[blr]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Walker While "forgiving" might be a worthwhile characteristic for music listening (it certainly will make more of your music library listenable/less "harsh"), trust me..."forgiving" is exactly the last sonic "attribute" one should seek out in a headphone for serious recording/mixing/mastering use! Consider the nature of the term "forgiving"...it means that you can commit "sins" (such as "really eqing the highs up") and they will be "forgiven"! Exactly my point about the 7506...their analytical nature won't let you commit the sin to begin with! Eq the highs too hot and your ears will BLEED! This is absolutely a good thing for PRO AUDIO!

Agreed. However, I don't think that any coloration is good for pro audio applications. While it is true that you can never end up with too bright sound using V6, it is also true that one may cut too much high end energy. Also V7506 (and V6 if it is the same) has an audiable lack of midrange. Thus the end mix can be midrange thick. To me the ideal solution is flat and IMO HD 280 come considerably closer to fully flat response than V7506.

 

[Mike Walker]

First of all BLR, NO headphones (or any other mechanical transducers) are "perfectly flat". We must choose from flawed designes because THEY ALL ARE FLAWED DESIGNS! However, products which deviate from flat response on the "forward" side of neutral allow one to hear more detail in a mix, helping to insure that distortions/pops/cracks/etc which would be masked in a truly flat trandsucer do not creep into the mix! This isn't just "handy", it is an absolutely essential part of mixing/mastering! One who doesn't work in a studio environment can't fully appreciate this!

Having said that, the 7506 is still among the most "flat" measuring headphones out there! Tests conducted by "Sensible Sound" magazine a couple of years ago showed it to have (within a db or two) NEARLY perfectly flat response across the audible spectrum. The db or two deviation is "forward" in the MIDRANGE, and treble. I'm sorry, but someone who says the 7506 has no midrange has attended a few too many rock concerts, for the 7506 is obviously "forward" in both midrange, AND treble...which is what makes it "analytical" to begin with! This elevated, though basically flat response allows the 7506 to be valuable because it is both "forward" and "accurate" at the same time! (NOT a contradiction, remember, EVERY headphone deviates from flat response! Audio pros simply choose those which deviate on the "forward" side of neutral for pro use! As I've stated before, I prefer a more "laid back" (less midrange/treble emphasis) for simply listening to music).

As for producing a mix with a midrange that's "too thick", I find that, using the 7506, I use very little eq AT ALL! My voice (and most mixes) sound(s) just right with very little if any eq! That's why I asked if you work in a studio, BLR. Most of today's recordings are WAY too heavily eqed. The 7506 is a valuable tool because it encourages me to leave the eq at it's center detent (MOST of the time), resulting in more balanced mixes which hold up on a greater variety of listening systems (high end "audiophile" rigs, Walkpersons, Boom Boxes, Car Stereos, cheap table radios, etc.)

I would encourage anyone who has access to pro audio gear to do the same mix with a "laid-back" headphone such as the HD-600 (or HD-580), and then with a "forward" sounding one such as the 7506, and see which one holds up better on more types of systems! With a "laid back" 'phone, you WILL find ourself overly eqing, and pushing up various faders WAY too high to allow sounds to "cut through" in the mix. BAD MOVE! You are unbalancing your mix to compensate for a perceived limitation of your monitoring system. Yes, I know it would seem that the opposite would be true with a headphone such as the 7506. But it just isn't, for reasons only those who actually use them to mix can truly understand! Mixing on my HD-580s, I DO readh for the mid and hf eq on nearly everything. Mixing with the 7506, I leave the eq alone. And we'd all be a lot better off if more of todays engineers/producers left the eq ALONE (and had worn hearing-protection, or turned down the f###ing volume before damage to their hearing made all that treble boost necessary!)

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Originally posted by blr Agreed. However, I don't think that any coloration is good for pro audio applications. While it is true that you can never end up with too bright sound using V6, it is also true that one may cut too much high end energy. Also V7506 (and V6 if it is the same) has an audiable lack of midrange. Thus the end mix can be midrange thick. To me the ideal solution is flat and IMO HD 280 come considerably closer to fully flat response than V7506.

Which is why I don't understand why mixing equipment don't come with 2 stages of EQs, one for modifying the balance of the actual mix (already exists) and (more importantly) one for EQing out the dips and peaks of the FR of the phones you're using to monitor the mix!

I know what people say about nearfield monitors being more important for making the final mix but those aren't perfectly flat either, are they?

And what about resonances in the room?

edit: read Mike's response; but I don't think the 7506 are as flat as all that

7506's FR on lower right...

I think my comments still stand, for the 7506 as well as any monitoring equipment...

 

[blr]

To answer your question Mike, yes I do studio work although not for 8 hours a day, i.e. not for a living.
If forward to you means detailed or resolved-cool but not for me.
I cannot hear much more detail from V7506 compared to say DT 250-80. Have you heard these? They're compared to the Sonys dark sounding. To me resolved reflects the ability of the driver to respond to small changes.
Yet another thing is that these studio cans are often used as monitors during take recordings and overdubbing. Now, I imagine that the brighter nature of 7506 makes them more fatiguing also after a prolonged studio work-not good.
Anyway, our discussion is getting a bit off topic here.
To me the important point is that there is a new headphone out there that does everything better than V7506 and costs the same if not less. If you're happy with your Sonys great, but I'd recommend you to borrow a pair of HD 280 for some time. Trust me they're not gonna dissapoint you.

 

[kelly]

How flat are the Etymotic ER-6? The ER-4S is relatively flat and would be good for studio use. In fact, there is a professional model of the ER-4S that is widely used in studios. I don't know personally how the ER-6 compares.

I wonder if the generalization that modern pop and rock recordings are brighter than those made a few years ago comes from the fact that today's technology allows both a greater frequency range and a greater dynamic range. In other words, the analog equipment actually wasn't capable of getting as high and the higher frequencies can be louder relative to the other music now.

That's probably being too kind to the industry. Really I think it has more to do with the fact that the average person perceives greater volume of the highs as "clarity" and thus if a recording is engineered to have a brighter sound, the average person with average playback devices will consider it better.

I've commented before that I felt that some of the most highly regarded amps seem to roll off the highs earlier than I'd expect. I think this may be because the amps are consumed largely by audio enthusiasts (people who have high end systems) who listen to a lot of pop and rock. Of course, I've also speculated that they may be taming the highs to try to save our hearing too.
Something the recording industry obviously isn't concerning itself with.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

There ought to be an industry standard stating that all source, amp and IC components should be as flat as possible instead of coloured this way and that

 

[Mike Walker]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think the 7506 is the "best" headphone out there. It isn't. By a long shot. It isn't even my own favorite for listening to music. While not true in absolute terms, BLR may be surprised to know that I also consider 'phones which are less bright to be more neutral/accurate than the 7506. The HD-280 may well be better overall. I haven't heard it (yet), but plan to buy a pair before long (on the condition that I can return it if disappointed) based upon what I've read here. If it's all people say, then it's a helluva buy at 100 dollars. But I must admit that for MUSIC LISTENING, I generally prefer open back headphones.

As BLR noted, we're a little off-topic. It's quite possible that we're both right, the 7506 is better for mixing/mastering, while the HD-280 is better overall. I'll buy that (in theory anyhow. Remember, I haven't heard the HD-280). But I will point out that saying that what's important isn't the frequency response so much as the "response of the driver" is, er, cow poop. Remember, sound has only three characteristics...amplitude, frequency, and phase/polarity. That's it! EVERYTHING which we hear occurs in one of these three domains. Yes, there are problems which can "slur" detail, such as resonances in a diaphram which cause it to continue vibrating once the signal has been removed (and since ALL diaphrams have mass, ALL do this to some extent). But MOST differences which we perceive in headphones (and most of the adjectives used to describe their sound "bright/dark/laid-back/forward/veiled/detailed") have to do with frequency response differences. This isn't a shocking revelation. After all, (due in no small measure to the tiny cone excursions necessary with headphones compared to speakers), distortion is quite low with ALL well designed headphones. Resonances are usually not severe (especially with good open-back designs). What's left? Frequency response! These characteristics vary as much from model to model as do snowflakes from one another!

