Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm guessing you might actually mean something adjective-less, like "a 5-dB resonance at 300 Hz," which is less ambiguous to a pro, but not meaningful at all to the average Joe.
No mix engineer worth his salt would choose such a colored headphone as you describe the Denon to actually do a mix. Mixing on a system with "bloaty midbass" and "peaky highs" will result in a mix that has recessed midbass and highs on any other system. Yes, colored headphones can be useful for checking certain things, but the "one headphone to do it all" is the neutral one and the one you will mainly use to do a mix. I know less about recording (I've only done it a few times vs. countless for mixing), but I'm pretty sure it's the same concept--most of the time you want a neutral representation of the sound, so that you know both how much it has changed between the instrument(s) and your headphones, and how it will sound in a (neutral) mixing/listening environment.
|
You're right, numbers are the best adjective to use for our purposes.
Recording engineers use other adjectives to describe more than just frequency response and the appropriate eq decision, although this really isn't relevant to our discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up tho so I could clarify my thoughts better.
Yeah recording headphones have the same criteria as mixing headphones. Tracking headphones don't have as high as a criteria only because someone will likely buy a few more less expensive headphones to serve this purpose (headphones for a group of people to listen to at the same time) also preferably closed headphones, so they could also then double as a vocal monitor/overdubber.
Often times I see people buy a few of the same headphone that are good for all three purposes, and their mixing is mostly done on monitors.
If they have a 'reference headphone' that they use they will always check the mixes on monitors anyways, no matter how good the reference headphone may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The only way to have a measurement system take into account individual hearing response is to have each person measure their hearing (using a consistent system) and apply this curve to the headphone measurements. Otherwise all you can do is use average hearing curves. It's not so much a matter of invention as one of practicality.
|
Agreed, so this technology is in fact currently being used?
Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif
(You also describe the 900ti as both "detailed" and "not the most resolving" ...kinda contradictory--What is there to resolve other than details?)
|
We can perceive something as detailed if there if there are a lot of high mids or treble.
I think you're right, being resolving is the best (truest) indication of detail but the kind of detail the 900ti present me I find useful as well.
I also agree with your point about reference headphones needing to be neutral but in practice all of the headphones pros use really are coloured in some way or another, we just pick whichever coloration we can forgive the easiest.
HD650's-a little more midbass than need be, internal detail can be distracting
DT880-not as subjectively engaging as HD650's, no mid scooping so mixes can sound 'hard' on monitors
MDR-7509 - too much emphasis on low midrange, internal details emphasised a little too strongly for replacing monitors
Any recording engineer worth their salt understands the colorations of their monitors/headphones by hearing their mixes on systems at different pricepoints, as well as summing their mixes to mono to check for phase cancellation. (for radio play)
Even the most neutral headphones/monitors will require effort from the engineer when it comes to understanding what they are mixing and how it relates to the 'real world'. (the systems that their music will likely be played on)
