Closed Back Headphones good enough for Mastering up to 1000 Euro

[DrSpan]

I own a pair of Beyerdynamic Dt 1770 Pro and also had the Dt 1990 Pro and the Dt 880 Pro (just mentioning the 1990+880 which both are open back in order to show that i have tried some of this companys „character“).

However i always found them to have much too much Bite in the higher mids making them fatiguing in longer sessions and usually when i tested if i can mix or master on them i ended up with mixes+masters that are too dull when i listen with rested ears next day and also do not translate on a wide range of systems.

Funnily enough the most reliable earphones i tried till now and not from all the above models are my traveling In_ears Sony Wf 1000 Xm5 believe it or not. They have exactly the signature
i like and the mixes translate exactly the way i want them to. However they are not really top notch when it comes to deeper details, imagine and …..well many little things a studio headphone should be able to do better.


I tried Headphone Eq correction but dont like this approach. I would like the Headphone to sound like i want it to independently of what source i connect it to.

This led me into thinking about portable DAC`s with Eq-Dsp possibilities. But once again i would like the headphones to sound as close as possible to what i consider good
without having to apply and external Help.

Please feel free to suggest any Closed Back headphones for this usage scenario.

Closed back cause i use them when traveling and imho you cant really use open headphones for critical listening when traveling as most times there is too much noise around
and it ends up unnerving.

 

[davmol]

Reading this makes me think that maybe you are not yet quite sure about what you want, or at least have a couple of different objectives. The simplest solution is if you like how the XM5 sound and you like the results when mastering with them, then just use them. At least you could keep them for travelling, their noise cancelling is exceptional (I have a set), and it would mean not having to restrict yourself to choosing only from closed back headphones for use at home.

If you do want a wired closed back for travelling then I'd recommend pairing then with a Qudelix 5k, it has a decent amount of power, a great app and really good EQ, plus it's tiny, which is helpful when travelling.

I know you seem uncertain of EQ but I run a Dan Clark Flow (closed), Hifiman Sundara Closed and Hifiman Ananda Open, and each of them sound better with EQ. The Sundara is actually a little unpleasant to listen to without EQ but then l turns into a very capable headphone when one of oratory's eq profiles is applied. Good luck on your search.

 

[kemmler3D]

For legit mastering, (as close as you can get with headphones) I would say LCD-XC. Good isolation, ultra low distortion, serviceable frequency response.

Getting a headphone to sound right without EQ means you have to trial and error until you find them, as your individual HRTF will vary from the Harman average, therefore measurements are only mostly, not 100% predictive of what you hear.

My advice is to get comfortable with EQ because it is a much more practical way to get accurate headphones and doesn't degrade the sound quality in any appreciable way.

Alternately if your mixes are already translating on the Sonys, as @davmol says, keep those and get some Etymotic IEMs for checking details. They are not good for all purposes but they are really like microscopes for your ears IMO.

 

[DVDdoug]

Here is a collection of excerpts I've saved -

This is from Recording Magazine:

Can I mix on headphones?

No. But in all seriousness, headphones can be a secret weapon and it really doesn’t matter what they sound like…

Over time, after constantly listening back to my work from different studios on those headphones I really started to learn them. They became sort of a compass. Wherever I went… It became a pattern for me to reference these headphones to see if what I was hearing was “right”…

I learned them, I knew them, I trusted them. It didn’t matter whether or not I loved them…

So, can you mix on headphones? Probably. I just think you really need to put some time into learning them first…

This is from Recoding Magazine's "Readers Submissions" where readers send-in their recordings for evaluation:

As those of you who have followed this column for any length of time can attest, headphone mixing is one of the big no-no's around these parts. In our humble opinion, headphone mixes do not translate well in the real world, period, end of story. Other than checking for balance issues and the occasional hunting down of little details, they are tools best left for the tracking process.

This is from Floyd Tool's book, Sound Reproduction

Headphones entertain masses of people. Professionals occasionally mix on them when conditions demand it. Both rely on some connection to sound reproduction, that is, loudspeakers in rooms, because that's how stereo is intended to be heard. Stereo recordings are mixed on loudspeakers.

