too all up in your face and lack too much definition to be remotely called natural. Again, not saying this is bad in a mixing situation but definitely less then ideal in a mastering situation. On the other hand, the nano's are shy in comparison but provide A LOT of movement and details from sub to high frequencies without missing anything.

Listening to both the Nano's and NDH 30 back to back, the Nano's sound like they are light and lack a spine (not saturated in the mid lows nor bass section). But after a few seconds, it become clear that this is to the NDH 30 detriment as there's basically no dynamics and details in comparison. In reality, the NDH 30 do have enough details and dynamics to make confident decisions in a mixing situation but do lack the extra mile to make micro details decision.

The NDH 30 are a lot more ''listener friendly'' then the Nano's. It feels engaging and warm. The Nano's are really a clinical and asepticized cans. They gave me an headache the first 2 days I used them as my brain was struggling to deal with all the info in the high frequencies. If one was to think about buying them, I would HIGHLY suggest to send them to Sonarwork for individual calibration. It does make a HUGE difference as planars take EQ corrections like real champs compared to dynamic drivers.

I would recommend the NDH 30 to anyone looking for an engaging mixing set of cans. They sound great and fun and I can definitely see myself using them on a regular basis when mixing.

Now, keep in mind that this is only my opinion and that perception do vary so I can see why someone would have a different opinion in that regards.

I cannot master on KH420 because of their tweeters inconsistency but there's many other M.E. that swear by them. Some other are into Focal Trio, others on ATC's....I'm on Lipinski's and love their rendering. No one's right or wrong.

Pick your poison and feel confident about it.

 

[Uberclocked]

Yeah. You should definitely listen to a rando YouTuber and skip this one. I suggest you get Utopia because it’s the most expensive dynamic cans you can buy and Focal can sure use more profits.

 

[martel80]

The insecurity movement was felt accross the globe.

 

[maegnificant]

Ok, so now that I calmed down in regards to that stupid build quality issue I was experiencing, I'm currently having another listening session with the NDH 30, counter referencing with my other devices.

I feel the width is natural. Not overdone like on my AKG Q701 but not narrow like on my HD650. It still struggle with width in the low mids and it's obvious on FKA Twigs - Two Weeks. It's a tad recessed.

The depth is lacking a lot. Very 2D like. Also reminiscent of the HD650. Not necessarily bad per se as I do find that desirable in a lot of cases when mixing. Less when mastering as you need a clear representation of instrument separation. This is something you can clearly hear on Royksopp and Robyn - Monument.

The frequency representation (after Sonarwork correction) is only lacking in the sub frequencies. It become mushy like a cheap sub. The rest seems well integrated. Without EQ, it is still very acceptable ''as is''. I would actually advise NOT to EQ correct the cans when mastering as it seems to give some extra flexibility to the cans Headroom as they sound like they are not working as hard to achieve a good representation. Also, the 3khz and up seems to be more dynamic without EQing. I prefer the HD650 Mid high frequencies but prefer the Mid lows on the NDH 30. More on that later on.

I find the NDH 30 to be a lot more detailed in the Mid lows then the HD650 but on the other hand, The HD650 sound more detailed in the Mid highs to highest frequencies. But seems to lack a lot of definition and details in the bass frequencies.

The NDH 30 gives better step response then the HD650 but both are seriously lacking under 400hz.

Overall, I think the NDH 30 are an upgrade to the HD650 but staying in the same ''comfort zone''. Just a different representation.

Now I did compared both the HD650 and the NDH 30 because they are very similar in many ways. I would call them both Great cans. Even put them both in the ''must have'' or ''essential'' categories.

The Build Quality ( putting aside the stupid Jack insert issue on the cans ) of the NDH 30 is Great. The clamp is a little strong for my head but I believe it will get better as time goes. The headband does hurt the top of my head as well but again, I will probably get use to it.

