So I'm definitely interested in hearing about both hobbyist head-fi HP comaparison gear, and pro audio options.
As bigshot said, from the hobbyist side, it’s whatever makes you happy. It’s a fair bit less simple when it comes to “pro audio options” and unfortunately, the two sides of this coin (hobbyist and pro use) are not completely independent.
While personal perception is always a large part of the story, it plays an even larger part with HPs because relatively small differences, say the HP’s fit, HRTF considerations, etc., can have a disproportionately large impact on perception. Going back to the previous paragraph, we tend to acclimatise and develop a personal “baseline” to what we’re most used to. For example, HPs with a bit higher bass response will very possibly “make you happy” as a hobbyist listener but then switching to studio type HPs (like your Sony’s for example) will sound particularly bass light in comparison and if you use your hobbyist HPs frequently enough for them to be your “baseline”, it’s very likely you will add a little too much bass when mixing using your Sony’s, even if you’re aware of the issue.
As a general rule, it’s not recommended to mix using HPs, there are just so many personal/individual perceptual issues involved, it’s very likely you’ll end up with a mix that is fairly seriously flawed on a wider range of playback scenarios. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to create a good mix using cans but few manage to.
With that said, there’s nothing at all wrong with your Sony’s. They’re pretty common in pro audio use because they cover quite a wide range of use scenarios, for example they’re very decent for live sound, tracking monitoring, broadcast use and other purposes. Not sure they’re particularly good as reference cans or for mixing though. Personally, I use Senn HD 600’s as reference cans because they’re quite common (or at least quite representative) with consumers of higher quality HPs, while being relatively neutral and revealing. Quite a few other studio pros use them for the same reasons. I also use a set of Apple IEMs for reference checking but should mention that I work primarily with surround these days so don’t use cans professionally as much as I once did.
Although it’s not easy to arrange, it’s certainly beneficial to spend some time with some high-end electrostatics if you can. I spent several days working with Stax Lambdas many years ago and believe that still has some influence on my decision making when referencing on cans today. It might also be a good idea to use an EQ correction curve to bring whatever cans you use in line with the Harmon curve and then check your mixes both with this correction engaged and disengaged. Something else that might be a good idea to try is some of the HP correction plugins. These vary considerably from relatively simple crossfeed plugins to EQ correction with specific speaker/room emulation. Personally, they don’t do it for me but the Sonarworks (and some other) plugins are gaining traction with some pros.
With all the above, there’s arguably no such thing as a “baseline” or “reference” system when it comes to cans. Just cans which you personally like more or enable you personally to work better. That’s why some objective measurements are essential IMO.
CAVEAT: Much of the above is personal opinion informed by my personal HRTF (and other perceptual effects) and therefore for you, could be anything from “spot on” to the exact opposite!
Regarding your MOTU ADC/DAC: This is a non-issue. Audibly it won’t make any difference at all using this fairly budget option vs a TOTL pro ADC/DAC. Some of the analogue functionality might make an audible difference though, under certain circumstances. The mic-preamps for example will likely not be particularly good at high gain settings and of course the HP output will likely not be appropriate (power or impedance) for some HPs.
G
lol
