[elwappo99]

 
How does "tonal balance" relate to  "accuracy"?
Is it possibly just one aspect that defines accuracy?
 
I ask, as after reading your question I immediately thought about something that I had read when reading one of Tyll's reviews.
He was reviewing the Fidelio X2, which of course isn't a summit fi headphone, and he stated this...
 
"With their offerings over the past year or so, I think Philips has become one of the major power-houses in headphone development. And for me, the X2 may be their best effort yet. For the first time, I think I'm hearing a near perfect tonal balance in a headphone—it's as if the entirety of the music is front and center."
I was surprised to hear him say this about a $300. headphone after all the flagships he's listened to, and I wonder how the "tonal balance" that he refers to relates to your question?

 
I think a pretty common misconception is that more expensive flagships will sound better in all ways over their mid-tier counterparts. Many hi-fi headphones also have pretty big compromises, so it's not always a 100% upgrade across the board.
 
As for tonal balance. I would say tonal balance is the most important aspect to an accurate headphone. That has come after many years of experience.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Sony MDR-V6 with DT250 pads, for a closed back headphone, are very good for monitoring in situations when I need a closed headphone, better than any other closed headphone I've tried to date, including the Audio Technica M50X, Sennheiser HD280, Sony MDR-7506, Beyerdynamic DT250, DT770.
 
I also own the MDR-7506, and despite having the same housing, headband, drivers, etc.  They're not the same sound.  It's more than wiring/crossfeed mimicking a nearfield sweet spot.  MDR-V6 has significantly more bass, and flatter, less overly vocal-centric mids.  And when paired with beyer pads, it has smoother, less biting treble, and a hint of soundstage.  The MDR-7506 is made for vocalists to wear while tracking, because of the dip just below the bump through human vocal range.
 
Do you own both MDR-V6's and MDR-7506's ?

 
Nope, but I'm curious to try the V6 in the hopes that I would hear the same differences you describe. ...But it doesn't have priority. I'm mainly interested in high-end stuff.

 

[alpha80]

For me, I prefer working with:
 
1. Beyerdynamic Tesla T90
(favorite REVEALING/accurate/balanced/bright open phone)
2. Sony MDR-V6
(favorite accurate closed phone, very comfortable and great design)
3. AKG K701 
(former favorite open phone)
I also really like the AKG Q701, K702, K601, K501, K7XX, but the most accurate of them all to me, across many genres, is the K701.
4. Shure 1840
(a criminally underrated headphone here on headfi, GREAT MIDS [which is really the most important range in most music])
5. Sennheiser HD600 
(a really easy to listen to, pretty flat, natural sounding headphone, very very comfortable design)
 
 
 
As far as accurate frequency response wise, but sweetened up a bit with pleasing harmonic distortion, or otherwise not clinically accurate:
 
1. AKG K812
(a bit too bassy and harmonic to be perfectly accurate, but still UTTERLY DETAILED and with the best, most natural version of the AIRY AKG soundstage, unreal ergonomics)
(bonus - surprisingly phenominal, unamped, right out of an iPhone 6+)
2. Sennheiser HD800
(great soundstage, extreme detail, and nearly perfect frequency response [needs a slight bump from 1k-4k] much improved over previous sennheisers, but still a bit dry/boring/unnatural, grainy bass)
3. Stax 009
(truly great headphone but badly overpriced and reliant on equally expensive amps)
4. Beyerdynamic Tesla T-1
(very underrated here on Head-Fi, a beautiful sounding headphone on any genre, extremely natural frequency response, without piercing T90 treble)
5. HifiMan HE6
(these aren't perfect, but amongst Planar phones' limitations, it's as good as it can get)
 
 

 
I really want to hear the Philips Fidelio X2.

 

[alpha80]

   
Nope, but I'm curious to try the V6 in the hopes that I would hear the same differences you describe. ...But it doesn't have priority. I'm mainly interested in high-end stuff.

I'm that way with cars.  Not with headphones.
I can charge you $800 for some modified V6's ?

 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I'm that way with cars.  Not with headphones.
I can charge you $800 for some modified V6's ?

 

 
LOL. I might get the STAX SR-207 before the SR-009, since it's so much cheaper. On the other hand, I kind of want to put that money towards the SR-009 system, starting out with an affordable amp, then eventually upgrading to one of the best ones.

 

[diamondears]

   
LOL. I might get the STAX SR-207 before the SR-009, since it's so much cheaper. On the other hand, I kind of want to put that money towards the SR-009 system, starting out with an affordable amp, then eventually upgrading to one of the best ones.

