[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatique /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mentioned in the original post that my reference monitors are Klein + Hummel O 300D's, in an acoustically treated studio.

Nice, did you compare them to the Adams?

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice, did you compare them to the Adams?

When I shopped for my reference monitors, I tested a bunch of them side-by-side, but unfortunately, I did not get to get any Adams or Genelecs. I did get to test Dynaudio, Focal, JBL, Digidesign...etc though.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatique /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I shopped for my reference monitors, I tested a bunch of them side-by-side, but unfortunately, I did not get to get any Adams or Genelecs. I did get to test Dynaudio, Focal, JBL, Digidesign...etc though.

Between all of them I like the Focal the most, and the small Genelecs the bigger ones are to boomy. I hope to get the chance to check out the Klein. The most impress I was with the Adams S3-A (and not with the 5/7/11).

Start with the K-702 or the HD-800 on the SPL Phonitor amp, and you will know better what fit you best. The K-1000 are very impressive in the mids area and sound stage but not much under 50Hz.

 

[Lunatique]

After reading a bunch more threads from various places, it seems that even though there are some disagreements, but majority of the people seem to think that:

K701/702 - Are a bit bright in the lower high's/upper mid's, and not enough body in the lower mid's/upper low's, even if it does reach down into deep bass.

HD650 - Very similar to the HD555, but with more bass. Opinions are divided about whether it sounds natural and smooth and detailed, or it has bloated bass and veiled high's. Some say the extra bass simulates how we can fee the low frequencies with speakers, but I don't know if the 650 can really emulate that or it simply just sounds bloated in the bass.

HD600 - It seems to be the more favored one (could be because it's been around longer and more people have them). Some prefer the 600 to the 650, saying the bass is more neutral and the high's are less veiled (I know this to be true since I've tested the HD555 against the 600 in the past and the only real difference was the 555 has the high's rolled off and thus sounds warmer).

So it looks like the HD600 might be more suited for me? I could do this "online research" forever and never make up my mind since people have different opinions. I need to pull the trigger eventually. Man I wish I could have access to all three models and test them side-by-side.

I also noticed that some say the K601 is like a hybrid of the HD6XX and the K70X, which sounds almost too good to be true? If that's the case, then maybe the 601 would be a strong candidate.

 

[Adda]

The best thing about the K240DF is that it doesn't sound in any particular way as it doesn't impose a certain sound to the music, what you hear is a result of your audio system and whats being played.
This means it requires a neutral DAC/AMP setup, to sound right.
It has a big soundstage, that can both be upfront and laid back, depending on how the music has been made, no soundstage is imposed on the music, the DF lets you create the soundstage yourself.
It's treble is just right, it gives you a great amount of detail and is highly extended.
As for it's bass, when amped properly, it has all the bass needed, it just doesn't scream you in the face, it's very suttle.
It is capable of doing sub bass, you just have to listen carefully to hear it, but it's there and good enough to let you produce great bass.
If the DF sounds bass less it's not the fault of the headphone, it's because the bass in what you listen to is poorly made, you'll figure this out by listening to a lot of different music, some of it has a lot, some doesn't have any at all.
The mids are the classic AKG mids and do it's job to perfection, great clarity, detail and silky smoothness.
Some might say the DF is thin and bright sounding, I disagree, it is by no means dark, it's just bright enough to let you hear sibilance easily if present.
If the DF's sound thin and lifeless, it's not amped properly.
It can be difficult to get used to the DF's neutrality, most headphones have a colored sound and that is what most people are used to hearing.
The DF's lets you hear the dramatic differences in various bands ways of producing their music, something I haven't been able to hear so clearly on any other sound system I have ever heard.

Edit: As for speed, the DF's can easily reproduce complex passages clearly and without muddiness.
They also have great instrument separation, there is plenty of room between instruments and you can easily follow instruments hidden in the background.
Also the DF's are not meant to sound pleasing, they are meant to be diffuse-field equalized and to adhere to the international IRT standard for neutral sound reproduction.

 

[lejaz]

Nice review! can't wait to hear mine with a proper amp that brings out the bass potential.

 

[Adda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lejaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice review! can't wait to hear mine with a proper amp that brings out the bass potential.

Thanks, our conversations have really opened my ears and helped me listen much more carefully to what what I'm hearing.
To learn to play ball, someone has to throw a ball at you

 

[Lunatique]

OK, I just went over Headroom's explanation of how to read the charts again, and double checked all the charts (square wave, sine wave, frequency response...etc), and all the candidates performed quite well in all the other categories, and only really differ in frequency response. So I made a screencap of their FR and then in Photoshop drew a white FR graph that reflects the "ideal" FR according to Headroom's description of what the most natural sound should look like (3~4db hump in the 40Hz~500Hz range, gentle slope of -8~10db starting from 1KHz to 20Khz, and preferably with some small dips in the 2Khz~8Khz range). So, if the perfect headphone existed, it should look very similar to the white line I drew:

(The black lines are markers for the points where the humps and slops and dips should start/end.)

So I studied that chart and then also compared it to the FR graph of the headphones I own or have owned and know well, to extrapolate reference information based on past experiences and how they relate to the graphs. My conclusion right now is that the K701 should be eliminated due to the unnatural hump in the 6~9Khz region, and the fact that it does not start gently sloping down at 1Khz. I think that explains the often complained "too bright" sound. It's upper bass isn't all that great either, and doesn't extend as low as the 601 (which on paper looks better than the 701).

So now it's down to the HD600, 650, and K601.

The K601 doesn't bump as high in the 40Hz~500Hz region as it ideally should, but it extends really low (-2db at 20Hz, which is remarkably deep), and it's treble slope actually looks pretty smooth, although the highest top end sharply drops off, so the most delicate sizzle won't be there (and probably won't be missed by most adults with average hearing ability anyway).

The HD600 has almost the classic ideal in the bass region, and it's treble region averages out to be really good--almost ideal also. No wonder many consider it the ideal classic standard in which to judge others by.

The HD650's bass is definitely humped more than ideal and extends very deep like the 601. I like that it extends very deep, but I'm not sure how that extra hump above the ideal 3~4db sounds like since I have never heard the 650. The treble looks fine to me, and has that sharp drop off just like the 601, which I guess explains why some people feel it's a bit too laid back and warm.

(BTW, when I looked at the HD800's graph, I can see why the guys at Headroom has crowned it as the best--it's got really amazing ideal FR. But it's way over my budget.)

So, I have to choose among the HD600, 650, and K601. Any more advice?

 

[BoilermakerFan]

I'm an AKG fanboy, so I'm biased...

I sold my K601s only because I received an offer I really could not refuse and my particular pair of K401s (purchased a year later) were similar, but just more involving with more bass and enjoyment for me, but the 401s are not as neutral compared to the K601s. The K601s were my very first headphone after I joined H-F. I chose them over the K701s because of that treble bump in the K701s. I never regretted my purchase and they really do become better with burn-in. The 500 hour recommendation from the K701s carries over to the 601s, though around 100-200 hours is when I heard the biggest improvement in bass and smoothing of the highs Then they just kept getting better. Mine had around 350 hours when I sold them.

I really like the K240DFs too, just a hair behind my K401s, but well above my Sextetts. I upgraded to JMoney K240 leather ear pads and it bumped the bass up a bit and opened up the cans a bit because the pads seal better and move the ears away from the driver another 5mm or so. I have no way to measure their response with stock vs. JMoney pads though I wish I could to see if actually registers any differently. The DFs were designed to be a Studio Monitor and are labeled as such, but they are far more enjoyable to listen to than stock Fostex T50RPs sold for the same purpose.

 

[Cool_Torpedo]

Lunatique, you got the charts, you heard them... I think you already know the ones you "need" hehehe

 

[Acix]

lol, How do you know all this information about the K-702 even before you heard them.
To have your own experience it's okay....

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif lol, How do you know all this information about the K-702 even before you heard them. To have your own experience it's okay....

Because I can look at the graphs for the headphones I have owned and heard and currently own and study how the graphs correlate to my own experience with them, and then that forms my point of reference. I have yet to disagree with any of the graphs, so that means the graphs do reflect what I heard of those headphones, and no cognitive dissonance means I can trust those graphs.

Then, it's simply a matter of looking at the graphs of headphones I have not heard and compare them to the graphs of the headphones I have heard. If the K701 shows similar spike in the treble region as the Beyerdynamic DT880, then I know it will have that sharpness/brightness that I didn't like about the DT880. Those graphs don't lie.

I noticed that you defend the 702's pretty passionately, and I think that's cool, but one thing people always forget is that we have different hearing abilities.

Many people have damaged hearing in only particular frequencies, so that means they have holes in their frequency range. For example, someone who played loud guitar or violin for years will have damage in the region of those instruments' frequency range. Or if one day you accidentally turned on the stereo at full-blast and you were right next to the speakers. Or maybe you didn't wear hearing protection at the front row of a rock concert--so many people forget they don't have perfect hearing. Even riding on a loud train or airplane a lot will cause permanent damage in certain frequency ranges.

If people have damage in the same frequency range as the spiked treble or bass of some headphone, then they won't think it's too bright or too lean in the bass. If the damage is in the range of any dips in a headphone's FR, then the weakness of that phone will seem really dramatic to them. Why this is not talked about and used as the standard explanation for people disagreeing passionately about headphones or speakers is beyond me. It's so simple of an explanation but no one seems to want to bring it up.

The only way for us to really discuss these things with absolute certainty that we are hearing the same thing is for us to all take a listening test and we all have the same results--which is impossible, so, I tend to trust the graphs more when I see people have conflicting opinions on a headphone or speaker. The graphs are generated by scientific methods and as long as I can see the graphs of phones I already have heard, I can generate my own reference points.

 

[CherryBomb]

My HP-1s may do the trick. Neutral as heck.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatique /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then, it's simply a matter of looking at the graphs of headphones I have not heard and compare them to the graphs of the headphones I have heard. If the K701 shows similar spike in the treble region as the Beyerdynamic DT880, then I know it will have that sharpness/brightness that I didn't like about the DT880. Those graphs don't lie.

Well...this is my point! They maybe have some similar spikes, and yet they sound different.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I like how meticulous you are going about this Lunatique. Really doing your homework! I think you are at the point where you need to buy one, and then if worst comes to worst, youll have a new reference point to make more extrapolations and etc etc