Best cheap planar headphones recomendation?

[andivax]

Hi guys!
First of all thank you to Amir for such good content and friendly forum!
I am pro mixing and mastering engineer with 20+ years experience in searching for "best" CHEAP open back cans for mixing.

I was surprised with Audeze LCD-2 performance even without EQ but is it possible to find something comparable, PLANAR and for less money?
I have checked Amir's HifiMan cans reviews - looks like it is interesting alternative for Audeze...
Golden standard for mixing is Sennheiser HD 650.
It is sounded awesome with correction, it's light but flimsy and without corrections it's not very good (lacks base and highs very much)
Also price tag is OK but LCD-2 is another level.

The main target of this topic - to find good cheap open back PLANAR cans which I will recommend for producers.
Any suggestions, experience, etc are WELCOME!
Thank you!

 

[twsecrest]

Massdrop/Hifiman HE5XX
https://drop.com/buy/drop-hifiman-he5xx
Takstar HF 580, with Sendyaudio AVIA ear pads
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32997885429.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.1efc3c00w3spfS&mp=1

 

[Suppa92]

Verum 1 mk2?

 

[Muflatschki Gurkovski]

Hyperx Cloud orbit s / audeze penrose (x)?

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Hi guys!
First of all thank you to Amir for such good content and friendly forum!
I am pro mixing and mastering engineer with 20+ years experience in searching for "best" CHEAP open back cans for mixing.

I was surprised with Audeze LCD-2 performance even without EQ but is it possible to find something comparable, PLANAR and for less money?
I have checked Amir's HifiMan cans reviews - looks like it is interesting alternative for Audeze...
Golden standard for mixing is Sennheiser HD 650.
It is sounded awesome with correction, it's light but flimsy and without corrections it's not very good (lacks base and highs very much)
Also price tag is OK but LCD-2 is another level.

The main target of this topic - to find good cheap open back PLANAR cans which I will recommend for producers.
Any suggestions, experience, etc are WELCOME!
Thank you!

I have a Sennheiser HD 600 (which as you know is very close to the HD 650) and a Hifiman Sundara (planar, 350 €). The Sundara is supposedly better than the previously suggested HE5XX.

I EQ all my headphones identically (either to Harman or to Optimum HiFi target).
The HD 600 and the Sundara are very close, but in the end I prefer the HD 600.

• Sound quality is very similar.
• The Sundara has a bigger soundstage, but soundstage size is not essential to me.
• Imaging may also be better in the Sundara, without being exceptional (for example the Audioquest Nighthawk's imaging is exceptional).
• But most importantly, the Sundara is not very comfortable. It's not terrible either : comfort is OK, but other cans are better. Even the HD 600 is better, if you can get rid of its clamping force.
• Most importantly too, the HD 600 is quite indestructible (it's studio material), whereas the Sundara looks and feels more fragile.

My point is : if planar is really an important thing for you, then you may need to spend some money in order to get a planar that performs as well as your HD 650 while being comfortable and solid enough. Because even my Sundara doesn't really outrank my HD 600. Just my two cents.

 

[HRTF_Enthusiast]

Forget any hifiman planar for mixing and mastering. The timbre is beyond horrible. My top two recommendations are HD6XX and HD560S depending on preference.

 

[Murrfk]

I like my Hifiman HE400SE . Supposedly they don't need as much EQ as some other Hifiman units. Price Is about as low as one can reasonably expect to go.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

I guess few people here do any mixing / mastering / DJing, so they may not be aware that the requirements are not the same vs. Hi-Fi use.

For example, for DJing (talking as a part-time DJ here) we need closed headphones (obviously), ideally foldable, durable, and preferrably with a single earcup cable, not a Y-cable, so it doesn't get in the way. Sound neutrality / fidelity / accuracy / etc. don't really matter when you're in a crowded noisy room. However, I find active noise cancellation to be really useful. Comfort isn't of the utmost importance because we rarely keep them on our head for very long (or only one earcup).

For mixing / mastering, I guess the general consensus is "open" for obvious reasons (e.g. lack of internal resonances), even if there are some great closed cans too. All technical qualities such as sound neutrality, accuracy, definition, etc. are a must here. Durability becomes quite important, and comfort matters too. In a studio people don't care about fancy looks. Headphones can fall easily for various reasons (especially with a long cable), and you can also sit on them by accident. So robustness is a must. I once broke a pair of headphones just by sitting on them. Lesson learned.