 

[DrSpan]

Reading this makes me think that maybe you are not yet quite sure about what you want, or at least have a couple of different objectives. The simplest solution is if you like how the XM5 sound and you like the results when mastering with them, then just use them. At least you could keep them for travelling, their noise cancelling is exceptional (I have a set), and it would mean not having to restrict yourself to choosing only from closed back headphones for use at home.

If you do want a wired closed back for travelling then I'd recommend pairing then with a Qudelix 5k, it has a decent amount of power, a great app and really good EQ, plus it's tiny, which is helpful when travelling.

I know you seem uncertain of EQ but I run a Dan Clark Flow (closed), Hifiman Sundara Closed and Hifiman Ananda Open, and each of them sound better with EQ. The Sundara is actually a little unpleasant to listen to without EQ but then l turns into a very capable headphone when one of oratory's eq profiles is applied. Good luck on your search.

I am never sure about what i want. If i was sure i would always know what to get and that would be the end of it (and i would have a looooooot more money for other things).
Also in my logic if someone owns 5 different headphones and 5 different studio monitors i find it overkill and also would think that they also don`t know what they want (i use this as as example, i don`t mean someone specifically)

The fact that i like the Xm5 sound does not mean that it has no disadvantages. First of all find the soundstage of a big over ear headphone not comparable to an a lot better than average but in no way High End headphone like the Xm5 is.
. I just like them as all around tools and my first reason of purchase was and still is, listening to music on the go. I simply cannot wear studio headphones when
i go for a walk next to the river here, or if i lean my head to power nap on a journey,,,,, well you get the idea.

Recently bought the Qudelix. First i applied the Auto Eq curves that came with it for my Dt 1770 Pro. I then played a song i like on the Xm 5 and my Monitors
and then used the 1770 and opened an instance of Pro Q4 and started looking for what it exactly is i don`t like about these headphones.
The most disturbing where two areas, i think around 3290hz and around 2000hz where the main disliked areas and some smaller things here and there cant remember the exact numbers and not on an energy level to take a look but the strongest cut was maybe 2-2,5 db. IOn short nowhere near as radical as the suggested curves which
are stored in the app. I feel like while they make them more easy listening, they choke the energy by a lot.
Now to clarify, i find the Qudelix amazing and felt a bit stupid i haven`t followed advancements in this area for the last years but it also is not the holy grail that
will make the 1770 into what i imagine there must be outside there.
If anyone knew what they want then Beyerdynamic would have had 1-2 models and thats the end and not come up with headphones that are so different
even between models of the same brand.

"The Sundara is actually a little unpleasant to listen to without EQ but then l turns into a very capable headphone when eq is applied“ thats exactly my feeling with the 1770.
However i still believe it is best to find the closest sound character that i feel good with and then eq the last notches from there.
A headphone that needs heavy eq just to be bend into the sound i imagine is the wrong way in my opinion.

Same as i prefer to build a subwoofer that does not need Dsp in order to force it to do things it would normally not do.
Like getting a 10inch woofer to an -f3 of 20hz in 20 liters i prefer to build a bigger enclosure in the first place.
Others like the other philosophy. Thats the beauty in our world of interest.

Anyhow, i wrote so much i forgot where i came from. Thank you for your input and the wishes


cause i will

 

[DrSpan]

Here is a collection of excerpts I've saved -

This is from Recording Magazine:


This is from Recoding Magazine's "Readers Submissions" where readers send-in their recordings for evaluation:



This is from Floyd Tool's book, Sound Reproduction

Thank you.

I find these theories more philosophical than practical tbh. This could be said for many things. Ask a mass of audio geeks about super linear monitors and not everyone
will say that they enjoy them or that a monitor has to be super flat at any price.

I get the general idea but find the article excerpts too general for my taste.
Appreciate your input nonetheless

 

[DrSpan]

For legit mastering, (as close as you can get with headphones) I would say LCD-XC. Good isolation, ultra low distortion, serviceable frequency response.

Getting a headphone to sound right without EQ means you have to trial and error until you find them, as your individual HRTF will vary from the Harman average, therefore measurements are only mostly, not 100% predictive of what you hear.

My advice is to get comfortable with EQ because it is a much more practical way to get accurate headphones and doesn't degrade the sound quality in any appreciable way.

