[Dr.Aural]

i have dt880s, how do you think they compare to the dt700pro?

Not tried them, but the 700 Pro X may have the most neutral rendition of Beyer’s. Though while highs are tamed I read there’s still some dips/‘holes’. If you like the Beyer sound they could be worth a try. I have 3 Beyers and I’m not that keen on them, the DT1990 are the best of them though.

Re the 700 Pro X, have scan through here maybe… I might even give them a whirl…

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/new-beyerdynamic-pro-x-line-dt-700-pro-x-and-dt-900-pro-x.959905/

Actually this post and the post immediately after it, seems to pin down that they are a million miles away from a DT880…

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/new...0-pro-x-and-dt-900-pro-x.959905/post-17827103

 

[Bernard23]

I recall now why I discounted Beyers from my list a while ago, the distortion levels on the 990 and 880 were unacceptably high, so EQing them would be challenging. I always use EQ both desk setup (Roon) and on the go (Toneboosters plugin) so low distortion is more important than out of the box FR curve. That's why I was so interested in the MT8, very low measured distortion. However, I found a bargin on the M50x, and they tick the right boxes so will take a punt on them I think.

 

[Bernard23]

This is the problem with the MT5, it has a big hole in the presence band. It's taken a fair bit of searching to find enough FR plots to be able to get a good idea of what needs attention. It's actually a long way from the Harman ideal, which is always a good place to start for obvious reasons.
I still think the MT8 is potentially a better device because it probably has a flatter response out of the box, and better driver so lower distortion when you start pushing the lower end.
Meantime I just bought some shure 840A and some 770 Pro 80 ohm as reference points. Former on special offer locally so had to try them.

 

[Dr.Aural]

This is the problem with the MT5, it has a big hole in the presence band. It's taken a fair bit of searching to find enough FR plots to be able to get a good idea of what needs attention. It's actually a long way from the Harman ideal, which is always a good place to start for obvious reasons.
I still think the MT8 is potentially a better device because it probably has a flatter response out of the box, and better driver so lower distortion when you start pushing the lower end.
Meantime I just bought some shure 840A and some 770 Pro 80 ohm as reference points. Former on special offer locally so had to try them.

I look forward to your comparative views on those. To me the DT-770 is just too harsh, and while the Shure 840 might be more tame it could be rather slow and muddy - I await your verdict. For a fuller and wider sounding HP to the MT5 I still give that to the Sennheiser HD280 Pro. It's somewhat of a hidden gem, well known in studios but otherwise overlooked.

The Senn HD280 is really very well rounded, possibly too much bass weight for some, though the highs are v.clear and v.smooth, swapping between the MT5 and the HD280, is like going from greyscale to full colour. The greyscale of the MT5 can be useful for constant day-long listening (and the brain does adapt and provide colour), while the HD280 gives a very full (with deep breadth), open and clear rendition without any top-end fatigue. Going from the Sennheiser HD280 to the DT-770 and I just want to bin the DT-770 immediately (I don't though, as want to keep it to make these comparisons).

The HD280 is quite comfortable, but the coiled cable is heavy which even when sitting at my desk is often difficult to manage. All in all though for a wide and full experience the HD280 is exceptional. For a closer, yes 'greyer' look, at sound the MT5. The MT8 is just too way off in terms of it's frequency tilt.

My liking of the HD280 might encourage me to look at other Sennheiser offerings, though I've done this before, invested a lot and found I already had the best of the brand.

 

[Bernard23]

I look forward to your comparative views on those. To me the DT-770 is just too harsh, and while the Shure 840 might be more tame it could be rather slow and muddy - I await your verdict. For a fuller and wider sounding HP to the MT5 I still give that to the Sennheiser HD280 Pro. It's somewhat of a hidden gem, well known in studios but otherwise overlooked.

The Senn HD280 is really very well rounded, possibly too much bass weight for some, though the highs are v.clear and v.smooth, swapping between the MT5 and the HD280, is like going from greyscale to full colour. The greyscale of the MT5 can be useful for constant day-long listening (and the brain does adapt and provide colour), while the HD280 gives a very full (with deep breadth), open and clear rendition without any top-end fatigue. Going from the Sennheiser HD280 to the DT-770 and I just want to bin the DT-770 immediately (I don't though, as want to keep it to make these comparisons).

The HD280 is quite comfortable, but the coiled cable is heavy which even when sitting at my desk is often difficult to manage. All in all though for a wide and full experience the HD280 is exceptional. For a closer, yes 'greyer' look, at sound the MT5. The MT8 is just too way off in terms of it's frequency tilt.