As for the screen shots (from Cool Edit) which claim to show frequency response, they actually show a waveform over time (that's the only thing I'm sure of, because I use Cool Edit 2000 every day). There is no information given about frequency, db scale, etc...so it's pretty meaningless. Even the flattest of frequency response can look pretty "curvy" if the scale is exaggerated! And there are as many ways of MEASURING headphones as there are snowflakes!

Fortunately, there's a simple, easy way to determine "flatness" of headphone sound that's also dirt cheap! Tune your tuner/receiver to the interstation "hiss" between fm stations. On truly "flat/accurate" headphones (ie the HD-580), this sounds like rushing water, with no distinct "pitch". The less accurate the headphones, the more "pitches" one can pick out in the hiss (useful because it contains effectively equal energy at all frequencies within the passband...up to 15khz). Note: the 7506 is VERY good in this test! Yes, there are a couple of mild "pitches" (indicating peaks in response). But overall it's very smooth, though certainly not as smooth as the HD-580. LIsten to your headphones carefully. Hear the "pitches" in the sound? Now switch to a real radio station (or cd). You can hear those "pitches" as colorations (peaks) in response now, can't you? WARNING: IF you like the sound of your headphones, are on a budget, and don't want to spend more money, DO NOT PERFORM THIS TEST! If you do it right, it WILL show you what's wrong with your headphones! And NO headphones, regardless of price, are perfect (in this test).

Amusingly, some of the 'phones which pass the test with flying colors are CHEAP, such as the Koss KSC-35 (note with the Sporta-Pro it's EASY to hear the exaggerated bass response caused by the firmer contact with the ear). The original Sennheiser HD-40 was among the very best in this test...beating electrostatics costing even a hundred times more! Thank you God for the amazing value available in headphones! With careful shopping, nowhere else in audio can so little (money) buy so much! I love the fact that (some) reasonably priced designs are IMMENSELY better than some VERY expensive ones!

 

[kwkarth]

Ahem...
Mike, Pink noise is what you want to use for this test, not white noise from interstations hiss. White noise does not have equal energy distribution octave to octave.
Cheers.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

As for the screen shots (from Cool Edit) which claim to show frequency response, they actually show a waveform over time (that's the only thing I'm sure of, because I use Cool Edit 2000 every day). There is no information given about frequency, db scale, etc...so it's pretty meaningless. Even the flattest of frequency response can look pretty "curvy" if the scale is exaggerated! And there are as many ways of MEASURING headphones as there are snowflakes!

I know, but that's the only graph I could find. Care to share your info that shows that the V6 is flat down to 1-2 dB?

Quote:

Fortunately, there's a simple, easy way to determine "flatness" of headphone sound that's also dirt cheap! Tune your tuner/receiver to the interstation "hiss" between fm stations. On truly "flat/accurate" headphones (ie the HD-580), this sounds like rushing water, with no distinct "pitch". The less accurate the headphones, the more "pitches" one can pick out in the hiss (useful because it contains effectively equal energy at all frequencies within the passband...up to 15khz). Note: the 7506 is VERY good in this test! Yes, there are a couple of mild "pitches" (indicating peaks in response). But overall it's very smooth, though certainly not as smooth as the HD-580. LIsten to your headphones carefully. Hear the "pitches" in the sound? Now switch to a real radio station (or cd). You can hear those "pitches" as colorations (peaks) in response now, can't you? WARNING: IF you like the sound of your headphones, are on a budget, and don't want to spend more money, DO NOT PERFORM THIS TEST! If you do it right, it WILL show you what's wrong with your headphones! And NO headphones, regardless of price, are perfect (in this test).

