• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro Review (headphone)

I'll add my response to this circle of confusion because I think we need to address the audience for the DT990 Pro and similar products. In the context of ASR's readers where people are buying as the end consumer listening to music that's as pleasant as possible (whatever reference curve that happens to be for consumer listening preferences), this review is spot on - it's not for your listening pleasure just like a track specific Mazda Miata with lowered suspension is not comfortable driving around town. @Mr Vinyl is on point with the use of this product as a "magnifying glass" for audio post production.

I personally use the DT1770 Pro (closed version that's more comfortable for longer editing sessions) which have similarly hot treble; the reason I need this magnifying glass is because I have to eliminate dialogue vocal hiss/clicks/noise that would otherwise be missed on a "normal" headphone unless I increase the volume - I want to catch these unwanted noises at lower listening volumes to avoid fatigue! For this purpose, these sort of headphones are ideal and maybe that's what "Pro" means? I don't know but it would be great if headphone companies clearly stated something like: "Frequency curve optimized for treble clarity above 2kHz," and provide the curve with a longer explanation about its intended use cases. It took me a few weeks of reading reviews before I found headphones with this characteristic that are comfortable enough for 3 hour editing sessions.

But these headphones are not my only tools - after that first task is done, I then master on Neumann KH120 II in nearfield to get a feel for how everything sounds on perfectly balanced speakers. Different horses for different courses my friends!
There is no need for massive peaks to have great treble. If you have the oportunity to listen to the Aful Performer 8, do it. Beautiful treble extension without any agressive peak.

We know that iems are much easier to fine tune, but Aful P8 sets a beautiful example of what treble can sound like.
 
The DT990's treble emphasis will create issues where there aren't any in the recording.
What sounds perfectly neutral on good monitors, will suddenly be peaky and sibilant played back through the DT990.

Instead, just get a neutral headphone and do the magnification inside your DAW using bandpass filters.
Infinitely more versatile than any baked-in house curve.
I hear what you're saying. I mentioned problems as in sneezes or static, and not frequencies. Once you catch them, you can easily remove them. The 990s are great for that. I would never use them for mixing, like you said. Inversely, by design or by accident, I find the Koss 30i to be great for finding problems in the low end. I've saved many piano recordings that had problematic hammer rumble around the 60Hz that I couldn't quite pinpoint with monitors. Now I use the 30i just for that. $30!
 
I spent some time with a pair of these, Daft Punk, and some graphs.

I found that the forcing these cans to comply (as closely as I could figure out) with the "AA Neutral" target curve sounds pretty great. I'm so far liking this better than even the Headphone.com and crinacle curves I found ... Here is the final graph and a txt of the values I came up with for wavelet, soundsource etc.
graph AA neutral v8.png
 

Attachments

  • Beyerdynamic dt 990pro 250 ohms Filters v8 AA Neutral.txt
    1,000 bytes · Views: 45
Just FYI, AA Neutral and IEF Neutral are the same target:
View attachment 396371
And crinacle very much intended for it to be seasoned with a bass shelf to taste (as opposed to the target having no bass, which it clearly doesn't unless you use squig etc to add one , usually 105hz q0.7)
 
Last edited:
And crinacle very much intended for it to be season with a bass shelf to taste (as opposed to the target having no bass, which it clearly doesn't unless you use squig etc to add one , usually 105hz q0.7)

I'd be curious about thoughts from a listening perspective on the curve I settled on. It felt like I dialed in something great, but ears like to play tricks :)
 
I'd be curious about thoughts from a listening perspective on the curve I settled on. It felt like I dialed in something great, but ears like to play tricks :)
Well I don't have the 990 but I know I would add at least a couple db of bass shelf albeit not up to harman levels of +7db or so . I find the ief target just fine on the right hand side .
 
I have the 1990s, which I love and hey, I am ok if others don't because of "aggressive heights".

I think we always need to keep a few thigs in mind:

1. The music preference. I tend to listen to classic and mostly acoustic jazz, so maybe that's why I don't get bothered much by the highs, debates aside.

2. The ears and personal preference. Despite my age, I can still hear 18kHz, but maybe I appreciate a little extra boost there because I am not as sensitive in that range as I used to be.

3. Always take the personal recommendations -from anyone, anywhere- with a grain of sand. If you check closely, the criteria end up being a bit inconsistent on a day-to-day basis.

I also have to say I have never been happy when I EQ any stuff in the end. Probably because I suspect there are potential drawbacks when adding a middleman, plus the fact there are undesirable side effects in other areas as one pushes equipment in certain areas. Oh, and I most certainly don't listen at 96dB either, where several of the tests happen (and yes, I know with some frequencies 96dB isn't as loud, but there will always be peaks at that level somewhere.
 
I have the 1990s
This thread is about the 990s if that's not what you meant. Anyway, it's entirely possible that a bright measuring headphone can sound acceptably balanced due to lucky outcomes of unit variation and individual fit variation. Pad condition is also a factor affecting the treble response. Now you seem to like yours, but would you recommend blind buying or demo first? Either way, fair enough if you like yours.
 