Alternately if your mixes are already translating on the Sonys, as @davmol says, keep those and get some Etymotic IEMs for checking details. They are not good for all purposes but they are really like microscopes for your ears IMO.

"My advice is to get comfortable with EQ because it is a much more practical way to get accurate headphones and doesn't degrade the sound quality in any appreciable way.“
My first tries have led me to a different conclusion. Of course it is pretty hard to argue about something that is happening in the interaction of your ears and headphones
as nobody can really share it with you, i found strong processing to be choking the headphone and making it more contained and also had the feeling the transient reproduction behavior suffered but i have not done extensive listening test to double check what i just wrote.

Same goes for for loudspeakers. I have never heard a speaker i don`t like without Eq and then Eq it and ending up in loving it. Never. I must have hears speakers in the multiple dozens over the years and also hade many though cant name a number by now as i don`t really keep track of what i let go. For me personally Eq is helpful if oyu want to
correct 5% of a sound character. Not 15% if you get what i mean with my example.

Anyhow, I have heard multiple people i trust mention the Audeze and different models of them so they are on my shooting list.

Thank you for dropping by

 

[kemmler3D]

My first tries have led me to a different conclusion. Of course it is pretty hard to argue about something that is happening in the interaction of your ears and headphones
as nobody can really share it with you, i found strong processing to be choking the headphone and making it more contained and also had the feeling the transient reproduction behavior suffered

This will happen if the EQ is exaggerating certain frequencies beyond neutrality, which is somewhat defined by your personal HRTF. I will say that EQing headphones by ear is very difficult and it's easy to make things worse instead of better. My point was mainly that distortion introduced by DSP per se is much lower than some people would have you believe.

I agree, especially in the case of speakers, you cannot expect to improve headphones 50-100% with EQ unless they're quite bad in the first place.

EQing speakers is a totally different proposition than EQing headphones, for the simple reason that on- and off-axis behavior for speakers is different (and you can't correct them separately), and reflected sound and room modes are important, where there is no such difficulty with headphones.

 

[DrSpan]

This will happen if the EQ is exaggerating certain frequencies beyond neutrality, which is somewhat defined by your personal HRTF. I will say that EQing headphones by ear is very difficult and it's easy to make things worse instead of better. My point was mainly that distortion introduced by DSP per se is much lower than some people would have you believe.

I agree, especially in the case of speakers, you cannot expect to improve headphones 50-100% with EQ unless they're quite bad in the first place.

EQing speakers is a totally different proposition than EQing headphones, for the simple reason that on- and off-axis behavior for speakers is different (and you can't correct them separately), and reflected sound and room modes are important, where there is no such difficulty with headphones.

"EQ is exaggerating certain frequencies beyond neutrality, which is somewhat defined by your personal HRTF“
Tbh i would not know what beyond neutrality means in this case as in the end my ear tells me at some point what it finds to be neutral
and then a year later it might tell me something else. I heard a lot of loud music in my life and can`t say that i believe it left no mark
even if i would say about my hearing that it works still pretty well for my age. I am not very sensitive to things above 10-12 khz but i stll have
a good grip on balance.

One of the proposed 1770 corrections that i tried in the app has a boost at 4khz by almost 6db…. another at 242 by 4db etc etc . These for me are radical moves
and feel like the headphone is „forcefully bend into place“ and not gently „helped“ to adapt to my taste. My theory is that while the Eq itself does not
degrade the signal as a signal, it goes against the natural character of the driver implemented.
It also sounds like what i would expect tbh. I hear that the difference changes more than the frequency response. I lack the technical knowledge however as to what exactly happens to a full range transducer when it gets a customized signal more than to a small degree.
In passive speakers that would be the task of the x-over. However there are wide range drivers that need almost no correction and others that need a heavy lot of help
I always liked the idea of the first type of driver.
To the 1770, there are a lot of people which describe many beyerdynamic phones as too hyped in the higher mids-highs. I tend to agree with these people

Also don`t get me wrong, i am not single handedly rejecting Eq as a tool. It is just that i first want to put my theory to the test.
I want to find a headphone that i like more from the first 5-10 minutes and then apply subtle correction and then compare to the corrected 1770.
If they sound close and not worthwhile in difference then i will have no choice but to …… stand corrected (pun intended) and will have piece of mind.
For at least half a year i predict …...