In nowadays market, I believe there is many MANY cans that can be better tools then those 2 excellent cans. Some of them will undeniably be a lot more expensive but others can still be found in the same price range.

One that come to mind and that use are the Hifiman Anando Nano. I know it's quite controversial as Hifiman has many report of bad quality control and return/exchange issues with their customer support but I am not experiencing any of that as we speak. Compared to the NDH 30, the nanos are everything a mastering engineer would love if used to work in a well treated environment and monitoring on high end, flat and low distortion sealed cabinet monitors like the Lipinski's L-707. This is something the NDH 30 fail to deliver. It is very obvious that even though the mid lows and bass are very engaging, they are also very saturated. I don't have measurement to support my claim but it is too all up in your face and lack too much definition to be remotely called natural. Again, not saying this is bad in a mixing situation but definitely less then ideal in a mastering situation. On the other hand, the nano's are shy in comparison but provide A LOT of movement and details from sub to high frequencies without missing anything.

Listening to both the Nano's and NDH 30 back to back, the Nano's sound like they are light and lack a spine (not saturated in the mid lows nor bass section). But after a few seconds, it become clear that this is to the NDH 30 detriment as there's basically no dynamics and details in comparison. In reality, the NDH 30 do have enough details and dynamics to make confident decisions in a mixing situation but do lack the extra mile to make macro details decision.

The NDH 30 are a lot more ''listener friendly'' then the Nano's. It feels engaging and warm. The Nano's are really a clinical and asepticized cans. They gave me an headache the first 2 days I used them as my brain was struggling to deal with all the info in the high frequencies. If one was to think about buying them, I would HIGHLY suggest to send them to Sonarwork for individual calibration. It does make a HUGE difference as planars take EQ corrections like real champs compared to dynamic drivers.

I would recommend then NDH 30 to anyone looking for an engaging mixing set of cans. They sound great and fun and I can definitely see myself using them on a regular basis when mixing.

Now, keep in mind that this is only my opinion and that perception do vary so I can see why someone would have a different opinion in that regards.

I cannot master on KH420 because of their tweeters inconsistency but there's many other M.E. that swear by them. Some other are into Focal Trio, others on ATC's....I'm on Lipinski's and love their rendering. No one's right or wrong.

Pick your poison and feel confident about it.

I agree. They are better for mixing than mastering.

 

[Mike F]

I feel the width is natural. Not overdone like on my AKG Q701 but not narrow like on my HD650.

I prefer the HD650 Mid high frequencies but prefer the Mid lows on the NDH 30.

I find the NDH 30 to be a lot more detailed in the Mid lows then the HD650 but on the other hand, The HD650 sound more detailed in the Mid highs to highest frequencies. But seems to lack a lot of definition and details in the bass frequencies.

Overall, I think the NDH 30 are an upgrade to the HD650 but staying in the same ''comfort zone''. Just a different representation.

Now I did compared both the HD650 and the NDH 30 because they are very similar in many ways. I would call them both Great cans. Even put them both in the ''must have'' or ''essential'' categories.

The Build Quality ( putting aside the stupid Jack insert issue on the cans ) of the NDH 30 is Great.

I would recommend then NDH 30 to anyone looking for an engaging mixing set of cans. They sound great and fun and I can definitely see myself using them on a regular basis when mixing.

Thanks for your more considered listening impressions. It would be nice if you came back in a month or so after some serious use and reported any further changes to your opinion.

I didn't agree with everything you said, and some of it I have no reference to so I cannot form an opinion, but I resonate or strongly agree with the above statements. The only one that I would express slightly differently is the statement about the HD650 sounding more detailed in the mid highs to highest frequencies. The HD650 is surely great in that region, but I honestly don't find the NDH 30 to be lacking - if anything I find them more detailed, but possibly with slightly sense of 'space' at times. Actually, I think I mean slightly less depth, which is something you also point out. I think small differences in opinion like this are often due to sample variation. You're listening to your 650 and 30, and I'm listening to mine, and they aren't exactly the same!