The HD6-- line is a great example here : neutral, with no bass emphasis so their bass roll-off is actually a good thing here (let's remember that most people don't have subbass-capable equipments at home or in their cars), rather comfy, very durable and rugged. No fancy materials, only strong plastic and a metal grille. No fancy cable, only a basic one (but 3m long, that matters in a studio). The whole thing is basically unbreakable. No wonder why they've always been so popular in studios around the world.

 

[andivax]

I've got Verum 1.
The searching is over.
This is IT.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

I've got Verum 1.
The searching is over.
This is IT.

IMHO the Verum 1 is too fancy and fragile to be a mixing / mastering headphone. It's pretty, but I can hardly see this in the middle of a studio :

On the bright side, its frequency response is decent (especially after EQ). By default it's close to Optimum HiFi target, which is probably better than Harman for mixing / mastering. https://www.dropbox.com/s/raxes0hps5cye7q/Verum One.pdf?dl=0

With that said, Sundara's frequency response looks better (before and after EQ) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3fza1a4kmmy4vr/Hifiman Sundara (2020 revised earpads).pdf?dl=0

Both have almost identical headbands and metal structure with no earcup swivel (rotation around the Z axis), so their comfort must be almost identical. Which may not be enough for long listening sessions. I mean, if some people think the Sundara is really comfortable, it's because they have never tried a Nighthawk for instance. It's really another level.

 

[andivax]

IMHO the Verum 1 is too fancy and fragile to be a mixing / mastering headphone. It's pretty, but I can hardly see this in the middle of a studio :

View attachment 164330
On the bright side, its frequency response is decent (especially after EQ). By default it's close to Optimum HiFi target, which is probably better than Harman for mixing / mastering. https://www.dropbox.com/s/raxes0hps5cye7q/Verum One.pdf?dl=0

With that said, Sundara's frequency response looks better (before and after EQ) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3fza1a4kmmy4vr/Hifiman Sundara (2020 revised earpads).pdf?dl=0

Both have almost identical headbands and metal structure with no earcup swivel (rotation around the Z axis), so their comfort must be almost identical. Which may not be enough for long listening sessions. I mean, if some people think the Sundara is really comfortable, it's because they have never tried a Nighthawk for instance. It's really another level.

I have mixed 4 tracks in Verum just for fun and results was amazing. I just fixed some things here and there on my Adam S3H studio monitors.
Also it's comfortable. I am playing games in Verum and it's awesome.

Just two things.
1. Stock cable is cheap. I have made the proper cable by myself and got more highs, narrower stereo pan. Returned to stock cable.
2. Without EQ it's not very good. Lacks base, highs (with stock cable) and has mid freq resonance. I solve this using RME fireface UFX II 3 band EQ.

 

[GaryH]

On the bright side, its frequency response is decent (especially after EQ). By default it's close to Optimum HiFi target, which is probably better than Harman for mixing / mastering.

Why? The Harman target is close to the tonality of a neutral (anechoically flat) speaker in a studio-like room, which is exactly what you want for mixing/mastering.

With that said, Sundara's frequency response looks better (before and after EQ) : https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3fza1a4kmmy4vr/Hifiman Sundara (2020 revised earpads).pdf?dl=0

The Sundara is severely lacking in sub-bass, and even with EQ Oratory doesn't bring it fully up to the Harman target, likely due to its relatively high distortion there for a planar.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

I have mixed 4 tracks in Verum just for fun

Sure, but mixing at home has nothing to do with mixing in a professional studio. In your room you're alone. In a studio, several people come and go, many things happen, and objects fall and may get damaged. Once again, the HD 6-- line is built like that for a reason. It's solid.

Also it's comfortable. I am playing games in Verum and it's awesome.

I'm sure it is But have you ever tried a Nighthawk ? It may help you redefine your notion of "comfortable".

Why? The Harman target is close to the tonality of a neutral (anechoically flat) speaker in a studio-like room, which is exactly what you want for mixing/mastering.

Because like I said, most people don't have heavy bass-capable equipments at their homes or in their cars. Which means you need to emphasize bass in studio for them. Which means that you need headphones that are below the Harman target in the bass range. In other words, Harman is nice for listening, but Optimum HiFi (which is basically Harman with less bass below 175 Hz) may be better for mixing / mastering.

(Harman AE-OE 2018 is blue, Optimum HiFi is red)

The Sundara is severely lacking in sub-bass, and even with EQ Oratory doesn't bring it fully up to the Harman target, likely due to its relatively high distortion there for a planar.

Your graph shows such distortion at high listening levels (from 94 to 114 dB). I tend to listen around 85 dB and rarely beyond 90. I don't hear any distortion on my EQed Sundara.

