What headphones would you like Amir to measure next?

[Robbo99999]

I'm eager to see Amir's test of the AKG K371.

So far, I'm lukewarm to my pair.

I think they'll be solid rather than spectacular, for a start they're a closed back headphone so I think harder to get a decent soundstage, and secondly they're a bit funky in the treble with a major dip in one place that can't really be completely EQ'd up....so I imagine they don't sound particularly accurate in the treble, but the bass would be great on them from the measurements I've seen. I think they'd get a recommend, but I would wager they lack soundstage and have accuracy issues in the treble......and I'm talking after EQ too. From the frequency responses I've seen they'd be one of the better headphones if you're not gonna EQ, they track the Harman Curve quite well apart from that dip in the treble I mentioned.

 

[watchnerd]

I think they'll be solid rather than spectacular

That's my read so far.

Tonally neutral (but not perfect) without EQ.

Inoffensive, but not much "wow factor", either.

 

[Robbo99999]

Not the very best for classical music, but I love it with 1960's styled pop production. These headphones have a love affair with plate echo. I've been listening to 1960's country and R & B compilations on my DAP, and I like the eq of the 'phones just as it is. While the Drop 6XX/Topping E/L30 combo [I like to live dangerously] eq-ed has more refinement and detail, the K371's sound great plugged into my computer's built in headphone jack or my low power DAP. Also, they're closed back, which is useful under current circumstances, seeing as I'm sharing a small space with someone else making their own kind of noise.

I think they're a good choice for a closed back headphone. Also especially because of their quite low price and as you say they're easy to drive as well.....plus you don't really have to EQ them. I remember speaking to another member who owned them, and he was a Harman Curve fan, yet he didn't even bother/need to EQ his K371 most of the time.

EDIT: on the topic of closed back I'd recommend my NAD HP50 even though it's discontinued. They got good soundstage for a closed back and have no problematical unEQable parts in the frequency response. They got really good detail if EQ'd right, and of course perfect bass extension.

 

[watchnerd]

Not the very best for classical music, but I love it with 1960's styled pop production. These headphones have a love affair with plate echo. I've been listening to 1960's country and R & B compilations on my DAP, and I like the eq of the 'phones just as it is. While the Drop 6XX/Topping E/L30 combo [I like to live dangerously] eq-ed has more refinement and detail, the K371's sound great plugged into my computer's built in headphone jack or my low power DAP. Also, they're closed back, which is useful under current circumstances, seeing as I'm sharing a small space with someone else making their own kind of noise.

When I listen through the RME ADI-2 Pro on my DAW, the AKG K371 is one of the few headphones where I find myself taking off the cans to listen to the monitors because the monitors are more revealing.

Often it's the inverse.

 

[Robbo99999]

When I listen through the RME ADI-2 Pro on my DAW, the AKG K371 is one of the few headphones where I find myself taking off the cans to listen to the monitors because the monitors are more revealing.

Often it's the inverse.

I think good speakers/monitors are always gonna be more revealing & accurate in the treble region than a headphone, because you don't have the troublesome issues of personal HRTF and headphone transfer function related problems/innaccuracies that plague headphones in the 1kHz+ & treble regions - which is what can make a headphone sound really quite different from person to person. It's in the bass regions that headphones can be more accurate than speakers because it's hard to get a room setup with great speakers & subs (eradicating room modes) to equal the same "smooth flat & extended" response that you can achieve with a headphone. Having said that, if your in-room bass for your speakers is messed up enough, then I guess that can completely colour the overall experience resulting in overall lack of clarity (even outside of the bass).

 

[watchnerd]

I think good speakers/monitors are always gonna be more revealing & accurate in the treble region than a headphone, because you don't have the troublesome issues of personal HRTF and headphone transfer function related problems/innaccuracies that plague headphones in the 1kHz+ & treble regions - which is what can make a headphone sound really quite different from person to person. It's in the bass regions that headphones can be more accurate than speakers because it's hard to get a room setup with great speakers & subs (eradicating room modes) to equal the same "smooth flat & extended" response that you can achieve with a headphone. Having said that, if your in-room bass for your speakers is messed up enough, then I guess that can completely colour the overall experience resulting in overall lack of clarity (even outside of the bass).

Perhaps.

But there are times when I'm working on a mix where I can hear certain mid- to upper-octave phenomena better through some headphones.

And I know I'm not the only person who does recording engineering, even at an amateur level, that has experienced this, and thus use both tools.

 

[Feelas]

Inoffensive, but not much "wow factor", either.

And what would that "wow factor" be? Wonder whether each record should be revealing, even if it was produced murky.

 

[Seta Seta Pop]

AKG K702, because it's cheap and has excellent soundstage & imaging and to such a degree that it is the only headphone that sounds like speakers rather than headphones to me, with EQ you can turn it into a real beast. I like it better than my HD600 and NAD HP50. K702 is also a popular headphone, so there should be some good interest in the review as well as a lot of value for the creation of EQ's from the measurement, as it is a headphone that has not been measured by Oratory. I think K702 is a real gem once EQ'd, and given my experience with a few headphones I think it would be very hard to beat....it's a poor man's HD800s in my opinion whilst probably starting off with a better stock frequency response than the HD800s is my guess from measurements I've seen of the HD800s.

I agree. It's the best of my six headphones...

 

[watchnerd]

And what would that "wow factor" be? Wonder whether each record should be revealing, even if it was produced murky.

No. Murky recordings should sound murky.

My usual reference for 'wow factor' is how well it reproduces bowed double bass, scooping, slapping, and pizzicato to legato switches; because I'm a bass player, I have my own recordings made of me playing my own instrument as a reference.

 

[Robin L]

Perhaps.

But there are times when I'm working on a mix where I can hear certain mid- to upper-octave phenomena better through some headphones.

And I know I'm not the only person who does recording engineering, even at an amateur level, that has experienced this, and thus use both tools.

My Stax earspeakers were the best for those top octaves, predictably. Great for editing between hemidemisemiquavers on the virginal .

 

[watchnerd]

My Stax earspeakers were the best for those top octaves, predictably. Great for editing between hemidemisemiquavers on the virginal .

Yeah, vibrato & tremolo, perhaps because elements can be near monitor driver crossover boundaries, can sometimes be better on some cans.

 

[Robbo99999]

Perhaps.

But there are times when I'm working on a mix where I can hear certain mid- to upper-octave phenomena better through some headphones.

And I know I'm not the only person who does recording engineering, even at an amateur level, that has experienced this, and thus use both tools.

You might be able to hear certain phenomena better through headphones, but you don't know if you're hearing those phenomena better because the headphones are peaking or dipping in certain areas that are unpredictable (due to the personal HRTF differences and headphone transfer function issues I was talking about earlier, as well as the unpredictability of the 10kHz+ region based on headphone positioning), so it could be highlighting certain elements in a false way that flat perfect speakers in a perfect room wouldn't reveal in the same way. I'm not a music maker, but I'd imagine you'd want to tailor mixes to the best most reliable reference standard, which I think would be the best speakers you can get a hold of (within your budget & anechoic EQ'd) and in a room that you've treated (within means) and you've measured at your listening position, equilateral triangle, etc. After talking with an amateur music maker, he used headphones to check the bass detail, but used monitors to balance & create everything else......to me that makes sense.

 

[xykreinov]

Dan Clark Voce
It only has a Harman preference score in the 50s.

But, considering how low the Dan Clark Aeon 2's distortion is, I'd imagine the Voce's is even a bit lower, being electrostatic. Among the measurements I've seen, the Voce has the deepest bass extension of electrostatic headphones. With that, the errors in response mostly resulting from being too warm rather than too bright, and Amirm's subjective liking of Dan Clark's tuning in general, the Voce might be a winner with EQ.

 

[watchnerd]

I agree. It's the best of my six headphones...

How different is the MassDrop K7XX from the 702?

(I have a pair of the K7XX)

 

[Robbo99999]

I agree. It's the best of my six headphones...

Cool, which six headphones have you got?

 

[watchnerd]

You might be able to hear certain phenomena better through headphones, but you don't know if you're hearing those phenomena better because the headphones are peaking or dipping in certain areas that are unpredictable, so it could be highlighting certain elements in a false way that flat perfect speakers in a perfect room wouldn't reveal in the same way. I'm not a music maker, but I'd imagine you'd want to tailor mixes to the best most reliable reference standard, which I think would be the best speakers you can get a hold of (within your budget & anechoic EQ'd) and in a room that you've treated (within means) and you've measured at your listening position, equilateral triangle, etc. After talking with an amateur music maker, he used headphones to check the bass detail, but used monitors to balance & create everything else......to me that makes sense.

As for knowing what you hear: that's why you have measurements of your gear.

You use multiple speakers / monitors in the mixing process to try to ensure good translation.

Having the best speakers at hand is only part of the process. You also have to make sure it sounds okay on garbage speakers, in the car, etc.

you'd want to tailor mixes to the best most reliable reference standard

For music.....which reference standard would that be?

 

[Feelas]

Yeah, vibrato & tremolo, perhaps because elements can be near monitor driver crossover boundaries, can sometimes be better on some cans.

I was wondering recently whether vibrato isn't one of the the most problematic musical elements, since it's mostly a sweep. Having an uneven response completely ruins the vibratos realism.

I don't think that clarity itself should be chased in reproduction gear, even moreso when engineer had to make tradeoffs and used masking to hide things that shouldn't be heard.

 

[Seta Seta Pop]

Cool, which six headphones have you got?

K400 (since '90s)
K371 (rock)
K702 (with mod; classical)
DT990 (rock)
Srh 440 (classical)
M50x (given to my wife)

 

[Robbo99999]

As for knowing what you hear: that's why you have measurements of your gear.

You use multiple speakers / monitors in the mixing process to try to ensure good translation.

Having the best speakers at hand is only part of the process. You also have to make sure it sounds okay on garbage speakers, in the car, etc.




For music.....which reference standard would that be?

Measurements of your gear, are you talking about your headphones? You can't really get them as accurate as a set of good speakers, for the reasons I've described, even when the headphones have been measured.

Maybe I'm playing fast & loose with my use of the words "most reliable reference standard".....but probably not thinking about it. The gold standard for speakers is what we know from this site - anechoically flat speakers (not to mention the Floyd / Toole work). That is a far more reliable standard than a set of headphones that almost certainly have random peaks and dips which you can't know about (even if they've been measured)....for the HRTF and headphone transfer function reasons I've already described which varies from person to person. I think the only way to get rid of a lot of those issues is using the Smyth Realizer system which is prohibitively expensive. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy headphones, but they're certainly not more accurate than a good set of speakers. Yes, they can be more accurate in the bass (like I described earlier), but not in the treble.

I'd be surprised if producing music by mainly using headphones to analyze the treble portions would be profitable, that doesn't make sense to me (you'll be emphasising or deemphasising details during your music production that aren't really there) , for the bass yes, not the treble.

 

[Seta Seta Pop]

How different is the MassDrop K7XX from the 702?

(I have a pair of the K7XX)

I really don't know...