What headphones sound the most like speakers?

[Robbo99999]

Interesting. Thank you for the correction, Robbo. The HD 598 also appears to have the E.A.R. technology used on the 560s. So maybe that means they the angled drivers too?

On the Sennheisser website it doesn't actually say the HD598 has angled drivers, whilst they do instead make a big deal of angled drivers in the HD560s. However, some quick googling seems to indicate that HD598 has angled drivers too, although I can't vouch for the quick links I found.....whether or not the drivers are angled to the same degree I don't know.

 

[Thomas_A]

Don’t forget the Butt-kicker.

 

[JJB70]

I find listening to music using headphones to be a very different experience compared with speakers and don't really use one with an expectation of replicating the other. That said I think the headphone I have which is closer to listening with speakers than others is the Audioquest Nighthawk.

 

[Robbo99999]

I find listening to music using headphones to be a very different experience compared with speakers and don't really use one with an expectation of replicating the other. That said I think the headphone I have which is closer to listening with speakers than others is the Audioquest Nighthawk.

Is that with or without EQ? And which EQ?

 

[JJB70]

Is that with or without EQ? And which EQ?

I am not really into EQ. I have Apps and a DAC with EQ and use the function occasionally but for the most part I tend to leave headphone tuning as is. The exception is my gaming headset where I do use the DAC preset EQ settings when going between applications.

 

[Robbo99999]

I am not really into EQ. I have Apps and a DAC with EQ and use the function occasionally but for the most part I tend to leave headphone tuning as is. The exception is my gaming headset where I do use the DAC preset EQ settings when going between applications.

Fair enough, maybe there is something about that headphone that lends itself to sounding like a speaker, but I know the frequency response of that headphone is way off what a member of the average population would consider 'normal', as it's miles away from the Harman Curve, so I'd kind of expect it to sound less like a speaker than many other headphones (maybe the 5kHz peak helps though, I don't know):

 

[JJB70]

Fair enough, maybe there is something about that headphone that lends itself to sounding like a speaker, but I know the frequency response of that headphone is way off what a member of the average population would consider 'normal', as it's miles away from the Harman Curve, so I'd kind of expect it to sound less like a speaker than many other headphones (maybe the 5kHz peak helps though, I don't know):
View attachment 146538

The Audioquest Nighthawk is what we in the UK might call a marmite product, an expression we have for something which people either love or hate. I can understand why many hate it as it redefines dark sounding and is one of the very few audio products which is genuinely different. However I like its smoothness and it is a headphone I can listen to for far longer than I should. I find that the suppressed highs remove that immediacy which is a characteristic of headphone listening and give it a sort of speaker like quality. It's not my favourite headphone or the one I use most, that would be the Etymotic ER4SR and Austrian Audio Hi-X55 for over ears but it's a model I am glad to own.

 

[Robbo99999]

The Audioquest Nighthawk is what we in the UK might call a marmite product, an expression we have for something which people either love or hate. I can understand why many hate it as it redefines dark sounding and is one of the very few audio products which is genuinely different. However I like its smoothness and it is a headphone I can listen to for far longer than I should. I find that the suppressed highs remove that immediacy which is a characteristic of headphone listening and give it a sort of speaker like quality. It's not my favourite headphone or the one I use most, that would be the Etymotic ER4SR and Austrian Audio Hi-X55 for over ears but it's a model I am glad to own.

Fair enough......interesting

 

[GaryH]

Have you tried those, are they quite convincing or does it just feel weird/strange?

I've tried the Woojer Strap. When strapped across the chest so the transducer is in contact with the sternum (as I find it's primarily your chest where you feel the deep tactile bass of a live concert for example), and it's set to 'Focus' mode which limits its output to below 100 Hz, it can be fairly convincing, but it's quite track dependent.

 

[ADU]

The Audioquest Nighthawk is what we in the UK might call a marmite product, an expression we have for something which people either love or hate. I can understand why many hate it as it redefines dark sounding and is one of the very few audio products which is genuinely different. However I like its smoothness and it is a headphone I can listen to for far longer than I should. I find that the suppressed highs remove that immediacy which is a characteristic of headphone listening and give it a sort of speaker like quality. It's not my favourite headphone or the one I use most, that would be the Etymotic ER4SR and Austrian Audio Hi-X55 for over ears but it's a model I am glad to own.

