Headphone journey

[MRC01]

That's generally true, megabuck headphones are often not worth the money. But there are some exceptions to this rule, headphones that outperform the classic HD6xx and others, in measurements, and you can hear the difference. For just one example the Audeze LCD-2 have equal or lower distortion across the board, roughly an order of magnitude lower in the bass, with excellent impulse and frequency response. Subjectively, I found in comparison the HD6xx have slightly brassy midrange voicing with wooly bass and rolled off HF. I still think the HD6xx are great headpones at the knee of the price/performance curve. But for me personally, they are not "as good as you need to go".
That said, you can get the LCD-2 for about a kilobuck, which is not megabucks. I doubt whether the LCD-4 is that much better, the Focal Utopia certainly is not at least in measurements, and for the difference in price you can buy a good used car, a great set of speakers, or hundreds of great music recordings.

 

[UWinWithWin]

One obvious point worth stating is not to fall into thinking that more expensive = better. That is true for audio in general but recent years have seen a proliferation of mega bucks statement headphones and unless you want to make a statement you really don't need to spend that much. Headphones like the HD6x0 family and equivalent models from Audio Technica, AKG, Beyerdynamic etc are still pretty much as good as you need to go. I paid £140 for a pair of Audio Technica MSR7's which are superb. I prefer my T5P II's but the SQ difference is in no way commensurate with the ostensible price difference (although the sonic signature is different the MSR7 delivers its sonic signature extremely well).

I have noticed that the massdrop products seem to be a very good value. The massdrop focal headphones seem to be very similar to the clear. For half the price. And the hd-6XX is a superb value for what the he-650 went for.

I think there is a big range of quality products. Some are expensive. Some are cheap. I just enjoy new things.

 

[UWinWithWin]

I got some headphone wall mounts that are t-Rex skulls. I can figure out how to upload the picture because it’s too large, but I wanted to share it.

 

[Sal1950]

Subjectively, I found in comparison the HD6xx have slightly brassy midrange voicing with wooly bass and rolled off HF.

IIRC, Stereophile was advertising for writers.

 

[solderdude]

I still think the HD6xx are great headphones at the knee of the price/performance curve. But for me personally, they are not "as good as you need to go".

The above is really well formulated.

What I found over the years is that EQ is really necessary for headphones. They can easily vary 10dB here and there. Much more so than speakers.
One would think that if one EQ's them so they sound the same so one could get away with a cheap headphone, but this really is not the case.
There are still substantial differences in the 'dynamics', 'smoothness', 'reality' of how instruments are 'portrayed', distortion, roughness of the treble, resonances, lack of 'airyness', cymbals sounding differently.

Things like driver size, materials used, angles, pads, seal, porting, driver ears distance, resonances (in cups and/or drive) all make audible differences that may not stick out that much in relatively 'basic' measurements.

I generally find that SQ improves with price and do think that the LCD-4 for instance is 'better' than the LCD-2 but the question is if the difference in SQ is worth the price increase.
But not always the SQ increases in price. Utopia (4k) is not 'better' sounding to me than the Clear (1.5k) and the HD700 is not better sounding than the HD650 but the spatial clues are 'better' and so is the comfort which might be the reason some prefer the HD700 over the HD650 but others sure see it the other way around.
Then there is longevity, how long one can get original service parts, how sturdy certain parts are, how scratch/drop resistant some headphones are.

I have some cheaper headphones (all modified or EQ'ed) that I really like and have 2 or 3 prototypes I got to keep that sound great but never saw the light of day or they skimped somewhere and ruined the sound.
For me personally there is one favorite that hasn't been beaten yet (but some came really close) but needs EQ.
But as said.. most do but folks dismiss them easily because they did not do so and compare headphones 'as they are'.

A bit like trying different speakers in an untreated room with lots of nasty reflections. Sure some speakers will sound better and a few may even sound 'good' but won't ever become 'excellent' without room treatment/DSP.

My advise would be: listen to headphones with familiar music on your own gear if possible and find one that sounds good and has a good comfort and fit and is suited for the circumstances you are going to use them in (travelling, home, office, gaming, outdoor, indoor) and has the right functionality (BT/wired/portable/NC for instance).

The more established brands usually provide pads and headbands or other parts for much longer than the cheaper or exotic brands.

More expensive does NOT equal 'better' but could be better.
There are gems in most brands out there at affordable prices.
Don't be afraid to use EQ.
Don't dismiss a headphone directly when comparing them, you may miss out on a great product once your brain has adjusted after hearing a 'hyped sounding' headphone.

