[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my experience, generally when people say "colored", they're talking about frequency response.

Thanks for the info.

 

[froasier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the info.

Just my 2 cents. As I said with the square wave tests, you do have a point.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif This statement is flawed in so many ways, I'm not even going to go into it. But read below. First of all, I think anyone who argues against measured data (especially when less knowledgeable/experienced on the subject than those presenting said data, i.e. "the pros") should first do their own personal measurements (e.g. with the site you linked). There are also equal-loudness contours to consider, meaning what measures flat (with a microphone) will not necessarily sound flat, and as HeadRoom explains, "a 'natural sounding' headphone should be slightly higher in the bass (about 3 or 4 dB) between 40Hz and 500Hz. [...] Headphones also need to be rolled-off in the highs to compensate for the drivers being so close to the ear; a gently sloping flat line from 1kHz to about 8-10dB down at 20kHz is about right." Going by this description, the Denons look pretty damn 'natural' (which I think translates closely enough to 'flat' for our purposes). In my experience, generally when people say "colored", they're talking about frequency response. Add the facts that pretty much this whole thread has been about frequency response and that no one has explicitly mentioned other types of coloration, and I think you may be going out on a limb to assume this meaning from their comments. After all, from a mixing standpoint, frequency response takes precedence. However, it is true that the D7000 does quite poorly on the square wave tests, even significantly worse than the D2000 and D5000.

I don't care about measurements. Why would i measure my heapdhones? So I can try to convince myself that something that sounds worse is actually better?

Lunatique was the one referencing "the pros" measurements. You are trying to assert that I don't know what I'm talking about. Fair enough, but you also haven't heard any of the headphones I recommended. You can sit and look at graphs and numbers all day, but without actually listening to the heapdhones, it's meaningless. My statements were based on experience alone. Listening to a lot of headphones that don't sound right, and finding the few that present music in a neutral way to my ears.

Since the most neutral headphone I've ever heard was also designed this way, I happen to think that it is quite relevant.

 

[froasier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't care about measurements. Why would i measure my heapdhones? So I can try to convince myself that something that sounds worse is actually better? Lunatique was the one referencing "the pros" measurements. You are trying to assert that I don't know what I'm talking about. Fair enough, but you also haven't heard any of the headphones I recommended. You can sit and look at graphs and numbers all day, but without actually listening to the heapdhones, it's meaningless. My statements were based on experience alone. Listening to a lot of headphones that don't sound right, and finding the few that present music in a neutral way to my ears. Since the most neutral headphone I've ever heard was also designed this way, I happen to think that it is quite relevant.

Other than your statement I quoted, I wasn't talking specifically about you or your comments--I just said "read below" because it was largely related. As for your statement, I'll go ahead and list the flaws I found in it so you know what I meant:

1. Pros generally know what they're talking about. It's their job.
2. Your logic of "proof" doesn't really pass muster, even if your point was valid.
3. Many people find test results quite useful,

a. when the headphones aren't available to listen to, and
b. to further understand what they're hearing.

No, they aren't the end-all be-all of headphone evaluation, but they are far from useless if you know how to interpret them.
As an example, I just purchased a pair of HD555s, never having heard them (or even similar models), but they turned out to be pretty much exactly what I expected, having studied the graphs and specs compared to headphones I'd heard. Of course they were not the only factor in my purchase decision, but the frequency response graph was a major one.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I generally agree with that. But what seemed to come up in this thread was opinions based only on measurements (the D2000 measures better than any other headphone), as opposed to opinion based on experience alone. It's like the photo debates where there's the guys that sit around measuring lens sharpness all day, and then there's the guys that actually use the lenses

I don't care who buys what, etc if they're happy with it then it's good of course

 

[StudioTan]

Considering your current monitoring setup, I wouldn't skimp on headphones/IEMs at all and would recommend following a price-no-object mentality if at all possible. Time is valuable and it's advantageous knowing you don't have to check your mixes constantly on other playback systems for possible translation issues. Also, you'll reach a point where the headphones/IEMs will provide the ability to solve a problem not possible with your current monitoring system/environment.

Yes, knowing any headphone/IEM well enough to account for their deficiencies is entirely possible, and is the norm in the industry, but in my experience it always ends up leaving something to be desired in the mix: I want the "flattest," most "neutral," fastest, and most revealing playback system I can get my hands on. All the better that I can do this for much less money than what it would cost for the best monitoring setup in a properly acoustically treated mixing environment. These traits contribute to mixes that hold up well on the majority of playback systems, both consumer and pro-level.

Since there is so much subjectivity and widely varied interpretations of audio terms (especially in forums such as these), I've found that the best way is to narrow down the most important aspects of the device it is you're seeking. In this case, it is the terms I listed above. Then look for patterns and multiple traits in reviews that go against those aspects. For example, since "flat" is an important aspect, look for terms like "hyped," "shrill," "bright," "recessed," "heavy," "rolled off," etc.; anything that points toward less-than-flat frequency response. If there's multiple comments on the same term from actual users, there's a good chance the device actually exhibits this trait. Doing this is much better than relying on a comment like "I wouldn't consider this headphone as being flat."

Of course, you may prefer certain traits that go against what constitutes the perfect mixing playback system. You may find that a "flat" playback system never sounds right unless there's a 3 dB boost at 60 Hz. In this case you have two options: Compensate with EQ during the mixing process, or get used to what constitutes the above-mentioned system to the point of when your not doing any compensation anymore. In other words, it is possible to change your listening preferences. With that being said, nothing can replace what you feel is the perfect mixing playback system. However, following a reference doesn't hurt and can open your eyes (and ears) as to what can help to achieve the perfect mix.

Who knows, maybe the D7000 will prove to be the best thing for your mixes. But are they masking something that could have been improved upon in the mix? I've never heard the D7000, but this is a case where being forgiving is not desirable. Perhaps that same mix may contain transients that would make your ears bleed on very revealing systems. You wouldn't know if you were using those headphones exclusively for that particular mix, as an example.

For me, I chose the JH13s because of the lack of undesirable traits I found from abundant reviews/comments in reference to what constitutes the "perfect" mixing headphone/IEM. Any undesirable attribute mentioned so far seems to have been refuted by an overwhelming majority against it. In other words, I haven't found any relevant comments that would go against this theory.

After taking the plunge, I have no regrets whatsoever (I was one of the lucky ones that got a good fit the first time though). These things are unbelievable, to say the least. However, I still haven't done enough mixing to form a solid opinion on how they hold up for mixing purposes against a very good mixing playback system.

The only other headphone I would consider at this point would be the HD800 or maybe a Stax variant. From what I've read so far, I don't believe the JH16 would do as well as the 13 for mixing purposes, by the way.

 

[Br777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I generally agree with that. But what seemed to come up in this thread was opinions based only on measurements (the D2000 measures better than any other headphone), as opposed to opinion based on experience alone. It's like the photo debates where there's the guys that sit around measuring lens sharpness all day, and then there's the guys that actually use the lenses I don't care who buys what, etc if they're happy with it then it's good of course

D2000 is perfect example of a headphone that may measure close to flat, but certainly is NOT flat. i dont know enough about measurement techniques to know how close they are getting in their measurements to matching the ear resonance issue, but if a "good" technique measures d2000 as flat, than i don't trust that technique.

IMO the best technique for acquiring a flat headphone, is find the one that sounds the best, not necessarily the flattest, but just the best, to you, and then eq it flat.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Pros generally know what they're talking about. It's their job.

I don't know, I've heard my fair share of bad cd's made from the pros.

 

[froasier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Br777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif D2000 is perfect example of a headphone that may measure close to flat, but certainly is NOT flat. i dont know enough about measurement techniques to know how close they are getting in their measurements to matching the ear resonance issue, but if a "good" technique measures d2000 as flat, than i don't trust that technique. IMO the best technique for acquiring a flat headphone, is find the one that sounds the best, not necessarily the flattest, but just the best, to you, and then eq it flat.

HeadRoom uses a fancy dummy head, so ear resonance should be covered (about as much it can be considering everyone' ears are different). Have you agreed with other headphones measuring flat? What about the D2000 makes it not sound flat to you (just curious since I haven't heard it)?

I agree (especially since I tend to prefer a flat response by ear anyways), as long as the headphones aren't too peaky. However, sometimes a good enough EQ can be too costly, or inconvenient to fit into one's system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know, I've heard my fair share of bad cd's made from the pros.

There are many reasons a CD can turn out bad other than monitor characteristics, but in any case I hope the few pros whose CDs are bad for that reason are not the ones who measure/review headphones

I was also (perhaps more so) talking about people whose job specifically involves measuring headphones (i.e. audio engineers), which I assume is the case some of the time.