This thread is about the 990s if that's not what you meant. Anyway, it's entirely possible that a bright measuring headphone can sound acceptably balanced due to lucky outcomes of unit variation and individual fit variation. Pad condition is also a factor affecting the treble response. Now you seem to like yours, but would you recommend blind buying or demo first? Either way, fair enough if you like yours.
I clearly did not "recommend" anything in any way.
 
That's why I asked out of curiosity. You're the one telling you love them, your words
I clearly stated I am perfectly fine with those who disliked the boost in the high frequencies, which always come up in Beyerdynamic discussions, it seems. No recommendation was given.

I never recommend any audio product to anyone, even when good friends ask, I tell them the key is to establish a personal preference. And I am glad when they do, irrespective of what they pick.
 
I clearly stated I am perfectly fine with those who disliked the boost in the high frequencies, which always come up in Beyerdynamic discussions, it seems. No recommendation was given.

I never recommend any audio product to anyone, even when good friends ask, I tell them the key is to establish a personal preference. And I am glad when they do, irrespective of what they pick.
You did something far more persuasive than giving a recommendation...

BTW since you typed 1990 and have the 1990 in your profile pic I should assume you are talking about 1990?
 
You did something far more persuasive than giving a recommendation...
I doubt that. I stated a personal preference while admitting I understand why others don't like them. But I am flattered you place so much value on my purely personal opinion. :)
BTW since you typed 1990 and have the 1990 in your profile pic I should assume you are talking about 1990?
I do own the 1990, which just like the 990 discussed in here are criticized for the exaggerated "Beyerdynamic treble".
 
Last edited:
I doubt that. I stated a personal preference while admitting I understand why others don't like them. But I am flattered you place so much value on my purely personal opinion. :)
Personally, I'm not. But I've read Dr. R. Cialdini body of work on persuasion. And you talking about the 1990 could be a textbook case.

I do own the 1990, which just like the 990 discussed in here are criticized for the exaggerated "Beyerdynamic treble".
I don't believe in the Beyer treble meme. Every Bayer I've tried had a different treble. As far as 1990 it's measured treble overshoot is in a range where most ears are less sensitive.
 
Personally, I'm not. But I've read Dr. R. Cialdini body of work on persuasion. And you talking about the 1990 could be a textbook case.
In that case everybody posting an opinion here is dishonest and publishing subliminal recommendations to trick the feeble minded into buying something. I don't think the audience here is that naive. :)
 
..
I don't believe in the Beyer treble meme. Every Bayer I've tried had a different treble. As far as 1990 it's measured treble overshoot is in a range where most ears are less sensitive.
This I personally agree with. Plus it gets us back on topic. While every headphone is different, several acclaimed ones have an emphasis on highs. It's probably a bit like TVs that are cranked up on the showroom floor in brightness and saturation. And if one listens at certain levels (below 96dB and let alone 114) a little bathtub emphasis is flattering.
 
Last edited:
I too used to like the 990s without tuning. That is, until I discovered what a neutral, pleasing tone is supposed to sound like in headphones. Once you finally hear it, music suddenly comes to life with air, treble, clarity, presence, bass and thump.

A test is to use the Oratory, Crinacle or the curve I came up with and A/B them against no filter ... Make sure to gain match between them (will be + and - 7 or 8db I think, the text files have a preamp line with a value) or else you'll fool yourself into thinking the louder one sounds better. You'll eventually start to notice how cooked the treble is and how boosted upper bass is on the 990s without correction.
 
I spent some time with a pair of these, Daft Punk, and some graphs.

I found that the forcing these cans to comply (as closely as I could figure out) with the "AA Neutral" target curve sounds pretty great. I'm so far liking this better than even the Headphone.com and crinacle curves I found ... Here is the final graph and a txt of the values I came up with for wavelet, soundsource etc.
View attachment 396368
Something to contemplate...
Of course this means that in reality the headphones now have a massive 10kHz treble peak (because fixtures have a substantial dip there in reality, but not in the target) and are rolled-off above 10kHz (because above 10kHz is some 'average').
Your ears must look exactly like that on the used test fixture and instead of a real ear canal must have a short metal pipe in your head.

If this is a real measurement it is ONLY accurate to that specific test fixture with that specific seating, for that specific copy. That is a tall order.
Headphone measurements are at best indicative and a target (belonging to that specific test fixture) is just some heavily smoothed average.
Not all DT990 are created equal either and pad condition affects tonality as well.

Add to that one cannot see distortion on this plot nor are resonances visible.

That said.... Bass quality and mids will have improved for sure as that can be measured somewhat accurate (below 100Hz is not always accurate either but is in this case)
Just my way of saying that from 1-5kHz your ears may differ from the 'highly averaged' target curve and above 8kHz the measurement is untrustworthy. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom