• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

adelaidestevens

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2022
Messages
2
Likes
0
Hi I’m in the market for a fun headphone to pair with my HD 560s, something that is warm bassy with smooth trebles, that makes poorly mixed songs more enjoyable to listen to. Meze 99 seems to be everyone’s number one choice, similar cans I can think of is the dt 177x and 700 pro x , if anyone has input please fill me in :)
Thanks.
 

Vict0r

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
610
Likes
1,374
Location
The Netherlands
You just described the Koss Portapro to me. :p I own a lot of headphones, but throw on the cheap Koss if I want something that smoothes over the rough edges. It's also very comfortable, light and low profile. Just an inoffensive little thing.
 

HarmonicTHD

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
623
Likes
697
Hi I’m in the market for a fun headphone to pair with my HD 560s, something that is warm bassy with smooth trebles, that makes poorly mixed songs more enjoyable to listen to. Meze 99 seems to be everyone’s number one choice, similar cans I can think of is the dt 177x and 700 pro x , if anyone has input please fill me in :)
Thanks.
See here (Amir’s EQ) for EQ Settings as a starting point as solderdude has suggested.

 
OP
A

adelaidestevens

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2022
Messages
2
Likes
0
See here (Amir’s EQ) for EQ Settings as a starting point as solderdude has suggested.

thanks, I've never dabbled with EQ before but will defo give it a try. What headphones do you have? do you think it's better to have one quality hp that can do everything or a few that are less expensive but has certain attributes
 

Robin L

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
4,512
Likes
6,366
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
thanks, I've never dabbled with EQ before but will defo give it a try. What headphones do you have? do you think it's better to have one quality hp that can do everything or a few that are less expensive but has certain attributes
Solderdude has gone through a giant mess 'o headphones. I'd take his advice.
 

HarmonicTHD

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
623
Likes
697
thanks, I've never dabbled with EQ before but will defo give it a try. What headphones do you have? do you think it's better to have one quality hp that can do everything or a few that are less expensive but has certain attributes
I have also HD560 (but I am more a speaker guy).

Regarding EQ: eg for Windows, Equalizer APO using the suggested EQ profiles from Oratory or Crinnacle will get you started.

More info here

 

ADU

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,375
Likes
925
The following two graphs give a rough idea of what a fun and well-extended, but also still fairly neutral response would look like on one of Oratory's diffuse field compensated plots imo. These are actually compilations of a number of different headphones btw. So please ignore the "flyers" on some of the headphones that stray a bit outside of the general overall shape of the groups.

index.php

BESTBASSANDTREBLE.jpg
 
Last edited:

ADU

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,375
Likes
925
And here is a diffuse field plot of the Senn HD560S for comparison. All of the frequency response curves on these graphs are centered or normalized to a level of 0 dB at approximately 633 Hz in the midrange btw. So you can use the 0 dB line to roughly assess some of the differences between them in the lower and higher frequencies.

HD560S.jpg
 
Last edited:

Timcognito

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
868
Likes
3,902
Location
NorCal
Your description reads right on 1More Triple Drivers closed back HPs on sale at 1More right now. The 1More signature is slightly bass forward and not fatiguing Armir and Archimago reviewed the IEMs
 

ADU

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,375
Likes
925
The Sennheiser HD560S is not quite as well extended in the sub-bass as some of the better closed headphones. But it is pretty well-extended for an open dynamic headphone.

Here's a diffuse field graph of some other popular open-back Sennheisers so you can see how their bass (and treble) response compares to the other headphones above.

OPENSENNHEISERS.jpg
 
Last edited:

ADU

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,375
Likes
925
If you're a speaker guy, and familiar with spinorama plots, the DF compensated headphone plots above should be roughly analogous to a loudspeaker's diffuse sound power response on a spinorama graph.

In either case, the overall shape of the response curves should roughly approximate a gentle downward slope toward the treble, that usually averages somewhere around -1.0 to -1.5 dBs per octave on the better, and more neutral headphones and loudspeakers (excluding the falloff in the sub-bass).

The diffuse field plots of the headphones will have a few extra bumps and dips in the upper frequencies though, which are related to some of the resonant characteristics in Oratory's headphone measurement rig.

A couple examples of the average sound power of some well-extended neutral loudspeakers with a flat direct response, for comparison to the above.

2SOUNDPOWER.jpg
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
11,889
Likes
26,588
Location
The Neitherlands
DF compensated headphone plots above should be roughly analogous to a loudspeaker's diffuse sound power response on a spinorama graph

Nope, DF is the wrong compensation to use when measuring headphones. In the old days DF was often used as it was better than other standard compensations for the rather flawed and limited use of HATS with headphones.

Why would the tonality of a headphone correspond to that of sound power response of a speaker in a specific room ?

Bloated bass and excess warmth and sharp treble roll-off above 7kHz is not how I would describe the tonality of a HD560S.
It is more akin to a nearfield studio monitor.
 
Last edited:

ADU

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,375
Likes
925
Nope, DF is the wrong compensation to use when measuring headphones. In the old days DF was often used as it was better than other standard compensations for the rather flawed and limited use of HATS with headphones.

Why would the tonality of a headphone correspond to that of sound power response of a speaker in a specific room ?

Appreciate the response, solderdude.

The raw in-ear response of a good headphone should correspond to the raw in-ear response of good speakers in a typical semi-reflective room.

And, imo, the diffuse field compensated response of a good headphone should also roughly approximate a good speaker's diffuse sound power response, as illustrated in the examples above.

Harman's target over-ear headphone response curve actually helps to validate this relationship, as shown in several examples here...


The similarities should be fairly evident though, even in casual comparisons of the two types of response curves, like in the examples I posted above. And also in this other topic, where a different headphone measurement system was used for the comparison...

 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
11,889
Likes
26,588
Location
The Neitherlands
I understand the way of thinking.

except.... diffuse field is hardly the same as a speaker in a room.

In DF the calibration is for sounds coming from all directions in equal loudness (in an anechoic room) entering a specific HATS with a specific pinna, ear canal + coupler.
Speakers in a room have sound only coming from the front (under a small angle) and reflections in 'a room' (which most likely is not every one else's room).
Those reflections are arriving at a later moment and the brain can tell. The microphone can not.
This thus is not a proper representation of what is actually heard but mimics the sound power picked up by the microphone so for measurements this is correct.
Headphones do not use the room nor does the sound come from all directions. Pinna activation is very different and sound is coming from the sides only in a planar way.
Also tactile feel is not taken into account and the rise of lowest frequencies in your average room in the DF compensation.

So all in all the DF compensation for speakers (measuring sound from all around that is equally loud with a specific frequency dependent directional and stereo phonic direction is hardly a correct target for headphones.
If it were Harman curve would have been very close to DF which it isn't.
Newer HATS with newer standards are a bit more accurate but whether we like it or not are still not accurate to human hearing but are, kind of 'averaged' and adhere to (newer) standards which is handy as they (and other HATS) can be calibrated (compensated) so measurements on HATS-A and HATS-B using the their specific calibration to a specific standard are comparable.
The newer ones are closer to 'reality' than older ones with ancient couplers and tubes as ear canal.

Nope... DF for a HATS is not suited as a target for headphones but understand your line of thinking.
 

Sokel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
598
Likes
451
I'm interested too.I already have my ancient audio technica ATH M2 and Audeze lcd-x wich are nice,relaxed and fun (each in his own way) but I looking at something at the sub-500 euro range preferably with a case for traveling.
Thanks in advance
 

ADU

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,375
Likes
925
I understand the way of thinking.

except.... diffuse field is hardly the same as a speaker in a room.

In DF the calibration is for sounds coming from all directions in equal loudness (in an anechoic room) entering a specific HATS with a specific pinna, ear canal + coupler.
Speakers in a room have sound only coming from the front (under a small angle) and reflections in 'a room' (which most likely is not every one else's room).
Those reflections are arriving at a later moment and the brain can tell. The microphone can not.
This thus is not a proper representation of what is actually heard but mimics the sound power picked up by the microphone so for measurements this is correct.
Headphones do not use the room nor does the sound come from all directions. Pinna activation is very different and sound is coming from the sides only in a planar way.
Also tactile feel is not taken into account and the rise of lowest frequencies in your average room in the DF compensation.

So all in all the DF compensation for speakers (measuring sound from all around that is equally loud with a specific frequency dependent directional and stereo phonic direction is hardly a correct target for headphones.
If it were Harman curve would have been very close to DF which it isn't.
Newer HATS with newer standards are a bit more accurate but whether we like it or not are still not accurate to human hearing but are, kind of 'averaged' and adhere to (newer) standards which is handy as they (and other HATS) can be calibrated (compensated) so measurements on HATS-A and HATS-B using the their specific calibration to a specific standard are comparable.
The newer ones are closer to 'reality' than older ones with ancient couplers and tubes as ear canal.

Nope... DF for a HATS is not suited as a target for headphones but understand your line of thinking.

I appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed reply on the above, solderdude. Imo, you give some of the best input on this forum on a consistent basis. I don't think you really are grasping my thinking on this though, based on your comments above.

The arguments you're making are along the same lines as those made by Harman, when they decided early on in their research that diffuse field curves would not be a good target for their headphones. Based on your comments above, maybe it would surprise you to hear that I actually agree with both you and Harman that the DF curve of a measurement rig does not make a particularly good target for a headphone's raw in-ear response.

I've actually tried equalizing the raw in-ear frequency responses of some of my headphones to match the diffuse field response of the rigs that were used to measure them. And they sound too bright. If you do this, what you'll probably end up with is something that might be closer to the sound of a loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber, with all of the reflections and room gain in the bass removed.

This is not what I'm suggesting though in any of my posts or links above.
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
11,889
Likes
26,588
Location
The Neitherlands
maybe it would surprise you to hear that I actually agree with both you and Harman that the DF curve of a measurement rig does not make a particularly good target for a headphone's raw in-ear response.

Then why do you prefer to use DF compensated plots for headphone measurements.
Besides, imho even if measured at eardrum level I am quite sure bass will not be perceived similarly because of lack of tactile feel which adds to brain input of perceived lows.

My target differs from Harman's b.t.w. but their research is valid. The only thing of it I kind of question is how they came up with the shape of the bass boost (frequency where it rises and slope). I agree with Harman that speakers in a room (is not DF) is not the most ideal compensation method when using a HATS nor does power sound field (a mic measuring sound output power) giving comparable results to DF compensated headphone measurements so why use DF in plots to make a point about how headphones measure/sound ?

This is the part that may need some explaining when you use DF measurements of headphones as I fail to see the logic of using DF compensated HATS measurements from headphones.

The only difference between plots that have DF compensation vs FF, Harman or whatever other target people/manufacturers/measurebators have come up with is the amount of 'correction' that is applied to each measured point of the frequency plot which also differs from test fixture to test fixture which again differs from human heads.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom