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

[Thomas_A]

@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 the yare for monitoring maybe they are not even that tiresome to listen to even if with that highs; I am just saying. I've never auditioned them.
You listend to a lot so I am curious to know your opinion and why you say so.

Like the DT-990 Pro, measurements show that it is bright. The similarly highly rated PM-3 has a frequency response that is quite different (lower in the highs, especially). I can't see any consistency; it seems that they left the high frequencies out of the equation in the test.

 

[Erik]

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.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-atom-headphone-amp.5262/page-76#post-228789

 

[zermak]

@Thomas_A
If you are referring to that image and rating then take care: it was a test with one pair of cans (the AKG K712 Pro) simulating, through EQ-ing, other headphones.
And by the way looking at oratory's measurements the PM3 are quiet close to the Harmann's target curve (here) mainly on the highs.

 

[MZKM]

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.

Maybe it was done on those >50, so they couldn’t hear the peak.

 

[solderdude]

@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.

Sony themselves do not put them in the hifi category but in the monitor range and I agree. They work great for monitoring and let you hear details 'enhanced' (treble peak) and are fairly 'neutral' otherwise. Bass don't need to reach down deep and thunderous for monitors.
I heard them exactly as shown below (Sonarworks measurements correlate well with mine except bass response which they show much lower than mine)
Notice the dB scale this is quite enlarged. A large peak at 10kHz and after that it drops down. Smooth treble doesn't peak and extends further.

Rtings shows a similar peak (+10dB) but bass response is more realistic

The lift from 2kHz - 5kHz gives them more clarity than in reality. Most Hifi headphones have a dip there or are flat.
I remember bass sounded deep and neutral. A bit inbetween both plots to me.

 

[Thomas_A]

@Thomas_A
If you are referring to that image and rating then take care: it was a test with one pair of cans (the AKG K712 Pro) simulating, through EQ-ing, other headphones.
And by the way looking at oratory's measurements the PM3 are quiet close to the Harmann's target curve (here) mainly on the highs.

Yes I know they were EQed. Comparing the PM3 and the DT-990 on the same site makes it evidently clear that the DT-990 is too bright, as has been shown also by other measurements. I should say that the subjective listening tests performed by the Swedish Audio-Technical Society in 2003 was made by a panel of listeners (including me) before any measurement charts were revealed to the listeners. (The DT-150 was one of the better Beyerdynamics, but it was noted to have a somewhat boosted bass ("loudness button feeling"). Using more lossy pads, this headphone can sound close to neutral in tonality, and better than the HD-600, IMO, since the Sennheiser is open and loose in the bass region. And there was another headphone that was rated good both on listening and measurement, the cheap Creative HQ-2000, no longer available.)

There is no doubt to me at least that the Harman test and ratings leaves a lot of questions.

 

[solderdude]

The Harman tests say a lot about preferences and tonal balance which for most people is the most important aspect.
It doesn't say a lot about all the differences between actual headphones and emulated headphones when it comes to 'hi-fi nitpicking issues and comfort.

 

[Guermantes]

I have the NAD HP50s but they don't fit on my head properly which seems to compromise the sound (and experience). This is an aspect you can't emulate, as @solderdude has stated. Much prefer my AT MSR7s for music tracking and general use with my phone, especially with a Bluetooth adapter from FIIO.

At work we use Beyerdynamic DT-770 for closed cans -- they isolate well and you can wear them all day.

But for critical work, I don't use closed headphones: DT-880 Pro 250Ω and DT-880 600Ω with Sonarworks EQ.

 

[VMAT4]

I also own HP50s and find the pads too "cozy". It's a tight fit around my outer ear. Right now I use my Sennheiser HD 569 'phones for closed back listening. These are far more comfortable than the HP50.

 

[orangejello]

I also own HP50s and find the pads too "cozy". It's a tight fit around my outer ear. Right now I use my Sennheiser HD 569 "phones for closed back listening. These are far more comfortable than the HP50.

Any thoughts on the Audio Technica AT-M50x? I ordered a refurb'ed pair just for a lark and to hear the RME headphone amp that is part of the DAC. I have never liked headphones generally. I had the Sennheiser HD 650 phones for a while but I hardly used them before selling them. So I figured that if I don't really like that kind of audio I should get something cheap (they were around $100) and see if my predilections had changed. No matter what I read, or what measurements I looked at, it all looked like a crap shoot with very little relationship between price an performance. So I just pulled the trigger on these.

 

[solderdude]

The M50X is a decent headphone. Quite flat frequency response down to 10Hz
Looks like someone will be sending me one with a bunch of different pads to test.
May even have a look where the channel imbalance in the lows come from (some leakage on one side I presume) when I get the O.K. to investigate.

The X version is better than the non-X version which has too much lows.

