Best closed back, over-ear headphone under $250?

[AnalogDE]

https://www.docdroid.net/enYZsTS/a-...tings-of-around-ear-and-on-ear-headphones.pdf

Does it say in the paper (or somewhere else) which headphone is what on Figure 6 ? I want a decoder for Figure 6.

 

[Hugo9000]

They are all the AKG K712.

The magnitude and minimum phase response of each headphone was measured using a G.R.A.S. 45 CA coupler equipped with our custom pinnae optimized to better simulate leakage on human ears [13]. The final measurements were based on average of 3 re-seats of the headphone. The measured magnitude response of each headphone was then simulated over a replicator headphone (AKG K712) chosen for its low distortion, relatively smooth and extended frequency response. The open-back design of the replicator headphone provided a natural leak thus ensuring a more consistent response at low frequencies across listeners. How the headphone fits and mechanically couples to the listeners’ head can influence its response below 200 Hz. The replicator headphone was modified using a stiff, curved piece of wire to increase clamping force, which preliminary testing showed would decrease variability of leakage.

I realize I didn't answer which EQ profile matches which assigned number. But the actual listeners used that AKG model. So the preference tests depend on how accurate the measurements were of the original headphone models, and how accurately the AKG can replicate the actual sound of those headphones assuming the measurements and eq were accurate. Listeners hated the AKG K712 that tried to mimic the Meze, apparently, and a lot of people liked the AKG K712 when trying to mimic a Focal Utopia or Audeze LCD-4 (the two $4000 headphones). Nearly everyone seemed to like the AKG K712 that was EQd to mimic whatever $80 headphone--Sony MDR-7506, I guess. I wonder what's better, the AKG trying to sound like the Sony, or the actual Sony. lol

Here is the RTINGS review and measurements of the AKG K712 without an EQ disguise.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/akg/k712-pro

 

[AnalogDE]

They are all the AKG K712.



I realize I didn't answer which EQ profile matches which assigned number. But the actual listeners used that AKG model. So the preference tests depend on how accurate the measurements were of the original headphone models, and how accurately the AKG can replicate the actual sound of those headphones assuming the measurements and eq were accurate. Listeners hated the AKG K712 that tried to mimic the Meze, apparently, and a lot of people liked the AKG K712 when trying to mimic a Focal Utopia or Audeze LCD-4 (the two $4000 headphones). Nearly everyone seemed to like the AKG K712 that was EQd to mimic whatever $80 headphone--Sony MDR-7506, I guess. I wonder what's better, the AKG trying to sound like the Sony, or the actual Sony. lol

Here is the RTINGS review and measurements of the AKG K712 without an EQ disguise.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/akg/k712-pro

OK, I see the two $4000 headphones at the top of the plot -- ok so those are easy to figure out. I also see the Sony at $80 (bottom right)... What's the headphone at Preference Rating = 100 around $300 ? Also how did you figure that the Meze is least preferred?

 

[Hugo9000]

View attachment 34719

OK, I see the two $4000 headphones at the top of the plot -- ok so those are easy to figure out. I also see the Sony at $80 (bottom right)... What's the headphone at Preference Rating = 100 around $300 ? Also how did you figure that the Meze is least preferred?

Someone else said the Meze was near the bottom, so I had assumed that it's the $300 one that is second lowest rated. On second thought, I think the second lowest ranked FR is actually their "Low Anchor" EQ, and the dot is around $300 because it's using the price of the AKG K712, like they did with the "High Anchor" EQ applied to the same headphone. They expected the "Low Anchor" FR to be considered so dreadful that everyone would hate it and rank it at the very bottom. However, the very bottom FR is shown for a $700 one, so that must be the AudioQuest Night Owl lmao. So they were surprised to find that even their theoretically "worst imaginable" FR could be beaten by the FR of an actual and popular headphone haha!

I think the one with the 100 rating is EQd to match the Harman target itself, rather than trying to match the FR of any actual headphone model, but I could be wrong on that. The $300 shown for that 100-rated one is presumably because the AKG model is listed around $300 in that paper. But I'm pretty sure that's after EQ to be "flat" to the actual Harman target, rather than the out-of-the-box AKG K712 FR. In Appendix 2, it shows a "High Anchor" EQ that is their Target FR. I'm guessing that the AKG K712 without any EQ is the $300 headphone with the preference rating a bit over 60. There's one a bit beyond 90, but the dot is lower, so it's one priced a little below the AKG (HiFiMan or Philips maybe?). It appears that the Oppo PM-3 might be ranked the highest out of actual headphone frequency responses, since they list it as $400, and that's the only dot that seems to line up right to me. Perhaps someone has an actual list so we don't have to guess all of these lol. The Shure seems to be tied with the FR of the inexpensive Sony.

At any rate, it's just a bunch of frequency responses that are based on measurements of headphones, and then trying to replicate those various responses on a particular model that may or may not be capable of duplicating what people actually like about those headphones. Distortion specs will of course vary tremendously from the real headphones, in some cases the AKG may be less distorted, and more distorted in others. It's certainly useful for a manufacturer to test or confirm that their target responses are preferred, and to get a basic idea of people's reactions to frequency responses that approximate the products of their competitors. Naturally, it doesn't give the whole picture, but they can use the findings to focus their future tests. For example, seeing how much people like the FR of the Oppo PM-3, they can conduct more tests using the actual headphone, to get an idea if it's the FR itself that people respond well to, as in the case of the AKG masquerading with PM-3-style EQ, or if the actual Oppo headphone gets a further boost due to comfort, "soundstage" effect, distortion profile, or other factors not accounted for by the frequency response alone.

 

[AnalogDE]

Someone else said the Meze was near the bottom, so I had assumed that it's the $300 one that is second lowest rated. On second thought, I think the second lowest ranked FR is actually their "Low Anchor" EQ, and the dot is around $300 because it's using the price of the AKG K712, like they did with the "High Anchor" EQ applied to the same headphone. They expected the "Low Anchor" FR to be considered so dreadful that everyone would hate it and rank it at the very bottom. However, the very bottom FR is shown for a $700 one, so that must be the AudioQuest Night Owl lmao. So they were surprised to find that even their theoretically "worst imaginable" FR could be beaten by the FR of an actual and popular headphone haha!

I think the one with the 100 rating is EQd to match the Harman target itself, rather than trying to match the FR of any actual headphone model, but I could be wrong on that. The $300 shown for that 100-rated one is presumably because the AKG model is listed around $300 in that paper. But I'm pretty sure that's after EQ to be "flat" to the actual Harman target, rather than the out-of-the-box AKG K712 FR. In Appendix 2, it shows a "High Anchor" EQ that is their Target FR. I'm guessing that the AKG K712 without any EQ is the $300 headphone with the preference rating a bit over 60. There's one a bit beyond 90, but the dot is lower, so it's one priced a little below the AKG (HiFiMan or Philips maybe?). It appears that the Oppo PM-3 might be ranked the highest out of actual headphone frequency responses, since they list it as $400, and that's the only dot that seems to line up right to me. Perhaps someone has an actual list so we don't have to guess all of these lol. The Shure seems to be tied with the FR of the inexpensive Sony.

At any rate, it's just a bunch of frequency responses that are based on measurements of headphones, and then trying to replicate those various responses on a particular model that may or may not be capable of duplicating what people actually like about those headphones. Distortion specs will of course vary tremendously from the real headphones, in some cases the AKG may be less distorted, and more distorted in others. It's certainly useful for a manufacturer to test or confirm that their target responses are preferred, and to get a basic idea of people's reactions to frequency responses that approximate the products of their competitors. Naturally, it doesn't give the whole picture, but they can use the findings to focus their future tests. For example, seeing how much people like the FR of the Oppo PM-3, they can conduct more tests using the actual headphone, to get an idea if it's the FR itself that people respond well to, as in the case of the AKG masquerading with PM-3-style EQ, or if the actual Oppo headphone gets a further boost due to comfort, "soundstage" effect, distortion profile, or other factors not accounted for by the frequency response alone.

It doesn't make sense to plot the purely theoretical models on this price/preference plot...
I was hoping this paper would help me decide what next headphone to get -- I have an HD650 and a Beyer DT770-250..... which HP should I get next and I only want to spend ~$300 (this was mentioned in the paper as the price breakpoint when you start to get diminishing returns.... )

 

[JJB70]

If we are including open back headphones then the AKG K712 is superb, very comfortable and at typical selling prices a real bargain. In our market we can get them new for about £175 which gets a headphone already into marginal gains territory. I think if you pair the K712 with a JDS Atom you can get a brilliant set which is as good as the overwhelming majority will need at a combined cost which barely qualifies as mid price in today's market.

 

[Erik]

View attachment 34719

OK, I see the two $4000 headphones at the top of the plot -- ok so those are easy to figure out. I also see the Sony at $80 (bottom right)... What's the headphone at Preference Rating = 100 around $300 ? Also how did you figure that the Meze is least preferred?

Meze 99 are the only $300 headphones with a 10 dB bass boost presented in the test. They are not the least preferred though, Audioquest managed to beat them in this metric.

At any rate, it's just a bunch of frequency responses that are based on measurements of headphones, and then trying to replicate those various responses on a particular model that may or may not be capable of duplicating what people actually like about those headphones. Distortion specs will of course vary tremendously from the real headphones, in some cases the AKG may be less distorted, and more distorted in others. It's certainly useful for a manufacturer to test or confirm that their target responses are preferred, and to get a basic idea of people's reactions to frequency responses that approximate the products of their competitors. Naturally, it doesn't give the whole picture, but they can use the findings to focus their future tests. For example, seeing how much people like the FR of the Oppo PM-3, they can conduct more tests using the actual headphone, to get an idea if it's the FR itself that people respond well to, as in the case of the AKG masquerading with PM-3-style EQ, or if the actual Oppo headphone gets a further boost due to comfort, "soundstage" effect, distortion profile, or other factors not accounted for by the frequency response alone.

They have conducted such tests before and have found that the magnitude response is the dominant factor in subjective sound quality evaluations.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17441
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16874

It doesn't make sense to plot the purely theoretical models on this price/preference plot...
I was hoping this paper would help me decide what next headphone to get -- I have an HD650 and a Beyer DT770-250..... which HP should I get next and I only want to spend ~$300 (this was mentioned in the paper as the price breakpoint when you start to get diminishing returns.... )

What really does not make sense here is calling the listening tests "purely theoretical".
If you are looking for better sound quality, you can try equalizing one of your current headphones to the Harman target.

 

[Berwhale]

I have the AKG K712Pro connected to a JDS Atom + Topping D50s. I use MusicBee and I've been playing with the free demo of the MorphIT VST plug-in to simulate a bunch of other headphones...

FWIW - I didn't like the sound of the simulated Meze 99 Classic (Obviously I can't comment on the real Meze's!)

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I love the Takstar Pro82s (the V2 model). They are inexpensive, super comfortable and easy to drive. No need for an amp. They sound very good and while I've heard criticism of the build quality, I find them to be very well constructed.

 

[pwjazz]

What's the isolation like on these? I'm looking for some closed backs to compliment my AKG K712Pro's and these look like they'll fit the bill.

Not bad. I don't have a lot of basis for comparison. Most of my IEMs isolate better.

 

[flipflop]

FWIW:

 

[AnalogDE]

What really does not make sense here is calling the listening tests "purely theoretical".
If you are looking for better sound quality, you can try equalizing one of your current headphones to the Harman target.

What I meant was I didn't understand why the Harman AE/OE target curve is plotted as a point on the Headphone Price vs Preference plot, since it doesn't correspond to an actual headphone that I can go out and buy for X price (or did I read that wrong?)

I don't have any issues with the methodology of this study.

 

[Thomas_A]

Very strange that the DT-990 Pro came so high. It has clear peaking in the HF-region and was very bright sounding according the the 30-headphone test conducted by Swedish Audio-Technical Society in 2003. Measurements did confirm its bright character. Both DT-880 and DT-150 was better. Sennheiser HD600 was regarded highly, as was the AKG271 Studio (original). Among the electrostatic headphones the KOSS ESP-950 was regarded well, as most of the Stax models (SR-202,303,404). Differences in the Stax models were in the bass region, and SR-404 distorted audibly in the 20-40 Hz region.

 

[doctorjuggles]

So the Sony MDR-7506 is the second cheapest and has the overall best sound. Everyone can stop looking now

 

[Thomas_A]

So the Sony MDR-7506 is the second cheapest and has the overall best sound. Everyone can stop looking now

Note that is not the headphone itself that is tested.

 

[JJB70]

Certainly you don't need to spend an awful lot to enjoy great headphone sound and I wouldn't use price as a proxy for headphone sound quality.

 

[jhwalker]

So the Sony MDR-7506 is the second cheapest and has the overall best sound. Everyone can stop looking now

FWIW, it's very highly rated on Amazon, as well.

 

[doctorjuggles]

Yep. Haven’t heard it myself but I’ll make a point of trying it out when I get a chance for sure

 

[solderdude]

Owned 7506... quite briefly.
It was one that had seen a lot of usage but was in good condition.
Wouldn't call this a hifi headphone but is great for monitoring.

Will say this again... you may be able to somewhat mimic the tonal balance of a headphone but not all qualities.
If you really could turn a HD201 in a HD800 with just some EQ I would buy in all of them. Build a purpose made amp for it and even EQ it so the drawbacks of the HD800 were removed as well.

Can't be done... you can only mimic tonal balance and only an approximation at that.

 

[zermak]

@solderdude
Why do you think they are not hifi? I mean, looking at Oratory's measurements (here) it's one that, without any EQ, covers pretty closely the Harmann's curve. Yes, it lacks sub bass and have some high to be tamed but after all it's a good headphones looking at the graphs and considering its price.
If it's for monitoring maybe the 7506 are not even that tiresome to listen to even if having that highs; I am just saying. I've never auditioned them.
You listened to a lot I guess so I am curious to know your opinion and why you say so.

EDIT: typos