[Sonic Defender]

  I've found another factor when EQ'ing headphones that screws everything up-ear canal and pinnae size.
 
I built a binaural microphone. Recorded over 40 headphones and analyzed frequency responses:
 
But when I switched to my present design, with larger pinnae and deeper ear canals, not only did the frequency responses for all 40 plus headphones change, but there were also soundstage differences. 
 
This could explain why people have different preferences with headphones, or why someone hears one totally different from someone else. 
I know there are custom IEMs that address this issue, but I never cared much about them. May be something I'll look into in the future........

I wonder how the material the dummy head is made of factors into things? The human ear is not hard and reflective like plastic. Beautiful studio space by the way, must be fantastic to enjoy music in.

 

[bartlett]

   
You probably remember what I said in the past about the mids of the MT220 changing for me depending on where my ears were in the pads. In the middle or back, the mids were too recessed, but when I moved my ears to the front, the mids became more upfront as well. I have smaller ears. Those with larger ears did not notice a difference at all with this, because there wasn't room for their ears to move around inside the pads.
 
One headphone that did not change no matter where I placed my ears was the HD 800.

 
I experienced this same thing. I noticed that moving the fit towards the rear-end offered a larger soundstage.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I experienced this same thing. I noticed that moving the fit towards the rear-end offered a larger soundstage.

 
I didn't like the mids until they were more upfront with my ears in the front, and I don't care about soundstage. I say all the time that the difference in soundstage between open headphones is almost nothing; even less so for closed ones.

 

[harry501501]

Hey, anyone able to compare sound of the MT220s with Soundmagic HP100?

 

[harry501501]

Quite enjoying the HPH200. It has a wonderful soundstage, the first thing i noticed straight out of the box. It has great depth and width, 3d like. It spaces out vocals and instruments very well. I agree that it layers music well. Bass really surprised me, I didn't expect that. It follows the same bass weight and resolution I got from the EPH-100 iem. It gets less boomier the longer you listen to them.
 
Detail wise I'm not sure yet. They seem a little veiled out of the box, but unlike other sets i have that have much better clarity, the huge soundstage places instruments and sounds differently to what I'm used to which in itself is letting me hear certain sounds i hadn't heard before. it's weird. Not the normal more obvious detail.
 
Quite bright out of the box, but settles with burn in.
 
They are very dynamic, drums have wonderful punch. Guitars also have great note clarity. Live music and acoustic sessions are lots of fun.
 
I'll probably go for the Mt220 next... at payday

 

[harry501501]

Quite easy listening sound. Engaging

 

[Music Alchemist]

@TWerk
 
Oh, snap. I forgot to ask for your comparison of the HPH-200 to the HPH-MT220 now that you have both.

 

[TWerk]

So I'm terrible at writing comparisons. I'm more of a "listen for awhile and let my ears tell me if i like the sound" kinda guy.
 
That being said, I own HPH-200, MT220, and EPH-100 right now.
 
My favorite (might surprise you) is the EPH-100. Seriously, they are just about perfect in terms of sound signature for me.
 
I love their punchy bass, warm smooth mids,  and the highs are sparkly as I like them, but certainly on the tame side. The treble sparkle is exactly where I like it where they are not fatiguing but add excitement to my music. The sound has a great 3-d immersive presentation. These things are just tight and punchy and exciting and sound great to me. I like these more than most full size headphones I've had, the sound signature is just spot on. Every time, these buds make me happy.
 
The HPH-200 is warm-ish. The treble is there, but it's not overly done. They can be a bit sibilant though. For the price these are in the US, these are a steal. I am also impressed by their soundstage. The width is quite excellent. Like the EPH-100, they play perfectly without any amp. Detail isn't the best, but again, for the price you cannot complain. Bass can a little on the loose/boomy side. It's impressive that you get this much bass on an open-back, but it's not always controlled ideally.
 
The MT-220 is not as warm as the two others. More treble, more sharpness, more detail. These give you a lot of detail. Somewhat sibilant or sharp to me at times. I think someone described the treble as a bit icy, and that sounds like a good way to describe it. These have nice bass.  These are more neutral, but not in a boring way. They are very impressive in terms of detail retrieval and the fact they are closed makes them versatile.
 
I've always been more of a listener than someone who cares very much about technicalities. I like a pleasurable listening experience above all. This is why I really like the EPH-100, as it gives me that listening pleasure. I'm appreciating the MT-220, but it is a little bit more analytical and serious to me than the EPH-100 and HPH-200.
 
All three of these are great headphones and represent great value. I think my whole description above is more to say that MT-220 is the more serious headphone - which makes sense considering it is categorized as a monitoring headphone. The other two are consumer oriented.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  So I'm terrible at writing comparisons. I'm more of a "listen for awhile and let my ears tell me if i like the sound" kinda guy.
 
That being said, I own HPH-200, MT220, and EPH-100 right now.
 
My favorite (might surprise you) is the EPH-100. Seriously, they are just about perfect in terms of sound signature for me.
 
I love their punchy bass, warm smooth mids,  and the highs are sparkly as I like them, but certainly on the tame side. The treble spikes are exactly where I like them where they are not fatiguing but add excitement to my music. The sound has a great 3-d immersive presentation. These things are just tight and punchy and exciting and sound great to me. I like these more than most full size headphones I've had, the sound signature is just spot on. Every time, these buds make me happy.
 
The HPH-200 is warm-ish. The treble is there, but it's not overly done. They can be a bit sibilant though. For the price these are in the US, these are a steal. I am also impressed by their soundstage. The width is quite excellent. Like the EPH-100, they play perfectly without any amp. Detail isn't the best, but again, for the price you cannot complain. Bass is a little on the loose/boomy side.
 