My EQed Sundara goes down to 30 Hz @ 0 dB and 23 Hz @ -2 dB. I think that's pretty good and close to full range But once again, you don't need a full range Harman response in a studio. Think of the thousands of albums that have been mixed with the HD 6-- line.

 

[GaryH]

Because like I said, most people don't have heavy bass-capable equipments at their homes

Yes they do, they're called headphones. Let's not encourage music makers to compromise their sound, producing boomy, overly bassy mixes on full-range transducers (which even $5 IEMs are) by mixing and mastering for mobile phone speakers. The worse that sounds, the better, so people plug their headphones in instead and hear their music how it should sound.

Your graph shows such distortion at high listening levels (from 94 to 114 dB). I tend to listen around 85 dB and rarely beyond 90. I don't hear any distortion on my EQed Sundara.

Well you're not EQing up to the Harman target, which requires around 11 dB gain in the sub-bass. That may bump up the distortion to audible levels for some. There are plenty of headphones that don't have this potential problem, at a lower price at that.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Yes they do, they're called headphones.

You are not getting it. Most people don't use headphones to listen to music. We do, but they don't.
Most people have cheap stereos and car radios (how many people listen to music in their cars ? dozens of millions !). Most people have cheap loudspeakers (and now bluetooth speakers) that are completely unable to do subbass at decent levels.
It's a fact. We are a minority, like it or not.

Let's not encourage music makers to compromise their sound, producing boomy, overly bassy mixes on full-range transducers (which even $5 IEMs are) by mixing and mastering for mobile phone speakers. The worse that sounds, the better, so people plug their headphones in instead and hear their music how it should sound.

I'm not encouraging anything. I'm just telling you the way music has been mixed in the last 20 years or so, with headphones like the 6-- line. Again, it's a mere fact.

Well you're not EQing up to the Harman target, which requires around 11 dB gain in the sub-bass. That may bump up the distortion to audible levels for some. There are plenty of headphones that don't have this potential problem, at a lower price at that.

Yes, what Oratory calls "linear bass" would theoretically require -11 dB. But nobody sane would do that with a Sundara. My settings for 30 Hz linear bass (which is exactly what I wrote : 30 Hz @ 0 dB) only require -7.1 dB preamp, and they are the best trade-off I've found for the Sundara. You should try them instead of wasting those 3.9 extra dB. If I want 20 Hz @ 0 dB with minimal distortion, I just have to put my Nighthawks on, and it's a whole another game.

 

[GaryH]

You are not getting it. Most people don't use headphones to listen to music. We do, but they don't.
Most people have cheap stereos and car radios (how many people listen to music in their cars ? dozens of millions !). Most people have cheap loudspeakers (and now bluetooth speakers) that are completely unable to do subbass at decent levels.
It's a fact. We are a minority, like it or not.

Any source for this 'fact'? Pretty much every mobile phone in the last 10 years has come with IEMs (only very recently have some companies stopped this), the vast majority of which can readily produce sub-bass.

Yes, what Oratory calls "linear bass" would theoretically require -11 dB. But nobody sane would do that with a Sundara.

Yes, because as you point out this would require large negative pre-gain when EQed up to the linear bass of the Harman target (in addition to the potential distortion issues). Many other headphones for less money don't have this problem.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

Any source for this 'fact'? Pretty much every mobile phone in the last 10 years has come with IEMs (only very recently have some companies stopped this), the vast majority of which can readily produce sub-bass.

The fact that a mobile phone comes with cheap IEMs (BTW mine have never but that's another story) doesn't mean that people are going to use them. In fact most people don't. I have rarely seen people use the stock IEMs with their phone. Do you see that on the streets ? I don't.

But you know what you can see on the streets ? Cars. Lots of them. Most of them with cheap speaker systems. And most car owners use them.
Same thing with bluetooth speakers. It's a huge market now (billions of dollars).

Yes, because as you point out this would require large negative pre-gain when EQed up to the linear bass of the Harman target (in addition to the potential distortion issues). Many other headphones for less money don't have this problem.

Here we are not debating on whether the Sundara is a good value for money.
[ In my opinion it is. It's arguably the best planar below 500$, as said by many reviewers. I just happen to prefer my HD 600. Crinacle agrees BTW. ]

The OP is looking for cheap open back cans for mixing, as a "pro mixing and mastering engineer with 20+ years experience".

• The obvious answer is : HD 600. Price : 299 $, sometimes cheaper.
• If we want cheaper, next obvious answer is : HD 6XX (basically a HD 650). Price : 199 $. Great value for money. I wouldn't advise going cheaper, unless the OP wants toys. I wouldn't use toys for mixing / mastering.