 

[JJB70]

I still have a pair of Sennheiser HD580's bought in the mid 90's that still work fine. Yes they look a bit worn and have gone through a couple of pads but build quality and durability have been superb. At that time the HD580 was considered an expensive pair of headphones. Some expensive headphones are very good but some aren't and even for the better ones I don't think the improvement in SQ is in any way commensurate with the higher cost. I actually think the HD700 is worse than the HD6x0 models and feels low rent for the price. I am not really a fan of the HD800 either. I like the sound of some of the Audeze LCD models but I find them too heavy and uncomfortable and some aspects of the build don't seem great. The AKG K812 is mediocre and worse than much cheaper alternative AKG models (though I love its industrial design). Even the Beyerdynamic T5P ii which I love, at £399 (the price I paid) I would recommend them 100% but I really don't think that they are worth buying if paying anything like the SRP. A pair of expensive statement headphones I did like was the Oppo PM-1 but I bought the PM-2 for a lot less which delivers pretty much the same sound while losing a bit of the lavish presentation and build quality.
At one time headphones were an island of sanity in the dysfunctional world of audio and companies like Sennheiser, AKG, Beyerdynamic and Sony made worthy well engineered headphones that avoided all the audiophile insanity for the most part. The last decade or so has seen a proliferation of high priced headphones along with all that goes with audiophile madness such as silly cables, ridiculous amplifiers, flowery subjective reviews in websites and magazines to push the gullible into parting with $$$$$$$$$`s etc. I just find it a little sad.

 

[UWinWithWin]

The above is really well formulated.

What I found over the years is that EQ is really necessary for headphones. They can easily vary 10dB here and there. Much more so than speakers.
One would think that if one EQ's them so they sound the same so one could get away with a cheap headphone, but this really is not the case.
There are still substantial differences in the 'dynamics', 'smoothness', 'reality' of how instruments are 'portrayed', distortion, roughness of the treble, resonances, lack of 'airyness', cymbals sounding differently.

Things like driver size, materials used, angles, pads, seal, porting, driver ears distance, resonances (in cups and/or drive) all make audible differences that may not stick out that much in relatively 'basic' measurements.

I generally find that SQ improves with price and do think that the LCD-4 for instance is 'better' than the LCD-2 but the question is if the difference in SQ is worth the price increase.
But not always the SQ increases in price. Utopia (4k) is not 'better' sounding to me than the Clear (1.5k) and the HD700 is not better sounding than the HD650 but the spatial clues are 'better' and so is the comfort which might be the reason some prefer the HD700 over the HD650 but others sure see it the other way around.
Then there is longevity, how long one can get original service parts, how sturdy certain parts are, how scratch/drop resistant some headphones are.

I have some cheaper headphones (all modified or EQ'ed) that I really like and have 2 or 3 prototypes I got to keep that sound great but never saw the light of day or they skimped somewhere and ruined the sound.
For me personally there is one favorite that hasn't been beaten yet (but some came really close) but needs EQ.
But as said.. most do but folks dismiss them easily because they did not do so and compare headphones 'as they are'.

A bit like trying different speakers in an untreated room with lots of nasty reflections. Sure some speakers will sound better and a few may even sound 'good' but won't ever become 'excellent' without room treatment/DSP.

My advise would be: listen to headphones with familiar music on your own gear if possible and find one that sounds good and has a good comfort and fit and is suited for the circumstances you are going to use them in (travelling, home, office, gaming, outdoor, indoor) and has the right functionality (BT/wired/portable/NC for instance).

The more established brands usually provide pads and headbands or other parts for much longer than the cheaper or exotic brands.

More expensive does NOT equal 'better' but could be better.
There are gems in most brands out there at affordable prices.
Don't be afraid to use EQ.
Don't dismiss a headphone directly when comparing them, you may miss out on a great product once your brain has adjusted after hearing a 'hyped sounding' headphone.

My personal biggest complaint about the LCD line is the comfort. I have found that mrspeaker are much more comfortable on my head. Why, I dunno. Probably because I have the most perfect shaped head and any brand of headphone that doesn’t fit it is terrible (please note the sarcasm).

Focal are also very comfortable on my head.

The HD-6XX is one of my current favorite headphones as far as sound goes. The biggest problem for me is the clamp force is too much for my head. So, they end up hurting my jaw after about 30 mins.

What do you use for EQ? I currently run tidal/Apple Music out of my iPad. I also watch a ton of movies.

Games are nice to play. But I currently don’t have a laptop. I only play on the Xbox. And I haven’t tried to use the Xbox controller with many of my headphones. I have a pair of the Sennheiser game one that I find them fine for playing games. When I first got them I thought they were amazing. But now I’m just sad lmao. The microphone is nice and everyone can hear me. I know that I can hear more that many other people. Because I can hear chest/ other stuff before many other people can. So I have actually improved. The connivence factor of having a headset is very nice. And it mutes when I put the microphone up. So I can talk to my wife without broadcasting my conversation to the world.

 

[UWinWithWin]

At one time headphones were an island of sanity in the dysfunctional world of audio and companies like Sennheiser, AKG, Beyerdynamic and Sony made worthy well engineered headphones that avoided all the audiophile insanity for the most part. The last decade or so has seen a proliferation of high priced headphones along with all that goes with audiophile madness such as silly cables, ridiculous amplifiers, flowery subjective reviews in websites and magazines to push the gullible into parting with $$$$$$$$$`s etc. I just find it a little sad.

But did you know if you had a cable made from unicorn hair, it would make any headphone perfect!

I enjoy headphones as a general rule because I like variety. And compared to changing out my speakers all the time it’s way cheaper and easier on my back. Haha.

Variety is the spice of life as they say!

 

[wiggum]

That said, some of the better engineered & built planars have bass response that is so clean & tight it simply isn't possible with a conventional driver. Tyll Herstens measured the Audeze LCD-2 at around 0.1% distortion through the full audible spectrum, some of the lowest distortion he's ever measured in a headphone. That distortion is comparable to the HD-800 in the midrange but an order of magnitude better in the bass. However, that doesn't mean it will sound better to you.

Tyll measures at 90dB SPL, and there are many other headphones that challenges Audeze LCD-2 in distortion at vastly lower price. One famous example is Audio Technica M50X. LCD-2 and other planars do have lower distortion at 100 dB SPL, but no one listens at such high levels.

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/total-harmonic-distortion

Click on weighted THD columns to sort.

 

[MRC01]

IIRC, Stereophile was advertising for writers.

Perhaps . Though these observations are consistent with measurements. In the low bass, the LCD-2 has10x lower distortion and flatter response than the HD-6xx. Listening to a good recording of castanets, small percussive sticks etc. reveals differences in their HF and impulse response.
Midrange voicing is more subjective, since the different shape of our ears and HRTF means we all hear differently. My ears are pretty flat near my head. If I put my hands behind them and cup them out, the world sounds a bit more like the HD6xx midrange voicing.

 

[MRC01]

...
What I found over the years is that EQ is really necessary for headphones. They can easily vary 10dB here and there. Much more so than speakers.
...

...
What do you use for EQ? ...

There is more to sound quality than FR, but FR is important. With the LCD-2 (mine are the 2016 Fazor drivers), I apply parametric centered at 4500 Hz, +3.5 dB, Q=0.67. This restores some of their response dip in this range and makes them close to flat neutral overall.

 

[3vilgenius]

For me personally there is one favorite that hasn't been beaten yet (but some came really close) but needs EQ.
But as said.. most do but folks dismiss them easily because they did not do so and compare headphones 'as they are'.

A bit like trying different speakers in an untreated room with lots of nasty reflections. Sure some speakers will sound better and a few may even sound 'good' but won't ever become 'excellent' without room treatment/DSP.

What is your one favorite that hasn't been beaten yet? You're the guy that built/uses the Kameleon for EQ needs right? @solderdude

 

[daftcombo]

Anyone tried one of the headphones discussed here with a bit of EQ?
There is an open library of convolution files to correct many here:
https://github.com/ShanonPearce/ASH-IR-Dataset/tree/master/HpCFs

Drop the impulsion (wav file) in REW to see what it does (RF / phase).

 

[3vilgenius]

Anyone tried one of the headphones discussed here with a bit of EQ?
There is an open library of convolution files to correct many here:
https://github.com/ShanonPearce/ASH-IR-Dataset/tree/master/HpCFs

Drop the impulsion (wav file) in REW to see what it does (RF / phase).

whoa what does this do?

 

[solderdude]

What is your one favorite that hasn't been beaten yet? You're the guy that built/uses the Kameleon for EQ needs right? @solderdude

The one that a lot of people don't like because they don't EQ it (properly) ... the HD800.
I don't care for it in stock condition so I get why some don't like it (in stock condition).
Bought it secondhand.

 

[daftcombo]

whoa what does this do?

Supposed to make your headphones play flat as a pancake.
I've tried with my AKG K701, it works well.

The purpose of these studies are to simulate binaural sound (which would give a better illusion with a flat RF), but you can try just the EQ to begin with.

Shannon Pearce is the searcher behind that, let's give him the credit for it.

 

[solderdude]

The HD-6XX is one of my current favorite headphones as far as sound goes. The biggest problem for me is the clamp force is too much for my head. So, they end up hurting my jaw after about 30 mins.

The clamping force of the HD6** series is very easy to adjust and is reversible as well.

 

[3vilgenius]

The one that a lot of people don't like because they don't EQ it (properly) ... the HD800.
I don't care for it in stock condition so I get why some don't like it (in stock condition).

I looked up the EQ corrections on the DIY audioheaven website and holy cow, the sub base on those things with your eq's are straight up unbelievable. Like I straight up can't believe what I'm seeing haha. So tell me... what's it like? I listen to a lot of rap and R&B and I've realized that the majority of audiophiles straight up don't listen to the music that I do, so I can never trust anyone's opinion on base. But those measurements for the EQ'd 800's and the 650's for that matter... is it as good as the FR shows? Also after EQ have you sacrificed any of the sound stage bigness that make the 800's what they are?

 

[3vilgenius]

Supposed to make your headphones play flat as a pancake.
I've tried with my AKG K701, it works well.

The purpose of these studies are to simulate binaural sound (which would give a better illusion with a flat RF), but you can try just the EQ to begin with.

Shannon Pearce is the searcher behind that, let's give him the credit for it.

That's awesome, I'll look into trying it out on my hd 650's. Might as well since its free!

 

[UWinWithWin]

The one that a lot of people don't like because they don't EQ it (properly) ... the HD800.
I don't care for it in stock condition so I get why some don't like it (in stock condition).
Bought it secondhand.

I guess I have no idea how to EQ a headphones. It sounds complicated haha