My liking of the HD280 might encourage me to look at other Sennheiser offerings, though I've done this before, invested a lot and found I already had the best of the brand.

Shure SRH8450A arrived earlier today, I set up the Oratory1990 PEQ profile into Roon whilst a quick listen out of the box. Comparison to MT5 both without EQ: bass is better extended on Shure, treble too bright, midband more forward, more natural sounding than the MT5 (and similar to the crinacle tuned Zero:reds I just bough a couple of weeks ago. It's not even close, I'm afraid after EQ, the Shure's are just much more pleasant to listen to. The Shures also fit my head/ears better, whcih is probably a significant reason why they sound better to me, they're much more comfortable. Quick comparison to the LCD-X and it's obvious why you pay nearly 10x price (maybe not, but then that's this ridiculous state of consumer electronics fuelled by idiots spouting at best pseudo science that the manufacturers pounce on and sell us fairy dust). I'm afraid that the MT5s are already wrapped in their bag. Tbf, I only paid £40 for the yamahas brand new, so I'll definitely keep them, I have a soft spot for yamaha audio and instruments, having owned 3 of their guitars over the years, including an original 80s SG2000.

 

[Dr.Aural]

…many thanks for you first appraisal. I use HPs into many synths and different audio interfaces, and the laptop, so EQ isn’t an option, and over elevated treble I find difficult.

I’m still looking for a better HP. The Senn HD280 Pro is very good, wide, clear, enjoyable and non-fatiguing, but a bit too warm and soundstage too wide for my studio purposes. My DT1990 could be it, I just need to try different pads, which I read can calm it’s highs.

Your initial view of the Shure 840 does sound good, but the highs may not work for me (they don’t with the DT770).

Do you know this site? - very thorough…, more headphones at the base of the page, but for some reason (though often the case) not the Senn HD 280 Pro…

https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/shure/srh-840/

 

[Bernard23]

…many thanks for you first appraisal. I use HPs into many synths and different audio interfaces, and the laptop, so EQ isn’t an option, and over elevated treble I find difficult.

I’m still looking for a better HP. The Senn HD280 Pro is very good, wide, clear, enjoyable and non-fatiguing, but a bit too warm and soundstage too wide for my studio purposes. My DT1990 could be it, I just need to try different pads, which I read can calm it’s highs.

Your initial view of the Shure 840 does sound good, but the highs couldn’t work for me - as they don’t with the DT770. I’ll keep looking.

Do you know this site? - very thorough…, more headphones at the base of the page, but for some reason (though often the case) not the Senn HD 280 Pro…

https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/shure/srh-840/

Yes, aka @solderdude on other forums (ASR in particular). I don't think the 840As are much worse than the 770s in the upper mid / treble for unruliness: look at the curves from Oratory1990. The 770s have a horrendous spike 6-8k, whereas the Shure's are too bass heavy. Out of the box, the shure sounds closest to a non EQ MT5. You can see the problem with the MT5 in the presence band:

 

[Dr.Aural]

...yes I find freq response graphs do tally with what I hear, though separation of heard freqs and tightness and recovery of low freqs aren't shown on the graphs - yet are just as important. So the graphs are a guide but I've leant not to treat them as god.

Some HPs that are panned due to a poor graph, I find better than those with flatter graphs, 'better' as in more useful, and more useful over long periods and that translate well - to speakers. The MT5's have their flaws, all HPs do, yet within the 'greyness' of the MT5s I do find them a useful tool. The Senn HD280 Pro's are another useful tool, more for judging what a mix might sound like in a cinema, expanded and warm low freqs.

I know (from graphs and reviews) that the Shure 1540's don't have the high issues of the 840's, but the 1540's may also be too soft and warm at the lower end. It'd be those or the Neumann's I'd try next. This was someone else's view on the 840 vs...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/shu...n-and-overall-resolution.946557/post-15990507

 

[Bernard23]

DT770s in my hands now, out of the box they're a bit messy. Uploaded EQ and much better, but I think prefer the Shures. I have slight seal issues when I move my head with the Beyers, plus after EQ they are really insensitive, I have to use high gain setting on my Element 2. They are punchy though, a slightly more exciting presentation. Seems maybe transients handled better?

 

[Dr.Aural]

...while EQ isn't possible with my use of headphones, I did try it but didn't like the results, ended up sounding 'electronic' /mp3, preferred to adapt my hearing to any wobbles in the freq response. Oh and yes the DT770 80ohm does need some juice to drive it (in this regard it's more like higher impedance pro studio headphones).

On the diyaudioheaven link I sent, I reread his report on the 840's ...and apparently the Alcantara pads from the 1540 absorb the treble peaks of the 840's. So I have the Shure 840A and the 1540 pads incoming soon! Will report back on them vs my Senn HD280 Pro which I think will be in their ball-park. I'll be looking for in smooth detailed highs, mid presence and definition, low-end separation and tightness/no distortion - and all that joining up!

The issue with a slightly hyped headphones is they encourage flat mixing/mastering, that's where the MT5's work ok for me, results become more present.

As this thread is headed 'Yamaha MT-8', I think we've strayed too far from the subject - the MT-8. With this in mind I'll bring them out again and compare with my current favoured headphones, probably including the Shure 840's - in a couple of weeks.

 

[Dr.Aural]

Ok I need to properly report back after a bit more of burning-in of the 840A's but I have an initial impression...

The width, soundstage and 'dynamic-ness' of the Shure 840A's is similar to the Senn HD280Pro's. Both very different to the MT5's - which are not as extended, not as wide, but to me more immediate (less loose). The Yamaha MT8's - just tried them again, it's like 'what's happened to the low end??!' - it's just gone, absent, and the highs are more elevated. I think these do have fast transients, but the freq response is just too way off to compare them with any other headphone.

Anyway, quite simply the Senn HD280Pro have the highs just right, clear yet never too much, the 840A's do have elevated highs - and rather confusingly so, on occasion it can sound like a high mess (but mostly it's ok). The lows on the HD280Pro are deeper and a bit more powerful. These two attributes combined make the 840A sound a tad light and confused, while the HD280Pro's a tad too warm - but v.rich nonetheless. Overall the HD280Pro's are very listenable if you don't mind extra low end, while the 840A's are sometimes harder to listen to, I also find high-mids too prominet for my taste. Even as a studio tool I'm not sure the 840A's have enough detail to make the extra highs worthwhile - in that case I'd use my DT1990Pro's - which have an almost 'particulate' detail.

I tried the 1540 pads on the 840's, which are said to reduce the highs, which they do, and maybe reduce some bass bloat and a touch of impact. Overall they maybe worth their high price, still experimenting! For a deeper sound with more listenable highs, the HD280Pro's are still my go-to in this 'larger sounding' realm. For a less hi-fi sound I go to my MT5's.

To those who love the 840A's, they may find the Senn HD280Pro too warm, and missing in some places, though they'd master well for cinema. The 840A's may not have enough detail or tightness for me in the studio, and be too confused in the highs, but I'll give them a go.

 

[Dr.Aural]

...again while I've now relegated the MT8's, and so I'll probably not keep adding to this thread - which is supposed to be about the MT8!, I can give an opinion of the new to me, Shure 840A...

Overall the 840A are ok, but to me are a miss, and so wont be one of the few headphones I swap between, they'll go in the cupboard.

Sound is balance ok, but the lows lack tightness and the highs are too elevated and confused. The drivers just aren't able to respond quick enough to deliver the reolstion, and the lows just disrupt the drivers too much to keep the highs clean. The pads from 1540 did help reduce the harshness of the highs but not the confusion. While not as impostant as sound, the headband is very hard on the head, solid plastic just coverted with cloth, foam lacking where it should be.

The Senn HD280Pros sound more laid back, deeper sounding, yet clearer in the highs, I like them more then the Shure 840A. But the Sen HD280Pros are just too deep to be useful for most jobs in the studio.

My DT1990Pro have the fastest transients, highs not as harsh as the 840A and far more detailed, no confusion, everyhtgn else is handled well, though they are the least 'fruity' or musical of all my headphones, they are a real studio tool. Really very good (with their balanced pads), though maybe not for everyday listening.

The MT5's, I keep coming back to them, they do have more right than all the others, no confusion on the lows or highs, though the highs are lacking somewhat, the mids maybe a tad too forward - but again they are detailed while being full and musical. Soundstage and stereo width is not great with the MT5's, but for mastering a narrow soundstage is prefered (just less loose). The MT5's and DT1990Pro are quite different, yet both very good, both are useful. The Shure 840A they do a lot well, but where I need clarity they deliver confusion (EQ cant improve that), I just feel like I'm using sub-standard tool, a waste of my time.

I'll keep the 840A's in the mix for a while, as they may keep burning in and their 'confusions' reduce, though for critical listening and as a studio tool I don't think they'll ever meet the mark.