Based on the above graph, the Nighthawk appears rather V-shaped. And emphasizes the upper bass/lower mids (which should give it alot of warmth, I should think), and also the treble. The Nighthawk is the orange curve btw.

A sound signature like this would make a little better sense to me if the V was centered closer to the 2 to 2.5 kHz range, in the upper mids. Because then it would coincide a little better with the cross-over between a speaker's midrange and tweeter drivers.

The HiFiMan's are a fairly good example of this...

The HFM's seem to peter out a little too much in the sub-bass though imo (like alot of open and planar HPs). And appear to lack some of the symmetry in the bass and treble that I'd expect from a headphone with somewhat better extension.

All I'm looking at in the above graphs though is the headphone's frequency response and tonal balance. Which is only one component of its sound.

 

[earlevel]

I was thinking about this a lot last weekend...First, we're talking about a number of things here, at minimum

1. frequency response of headphones on our ears (and also "correcting" that response with EQ—especially to a "speaker in room" curve)
2. binaural room simulation—this is what really aims to "sound like speakers"
3. angled drivers—delivering sound coming from in front of us, as we normally listen to anything

I don't have angled drivers, I won't discuss—I guess for most people this isn't the most important thing, otherwise all headphones would be made that way by now.

For people who primarily listen with headphones, I'll guess that #1 is the main topic of interest. But also, I think such people don't spend a lot of time thinking, "if only these sounded like speakers". Most accept and even like the sound of headphones.

For me, headphones are mainly for tracking (most routinely, recording vocals, since I otherwise play electronic and electric instruments), and what I scrutinize tracks with (a/c noise? lip smack? kicked the mic stand?). When I picked up new headphones recently, I started paying more attention to how they behaved with music.

So, with a goal of listening to audio as it was intended to be heard, #2, to me, is clearly the most important. I always accepted headphones are what they are, but with these new thoughts in mind, it was surprising to me just how wrong many recordings are on headphones. On denser mixes, some of the tonality and balance is clearly "incorrect" compared with the intended sound, but not necessarily bad. But on some sparser mixes engineered for a wide image, the results can be pretty awful even on classic recordings. Say, some older Black Sabbath, before the age of quadruple tracking and harmonies on everything, with stereo spread.

Oh, and there's also Apple's Dolby Atmos binarual music—another topic.

Anyway, I'm still playing. I already have had Waves NX for a long time, and had only played with it for amusement, but I picked up CLA NX (sim of Chris Lord-Alge's studio), an improvement, and picked up SoundSource for the Mac to make it and headphone EQ easier to deal with globally. I still probably won't spend a lot of time listening to headphones for pleasure (don't sit still for long enough anyway), so the question is will I do some headphone mixing...right now I'd say I will not attempt mixing without a room sim like NX, it does change everything in that regard.

 

[2M2B]

The Etymotic ER4 with crossfeed and binaural DSP can sound like a 2.1ch planar speakers. With a good fit It can sound shockingly 3D without any DSP if the music/audio has any 3D depth cues in the recording.

 

[ADU]

Anyone else have more thoughts or opinions on this?

 

[ADU]

So, with a goal of listening to audio as it was intended to be heard, #2, to me, is clearly the most important. I always accepted headphones are what they are, but with these new thoughts in mind, it was surprising to me just how wrong many recordings are on headphones. On denser mixes, some of the tonality and balance is clearly "incorrect" compared with the intended sound, but not necessarily bad. But on some sparser mixes engineered for a wide image, the results can be pretty awful even on classic recordings. Say, some older Black Sabbath, before the age of quadruple tracking and harmonies on everything, with stereo spread.

Audio engineers are paid to make things sound good on whatever people are listening to at the time. So it isn't necessarily surprising that older recordings would sound somewhat inferior or incorrect on more modern gear that is (hopefully) a bit more neutral, accurate, extended, and refined in terms of its clarity and sound quality than some of the gear that may have been used for mastering and listening to music in the past.

It would be great if everyone mastered their music on gear that was perfectly neutral sounding. But that isn't the case, even today. Alot of folks are doing this in their homes with often less than perfect sounding near-field monitors, desktop speakers, headphones (or worse). And may never hear their recordings on a properly configured fullrange system. For some folks, the latter just isn't practical.