If your budget is tight, I suggest you try the Harman curve HPs first, like the PSB M4U 1 or NAD HP50 or others. I've heard HPs with FR same or with treble higher than the SR009 and they're really bright to my cleaned up ears. However, to give you a persepective of my ears, my ears find the LCD-2.2 (pre-fazor) neutral, even finding its bass quantity lacking a bit (quality/articulation and sub-bass extension are incredible though). The PSB and NAD I really find neutral, perfectly neutral. I don't hear any emphasis nor diminution in treble, mids nor bass. YMMV.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  If your budget is tight, I suggest you try the Harman curve HPs first, like the PSB M4U 1 or NAD HP50 or others. I've heard HPs with FR same or with treble higher than the SR009 and they're really bright to my cleaned up ears. However, to give you a persepective of my ears, my ears find the LCD-2.2 (pre-fazor) neutral, even finding its bass quantity lacking a bit (quality/articulation and sub-bass extension are incredible though). The PSB and NAD I really find neutral, perfectly neutral. I don't hear any emphasis nor diminution in treble, mids nor bass. YMMV.

 
Look on my profile. I owned two Focal Spirit Professionals, among many others. (It has similar measurements to the PSB and NAD.) I found it to be far too dark. Sounded noticeably darker than it should to be accurate to my ears, which I have explained before in this thread. The FSP and LCD-2 are too dark to even meet the Harman curve, which is darker than the flat speaker curve. Many darkness lovers in this thread!

 
I, on the other hand, am in agony at the moment with my overly bright Sony MDR-7506, which no one seems to want to buy. hehe...
 
For what it's worth, 90% of the SR-009 impressions I have read talk about how neutral (not bright) it is. Guess it ultimately depends on your ears.

 

[diamondears]

Look on my profile. I owned two Focal Spirit Professionals, among many others. (It has similar measurements to the PSB and NAD.) I found it to be far too dark. Sounded noticeably darker than it should to be accurate to my ears, which I have explained before in this thread. The FSP and LCD-2 are too dark to even meet the Harman curve, which is darker than the flat speaker curve. Many darkness lovers in this thread! :tongue_smile:

I, on the other hand, am in agony at the moment with my overly bright Sony MDR-7506, which no one seems to want to buy. hehe...

For what it's worth, 90% of the SR-009 impressions I have read talk about how neutral (not bright) it is. Guess it ultimately depends on your ears.

The NAD, may be warm/dark on dedicated amps, but not the PSBs.

 

[Music Alchemist]

The NAD, may be warm/dark on dedicated amps, but not the PSBs.

 
Many people have recommended the PSB to me, so I guess I'll try it out eventually. The NAD is also on my wish list, mainly out of curiosity.
 
I'm getting an Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000 next. Very hard to find. Original MSRP was nearly $1,200, so I was surprised to find it for an affordable price.

 

[preproman]

  As for tonal balance. I would say tonal balance is the most important aspect to an accurate headphone. That has come after many years of experience.

 
+1 on that..
 
My top 5 list for tonal balance would look like this.  I'm not a measurements guy so I could be way off base here.
 
Stax SR-Omega
Stax SR-009
HE-6
HD800
Stax SR-007 mkI
 
One of the most important things for "some" of these headphones are the amps for some and the DAC for others.
 
HE-6 and the HD800 are amp dependent, the Stax SR-Omega and the 009s are DAC dependent.  This is just my observation.
 
Honorable mentions are:
 
HE-5LE
Abyss
LCD-3F
HD600

 

[jbarrentine]

  1. Beyerdynamic Tesla T90
(favorite REVEALING/accurate/balanced/bright open phone)
 
 
1. AKG K812
(a bit too bassy and harmonic to be perfectly accurate, but still UTTERLY DETAILED and with the best, most natural version of the AIRY AKG soundstage, unreal ergonomics)
(bonus - surprisingly phenominal, unamped, right out of an iPhone 6+)
 

 
Which do you like more? I have the T90 already.

 

[Stuff Jones]

Those frequency response curves are such poor proxies for accuracy. Accuracy includes transients, PRAT, timbre, separation, soundstage and other aspects of conveying music as it sounds live. 
 
Also, I think there's a tendency to overrate the accuracy of bright headphones because they reveal more detail. I don't think detail = accuracy.

 

[jbarrentine]

  Those frequency response curves are such poor proxies for accuracy. Accuracy includes transients, PRAT, timbre and other aspects of conveying music as it sounds live. 
 
Also, I think there's a tendency to overrate the accuracy of bright headphones because they reveal more detail. I don't think detail = accuracy.

 
Yeah but it's not because they are bright that they reveal more detail.  Detail level has to be a part of accuracy because it's portraying what was actually recorded. 

 

[Stuff Jones]

   
Yeah but it's not because they are bright that they reveal more detail.  Detail level has to be a part of accuracy because it's portraying what was actually recorded. 

 
Of course its part but I think its often an overrated component.

 

[ubs28]

Listen to flat high-end speaker system and they sound more akin to the HD 600 will than the HD 800. It's because headphones don't have the distance and room effect that darkens the treble and warms up the sound but rather project right into the ear canal. Speakers are measured flat when considering room acoustics and distance from the ear. Headphones don't have this so they must have more inherent bass and darker treble to sound neutral to the human ear.  

Studio engineers don't use loudspeakers, they use near fields (studio monitors) to reduce the room and distance effect.

If someone wishes to make headphones sound like speakers, near fields that studio engineers use is a much better reference.

Loudspeakers are simply not accurate even if they meassure neutral.