But then he added the word "planar". I don't know why exactly, because cheap planars are hard to come by, plus they may raise other issues such as weight. But that's up to him. If he wants planar, then let's go planar.

• Planar-wise, the "popular" answer would be Sundara : 349 $, sometimes cheaper. Huge market success. But the Sundara are NOT a mixing / mastering headphone, as shown by their build. Same could be said of the Verum.
• So with mixing / mastering in mind, we could go for the Audeze LCD-1 : https://www.moon-audio.com/audeze-lcd-1-headphone-for-mixing-and-mastering-b-stock.html

As you can see, this is clearly a mixing / mastering can, with a rugged build, like the 6-- series. This is what we'd be looking for in a studio, not the fancy Verum One MkII. Its price (339 $ for a B-stock, 399 $ otherwise) isn't exactly cheap. But tell me of a cheaper planar that's specifically designed for that purpose. I'd be happy to find one.

It's not exactly neutral either ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/x4xxaonrbs11efh/Audeze LCD-1.pdf?dl=0 ), but it can become neutral after EQ, with a reasonable -6.2 dB preamp gain. So if the OP has access to EQ, that can be a working solution in a studio.

 

[GaryH]

The fact that a mobile phone comes with cheap IEMs (BTW mine have never but that's another story) doesn't mean that people are going to use them. In fact most people don't. I have rarely seen people use the stock IEMs with their phone. Do you see that on the streets ?

Err yes, I see people wearing headphones everywhere I go, many of them what look like bundled smartphone IEMs, or the hugely popular Airpods Pro, which again, are capable of sub-bass.

It's a huge market now (billions of dollars).

So that's a no then, you don't have a source for your bold claim that "most people don't use headphones to listen to music." That 'source' you posted giving some vague 'projection' of revenue from Bluetooth speaker sales tells us absolutely nothing about that.

[ In my opinion it is. It's arguably the best planar below 500$, as said by many reviewers. I just happen to prefer my HD 600. Crinacle agrees BTW. ]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking untrained reviewers' opinions based on sighted, uncontrolled, non-level matched listening comparisons over weeks, months, even years has any real merit, just because they have a large following. At $159, this is an actually cheap planar, just as good as the Sundara post-EQ, in fact probably better due to stronger stock sub-bass and lower distortion there, if its cousin's (which likely uses the same/similar driver) measurements are anything to go by.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

I'm sorry. I made you think that you could actually argue with me about this. I should have been clearer.

This has never been a debate between us two. I'm just stating facts for the OP, not for you. Whether you believe them or not is your problem. I won't waste any time looking for 'sources' for widely known facts. The Internet is your friend.

Music producers over the last 20 years have been making music (and loads of money) thinking about end-users with crappy end-equipment. Not about people with full-range headphones or any subbass capable equipment. That is something that I know for sure, being in touch with music producers and sound engineers myself. It's a hard truth, like it or not.

• Sound quality on a top level system has never been their main concern, because only 1% of people have top-level systems.
• But making it sound 'decent' on crappy systems has always been the major concern, because that concerns a majority of the other 99%.
• Same thing can be said about dynamics, which explains the famous loudness war. Over the last 20 years, the goal has been simple : music has to sound loud on any equipment, nevermind if it doesn't sound as good as it could. It's a business, for God's sake. Quantity over quality.

In the same spirit, yes, much more people use loudspeakers (including smartphone speakers, don't forget them - there are way more smartphone built-in speakers than smartphone IEMs on Earth, lol) for playing music than headphones. Which incidentally explains why there are so many magazines about hi-fi and speaker stuff, and so few about headphones. Not to mention car speakers (how many cars on Earth ? how many people listen to music while going to work or travelling ?). That is an universal fact that shouldn't need any proof. Good luck with proving it wrong.

And you have just called crinacle an untrained reviewer... lol. Maybe be a little more humble when talking about people like him (or Oratory, or Jaakko, etc., or even poor little me, check my sig just in case) who actually bring something to our scene/community for free while people like you just sit behind a keyboard enjoying other people's work.

Now could you please stop going off-topic ? Thank you.

