[nanaholic]

Well, headphones like the AKG K240, HD 600, HD 650 and the HD 800 are used by studio's so you could say that they are balanced / neutral.

Not saying that the HD 800 doesn't have an annoying peak though.

Used by studios doesn't really mean anything. Also aren't some of the most used studio headphones, at least by singers during recording, are like old Beyers DTs and Sony MDR CD900ST? Which is triple ironic because they are usually closed headphones!

I honestly doubt any studio uses HD800 either

 

[Naim.F.C]

Used by studios doesn't really mean anything. Also aren't some of the most used studio headphones are like old Beyers DTs and Sony MDR CD900ST?

I honestly doubt any studio uses HD800.

To further add to your point, pretty sure Dr Dre and some others in his team use Beats By Dre headphones in the studio from time to time too, which might explain why the mastering on albums like Compton is so poor.

 

[up late]

You state the midrange doesn't dip below flat, as if that makes any difference in the full context. Whether the midrange drops below flat on the Harmon chart doesn't change the fact that other parts of the frequency (bass, upper mids and highs) are markedly bumped up and boosted in comparison to the mids, which would ultimately have the same audible or sonic result as mids being recessed. You could simply drop the entire line in the chart, so that the bass frequencies were the flat reference point, and sure enough in comparison, the mids would be recessed. It's the full context that matters above all.

Also, I'm not arguing that the Z1R is the flattest of all of the headphones, on the contrary, the whole point of my post was that it doesn't matter which is the flattest, because being the flattest in frequency terms has little to do with sounding ideal, balanced or closest to reference. Which is "flattest' is an arbitrary point that has no real relevance to deciding what or which headphones sound best, hence the reason I posted the Harmon targets, which are anything but flat.

Also, to your last point, of course I can logically argue what constitutes as my own idea of "neutral" or "balanced", and the degree to which I disagree or agree wth other users or journalists about this, because such a notion is, as mentioned, entirely subjective.

The example I gave is how Tyll and many others, originally described the HD800's as "extremely well balanced", some argued it was "neutral", "highly accurate" etc, but yet some of these same people then went out of their way to heavily mod, EQ tweak or adapt their HD800's, to the point where the entire sonic signature was markedly different, which to me highlights that the HD800's were never actually as accurate or well balanced as some originally made them out to be, and in fact many of the (mostly early) subjective opinions or impressions were, in my opinion, somewhat inaccurate.

if a headphone measured against the harman target curve (or any another target curve for that matter) has a midrange that dips below flat then it is more recessed than the reference or the "ideal". likewise if the headphone departs from the curve in other areas. you can eq the headphone to more closely align with the target curve, but to manipulate the fr curve to flatter the headphone's fr defeats the purpose of having an objective reference in the first place.

i'm not sure what you're arguing about tbh. you posted a comparative frequency response chart which indicated that the z1r had the most uneven frequency response of four totl headphones and suggested that it could be interpreted otherwise, which is silly. why bother referring to fr charts at all if you're going to interpret the results to suit your own purposes?

the problem with your argument is that you're using the terms "neutral", "balanced" and "highly accurate" without having a point of reference other than your own, which is entirely subjective. consequently, those terms are ultimately only meaningful to you. it's pointless to argue that other folks have an incorrect understanding or interpretation of what they mean sonically if you don't have an objective reference to compare them to. if you're assuming a subjectivist position on this, which is what you appear to be doing, then you shouldn't even bother with trying to prove that you are right and others are wrong, incorrect, inaccurate etc.

with regard to the hd800, it is universally regarded as a technically impressive headphone that measures exceptionally well but isn't without its flaws - no headphone is. it has the notorious 6khz peak which is well documented and can be problematic for some folks. however, objectively it exhibits fewer technical flaws than the z1r for example. the hd800 measures "better" overall and this really shouldn't be up for debate. the fact that some folks don't like the hd800 while others are fans is a matter of subjective perception and personal preference. the same goes for the z1r and every other headphone on the planet.

 

[ubs28]

Used by studios doesn't really mean anything. Also aren't some of the most used studio headphones, at least by singers during recording, are like old Beyers DTs and Sony MDR CD900ST? Which is triple ironic because they are usually closed headphones!

I honestly doubt any studio uses HD800 either

Labels like The Sound Liaison and 2L are using the HD 800 for their mastering. Also there are artists like Aviic who use the HD 800.

But if you think headphones like the AKG K240, HD 600, HD 650 and HD 800 are not used by studio's, than keep believing that.

 

[Rowethren]

The Beyerdynamic DT770 are one of the most used studio headphones, I assume the 250ohm version, and I can assure you after owning a pair and having them as my main headphones for over 3 years they are most definitely not neutral . If anything they are along the same lines as the Z1R and TH900 in that they are relatively V/U shaped in signature.

 

[ubs28]

The AKG K240 is also a tiny bit V-shaped. But I guess why they were so popular is that it is dirt cheap and it is still quite neutral relatively speaking.

 

[ubs28]

To further add to your point, pretty sure Dr Dre and some others in his team use Beats By Dre headphones in the studio from time to time too, which might explain why the mastering on albums like Compton is so poor.

It would be weird if Dr. Dre his own songs would sound bad with his own headphones. I won't be suprised if Dr. Dre does check how his music sound on Beats headphones, just to be sure not to alienate his own audience

 

[nanaholic]

Labels like The Sound Liaison and 2L are using the HD 800 for their mastering. Also there are artists like Aviic who use the HD 800.

But if you think headphones like the AKG K240, HD 600, HD 650 and HD 800 are not used by studio's, than keep believing that.

I'm just saying HD800, I don't doubt the others in your list are used.

The HD800 doesn't seem like a good headphone to use for studios in general, because in studio they rather want something cheap, durable, and easily self serviceable, rather than "best performance", and these criteria are usually satisfied by the likes of Beyers and Sony and thus their huge popularity, and thus why I doubt the usage of HD800. Maybe in a very limited handful of exotic cases, but nowhere nearly as widespread as the cheaper, and often touted as non-audiophile/not hi fidelity grade, headphones.

Which still doesn't negate the original point - being used by studios really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Naim.F.C]

with regard to the hd800, it is universally regarded as a technically impressive headphone that measures exceptionally well but isn't without its flaws - no headphone is. it has the notorious 6khz peak which is well documented and can be problematic for some folks. however, it exhibits fewer technical flaws objectively than the z1r for example. the hd800 measures "better" overall and this really shouldn't be up for debate. the fact that some folks don't like the hd800 while others are fans is a matter of subjective perception and personal preference. the same goes for the z1r and every other headphone on the planet.

I might agree that the HD800 has fewer technical flaws, though in all honestly I haven't really compared them in that respect, and even technical flaws might not necessarily tell the whole story either since certain aspects might be intended by design. But on the HD800's measuring "better" than the MDR-Z1R's, I'll have to strongly disagree, just on the basis of how they sound comparatively.

I own both the HD800 and the HD800S, and have posted several comparisons between all these headphones in both this thread and others, including notes on hours worth of blind A/B comparisons. If anyone told me the HD800 measures better than the MDR-Z1R, I'd say they were subjectively wrong, and that their notion of what a "balanced" or "neutral" headphone FR was, is to my tastes and in my experience, wrong.

The HD800's sonic issues are far more glaring than the MDR-Z1R's, at least with the copies I've tested. The treble peak coupled with the lack of bass just makes them sound overall more harsh, metallic, thinner or colder sounding. And whilst the sonic signature gives them a best in class soundstage in terms of width and scope, it often does so at the expense of realism, atmosphere and accuracy. Their reproduction of certain recordings, instruments, sound effects etc, in comparison to the other headphones I own, often simply does not seem quite as realistic or tonally accurate. Especially versus real life sounds, effects, live recordings or performances etc, that I've personally experienced. Eg their sonic reproduction of certain weapons, vehicle engine notes, gear shifts, instruments, vocals etc, that I have better personal reference points of.

 

[up late]

As Naim.F.C says, what is "neutral" or "balanced" is totally subjective.

And, once again, nobody is addressing Naim's point that the HD800 was heralded - arbitrarily - as "neutral" and "balanced" by Tyll for years, despite blood pouring from the ears of those who paid attention to his reviews, comments, and Wall of Fame and then went out and spent $1700 for them.

I believe the fundamental problem here is that some reviewers do NOT have depth of experience or particular technical knowledge, and their track records go back for many years now and show a sloppy, wobbly, and, for consumers, expensive and regrettable hash.

your first point has already been addressed in this thread and elsewhere in the forum repeatedly. check out the sound science forum for informed discussion on the topic if you're at all interested.

naim.f.c's point has been addressed in my reply to his post.

some reviewer's may fit your description but certainly not all.

 

[up late]

I might agree that the HD800 has fewer technical flaws, though in all honestly I haven't really compared them in that respect, and even technical flaws might not necessarily tell the whole story either since certain aspects might be intended by design. But on the HD800's measuring "better" than the MDR-Z1R's, I'll have to strongly disagree, just on the basis of how they sound comparatively.

I own both the HD800 and the HD800S, and have posted several comparisons between all these headphones in both this thread and others, including notes on hours worth of blind A/B comparisons. If anyone told me the HD800 measures better than the MDR-Z1R, I'd say they were subjectively wrong, and that their notion of what a "balanced" or "neutral" headphone FR was, is to my tastes and in my experience, wrong.

The HD800's sonic issues are far more glaring than the MDR-Z1R's, at least with the copies I've tested. The treble peak coupled with the lack of bass just makes them sound overall more harsh, metallic, thinner or colder sounding. And whilst the sonic signature gives them a best in class soundstage in terms of width and scope, it often does so at the expense of realism, atmosphere and accuracy. Their reproduction of certain recordings, instruments, sound effects etc, in comparison to the other headphones I own, often simply does not seem quite as realistic or tonally accurate. Especially versus real life sounds, effects, live recordings or performances etc, that I've personally experienced. Eg their sonic reproduction of certain weapons, vehicle engine notes, gear shifts, instruments, vocals etc, that I have better personal reference points of.

when i refer to flaws, i'm doing so in the context of the headphone measurements which is what we've been discussing right? you can reject the measurements outright, but there really shouldn't be any disagreement over which of those two headphones measure better overall if you look at them impartially.

with respect, you're conflating your subjective perception and personal preferences with the objective measurements. i see that a lot here. again, your use of the words "balanced", "neutral" and "wrong" obviously mean something to you, but they might not to me or anyone else as I explained in my previous reply to you.

 

[kman1211]

I might agree that the HD800 has fewer technical flaws, though in all honestly I haven't really compared them in that respect, and even technical flaws might not necessarily tell the whole story either since certain aspects might be intended by design. But on the HD800's measuring "better" than the MDR-Z1R's, I'll have to strongly disagree, just on the basis of how they sound comparatively.

I own both the HD800 and the HD800S, and have posted several comparisons between all these headphones in both this thread and others, including notes on hours worth of blind A/B comparisons. If anyone told me the HD800 measures better than the MDR-Z1R, I'd say they were subjectively wrong, and that their notion of what a "balanced" or "neutral" headphone FR was, is to my tastes and in my experience, wrong.

The HD800's sonic issues are far more glaring than the MDR-Z1R's, at least with the copies I've tested. The treble peak coupled with the lack of bass just makes them sound overall more harsh, metallic, thinner or colder sounding. And whilst the sonic signature gives them a best in class soundstage in terms of width and scope, it often does so at the expense of realism, atmosphere and accuracy. Their reproduction of certain recordings, instruments, sound effects etc, in comparison to the other headphones I own, often simply does not seem quite as realistic or tonally accurate. Especially versus real life sounds, effects, live recordings or performances etc, that I've personally experienced. Eg their sonic reproduction of certain weapons, vehicle engine notes, gear shifts, instruments, vocals etc, that I have better personal reference points of.

I have to agree I honestly found the Z1R to sound more like real life than either the HD 800 or HD 800S. Though I really do like the HD 800S personally, the HD 800 was a mixed bag due to it's flaws. To me everything sounded more expressive and live on the Z1R. The Z1R caused the effect of where I thought the sound was coming from a real source more than most headphones. Compared to some headphones that have technological ties to the Z1R, the Z1R doesn't have the problem to my ears like the 1A where the pitch isn't quite right nor is it a grain-fest like the MA900. The Z1R is the first properly high fidelity headphone I've heard from Sony in a while.

 

[kman1211]

The AKG K240 is also a tiny bit V-shaped. But I guess why they were so popular is that it is dirt cheap and it is still quite neutral relatively speaking.

Ah the K240 one of my first headphones and the first one I grew attached to, honestly would still love it if it didn't have treble that bored into my ears like a knife on certain tracks. It has a midrange musicality to it that is quite addicting.

 

[Maelob]

Pardon my ignorance- Shouldn't a flawless measuring headphone be the most agreeable, enjoyable and less polarizing to most people. Has anybody done a poll with reviewers on which headphone is the most enjoyable to them? I got into the hobby because I want to enjoy my listening experience, you know get those goosebumps, play air guitar, air drums, air violin -shed the ocassional tear- lol bottom line I just want to be touched by music. Subjectively off course

 

[Whitigir]

Pardon my ignorance- Shouldn't a flawless measuring headphone be the most agreeable, enjoyable and less polarizing to most people. Has anybody done a poll with reviewers on which headphone is the most enjoyable to them? I got into the hobby because I want to enjoy my listening experience, you know get those goosebumps, play air guitar, air drums, air violin -shed the ocassional tear- lol bottom line I just want to be touched by music. Subjectively off course

There is no perfection in the universe , the best for someone is not always the best for everyone. The Majority will agree that Sennheiser HE-1 will be the best describing what you have just asked....but again, there is no perfection in the world

So the measurements even when smoothed out is still not, flawlessly FLAT. We may see another Measurement to call out that HE-1 is not Neutral or balanced, and that someone else may prefer a pair of HD800 instead.

Picture courtesy of Raypin