The MT-220 is not as warm as the two others. More treble, more sharpness, more detail. These give you a lot of detail. Somewhat sibilant or sharp to me. I think someone described the treble as a bit icy, and that sounds like a good way to describe it. These have nice bass.  These are more neutral, but not in a boring way. They are very impressive in terms of detail retrieval and the fact they are closed makes them versatile.
 
I've always been more of a listener than someone who cares very much about technicalities. I like a pleasurable listening experience above all. This is why I really like the EPH-100, as it gives me that listening pleasure. I'm appreciating the MT-220, but it is a little bit more analytical and serious to me than the EPH-100 and HPH-200, which are there for pleasure listening.
 
All three of these are great headphones and represent great value. I think my whole description above is more to say that MT-220 is the more serious headphone - which makes sense considering it is categorized as a monitoring headphone. The other two are consumer oriented.
 
What's most exciting to me ATM? I've ordered the Focal Elear - can't wait to give them a try. 

 
I'm the one who always describes the MT220's treble as icy.

But it's not nearly as harsh and sibilant as, say, a Sony MDR-7506. The MT220's treble is only slightly bright; not enough to bother me.
 
Unfortunately, what you described doesn't tell me enough. Can you list the things the EPH-100 and HPH-200 do better than the MT220? Also specify whether you think they're more accurate in those categories or less accurate in a more pleasing way.

 

[TWerk]

That's why I said I can't describe it I'm just not good at it.
 
It's just sound signature preference. The MT-220, by comparison, sounds a little more neutral and lean whereas the other two are more rich and warm. It's got more treble sharpness. The EPH 100 has a more punchy bass to my ears. I think the MT-220 bass is focused lower down, and I prefer the punch to the lower bass extension.
 
I think the mids are more lush on both the MT-200 and the EPH-100.
 
The MT-220 instead has more treble extension. The MT-220 is not sharp on everything, just on some stuff, whereas the HPH-200 and EPH-100 are more relaxed and smooth in the treble so as to tame any edgy tracks where the MT-220 let's you hear it. And as a can designed for monitoring, it should allow you to hear it.
 
It almost sounds like I don't like the MT-220, but that's not the case at all. It's a great listen. Just back to back comparisons would not have them on top of one of my favorite sound sigs of all time- which is the EPH-100. 
 
It goes to show price does not always make the difference... I prefer my EPH-100 to many full sized cans that were much more expensive (many, many times) the price of them.

 

[Decommo]

Just got ATH-MSR7 and briefly compared with MT220. Here is very quick comparison.
 
Bass : MT220 > MSR7 (MSR7 has tight bass but I prefer MT220's liquid bass)
Mid: MSR7 > MT220 (MSR7 has more mid forwarded and hear clearer vocal.
Treble: Even. (MSR7 has better clarity and extends further so ideal for critical listening but a bit fatiguing. MT220 has also clear high but smoother so better for longer listening session).
Comfort: MT220 > MSR7 (MSR7 has smaller earcups and headband press harder so MT220 is much more comfortable.
Sound Leak: MT220 > MSR7 (To my surprise, MT220 leaks less sound at same volume. MSR7 has air vent on top of each ear cup and leaks sound when volume gets above certain level).
 
I just wish that there is a mod that I can swivel earcup to 90 degrees and make it detachable cable on MT220 instead so it can be more portable. Then, it would be perfect.  

 

[Music Alchemist]

  That's why I said I can't describe it I'm just not good at it.
 
It's just sound signature preference. The MT-220, by comparison, sounds more neutral and lean whereas the other two are more rich and warm. It's got more treble sharpness. The EPH 100 has a more punchy bass to my ears. I think the MT-220 bass is focused lower down, and I prefer the punch to the lower bass.
 
I think the mids are more lush on both the MT-200 and the EPH-100.
 
The MT-220 instead has more treble extension. The MT-220 is not sharp on everything, just on some stuff, whereas the HPH-200 and EPH-100 are more relaxed and smooth in the treble so as to tame any edgy tracks where the MT-220 let's you hear it. And as a can designed for monitoring, it should allow you to hear it.

 
Wow, punchier bass than the MT220, and in an IEM?

 
Are you sure you tested this with lots of really punchy music? Because the MT220 is one of the punchiest headphones I've heard. It even shook my head sometimes.

 

[TWerk]

You've gotta try the EPH-100 and see for yourself
 
Yep, I think they do have the punchier bass. I got the MT-220 brand new, so maybe it needs more break in to let the punchy bass out, but idk. 
 
I've also got the Pro 900's, so I know a thing or two about thumpy-bass!
 
The thing is too - these 3 are all such good values, you can own all three of them (like me!!) and it's really not a huge investment.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  You've gotta try the EPH-100 and see for yourself
 
Yep, I think they do have the punchier bass. I got the MT-220 brand new, so maybe it needs more break in to let the punchy bass out, but idk. 
 
I've also got the Pro 900's, so I know a thing or two about thumpy-bass!
 
The thing is too - these 3 are all such good values, you can own all three of them (like me!!) and it's really not a huge investment.

 
Well, I was just a little curious. As far as bass impact goes, I'm more interested in taking it to the extreme:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/716711/the-hardest-hitting-headphones-are-the-extreme-bass-club

 

[TWerk]

I'm a fan of a certain type of bass response. Idk exactly where the emphasis is cause I'm dumb, but I really enjoy the spot the EPH-100 hits and also my Pro 900's. 
 
I think I'm a mid/upper basshead.