 

[Br777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif HeadRoom uses a fancy dummy head, so ear resonance should be covered (about as much it can be considering everyone' ears are different). Have you agreed with other headphones measuring flat? What about the D2000 makes it not sound flat to you (just curious since I haven't heard it)?

imagine that all the graph New Picture on Flickr - Photo Sharing! was reversed - instead of the valleys i have created, those were peaks- thats how i hear the d2000
lots of people or places like headroom claim that d2000's measure very close to flat, but if you read the reviews, they simply dont match.. i believe this is because no technology can replicate the resonance of the human ear, yet, and of course everyone hears slightly, or not so slightly differently.

if i dont eq it - it hurts , literally hurts my ears

however when i eq it, i love it, which is why i made the point, find the headphones that sound the best, and just eq them. i am using a free software eq and i find it sounds excellent...

 

[dreamwhisper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by froasier /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was also (perhaps more so) speculating about people whose job specifically involves measuring headphones (i.e. audio engineers), which I assume is the case some of the time.

Yeah,
So speculation some of the time... having actually heard the headphone in question other times?
They work well together, but one without the other seems silly no?

This does bring up a good point that gear could be tested differently by different people, with different test setups or different methods of evaluation.

I think one reason that a 'pro' (not an audio engineer per your example but a recording engineer) would choose the Denon is because it sounds more similar to what a certain type of music (rock) sounds like in a live venue (say a bar).
The bloaty midbass mixed that way so it acts as a foundation for the rest of the sound above it, peaky highs for sense of air, etc
These are just basic ideas, I would go on with more examples but it's been a while since I heard the headphones, and I'd have to dig out more frequency response adjectives from my school notes.
It is my goal and should be everyone's goal interested in production to know frequency response adjectives that are commonly used. (instead of audiophile talk, pros use words that describe volume levels of different frequencies - for eq'ing)

Anyways,
Suffice to say mixing different music has an effect. (countless other things as well, you're prbly thinking)
So anyway in my experience, I have a few different headphones that all have something unique that they offer as well as one headphone to do it all.
HD280 - info about kick drum and bass relationship
ATH 900ti - forward and detailed, clear midrange
YH100-sub bass sculpting
Omega 2-all-rounder

HD280 comes in handy as well for monitoring vocals, but is otherwise also at hand for musical sections involving an abundance of interacting bass and drum parts (basically any parts where the complexity nears that of drum and bass)

900ti great for detecting breaths between vocal parts or any sort of distortion, also tuning of midrange intruments, and making sure a mix isn't too midrange forward lol
Also isn't the most resolving headphone so if I'm getting distracted by reverb tails on my O2's I can switch the 900ti's for tracking, and I don't mind that too much because I like the Audio-Technica house sound a lot

yh100 -more bass texture than 02, also a good portable mix headphone as it requires less amping real estate wise (can follow me around, unlike an O2 and Blue Hawaii)
also comes in handy when adding wobble to subbass- having an LFO modulate the cutoff frequency of a sine bass sound

they're so many reasons in my mind to avoid abstraction and just hear the gear, not like hear the gear before commenting on it (well that too)
but audition something for yourself and find out if you like it.
Who knows, maybe you will one day be a pro, and invent a new measurement systems that also takes into account how each person hears individually...

 

[brat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...The best thing I've read about neutrality talked about the equipment being chameleon, and changing with the recording...

Finally something constructive in this discussion about FR linearity.
This is what I'd say about my SRS-727II. It changes with every album and sometimes with the tracks within an album. It can be rolled off in trebles, bass shy, sibilant, with edgy highs, grainy mids, with full and diminant bass, smooth mids, dark sounding or opposite - bright sounding... It's chameleon. I've mentioned above D5000. They have huge, dominant bass but they have another, very plasant problem: very smooth, somewhat liquid mids. It's fun to listen to them but after some time you realize that every record sounds the same with these boomy bass and smooth mids. And that is the coloration. Or if you listen to K701 every record is so spacious and well defined that you can't dirsegard the sound of the instruments and concentrate on the music. And this is their coloration. Obviously talking about neutrality the FR is not the only issue.
I hope Lunatique has made a good choise.
Enjoy!

 

[froasier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Br777 /img/forum/go_quote.gif imagine that all the graph New Picture on Flickr - Photo Sharing! was reversed - instead of the valleys i have created, those were peaks- thats how i hear the d2000 lots of people or places like headroom claim that d2000's measure very close to flat, but if you read the reviews, they simply dont match.. i believe this is because no technology can replicate the resonance of the human ear, yet, and of course everyone hears slightly, or not so slightly differently. if i dont eq it - it hurts , literally hurts my ears however when i eq it, i love it, which is why i made the point, find the headphones that sound the best, and just eq them. i am using a free software eq and i find it sounds excellent...