The challenge alone i find so interesting that i will follow through with no matter what anyone tells me by now. This ship has sailed hahaha

 

[Multicore]

I expect the Genelec UNIO breaks the budget but might be interesting to study how it goes about compensating for this and that and achieving its claims.

UNIO Audio Monitoring Ecosystem - Genelec.com

Bridging in-room and personal headphone monitoring

www.genelec.com

 

[kemmler3D]

Tbh i would not know what beyond neutrality means in this case as in the end my ear tells me at some point what it finds to be neutral
and then a year later it might tell me something else. I heard a lot of loud music in my life and can`t say that i believe it left no mark
even if i would say about my hearing that it works still pretty well for my age. I am not very sensitive to things above 10-12 khz but i stll have
a good grip on balance.

Yes, this is hard to judge by ear, when I say "neutral" what I really mean is that you have a perceptually flat FR at your eardrum, such that transients and clarity are both ideal.

But your experience of larger tweaks having an audible cost seems plausible, sometimes problems with FR coincide with distortion or resonance problems so EQ fixes FR but not without side effects.

And of course your HRTF is a bit different than whatever coupler was used to produce the corrections, so the corrections are always going to be a tiny bit wrong.

I think your approach of finding a headphone that doesn't require much correction is good. I think I have at most 6db correction on my LCD-XC cans but that's mostly boosting sub bass.

 

[markanini]

Thank you.

I find these theories more philosophical than practical tbh. This could be said for many things. Ask a mass of audio geeks about super linear monitors and not everyone
will say that they enjoy them or that a monitor has to be super flat at any price.

I get the general idea but find the article excerpts too general for my taste.
Appreciate your input nonetheless

The excepts DVDdoug gave you are suitable because your question is about general mastering, otherwise you would specify. The excerpts are authoritative from experienced people and represent the insight and experience of the majority in the field.

 

[DrSpan]

The excepts DVDdoug gave you are suitable because your question is about general mastering, otherwise you would specify. The excerpts are authoritative from experienced people and represent the insight and experience of the majority in the field.

By all the respect, i think we are talking past each other. I genuinely don`t really understand what you are trying to tell me.

First of all, what is „general mastering“? This makes little sense to me. Mastering is Mastering. The objectives are pretty much predefined.
Studios also are not randomly tuned and also are not made for one specific type of music only. There is more or less a balanced response result that is measurable
everyone tries to achieve when building a room. It might have some slight deviations but it still nothing in this is „general“
The only shifting parameter is that some people tend to work more in a specific Genre but other than that Mastering itself has the objective of translation to
the aimed for Formats and ideally to better the Acoustic properties of a Mixdown, Premaster or other descriptions of the same thing.

From one of the Articles "In our humble opinion, headphone mixes do not translate well in the real world, period, end of story“

What? You can read dozens of seasoned mastering engineers opinions like i have and you will at some point realize that there is not really one
opinion on the Subject. You read one interview saying more or less „Never in Life-Would not trust the result“ and you go to the next one and they say „ At first it was hard but now i can and the masters translate very well“
They should rather end their quote with „end of our opinion“ instead of „end of story“

To the articles ,,,
Firstly, "The excerpts are authoritative“. I am having a slight issue understanding the word „authoritative“. What does it even mean in this context?
Secondly there are three articles that conclude 3 different things and not one agrees with the other.
To me this is as concrete as asking for peoples view on the Weather.
„What is the weather today?“ Person 1: I hate it Person 2: I like it Person 3: I would prefer different weather but its ok

"insight and experience of the majority in the field“. There are 3 articles with 3 different conclusions. They represent 3 majorities of …something

I really appreciate the effort but i really still find the articles saying nothing useful. I prefer being honest and polite than being only polite.
Let`s agree to disagree and leave it at that please.

 

[DrSpan]

I expect the Genelec UNIO breaks the budget but might be interesting to study how it goes about compensating for this and that and achieving its claims.

UNIO Audio Monitoring Ecosystem - Genelec.com

Bridging in-room and personal headphone monitoring

www.genelec.com

Took a quick look.