Talk about primitive...

Even if you are using *white* noise (which you aren't) what about the idiosyncracies in the FR of your own ears? E.g. at moderate listening levels the average *ear* has response peaks at around 400Hz and 4000Hz--are you going to hear these 'pitches' and tell me these are the places where the phones are coloured?

Now, is somebody going to tell me why an extra EQ is not included in a mixing desk to EQ the phones and loudspeakers instead of the mix?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs Now, is somebody going to tell me why an extra EQ is not included in a mixing desk to EQ the phones and loudspeakers instead of the mix?

lol!

Joe! It's probably because there are so many people out there who think pseudo white noise is flat like their ears...

What good would it do when the user didn't know what to do with it?

Actually, that can be done now if one wants to go to the trouble, using inexpensive digital EQ tools like Bheringer and others make.
Cheers!

 

[Mike Walker]

First of all, since the peaks (and dips) in response OF OUR EARS are a part of our hearing (we hear EVERYTHING through them), they are irrelevent to this discussion! Both flat, and non flat reproductions of sounds (and the sounds themselves) are heard through our hearing apparatus. We can't "hear" without it, since it's built in!

Otay. FM interstation hiss ("white noise") is just fine for my tests, because what we are looking for is narrow-band peaks, not general response trends! Peaks heard with white noise will also be heard with pink noise. Why do I recommend fm interstation hiss? Because EVERYONE has access to it free of charge. And it works PERFECTLY for the intended use! Plus, when properly reproduced, it does have a "rushing water" type of sound. This is an easy concept for even the non-trained listener to grasp. "A sound with no pitch". If you hear a distinct pitch (or more likely "pitches"), then they are caused by peaks in your headphones. Period!

As for the test being "primitive", don't knock it until you've tried it! As I've pointed out many times before, our ears/brains are not laboratory instruments! They do not behave as if they are (laboratory instruments). Consider it "primitive' if you like, but this test ALWAYS (with a little training and practice) points out peaks in frequency response in minutes, even seconds, which may have taken dozens or even hundreds of hours to spot listening just to music. And it absolutely translates to music listening! Once you have heard peaks (and to a lesser extent, dips) with this test, you cannot "un-hear" them (using the same 'phones) with music!

As for why boards don't provide eq for speakers/phones, the mixer is the wrong place to put such a device! The mixer is designed to shape the sound OF YOUR MIX! If you want to eq your control room speakers/headphones, an external equalizer placed betweent he board and the amp driving the headphones or speakers is the way to go. And while many studios do this, anyone with a little audio knowledge can tell you that equalization is never a loss-free process. Equalization changes more than just frequency response! It also adds noise and distortion (ALL active gain stages do this). But more important to audio "purists" is that equalization ALWAYS screws up (to some extent) phase response.

Plus the theory that it's possible to equalize speakers or headphones for "perfect" flat response is itself flawed. It ISN'T! Correcting one problem ALWAYS causes another (though hopefully a lesser one). And even your equalized "curve" will have dozens, or even hundreds of small frequency response "ripples" in it. It's like trying to please your mother-in-law. The process itself is FUTILE! And again, absolute accuracy isn't, and shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of studio monitoring. What IS the "be-all and end-all"? Finding a system which allows/encourages the engineer to produce mixes which sound good on the widest variety of listening devices!

Except for those exclusively recording acoustic music, studios don't, and shouldn't give a flying f##k about "accuracy". Where it's at is COMPATIBILITY! Show me an engineer who knows how to produce a mix which sounds great on a high end system, a boombox, table radio, Walkman, and car stereo, and I'll show you a hit. The goal is to SELL (the products being advertised as in commercial production, the music as in the case of music reproduction, the dialog as in the case of a movie soundtrack, etc.)