 

[martel80]

Thanks for your more considered listening impressions. It would be nice if you came back in a month or so after some serious use and reported any further changes to your opinion.

I didn't agree with everything you said, and some of it I have no reference to so I cannot form an opinion, but I resonate or strongly agree with the above statements. The only one that I would express slightly differently is the statement about the HD650 sounding more detailed in the mid highs to highest frequencies. The HD650 is surely great in that region, but I honestly don't find the NDH 30 to be lacking - if anything I find them more detailed, but possibly with slightly sense of 'space' at times. Actually, I think I mean slightly less depth, which is something you also point out. I think small differences in opinion like this are often due to sample variation. You're listening to your 650 and 30, and I'm listening to mine, and they aren't exactly the same!

You saying that and me reading and thinking about it, I think you are right. In fact, the NDH 30 might offer more macrodetails in the mid high to high frequencies but I feel like there is more micro-details on the HD650. My theory ( and it's only a theory and or an opinion ) is that the overall representation of the frequencies does tend to be more on the ''warm'' side in the NDH 30 and more on the ''edgy'' side on the HD650 ( and thats to exagerate the idea to put my point across.) which in return could just give the illusion of more details 1 khz to 4khz range on the HD650 while actually just being a more bright type of cans. And yes, I also think that both cans are not a ''reference'' in terms of soundstage ( width and depth) but they are very useful cans for mixing. I would also give an extra point to the NDH30 for strictly music enjoyment without being overwhelmingly analytical.

But in the end, it is really a matter of preferences. I can appreciate a certain sort of cans for being surgical while someone else would find them unpleasant and that would totally be understandable. I also need to point out that I use my cans for mixing and mastering purposes so my criterias are obviously not the same as someone looking for something for an incredible recreational experience.

 

[Rob80b]

But in the end, it is really a matter of preferences. ............ I use my cans for mixing and mastering purposes so my criterias are obviously not the same as someone looking for something for an incredible recreational experience

Thanks for your impressions....
I guess the real elephant in the room is for those looking at strictly using the NDH30 as a recreational tool for music listening only, with so many options out there where does it fit and is it worth pursuing.
I sort of sit in both camps, although I no linger do any recording or music production I've a tendency to look at a more slightly analytical phone than a romantic one....
Already having a few phones that are musically satisfying I do not see the Neumann being my go to but the form factor is interesting and I admit they're more of a curiosity than a need for another phone.

 

[martel80]

Thanks for your impressions....
I guess the real elephant in the room is for those looking at strictly using the NDH30 as a recreational tool for music listening only, with so many options out there where does it fit and is it worth pursuing.
I sort of sit in both camps, although I no linger do any recording or music production I've a tendency to look at a more slightly analytical phone than a romantic one....
Already having a few phones that are musically satisfying I do not see the Neumann being my go to but the form factor is interesting and I admit they're more of a curiosity than a need for another phone.

I also pertain to that user category of user but with a tendency to appreciate cans for their analytical capacities.

I'm at a point in my life, in a certain way, where I sadly don't ''just listen'' to music but use music to understand my craft (unintentionally) so given the close proximity of the NDH 30 and its ''redundancy'' for what it could achieve ( for me ) compared to the HD650, I think that keeping them should fall into the ''collector'' scenario of cans or even in the ''enjoyment'' more then in the ''I found a tool I cannot live without'' type of things.

Now, things being only recreational for some, all scientific or real life perceived qualities can be thrown out the windows as the only thing that should be important to them is them liking their sound profile. Final dot. And it's not even questionable. It's their taste and that's it.

Now being a fan and going nerd in specificity can also be attractive to some (just like being a sports nerd for example) but knowing the numbers without understanding the worth is like using big words without understanding their meaning in context.

I respect and appreciate the day to day user a lot as to me, their intuition and feel goes over and beyond any comments that a fellow M.E. can give me. And that's gold.

But I cannot use their impression or taste as a scientific approach for my craft and that's where I split with the recreational crowd.

I collect Soul records from the late 60's to mid 70's.

I would never pull out one of my wax to reference and create a mix for a client. That's me being a recreational user and then being a professional following a proven format.

As you pointed very clearly....two completely different things.

 

[Vitaliy Belz]

I also need to point out that I use my cans for mixing and mastering purposes so my criterias are obviously not the same as someone looking for something for an incredible recreational experience.

To be honest, I experience cognitive dissonance when I read about something like this.
I always thought that mastering was done on monitors and not on headphones. I understand that by positioning the Neumann NDH 30 as almost a replacement for professional monitors, they are only semi-professional and not suitable for final mastering. Unless, of course, you listen to all this later only on headphones and never on stereo speaker systems. And I don’t understand how you can compare a stereo mix when listening on monitors and headphones? It can't be the same, right?
The so-called scene, isn’t it a consequence of the natural mixing of the right and left channels when listening on monitors? How is this implemented in headphones? If not programmatically using Crossfeed, then no way?

 

[martel80]

To be honest, I experience cognitive dissonance when I read about something like this.
I always thought that mastering was done on monitors and not on headphones. I understand that by positioning the Neumann NDH 30 as almost a replacement for professional monitors, they are only semi-professional and not suitable for final mastering. Unless, of course, you listen to all this later only on headphones and never on stereo speaker systems. And I don’t understand how you can compare a stereo mix when listening on monitors and headphones? It can't be the same, right?
The so-called scene, isn’t it a consequence of the natural mixing of the right and left channels when listening on monitors? How is this implemented in headphones? If not programmatically using Crossfeed, then no way?

You are correct across the board. Now there is many plugins that we use to simulate crossfeed. A company called Goodhertz make one of the many available . They call it Can opener.

With that being said, my personal experience is that it does not faithfully recreate a professional studio and as certain engineer work in different environment, they also need to adapt quickly to different type of environment so the real life crossfeed of different room and (thereof) monitor placement in a room can vary GREATLY.

Lucky us, nowadays, in my field of work ( Modern urban pop music ) one of the most important area that our 2 bus need to translate best are earphone and headphones. Not saying that the car translation and home crappy boom box isn't a thing anymore but cans are crucial to mix Urban pop music.

So as much as a mastering engineer should try to reference his mix in as many (known to him ) environment so he knows for sure his mix and master translate correctly, it is also true that , over time, with experience, knowing a set of cans can greatly help the process in making confident decision in regards to other environment and devices because he learned to use them and he know how his mix translate using that specific set of tools.

As pointed out earlier, the use of different tools, tricks and plugins can help greatly in making sure that you did not make any mistake.

And then there's also this one point where someone need to move on and stop trying to buttplug a fly and work on his next contract.

In music making, nothing is ever perfect. Its always a compromise and to be a professional also mean being able to let go and move on to the next big thing.

 

[Mike F]

As it’s not reasonable to expect everyone to read all of the previous posts in a long thread, and as it is relevant to the current discussion, I will repost this here. It’s obviously only one (albeit very experienced) persons review, but I though it would serve the present discussion about the NDH 30’s place.

https://www.audiotechnology.com/reviews/studio-report-neumann-ndh30-headphones

 

[Mike F]

You saying that and me reading and thinking about it, I think you are right. In fact, the NDH 30 might offer more macrodetails in the mid high to high frequencies but I feel like there is more micro-details on the HD650. My theory ( and it's only a theory and or an opinion ) is that the overall representation of the frequencies does tend to be more on the ''warm'' side in the NDH 30 and more on the ''edgy'' side on the HD650 ( and thats to exagerate the idea to put my point across.)

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but I think that even given the difficulty of using, and the different interpretations of, subjective terms, that is about the opposite of what most people would say.

 

[Rob80b]

Waiting back from the seller.

Ok…looks like I’m going gone silver. : )