I will wait for some real life independent measurements and experiences. Also don`t like the Bundle philosophy. This controller looks huge and if
i got the big picture right it is basically a closed headphone with a (huge) external amp-dsp-box thingy that i would never want to take with me on a trip.

If you told me this Genelec combo achieves 100% sound quality (whatever that is), and present me a solution with a small handheld Dac that reaches 95% quality i would choose the lateranytime of the day out of practical reasons tbh cause as i mentioned i want a portable solution.
For the studio they might be worth considering on the other hand. Who knows what i will be thinking next year….

Also after all the decades i am getting tired of desctiptions like "8550A Professional Reference Headphones.“ How many times am i going to read the word Reference and
Professional i don`t know but i take it less seriously than 30 years ago to be honest but of course all of this is my opinion and not the only truth

However now that you mentioned genelec, i absolutely love the 8331 monitors though and am considering getting a pair as secondary nearfields.
A coaxial speaker measuring this good is a rarity tbh

 

[markanini]

By all the respect, i think we are talking past each other. I genuinely don`t really understand what you are trying to tell me.

First of all, what is „general mastering“? This makes little sense to me. Mastering is Mastering. The objectives are pretty much predefined.
Studios also are not randomly tuned and also are not made for one specific type of music only. There is more or less a balanced response result that is measurable
everyone tries to achieve when building a room. It might have some slight deviations but it still nothing in this is „general“
The only shifting parameter is that some people tend to work more in a specific Genre but other than that Mastering itself has the objective of translation to
the aimed for Formats and ideally to better the Acoustic properties of a Mixdown, Premaster or other descriptions of the same thing.

From one of the Articles "In our humble opinion, headphone mixes do not translate well in the real world, period, end of story“

What? You can read dozens of seasoned mastering engineers opinions like i have and you will at some point realize that there is not really one
opinion on the Subject. You read one interview saying more or less „Never in Life-Would not trust the result“ and you go to the next one and they say „ At first it was hard but now i can and the masters translate very well“
They should rather end their quote with „end of our opinion“ instead of „end of story“

To the articles ,,,
Firstly, "The excerpts are authoritative“. I am having a slight issue understanding the word „authoritative“. What does it even mean in this context?
Secondly there are three articles that conclude 3 different things and not one agrees with the other.
To me this is as concrete as asking for peoples view on the Weather.
„What is the weather today?“ Person 1: I hate it Person 2: I like it Person 3: I would prefer different weather but its ok

"insight and experience of the majority in the field“. There are 3 articles with 3 different conclusions. They represent 3 majorities of …something

I really appreciate the effort but i really still find the articles saying nothing useful. I prefer being honest and polite than being only polite.
Let`s agree to disagree and leave it at that please.

If you insist on using headphones for mastering surely you must have a strong case for its viability first? The goal of mastering is translatability across a multitude of playback systems, and speakers are superior to headphones for this task. If there was a special headphone better suited for the task it would be well known, you wouldn't need to ask about selection. But such an animal doesn't exist. For the QC tasks that may land on the mastering engineer headphones might be used as a utility. For the rest of the process, you won't come very far without speakers. I could tell you about people I know personally that get paid regularly for mastering, mixing, producing, arranging, even amateurs producing demos. They all tell me similar stories about poor results from working on headphones, and my own experience matches theirs. If you have an open mind I can tell more but that's up to you.

 

[DrSpan]

I don’t need anyone to explain to me what is possible.
„you must have a strong case for its viability first?“ actually I „must“ have nothing at all.
I am asking a specific question and you are answering something different on a different subject. I don’t know why you are insisting on the mastering term. I am asking about headphones for traveling that are good enough for critical listening. I am not saying that I’m looking for a pair of headphones to base all my life decisions on. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. Also I don’t need to be taught on what mastering is and what engineers say. Same goes if I ask for flat measuring monitors, I don’t need an explanation on why flat is good or bad or else we would have endless conversations all the time. Sometimes you only need concrete information. It is not about open minds, but rather about if I’m willing to spend the time to drift in all different directions when I don’t want to. This is not the only conversation I have in the Internet and I only have a limited lifespan. Based on reading actual suggestions about headphones, I’m leaning more towards trying some Audeze Modells for now would be one conclusion
It’s all good.
Thank you nonetheless

 

[SuicideSquid]

I’m leaning more towards trying some Audeze Modells for now would be one conclusion
It’s all good.
Thank you nonetheless

Dan Clark Noire X and Noire XO are extremely accurate, with frequency response basically dead on the target from 20Hz to 10kHz (above 10kHz every headphone gets a little wonky, there's so much change based on fit and angle of the headphone and HRTFs that it's impossible to measure accurately). The Noire X should be able to be had for under 1000 euro, the XO a hair over, both have very low distortion as well. You need a decent headphone amp to run them, though.

