[Joe Bloggs]

Nice sig you have ai0tron... it's like putting a disclaimer after every post you make.

 

[Atomicarnage]

Oh, I'm sorry, I ment mike. Have you heard the HD-280's? Well I suggest you do that before recommending *cough* sonys to this poor fellow. If you looked at the reviews here at head-fi, as well as the one on headroom you would see that they clearly kick ass (that of Sony's v6's included). And since his price range is $100 or less they fit in perfectly under that price. I really like my sennies, and so does everyone else who owns them, can the same be said for the sony's?


Place to buy 280's

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Atomicarnage, Mike has said in these forums recently that he hasn't heard the HD 280 PRO's yet.

 

[BenG]

http://audioadvisor.com/store/imagev...ku=SENHD280PRO

 

[Tweertinelle]

Quote:

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! . . . 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!)

I'm quite fond of Mr. Bloggs and normally find his DIY take on audiophilia fascinating. However, as a veteran studio whore, I have to agree with Mr. Walker. I have been a studio musician for most of my life and can tell you that half the reason people use bright equipment is to test what a recording will sound like on inferior equipment. Just as we master for the radio by using a little too much compression and sweetening, so the wretched Yamaha NS-10 speaker was favored in NY studios in the eighties; so Arthur Baker tested his mixes on a $40.00 blaster in the lounge of Intergalactic, where Planet Rock was recorded.

The other half of the reason? As Walker said, you need to hear your recording, warts and all -- the last thing you want is for things to sound better than they actually do.

I can also tell you that V6s have been ubiquitous in many of the places I've worked. They're just flat and unforgiving enough to be really useful at mixing time. The most horrible studio gig I've ever had was recording karoake tracks for Rock Video, International. The Japanese guys who A/B'd our tracks against the originals always used V6s and their ears were clinical (one of them was nicknamed Ear of Dog).

What Walker says here is not only true, it is even conventional wisdom in a studio situation (in my experience, at least). Also: Engineers and programmers tend to use whatever is widespread for the simple reason that they want to be compatible with everyone else.

But hey, I'm in my thirties and might be older than some studio people here. Things might be different in younger and hungrier studios.

 

[Mike Walker]

To answer Atomicarnage, I haven't heard the HD-280 pro. I probably will eventually buy a pair out of curiosity, but doubt they'll REPLACE the 7506 in my studio!

As for knowing that they "clearly kick ass" because of what people have said here, on Headwize, or on the f@@@ing lunar surface, I must emphasize that I don't "know" ANYTHING because someone else says it. I "KNOW" things because of my own experiences. Frankly I don't give a damn, and will NEVER change my opinion of a piece of audio gear because of something someone else says. If something sounds right TO ME, yet everyone else screams that "it's wrong, it's wrong", I WILL CONTINUE TO USE IT, and recommend it. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but you CANNOT CHANGE MY MIND about how something sounds, or how useful it is with words. I decide these things for myself ONLY based upon WHAT I HEAR!

I read the forums here primarily for fun. I've got to say, NOTHING I've read here has EVER changed my opinion of how something SOUNDS! I have the confidence in myself to trust my own judgements above those of ANYONE else

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Good points, Tweertinelle--I guess I was just fooled by the non-studio guys around here into thinking that people in the studio actually wanted accurate equipment with flat frequency response

 

[Mike Walker]

Joe Bloggs, just because a headphone errs on bright/analytical side of neutrality doesn't make it any less accurate than devices which err on the "laid back" side. BOTH are, strictly speaking, wrong. But don't forget that there is no such thing as a perfectly accurate headphone! All deviate in some way. For pro audio use, we simply choose devices which deviate on one side of the line rather than the other. We err on the side of allowing more detail to be easily audible. This should surprise nobody! And it doesn't mean that we don't seek accuracy! If you think it does, then you truly don't understand what those of us who make our money "behind the board" do. The ultimate goal is producing a sound which SELLS, not which matches some abstract view of "accuracy".

 

[Joe Bloggs]

If I understand correctly, Tweertinelle was referring to my suggestion that EQ be used to neutralize the frequency response of studio equipment when you're striving for frequency balance in the final mix...

EQ could have been used to make the frequency response more accurate, and I thought this would be important at least for achieving the right balance of all sources and EQs in the final mix, if not for evaluating the soundstage and detail and stuff (which many claim are degraded by EQ--but you have to use EQ in the mix itself, so what the heck?

)

But since you and Tweert provided such good arguments against it, I thought I could safely drop the idea and come to the understanding that you don't need EQ to make the phones more accurate in order to improve the mixing quality.

In this thread I had never made any phones suggestions, nor questioned your choice of the 7506 as your studio cans.

Finally...

Quote:

And it doesn't mean that we don't seek accuracy!

Quote:

The ultimate goal is producing a sound which SELLS, not which matches some abstract view of "accuracy".

Also note:
Quote:

From Tweertinelle: I have been a studio musician for most of my life and can tell you that half the reason people use bright equipment is to test what a recording will sound like on inferior equipment. Just as we master for the radio by using a little too much compression and sweetening, so the wretched Yamaha NS-10 speaker was favored in NY studios in the eighties; so Arthur Baker tested his mixes on a $40.00 blaster in the lounge of Intergalactic, where Planet Rock was recorded.

See? Hm I'm passing the ball over to my good friend Tweert; (

) if you want to dispute this last part you'll have to address him--I'm certainly not in any position to answer

Judging by his post count you might have some trouble reaching him though

 

[Mike Walker]

I admit that those quotes (of mine) about accuracy SEEM contradictory. But they're really not. Perhaps I should have worded them better. Something like this, maybe

"We DO seek accuracy in studio monitoring gear, but that doesn't mean that some abstract view of "accuracy" is the goal for the mix itself. Far from it! Successful engineers are those who produce mixes which SELL! For comparison, consider the old 3 strip Technicolor process. The colors produced by this process certainly weren't ACCURATE! Not by a long shot. But they were BEAUTIFUL! And the BEAUTY of Technicolor sold many movie tickets, just as the "BEAUTY" of great recordings sells many cds!"

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I take it you have no objection against the rest of what I said?

 

[Mike Walker]

Joe Bloggs, if you're asking if I agree with the quote from Tweetertinelle about why "inferior" monitoring gear is used (OFTEN), of course I do. That's exactly right! While it's great if a recording sounds good on audiophile gear (it SHOULD), it's significantly more important (from a monitary point of view!) that it sound great on a boombox, Walkman, car stereo, table clock radio, etc. Mixes absolutely MUST hold up on the kind of gear on which most listening is done (by real people, not "audiophiles")

Wanna' quit arguing and have a beer?

 

[scrypt]

That's what I like to hear, gentlemen. Let's to billiards.

 

[hebjam]

Has anyone tried the sony 7509 vs. the 7506? Any improvement?

 

[kwkarth]

7509? Giant step downward in audio quality. They sound as bad as the 7506's sound good, maybe even worse than that. I've only listened to them a few times and every time I almost couldn't believe how awful they sounded. Truly the right can for brain dead, tone deaf head banging people that want to spend close to 200 bucks for 5 buck sound. I hope I haven't been too vague. On second thought, I might have understated my case...