A decent-sounding in-room system doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg though (unless you want it to). All you really need for that are some reasonably flat far-field monitors and one or two decent sounding sub-woofers. And maybe a little bass management for the room, if its highly reflective, and on the smaller side.

Listening to the content on some good near-fields, headphones, IEMs and car audio systems can also help in terms of refining the content for a variety of listening conditions. This is getting slightly OT though. It would be foolish not to master the content to sound good for whatever listening conditions people are actually using at the time though, which could potentially include all of the above. Including IEMs, and crappy desktop systems.

 

[earlevel]

Audio engineers are paid to make things sound good on whatever people are listening to at the time. So it isn't necessarily surprising that older recordings would sound somewhat inferior or incorrect on more modern gear that is (hopefully) a bit more neutral, accurate, extended, and refined in terms of its clarity and sound quality than some of the gear that may have been used for mastering and listening to music in the past.
...

Andrew Scheps, speaking at the NAMM Show I think (could have been AES), said that he got a lot of satisfaction when he'd walk by someone playing one of his on their tiny phone speakers and it sounded good. Part of that is him explaining why he likes to mix "loud", while many are shaming recordings with lack of dynamic range (the loudness wars").

I was in Ralph's grocery store, those little speakers way up in the ceiling. Adele came on—I think it was Hello, one of Scheps' mixes. The dark sampled piano and dark drums basically didn't make it out of the speaker, and of course grocery store music level is low. Dam, did her voice manage to come through stunningly well, sounded huge.

There are a lot songs recorded long ago, on tape and limited tracks, that still sound amazing on anything. There are always compromises. Thankfully, our brains can adjust a lot. I could EQ up All Along the Watchtower to sound fuller and more even on my studio monitors, but if it's playing on anything, I'm certainly not thinking about what it lacks.

 

[earlevel]

Audio engineers are paid to make things sound good on whatever people are listening to at the time...

Funny, but I have to add, it's not always on purpose. I remember hearing Shriekback's Nemesis on a small portable radio, and thinking, "man, that would be huge on my stereo!"—only to be sadly disappointed with the CD audio, and the realization that it must have been mixed explicitly for boomboxes and radios. Some years later, Faith No More's Epic debuted on MTV and my TV monitor, sounding incredible. I didn't bite this time—clearly it was mixed to perfection for TV speakers...

But no, apparently there was not so much foresight:

In early 1989, Matt Wallace almost quit being an engineer/producer. Nearly in tears, he called his mom to ask how to get into real estate. Wallace’s “failure” was producing, engineering and mixing Faith No More’s third album, The Real Thing, which went on to hit Number 11 in the U.S. and sell more than 4 million copies worldwide.

“I mastered that record with John Golden at K Disc Mastering [in Hollywood],” Wallace said. “It just sounded so bad on my home stereo and my car stereo. It was so high-endy and there was so much compression. I just thought I sucked and I didn’t know what the hell I was doing. Then lo and behold, on radio and MTV it killed. It was a perfect confluence of sounds and sketchy recording where it really jumped out of the speakers. It was just one of those happy accidents.”

(BTW, anyone who's ever owned an Emu Emax recognizes the outro's overlaid sampled piano sound in an instant...)

 

[ADU]

If you think that that slam/impact/macro-contrast is part of what gives a headphone a more "speaker-like" sound, Resolve had an interesting take on this recently in relation to DCA, and planar magnetic headphones in general. I haven't listened to the full stream yet, but have cued it to where he comments a bit on this particular characteristic...

 

[preload]

Probably the AKG N90Q with its '2.1 Studio' 'Stage Control' DSP mode activated, which attempts to emulate the sound of studio speakers through a crossfeed algorithm implementing interaural time and amplitude (ITD and IAD) difference signals between channels, which are present with speaker but absent from headphone listening. See Tyll of Innerfidelity's excellent explanation and review here.

OH no kidding. I have a pair of N90Qs and never tried out the 2.1 Studio mode. Will have to try it out.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

How about trying PEQ with HeSuVi?

I second that, obviously. More people should try HeSuVi with the ooyh_0 preset. Very speaker-like.
It may not be as good as the Realiser A16, but it's 100% free and it does the trick for a lot of people.
Which is why my free EQ software (see my sig) supports it.

 

[Pearljam5000]

AKG K1000 and Sennheiser HD800