Absolute FLATTEST MOST ACCURATE headphones...

[ferrellms]

Mix and master on speakers.

If you have access to a good room and speakers you should do that as well as an accurate set of phones like the SRH1840s and others. Phones can have smoother bass due to lack of room effects, which plague all speaker/room setups. Listening on speakers will give better "soundstage" accuracy, but this is all listener and room and monitor dependent, unfortunately.

 

[Zensō]

I am looking at their measured frequency response not what they say.

If you prefer subjectivity to measurements, they definitely sound better, with more extended bass than the Sennheisers and AKGs, both of which I am familiar with. I trust the Sonarworks measurement because it is an average of several actual phones and not a one off and is what they use for calibrating their filters, widely used by experienced pros around the world. Also SOS, more than any self-declared expert (of which this forum is full, some of whom do their own measurements which come out differently, not clear why), knows what they are talking about when it comes to monitoring recordings due to their experience with many high end phones and monitors in many studios.

Go with what the REAL pros recommend.

I was attempting to describe the difference between raw and compensated FR graphs, which many people seem to misunderstand. Are you saying “real pros” prefer a flat, raw frequency response (as opposed to compensated to a target curve)? That would be hard to believe. None of the widely used and recommended pro headphones have a flat raw response, including those recommended by SOS.

Sonarworks (which I’ve used for years) displays compensated graphs, which show the variance to their target curve, not the actual raw frequency response of the headphones.

 

[markanini]

If you have access to a good room and speakers you should do that as well as an accurate set of phones like the SRH1840s and others. Phones can have smoother bass due to lack of room effects, which plague all speaker/room setups. Listening on speakers will give better "soundstage" accuracy, but this is all listener and room and monitor dependent, unfortunately.

Good points that explain why headphones are useful in this context. I've heard it rather universally that final mixing decision are best done on speakers even if they, or the room, aren't the greatest.

Sonarworks (which I’ve used for years) displays compensated graphs, which show the variance to their target curve, not the actual raw frequency response of the headphones.

The issue with Sonarworks for headphones is that their corrections are based on measurements on a two generations old artificial ear. Even with current tech it's hard to fully predict individual fit, on top of that there's unit variation.

 

[Zensō]

The issue with Sonarworks for headphones is that their corrections are based on measurements on a two generations old artificial ear. Even with current tech it's hard to fully predict individual fit, on top of that there's unit variation.

All true. Also, Sonarworks have never published their target so it’s impossible to know exactly what they consider “flat” (Oratory says it’s similar to Harman 2015 but with less upper bass, which seems true). FR after correction on an HD800S and DT1990 Pro is subjectively flat-ish, similar to Oratory’s Harman EQ but with less lower mids and bass. I prefer Oratory’s EQ for casual listening, but Sonarworks for mixing and mastering. Both tame the highs on these notoriously bright headphones.

 

[TuckV]

Mix and master on speakers.

I think it's most practical to mix and master in an environment that most accurately reflects the listening environment of your target audience. You're trying to tailor their experience, so you should as closely replicate that experience as you can while monitoring. If you intend for your audio to be played out of a tinny little cell phone speaker (or the kind found in mobile gaming devices) then you should mix on that -- this is what professional game composers do for mobile games and handheld console games.

Frankly, for most modern producers, the actual specific hardware used does not really need to be flat or highly isolated, the user should just enjoy the sound coming out of it -- if it degrades or distorts the quality somehow, it's going to apply the same distortion no matter what you're playing out of it, and 99% of listeners are not going to be listening with studio monitors in a sound-controlled environment. Mixing and mastering is typically done most accurately by using references, and the reference tracks used need only sound pleasant and normal to the person doing the mixing in order to have a decent reference point, with special attention paid to how much clarity is required in the very high and low end of the spectrum to get the emphasized details in the sound for a giving music genre. Some music doesn't care about sub at all, some music is entirely dominated by granular details in the sub, some music is actively hindered by having very clear highs in the 13k-20k. range because of unpleasant sibilants that otherwise sound great on objectively worse speakers.

 

[markanini]

I think it's most practical to mix and master in an environment that most accurately reflects the listening environment of your target audience. You're trying to tailor their experience, so you should as closely replicate that experience as you can while monitoring. If you intend for your audio to be played out of a tinny little cell phone speaker (or the kind found in mobile gaming devices) then you should mix on that -- this is what professional game composers do for mobile games and handheld console games.

Frankly, for most modern producers, the actual specific hardware used does not really need to be flat or highly isolated, the user should just enjoy the sound coming out of it -- if it degrades or distorts the quality somehow, it's going to apply the same distortion no matter what you're playing out of it, and 99% of listeners are not going to be listening with studio monitors in a sound-controlled environment. Mixing and mastering is typically done most accurately by using references, and the reference tracks used need only sound pleasant and normal to the person doing the mixing in order to have a decent reference point, with special attention paid to how much clarity is required in the very high and low end of the spectrum to get the emphasized details in the sound for a giving music genre. Some music doesn't care about sub at all, some music is entirely dominated by granular details in the sub, some music is actively hindered by having very clear highs in the 13k-20k. range because of unpleasant sibilants that otherwise sound great on objectively worse speakers.

Focusing on max utility, mixing an mastering on speakers gives you a multitude of auditory cues that help with translatability across a multitude systems. That's the best start.

 

[solderdude]

What are the most flattest/most accurate headphones that would be the best for mixing and mastering music?

Have a look at the OLLO S5X. Affordable but not cheap.
This will get you close to 'nearfield monitor speakers' without having to use EQ.
Needs a little (easy, reversible and non invasive) tweak for music enjoyment.

Absolute 'flattest' and 'most accurate' does not exist but this headphone is suited for the things you seem to be looking for.

 

[Mulder]

This will get you close to 'nearfield monitor speakers'
Needs a little (easy, reversible and non invasive) tweak for music enjoyment.

Absolute 'flattest' and 'most accurate' does not exist but this headphone is suited for the things you seem to be looking for.

I agree with that view. I have a pair of OLLO S5X and by their nature they are very similar to my near-field monitors. Now I use them not for mixing but for HiFi listening but they are very good for that too.

 

[tknx]

Something decent with your own EQ curve