Ah yes, Electri-Q. It sounds fine, but I find it inconvenient to use due to its design (the saving and loading system is not intuitive, for one) as well as the fact that I can only use it within certain programs. This is mainly why I mentioned cost--a hardware EQ would be much more convenient.

All the would-be peaks on your graph correspond to smaller peaks on HeadRoom's. In fact if you applied the appropriate adjustments to your graph (hypothetically, using graphing software) to be able to compare them directly, I think you'd find quite a similarity. My first guess is that your ears have a response curve that happens to emphasize those particular peaks (and valley). If so, by subtracting Headroom's measurements from yours you'd have an approximation of your personal response curve. Have you EQed any other headphones (for comparison)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brat /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or if you listen to K701 every record is so spacious and well defined that you can't dirsegard the sound of the instruments and concentrate on the music. And this is their coloration.

Not having heard the K701, I could be misinterpreting your description, but I would call that one the opposite--kinda like HDTV distracting you from the story with the texture of the character's skin, it's closer to real life. Real life is as neutral as it gets. But I agree with your overall point.

 

[mobbaddict]

ATH AD2000 is another phone that measures flat and that is often said to be very colored and forward in the mids...

Even dummy heads are not completely reliable according to a study someone posted on the DT48 thread.

 

[froasier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamwhisper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, So speculation some of the time... having actually heard the headphone in question other times? They work well together, but one without the other seems silly no? This does bring up a good point that gear could be tested differently by different people, with different test setups or different methods of evaluation. I think one reason that a 'pro' (not an audio engineer per your example but a recording engineer) would choose the Denon is because it sounds more similar to what a certain type of music (rock) sounds like in a live venue (say a bar). The bloaty midbass mixed that way so it acts as a foundation for the rest of the sound above it, peaky highs for sense of air, etc These are just basic ideas, I would go on with more examples but it's been a while since I heard the headphones, and I'd have to dig out more frequency response adjectives from my school notes. It is my goal and should be everyone's goal interested in production to know frequency response adjectives that are commonly used. (instead of audiophile talk, pros use words that describe volume levels of different frequencies - for eq'ing) Anyways, Suffice to say mixing different music has an effect. (countless other things as well, you're prbly thinking) So anyway in my experience, I have a few different headphones that all have something unique that they offer as well as one headphone to do it all. HD280 - info about kick drum and bass relationship ATH 900ti - forward and detailed, clear midrange YH100-sub bass sculpting Omega 2-all-rounder HD280 comes in handy as well for monitoring vocals, but is otherwise also at hand for musical sections involving an abundance of interacting bass and drum parts (basically any parts where the complexity nears that of drum and bass) 900ti great for detecting breaths between vocal parts or any sort of distortion, also tuning of midrange intruments, and making sure a mix isn't too midrange forward lol Also isn't the most resolving headphone so if I'm get distracted by reverb trails on my O2's I can switch the 900ti's for tracking, and I don't mind that too much because I like the Audio-Technica house sound a lot yh100 -more bass texture than 02, also a good portable mix headphone as it requires less amping real estate wise (can follow me around, unlike an O2 and Blue Hawaii) also comes in handy when adding wobble to subbass- having an LFO modulate the cutoff frequency of a sine bass sound they're so many reasons in my mind to avoid abstraction and just hear the gear, not like hear the gear before commenting on it (well that too) but audition something for yourself and find out if you like it. Who knows, maybe you will one day be a pro, and invent a new measurement systems that also takes into account how each person hears individually...

You changed my quote, perhaps because you misunderstood it. I don't know what the poster originally meant by "pros", but basically there are two groups: the pros actually doing the measurements (audio engineers and the like), and the pros who interpret these measurements and write reviews (can be the same people, or music professionals such as recording/mix engineers). In any case, the whole purpose of the measurements is to try to represent what the headphones sound like, scientifically. Either category of "pro" generally has listened to the headphones (Why measure headphones for a living if you don't like to listen to them?), and knows what "neutral" means better than most audiophiles seem to. Most of the adjectives used are shared--pros just have a more grounded definition of them. 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.

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.

(You also describe the 900ti as both "detailed" and "not the most resolving" ...kinda contradictory--What is there to resolve other than details?)