A couple other options to consider, the AKG K371 are much cheaper, they also feel cheap, but for closed-backs under $500 you can't get much closer to neutral sound. I also strongly recommend having a pair of cheap, accurate IEMs in your arsenal, whether it's just for listening back, for recording, or for mixing or mastering. My personal favourites are the Salnotes 7Hz Zero 2 but there are lots of options in the $50-and-under class for IEMs which are totally neutral and have virtually no distortion at any level below that which would destroy your hearing.

 

[DrSpan]

Dan Clark Noire X and Noire XO are extremely accurate, with frequency response basically dead on the target from 20Hz to 10kHz (above 10kHz every headphone gets a little wonky, there's so much change based on fit and angle of the headphone and HRTFs that it's impossible to measure accurately). The Noire X should be able to be had for under 1000 euro, the XO a hair over, both have very low distortion as well. You need a decent headphone amp to run them, though.

A couple other options to consider, the AKG K371 are much cheaper, they also feel cheap, but for closed-backs under $500 you can't get much closer to neutral sound. I also strongly recommend having a pair of cheap, accurate IEMs in your arsenal, whether it's just for listening back, for recording, or for mixing or mastering. My personal favourites are the Salnotes 7Hz Zero 2 but there are lots of options in the $50-and-under class for IEMs which are totally neutral and have virtually no distortion at any level below that which would destroy your hearing.

These Dan Clark`s keep popping up here and there. I had never heard of them till recently.
I was amazed by the quantity of offerings on the market. The Clark`s are on my list next to the Audeze.
To the 371, i agree. Thats why i think realistically i will go for the higher end ones.

-(above 10kHz every headphone gets a little wonky, there's so much change based on fit and angle of the headphone and HRTFs that it's impossible to measure accurately_
Above 10 khz i dont mind as i A) find it much easier to Eq without being too invasive than if it was below 8khz. B) I don`t hear perfectly above 12khz would be my estimate
cause i am not getting younger. I simply have an allergy to unbalanced mids-higher mids.

To the IEM i am happy with the Wf1000xm5. I cant use IEM for extended periods when mixing or mastering as they tend to stress me. Not acoustically but
physically.
I prefer over ears for this. But as a „platform translation“ i am super happy with the sony`s as in my ear they give me a very very predictable result
and i don`t need to change a running system. I also have the shure 535, 315, 215 but evern though the 535 sound „better“ than the sony they also steer me in a less universal
direction over time.
If its sound exciting on the Sonys to my ears then it sounds good almost on any speaker i test it on.

Thank you a lot for chipping in. As said, will definitely check both Dan Clark you mention

 

[DrSpan]

Dan Clark Noire X and Noire XO are extremely accurate, with frequency response basically dead on the target from 20Hz to 10kHz (above 10kHz every headphone gets a little wonky, there's so much change based on fit and angle of the headphone and HRTFs that it's impossible to measure accurately). The Noire X should be able to be had for under 1000 euro, the XO a hair over, both have very low distortion as well. You need a decent headphone amp to run them, though.

A couple other options to consider, the AKG K371 are much cheaper, they also feel cheap, but for closed-backs under $500 you can't get much closer to neutral sound. I also strongly recommend having a pair of cheap, accurate IEMs in your arsenal, whether it's just for listening back, for recording, or for mixing or mastering. My personal favourites are the Salnotes 7Hz Zero 2 but there are lots of options in the $50-and-under class for IEMs which are totally neutral and have virtually no distortion at any level below that which would destroy your hearing.

PS: Have you by any chance ever listened to the Adam H200 headphones?

 

[SuicideSquid]

PS: Have you by any chance ever listened to the Adam H200 headphones?

I have not, sorry.