Back to topic, the HE4XX is a cheap planar, just like the HD 6XX is a cheap dynamic. Both are decent and offer good value for money The difference is that the 6XX is studio material, rugged and light as a feather (260g). The same can hardly be said about the HE4XX given its build and its weight (400g as measured by the 2nd link below), but hey, at least it exists. So if the OP likes it and wants a cheap planar 'because potatoes', then why not. But for studio use I'd rather go with the Audeze LCD-1 (which is also light as a feather BTW - 250g). You seem to consistently forget that the goal here is not to find a cheap Hi-Fi planar (in which case the HE4XX would be great) but to find a cheap mixing / mastering planar.

And no, the HE4XX isn't nearly as good as the Sundara. Not when people have ears good enough to notice the difference.

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/atmeq3/hifiman_sundara_vs_he4xx/

(read until the end)

https://homestudiobasics.com/hifiman-he4xx-vs-400i-vs-400s-vs-sundara/

(jump to the conclusion)

But why keep discussing ? You obviously know it all already, so I won't be discussing this matter with you anymore. Please, go teach somebody else.

 

[GaryH]

Oh dear, there's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin...

This has never been a debate between us two. I'm just stating facts for the OP, not for you. Whether you believe them or not is your problem. I won't waste any time looking for 'sources' for widely known facts. The Internet is your friend.

This is a science forum. The person making bold, sweeping claims like "most people don't use headphones to listen to music" is the one required to provide evidence for it, not the other way around, and you've provided none whatsoever. If it's a widely known 'fact' you could have easily found and linked to that evidence with the help of your friend the internet by now.

Music producers over the last 20 years have been making music (and loads of money) thinking about end-users with crappy end-equipment. Not about people with full-range headphones or any subbass capable equipment. That is something that I know for sure, being in touch with music producers and sound engineers myself. It's a hard truth, like it or not.

• Sound quality on a top level system has never been their main concern, because only 1% of people have top-level systems.
• But making it sound 'decent' on crappy systems has always been the major concern, because that concerns a majority of the other 99%.
• Same thing can be said about dynamics, which explains the famous loudness war. Over the last 20 years, the goal has been simple : music has to sound loud on any equipment, nevermind if it doesn't sound as good as it could. It's a business, for God's sake. Quantity over quality.

You've just listed everything that's wrong with modern music production, and one of the driving forces behind audio's circle of confusion, which you seem to be very tightly wrapped up in. I'm not saying the above doesn't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't happen. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if movies were color-graded primarily for smartphones with limited color gamut at the expense of the director's vision for the big screen or well-calibrated home theatres? Everyone has cheap access to full-range transducers in the form of headphones/IEMs these days, so there's no excuse to not mix and master for full-range transducers.

And you have just called crinacle an untrained reviewer... lol. Maybe be a little more humble when talking about people like him (or Oratory, or Jaakko, etc., or even poor little me, check my sig just in case)

I thought this would be obvious, but that was shorthand reference to the specific definition of a trained listener in the literature, requiring passing a minimum of level 8 on Harman's How to Listen program, as Dr. Sean Olive states in the comments on that page. As far as I'm aware, the only one of the above people who has done this is Oratory, which raises my trust in his listening discrimination and reliability compared to those who are untrained, and so raises my trust in the EQs he creates.

And no, the HE4XX isn't nearly as good as the Sundara. Not when people have ears good enough to notice the difference.

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/atmeq3/hifiman_sundara_vs_he4xx/

(read until the end)

https://homestudiobasics.com/hifiman-he4xx-vs-400i-vs-400s-vs-sundara/

(jump to the conclusion)

You seem worryingly susceptible to random anecdotal subjective impressions you've found on the internet without much objective thought. Funnily enough, the first link perfectly illustrates my point. That was posted 3 years ago, so the Sundara they heard must have been the pre-2020 earpad version. Let's look at measurements of that compared to the HE4XX:

So pretty similar, which matches with what that user described, up until they were gaslighted by the groupthink of other redditors who were most likely at least partially suffering from subconscious price bias influencing their judgements. As for the second review you linked, he states in the video review that he didn't even have the Sundara with him for a direct comparison with the HE4XX, so he must be going from memory, and long-term auditory memory is notoriously much worse than short-term. Not only that, but his original Sundara review was from 2 years previous, so not only is he relying on long-term memory, but that must be the pre-2020 version too. You really need to be more critical with your parsing of these online reviews. And pay more attention on here too, because if you did, you'd have noticed that I actually said this:

At $159, this [the HE4XX] is an actually cheap planar, just as good as the Sundara post-EQ

So this is 100% clear for you and there's no more confusion on your part, I was talking about the HE4XX after Oratory's EQ, and the Sundara 2020 revised-earpads version after Oratory's EQ, so those random internet impressions you linked don't apply in any way; they're of the wrong Sundara version, and they're without EQ.