Monoprice M1570C Headphone Review

[shuppatsu]

No, because Amir's EQ tweaks are just eyeballed and often way off:

Search results for query: The average L/R is used to calculate the score.

www.audiosciencereview.com

(Look at the black line representing Amir's EQ tweaks compared to the green one representing the actual EQ tweak required to reach the target. Here's one example:
View attachment 294436)

You're better off downloading the raw frequency response of both your headphone model and the one you're trying to emulate, then uploading them to https://autoeq.app/ and letting it generate a preset.

Stipulating for a moment that Amir's tweaks are ballpark-accurate, is the practice of reversing the amplitude legitimate?

 

[amirm]

Stipulating for a moment that Amir's tweaks are ballpark-accurate, is the practice of reversing the amplitude legitimate?

It would be but I still am confused why you are asking because in all cases the frequency response is there already to use.

 

[staticV3]

Stipulating for a moment that Amir's tweaks are ballpark-accurate, is the practice of reversing the amplitude legitimate?

Reversing just the amplitude will indeed invert the filter response.

 

[robertozappala]

Basta non provare a cambiare gli assorbenti se non sei di umore perfettamente calmo.....

LOL

 

[shuppatsu]

It would be but I still am confused why you are asking because in all cases the frequency response is there already to use.

I was mostly curious about the soundness of the practice of reversing the amplitudes, independent of the accuracy of the underlying tweak.

But also, I didn’t see that there was a zip file with the measurements. Even so, plopping in two extra filters in Equalizer APO is much faster than downloading the zip, unzipping, opening the webapp, specifying base headphone and target headphone, specifying output file format, moving downloaded file to where Equalizer APO will read it, etc.

I tried it for this one though. It wasn't the same, but they were ballpark and were both bad for the same reasons. Which is obvious just looking at the FR chart but it was good to be able to hear what that sounded like.

 

[AndreaT]

LOL

What is that? Google translation at its worst?

 

[AndreaT]

Deeply flawed product without adding energetic equalization. Why spend so much when better ergonomics and sound quality are available for much less (I am thinking of the AKG K371, as tested by Amir)?

 

[staticV3]

Why spend so much when better ergonomics and sound quality are available for much less (I am thinking of the AKG K371, as tested by Amir)?

Build quality might be one reason to pass on the K371:

https://imgur.com/a/Wq4VwAb

 

[respice finem]

Build quality might be one reason to pass on the K371:

https://imgur.com/a/Wq4VwAb

I guess this is user specific, mine are OK, but they aren't really "mechanically stressed". Not built like a tank of course, but 5-10 times more expensive ones aren't either. Probably a similar situation to phones, some users break theirs in like 4 weeks, and others not even in 4 years.

 

[robertozappala]

What is that? Google translation at its worst?

just a laugh at the cute joke of @amirm, don’t you like my laugh?

 

[mr.at]

I think these Monoprice Closed Backs are better used as a DIY or Modding platfrom rather than a straight out of the box use headphone. I have the M1060c myself - if anyone knows those headphones, every owner and their mother modded that to be open or semi-open back. I've had the same experience myself. The wooden cups, as good looking as they are, rest in my drawer. Closed back and open back has profoundly sound characteristics. I tried a lot to keep the wood on, but eventually chose not to. I just couldn't.

The headband also requires some sort of mod. It's not badly manufactured, on the Monolith M1060c, or the M1060, nor is this new Focal rip-off as bad on the M1570, M1070. But it just doesn't hold in place well or distributes weight properly or clamps with the right fit (they failed making a comfortable rip-off of both the Hifiman and Focal headbands). I've since replaced that too.

So why a modding platform? Cuz these drivers are bloody good. Now again, I'm no Amir here, I don't have objective data to back this up, but once you open these drivers up, they start singing. The drivers just by themselves are $160 at best, a PIECE on AliExpress or other platforms. They're nice all metal Audeze ripoffs, which actually sound pretty darn good. Surprisingly, the best mids I've heard on planars (HE4xx, He400i, XS) - are actually on the m1060c's that I have.

So $200 + $50 for pads and band replacement etc, some more for an open back mod - could get you somewhere. For $200, you can grab a very solid platform to MOD and DIY. Surely, I don't need to tell you to skip this one at anymore than $250.

Rest assured, I'm a 100% confident this would measure so differently with no cups. It sounds way too different. It goes from being barely acceptable to be actually preferable.

 

[Robbo99999]

I think these Monoprice Closed Backs are better used as a DIY or Modding platfrom rather than a straight out of the box use headphone. I have the M1060c myself - if anyone knows those headphones, every owner and their mother modded that to be open or semi-open back. I've had the same experience myself. The wooden cups, as good looking as they are, rest in my drawer. Closed back and open back has profoundly sound characteristics. I tried a lot to keep the wood on, but eventually chose not to. I just couldn't.

The headband also requires some sort of mod. It's not badly manufactured, on the Monolith M1060c, or the M1060, nor is this new Focal rip-off as bad on the M1570, M1070. But it just doesn't hold in place well or distributes weight properly or clamps with the right fit (they failed making a comfortable rip-off of both the Hifiman and Focal headbands). I've since replaced that too.

So why a modding platform? Cuz these drivers are bloody good. Now again, I'm no Amir here, I don't have objective data to back this up, but once you open these drivers up, they start singing. The drivers just by themselves are $160 at best, a PIECE on AliExpress or other platforms. They're nice all metal Audeze ripoffs, which actually sound pretty darn good. Surprisingly, the best mids I've heard on planars (HE4xx, He400i, XS) - are actually on the m1060c's that I have.

So $200 + $50 for pads and band replacement etc, some more for an open back mod - could get you somewhere. For $200, you can grab a very solid platform to MOD and DIY. Surely, I don't need to tell you to skip this one at anymore than $250.

Rest assured, I'm a 100% confident this would measure so differently with no cups. It sounds way too different. It goes from being barely acceptable to be actually preferable.

View attachment 294562

That's all pretty cool, but in my mind when you start doing physical mods to headphones then you want to be measuring the effects of those on the frequency response so you know where you are & what's being changed. I was going to say that you could even do this on a cheap miniDSP EARS rig to see the differences, but if you're changing the headphone from closed back to open back then this might make the miniDSP EARS invalid due to in not accurately mimicking the impedance of a human ear (as you're changing the overall design of the headphone into effectively a completely different model), whereas the miniDSP EARS will remain valid for things like pad swaps as long as they are really quite similar in design and of course stuff like channel matching. I'm just trying to think of economically cheap ways in which you can measure headphones to track the effect of physical mods, because a bonafide GRAS is thousands of dollars for instance. I'd say using a miniDSP EARS to help in your physical mods is a good start. Otherwise I think simple parametric EQ is the best way to change a headphone, and of course that will be based on bonafide GRAS measurements, so that remains totally valid - so all-in-all it's a lot simpler to use Parametric EQ rather than going down the route of physical mods and the associated necessary measurements to validate the effect the mods are having.

 

[mr.at]

That's all pretty cool, but in my mind when you start doing physical mods to headphones then you want to be measuring the effects of those on the frequency response so you know where you are & what's being changed. I was going to say that you could even do this on a cheap miniDSP EARS rig to see the differences, but if you're changing the headphone from closed back to open back then this might make the miniDSP EARS invalid due to in not accurately mimicking the impedance of a human ear (as you're changing the overall design of the headphone into effectively a completely different model), whereas the miniDSP EARS will remain valid for things like pad swaps as long as they are really quite similar in design and of course stuff like channel matching. I'm just trying to think of economically cheap ways in which you can measure headphones to track the effect of physical mods, because a bonafide GRAS is thousands of dollars for instance. I'd say using a miniDSP EARS to help in your physical mods is a good start. Otherwise I think simple parametric EQ is the best way to change a headphone, and of course that will be based on bonafide GRAS measurements, so that remains totally valid - so all-in-all it's a lot simpler to use Parametric EQ rather than going down the route of physical mods and the associated necessary measurements to validate the effect the mods are having.

I know. I'm just saying it's a good headphone when opened up. I know one could measure on how things change. All I can say is that the physical changes have drastic improvements - measuring them is of course another matter, but it's a thought of for those who may have any kind of consideration of purchasing these.

You see, you can EQ things, but remember. EQing will not replicate actual physical changes in the sound (soundstage expansion, increased airiness, naturality added to the mids, curve made more neutral, drastic improvement in the bass and low-end). It's simply not possible to just EQ all this and call it a day. Just like you can't make changes to a stock Corolla's onboard EFI and make it run as fast as a Honda NSX.

So my guideline is for potential buyers. For someone to measure actual performance changes, I leave to the rest of the folks as I neither have the expertise nor the equipment to back my findings. There's definitely changes, but someone else could measure what exactly they are. Again, I will confirm they're positive changes. A lot of other people have found only improvements with open back mods, so quite a lot of us are hearing what I'm hearing.

Personally though, I'd probably NOT recommend this headphone if anyone desires to use it as is. I wouldn't settle for it, and I'm no stranger to good planar headphones. Also the fact that I don't trust closed back planars, because most preferred and hugely endorsed planars in the market are all open.

 

[Robbo99999]

I know. I'm just saying it's a good headphone when opened up. I know one could measure on how things change. All I can say is that the physical changes have drastic improvements - measuring them is of course another matter, but it's a thought of for those who may have any kind of consideration of purchasing these.

You see, you can EQ things, but remember. EQing will not replicate actual physical changes in the sound (soundstage expansion, increased airiness, naturality added to the mids, curve made more neutral, drastic improvement in the bass and low-end). It's simply not possible to just EQ all this and call it a day. Just like you can't make changes to a stock Corolla's onboard EFI and make it run as fast as a Honda NSX.

So my guideline is for potential buyers. For someone to measure actual performance changes, I leave to the rest of the folks as I neither have the expertise nor the equipment to back my findings. There's definitely changes, but someone else could measure what exactly they are. Again, I will confirm they're positive changes. A lot of other people have found only improvements with open back mods, so quite a lot of us are hearing what I'm hearing.

Personally though, I'd probably NOT recommend this headphone if anyone desires to use it as is. I wouldn't settle for it, and I'm no stranger to good planar headphones. Also the fact that I don't trust closed back planars, because most preferred and hugely endorsed planars in the market are all open.

I'm less certain there is a "secret sauce" that is related to open backs vs closed backs beyond the frequency response, and on a practical basis I only have my closed back NAD HP50's to compare to my other headphones. For instance the soundstage on my NAD HP50 is better than that of the open backed HD600 that I have. However, I do think it's harder to build a decently sounding closed back headphone than an open backed, but I don't really think this is "secret sauce" as I still think it's related to frequency response. I have a small amount of bias that the best optimised open backed headphones can sound better than the best optimised closed back headphones, but I think this is more down to the fact that open backed headphones behave more reliably on your own head vs closed back (as in less seating variation and more consistent bass between reseats) - so on that token there's probably a benefit from modding a closed back to an open back or just in terms of comparing the merits of headphones with the two different designs, but still I'd say that measurements are the way to go & physical modding without measurements is a stab in the dark and you still don't know where you've ended up unless you measure it. I'm pleased you've put your experiences across though, because it's interesting to read. Me personally, I'd think twice before buying a closed back planar, I think planars can be a lot more erratic than dynamic driver headphones generally, and closed back even more so. My current thinking based on my experience is that open backed dynamic driver headphones is where the reliability (not in terms of physical failure, but reliable sound quality) and best experiences can be had.

 

[mr.at]

I'm less certain there is a "secret sauce" that is related to open backs vs closed backs beyond the frequency response, and on a practical basis I only have my closed back NAD HP50's to compare to my other headphones. For instance the soundstage on my NAD HP50 is better than that of the open backed HD600 that I have. However, I do think it's harder to build a decently sounding closed back headphone than an open backed, but I don't really think this is "secret sauce" as I still think it's related to frequency response. I have a small amount of bias that the best optimised open backed headphones can sound better than the best optimised closed back headphones, but I think this is more down to the fact that open backed headphones behave more reliably on your own head vs closed back (as in less seating variation and more consistent bass between reseats) - so on that token there's probably a benefit from modding a closed back to an open back or just in terms of comparing the merits of headphones with the two different designs, but still I'd say that measurements are the way to go & physical modding without measurements is a stab in the dark and you still don't know where you've ended up unless you measure it. I'm pleased you've put your experiences across though, because it's interesting to read. Me personally, I'd think twice before buying a closed back planar, I think planars can be a lot more erratic than dynamic driver headphones generally, and closed back even more so. My current thinking based on my experience is that open backed dynamic driver headphones is where the reliability (not in terms of physical failure, but reliable sound quality) and best experiences can be had.

I humbly agree. Yes, The 600 series is a funny creature. Even my HD650 don't stage as well as an open back should. I agree, planars are definitely tricky animals. And their erratic and unpredictable behavior is definitely something to keep in mind. I'm kind of hinting towards the new closed back Sundara, how it's a strange headphone once closed in (though fair to consider the driver is also quite different from it's open back sibling), but I suppose I'm bringing in some subjective thoughts on closed back planars in general.

But I get your point. Valid point.

 

[tubesguy]

Just don't try to change the pads if you are not in perfectly calm mood.....

Hmm, I don't think I foresee buying these at any point in the future.

 

[isostasy]

@Robbo99999 The M1060, open back version of the M1060C which @mr.at has modded, has been measured by innerfidelity and more recently by oratory1990.

If the M1060C is literally just a M1060 with closed cups then removing the backs would be a legitimate mod, even if you didn't have your own measuring equipment. I have my own mics and others have seen my contributions here so I'm as much a proponent of measuring as the next guy. However, if it's a clear cut case of the same headphone with and without a closed back then I would be gracious and see it less of a mod than a product conversion. It then only really makes sense to me if the open version is much more expensive or out of stock. As it is, from a quick search the open back version seems to be cheaper and in stock so can't see the draw myself. Maybe you can get these M1060C used cheaply because they're not as good in stock form? I am guilty of purchasing 'bad' headphones with aspirations to improve them so pass no judgment here.

That said, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is also true of the other Monoprice models. It might be in this case because there is also an open back version of this M1570C which doesn't measure badly according to oratory1990:

 

[mr.at]

@Robbo99999 The M1060, open back version of the M1060C which @mr.at has modded, has been measured by innerfidelity and more recently by oratory1990.

If the M1060C is literally just a M1060 with closed cups then removing the backs would be a legitimate mod, even if you didn't have your own measuring equipment. I have my own mics and others have seen my contributions here so I'm as much a proponent of measuring as the next guy. However, if it's a clear cut case of the same headphone with and without a closed back then I would be gracious and see it less of a mod than a product conversion. It then only really makes sense to me if the open version is much more expensive or out of stock. As it is, from a quick search the open back version seems to be cheaper and in stock so can't see the draw myself. Maybe you can get these M1060C used cheaply because they're not as good in stock form? I am guilty of purchasing 'bad' headphones with aspirations to improve them so pass no judgment here.

That said, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is also true of the other Monoprice models. It might be in this case because there is also an open back version of this M1570C which doesn't measure badly according to oratory1990:

Yeah the thing with the m1060c is that it's a slightly different driver. So how it goes is, the m1060c (open) is more preferred than a standard m1060 (which is already open).
Now with the 1570 or 1070, I'm going to assume it's the same driver? So basically yeah, like you said, whatever's cheaper, grab it, and if it's the closed back one, mod it to open.
Trouble again starts with the other elements. The Focal rip-off headband is not what you would expect - people have been demonstrating how flimsy it is.

So I guess if anyone wants to keep these, there's many desired mods (headband, cups, earpads too). Gets very adventurous and frustrating at the same time.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Robbo99999 The M1060, open back version of the M1060C which @mr.at has modded, has been measured by innerfidelity and more recently by oratory1990.

If the M1060C is literally just a M1060 with closed cups then removing the backs would be a legitimate mod, even if you didn't have your own measuring equipment. I have my own mics and others have seen my contributions here so I'm as much a proponent of measuring as the next guy. However, if it's a clear cut case of the same headphone with and without a closed back then I would be gracious and see it less of a mod than a product conversion. It then only really makes sense to me if the open version is much more expensive or out of stock. As it is, from a quick search the open back version seems to be cheaper and in stock so can't see the draw myself. Maybe you can get these M1060C used cheaply because they're not as good in stock form? I am guilty of purchasing 'bad' headphones with aspirations to improve them so pass no judgment here.

That said, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is also true of the other Monoprice models. It might be in this case because there is also an open back version of this M1570C which doesn't measure badly according to oratory1990:

On Oratory's website there's only mention of M1570 which I'm currently assuming is the open version (not the closed version) - but modifying the closed back to an open version I don't think you can assume will measure the same as the purchased open backed version. In order for you to assume your open backed mod would measure the same as the bought open backed version was that if you bought an identical open backed "earcup plate" to attach to the back and as long as you knew for sure everything else between the two models of headphones was the same - I'm not sure anybody knows that's the case? But, but, but, if you know the only change is the closed back versus the open back then that's ok, but of course you'd still need to purchase the genuine open back plate.......and how do you know for sure that's the only change between the two models?

EDIT: @mr.at has just said in his post above mine that they're using different drivers for a start, so you certainly can't assume that replacing the closed back with an open back as a mod will result in the same frequency response as the open version - it won't. So it seems like the most valid thing to do is still to measure the effect of the mod, as we don't what that effect is currently.

 

[CedarX]

……. Otherwise I think simple parametric EQ is the best way to change a headphone, and of course that will be based on bonafide GRAS measurements, so that remains totally valid - so all-in-all it's a lot simpler to use Parametric EQ rather than going down the route of physical mods and the associated necessary measurements to validate the effect the mods are having.

I like the EQ/PEQ route a lot: it is free, educational, and… humbling—what differences you can and can’t hear! But is it contingent upon having a low/very low distortion headphone such as this M1570C? There is also the ~10% non-FR-related stuff (reflections, resonances, damping, etc.): is this where you may experiment with physical mods?