 

[MZKM]

The M50X is a decent headphone. Quite flat frequency response down to 10Hz
Looks like someone will be sending me one with a bunch of different pads to test.
May even have a look where the channel imbalance in the lows come from (some leakage on one side I presume) when I get the O.K. to investigate.

The X version is better than the non-X version which has too much lows.

Really? I thought it was just an aesthetic change? My brother has the non-X and I can’t stand listening to them.

 

[Veri]

The X version is better than the non-X version which has too much lows.

Interesting.

 

[orangejello]

The M50X is a decent headphone. Quite flat frequency response down to 10Hz
Looks like someone will be sending me one with a bunch of different pads to test.
May even have a look where the channel imbalance in the lows come from (some leakage on one side I presume) when I get the O.K. to investigate.

The X version is better than the non-X version which has too much lows.

Thanks. Seems like I may have gotten luck with this choice. They just arrived this evening. So we shall see...

 

[orangejello]

Thanks. Seems like I may have gotten luck with this choice. They just arrived this evening. So we shall see...

Well, the ATH-M50x phones seem pretty decent to me. They also seem to get better over time. I am just letting them play through the RME in order to loosen them up a little and then periodically taking a listen. BTW, the RME is sure a pleasure to use. It seems PEQ is pretty important for headphones. Being able to correct the frequency response is really nice, if not essential. I also use PEQ in order to correct the rolloff in the "NOS" filter that I use when listening to CD and Streaming Audio through my speakers. That you can set different EQ curves for different outputs is really nice. I am actually beginning to think of the ADI-2 DAC as something of a bargain. You get a great headphone amp, a great dac and a bunch of feature like PEQ which are far from gratuitous. I also dialed in a bit of crossfeed.

I looked at the raw frequency response on rtings.com and just inverted the curve using the PEQ. Sounds pretty good, although I am not sure if that is the right approach. I try to listen for frequencies that jump out. At the moment, it seems pretty flat. Bass is quite good, midrange is not recessed and the highs seem natural, albeit a little "tight". The folder ribbon tweeters in my speaker seem more natural. The good news is that the highs are not irritating. I would say that for the $95 that I paid for these (refurbished) you get quite a lot for you money.

 

[zermak]

Talking on EQing, give this a try: Oratory1990's measurements with Harmann's AE/OE 2018 corrections.

 

[Fluffy]

Talking on EQing, give this a try: Oratory1990's measurements with Harmann's AE/OE 2018 corrections.

This can never work. Shifting the headphones' position on your head would change the FR in a similar or greater magnitude then that document suggests. And also the drivers are probably not perfectly matched, meaning there could be a difference of several DB between them in certain areas, making the decimal-point-accuracy of the EQ filters futile.

Making a universal EQ correction for each headphone is pointless. And also correcting based solely on a measurement graph. You should find areas in the FR that are bothersome to you, correct them, and that's it. Chasing a perfect response in a 95$ closed-back headphones is impractical and could take a lifetime of tweaking, and you are better off spending that time listening to music. Over time your ear adjusts to small inaccuracies and learns to ignore them.

 

[solderdude]

I would recommend to not apply sharp EQ matching that of measurements above 5kHz.
Just look at a bunch of different measurements (taken on different rigs) and then look for commonalities in FR such as a peak at a certain band and then only address the common deviations.
When one looks at IF measurements for instance it would appear that all headphones have roll-off above 1kHz and a 10kHz peak.
Look at EARS measurements and all of then have +/- 5dB peaks and dips at specific frequencies.
If one were to EQ to those it would not be an improvement. And that was exactly what the device was intended for.
Get's better with custom corrections though (SBAF for instance).

I would EQ at points 2 and 3 only.

 

[zermak]

This can never work. Shifting the headphones' position on your head would change the FR in a similar or greater magnitude then that document suggests. And also the drivers are probably not perfectly matched, meaning there could be a difference of several DB between them in certain areas, making the decimal-point-accuracy of the EQ filters futile.

Making a universal EQ correction for each headphone is pointless. And also correcting based solely on a measurement graph. You should find areas in the FR that are bothersome to you, correct them, and that's it. Chasing a perfect response in a 95$ closed-back headphones is impractical and could take a lifetime of tweaking, and you are better off spending that time listening to music. Over time your ear adjusts to small inaccuracies and learns to ignore them.

That't not the holy grail but I guess it's a good starting point.
About the 10kHz peaks I read it is fine to not fix them because of the way our pinna reacts to such frequencies.

 

[solderdude]

A peak is always worse sounding than a dip.
My recommendation... EQ a peak out and if it dulls to much slowly lower the EQ (after acclimatising for a minute or so) and see where you end up.

Not everyone is bothered by peaks, some don't hear them others are bothered by it.