As nauseating as it may be to audio "purists", commercially produced audio is a PRODUCT, designed to sell...just as any other product on the shelves at your favorite store! Is the picture on the cover of Playboy "accurate"? What possible difference does that make? Is it PRETTY? Is it SEXY? Does it make me want to buy the magazine? THESE are the questions which matter! Show me an "audiophile", and I'll show you someone who consistently asks the wrong questions (where commercial (read: FOR PROFIT) audio production is concerned!)

 

[Mike Walker]

Oh, and people DO NOT HEAR peaks at 400hz and 4khz, BECAUSE THESE ARE A PART OF OUR HEARING! Resonances/response peaks in our hearing are BUILT IN. Our brains know that they're there, and automatically tune them out (just as when sitting in a crowded room with twenty people talking, we can selectively tune into just the voice we are interested in, ignoring the others).

And even digital equalizers produce processing artifacts! The best eq is NO eq! Best to get the monitoring devices within a couple of db of flat, and (perhaps more important) as SMOOTH as possible (with response trends covering octaves rather than smaller, high-q peaks). Smooth response trends are much easier for our brains to "tune out" than narrow peaks.

And another thing, I'm going to reach through the 'net and personally smack the next person who mis-quotes me, then comments on the mis-quote rather than what I actually said. Show me where I said that white noise is "flat"? I DIDN'T F@@@ING SAY IT! Notice I used a qualifier saying that it "effectively" includes an equal mix of all frequencies. I should have said "effectively for the purposes of this test, because it's TRENDS that are important, rather than absolutes". But that's kind of wordy, don't ya' think? Remember, the next smart-ass comment about something I didn't even say gets a SMACK!

 

[blr]

Mike, just a question:
Are you always that angry?
We've been comunicating through these forums for about 18 months now (if I remember correctly, may be even more) and you always sound like this.
Not an irony or attack intended, just a question although completely off topic (sorry).

 

[Mike Walker]

I'm not angry, BLR. Simply right. Always (THAT WAS A JOKE, GEEZ!) LOL! Note the "devil" faces when I make my more outrageous comments (such as "gets a smack". Really, you didn't think I meant that, did you? Sweden is too far for a smack, anyway!)

What I do hate is knowing that I'm right, and not getting everyone else to acknowledge it! (KIDDING!) With this in mind, I have prepared the following examples which everyone can download and listen to, PROVING how audible peaks in response are, and proving that there's no difference of usefulness of white or pink noise for the tests. A note on the page before you go there. There are four noise samples. One is pure white noise. The next pure pink noise. Then there's white noise with a 3khz high-q peak, and pink noise with a 3khz high-q peak. Note that the peak is easily discernable with either white or pink noise (which was my point). But note that this IS an excellent way to spot peaks in frequency response! Note how WITH THE PEAK, both pink and white noise take on a discernable "pitch".

Click on the link, download the files, and listen for yourself! Noise Samples at The Production Room Dot Net

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Remember, the next dumb-ass comment about something I did say gets a SMACK!

So smack me, Mike, oh, smack me hard... uurrgh!!

Quote:

Oh, and people DO NOT HEAR peaks at 400hz and 4khz, BECAUSE THESE ARE A PART OF OUR HEARING! Resonances/response peaks in our hearing are BUILT IN. Our brains know that they're there, and automatically tune them out (just as when sitting in a crowded room with twenty people talking, we can selectively tune into just the voice we are interested in, ignoring the others).

Of course the peaks are tuned out--because a natural acoustic environment does not consist of white / pink noise or an even distribution of all frequencies!

You must check out some sites describing the Fletcher-Munson curve. Those *curves* mean that different dB SPLs are required at different frequencies to produce the same *subjective* perception of loudness. Conversely, the *same* dB SPLs at different frequencies can produce *different* perceptions of loudness.

SO THERE GOES YOUR THEORY OF US TUNING OUT OUR RESPONSE PEAKS! MUAHAHAHAHA

AND THE NEXT PERSON WHO MAKES DUMB-ASS CHALLENGES ABOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN HEARING GETS A SMACK! AND ANOTHER! AND A SPANKING!

har har har HAR