Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Hi folks,
It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 10/1/2014 10:11 AM, slinkp wrote:
Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul My go to phones these days are the ATH-M40x, $99 on Amazon. Tuned to be flat for monitoring, comfortable with good isolation. Tim Sprout |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
I would recommend finding a used pair of Yamaha YHD-1 headphones on eBay. They
are near-electrostatic in sound quality. They are no longer manufactured. You should expect to pay around $150. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
When I began reading your post I said to myself "AKG 240" and then you said that's the closest you know. They're my favorite- they're smooth and comfortable.
The audio technica ath m50 sound terrific except they're pretty bass heavy and they feel like a vice on my head so I can't use then. Sony 7506 are super comfortable but sound like **** to me. So my answer is AKG 240. Let me know if you do find something better. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Nate Najar wrote:
When I began reading your post I said to myself "AKG 240" and then you said that's the closest you know. They're my favorite- they're smooth and comfortable. The audio technica ath m50 sound terrific except they're pretty bass heavy and they feel like a vice on my head so I can't use then. Sony 7506 are super comfortable but sound like **** to me. So my answer is AKG 240. Let me know if you do find something better. I was most unhappy with a pair of K240s that I bought secondhand. There was a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides were similar, so it was more likely to be faulty design than something wrong with this particular pair. Although the AKG K44s seem to have more ripples and a small peak at HF, they sound a lot better to me than the K240s and they fall well within your budget. They are also comfortable and reduce room noise to some degree. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 3/10/2014 10:35 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Nate Najar wrote: When I began reading your post I said to myself "AKG 240" and then you said that's the closest you know. They're my favorite- they're smooth and comfortable. The audio technica ath m50 sound terrific except they're pretty bass heavy and they feel like a vice on my head so I can't use then. Sony 7506 are super comfortable but sound like **** to me. So my answer is AKG 240. Let me know if you do find something better. I was most unhappy with a pair of K240s that I bought secondhand. There was a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides were similar, so it was more likely to be faulty design than something wrong with this particular pair. I have some K240, but don't seem to have that dip. They are the nicest of my 'enclosed' AKGs though, but do sound a little 'boxy'. Unlike my K701s and Q702s I will be interested to listen to the pair of K812s that I am repairing (not mine), when the parts come. Hint for anyone with these - don't let anybody try to *screw* the detachable plug out ! (It has a little pull-collet release thingy). geoff |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
slinkp wrote:
Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. http://www.amazon.com/Koss-KTXPRO1-Titanium-Portable-Headphones/dp/B00007056H - Paul -- Les Cargill |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Shure SRH-440. Slightly bass shy, smooth straight up into the mids, and silky highs.
Can be driven by anything from iPod to a 100W per ch receiver. Just don't tilt your head forward or back to often - if the HD-280 & ATH-m50 are vices, these Shures are the anti-vice! LOL |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:11:30 -0700 (PDT), slinkp
wrote: Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul Grado SR80i --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Chuck wrote: "Grado SR80i"
+1!!!!! |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:53:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Chuck wrote: "Grado SR80i" +1!!!!! Thanks. That one's come up a couple times... What's the difference between the SR80i and the SR80e? I've been trying to puzzle it out from the Grado website. Is the "i" model just a later iteration of the earlier "e" model? Or ... no? |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:13:46 -0700 (PDT), slinkp
wrote: On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:53:45 PM UTC-4, wrote: Chuck wrote: "Grado SR80i" +1!!!!! Thanks. That one's come up a couple times... What's the difference between the SR80i and the SR80e? I've been trying to puzzle it out from the Grado website. Is the "i" model just a later iteration of the earlier "e" model? Or ... no? i means improved so it is the newer model. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
slinkp wrote: "Thanks. That one's come up a couple times... What's the difference between the SR80i and the SR80e? I've been trying to puzzle it out from the Grado website. Is the "i" model just a later iteration of the earlier "e" model? Or ... no? "
The SR80e is new to me. headphone.com (headroom) sells it now but not the i - which I bought 3 yrs ago and still enjoy. BTW the newer version isn't always better. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:11:30 AM UTC-7, slinkp wrote:
Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul I like the Sennheiser 580 and their sucsessor the 600 for easy listening. There's probably a later version in that family, but my old 580s still sound great. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
And just remember: Head-related Transfer function! Above all else this is the most impact on how you will perceive a can's sound.
Even a Beats by DRE, which "those of us who know" has no professional production value, might work best with certain peoples' hearing - perhaps even better than some AKGs, Beyers, or Sennheisers. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Head-related Transfer function! Above all else, this is the
most impact on how you will perceive a can's sound. In theory, that's true. In practice, it seems to apply only to listening to binaural material. For reasons I do not comprehend, most people agree on what most headphones "sound like", regardless of make or model. * If HRTF were a significant factor, this would not be true. * The one exception is AKG. I have never heard one I didn't think was poor. Yet lots of people like them. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
wrote:
And just remember: Head-related Transfer function! Above all else this is the most impact on how you will perceive a can's sound. No, actually it has very little impact on how you perceive a headphone's sound, which is the problem. You're used to listening through your personal HRTF day in and day out, and then you put on headphones and you're listening to something beamed right into your ear without the acoustical shading of your head and pinnae. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Scott Dorsey wrote: "No, actually it has very little impact on how you perceive a headphone's sound,
which is the problem. You're used to listening through your personal HRTF day in and day out, and then you put on headphones and you're listening to " So then I guess I'd better pay more attention to the very headphone response graphs http://cdn.head-fi.org/5/57/1000x500...one-Curves.JPG so many of you, not just Dorsey, told me weren't to be taken too seriously just a few years ago. smh! |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "No, actually it has very little impact on how you perceive a headphone's sound, which is the problem. You're used to listening through your personal HRTF day in and day out, and then you put on headphones and you're listening to " So then I guess I'd better pay more attention to the very headphone response graphs http://cdn.head-fi.org/5/57/1000x500...one-Curves.JPG so many of you, not just Dorsey, told me weren't to be taken too seriously just a few years ago. The reason they aren't to be taken too seriously doesn't have to do with the HRTF... it's due to the shape of your inner ear rather than your outer ear below 500 Hz or so, and due to positioning issues above 5 Khz or so. The HRTF has to do with the characteristics of sound from the free field getting to your ears (which is mostly outer ear and head shape). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
wrote in message
... Scott Dorsey wrote: "No, actually it has very little impact on how you perceive a headphone's sound, which is the problem. You're used to listening through your personal HRTF day in and day out, and then you put on headphones and you're listening to " So then I guess I'd better pay more attention to the very headphone response graphs That won't help you. You can't understand them, and you'll still be retarded. http://cdn.head-fi.org/5/57/1000x500...one-Curves.JPG so many of you, not just Dorsey, told me weren't to be taken too seriously just a few years ago. smh! Are you trying hard to be a cretin, or does it just come naturally? |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
wrote in message
... And just remember: Head-related Transfer function! Above all else this is the most impact on how you will perceive a can's sound. Bull****. Even a Beats by DRE, which "those of us who know" You are not among those who know. You are among those who are utterly clueless. Your comment about HRTF confirms this. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
I'm sure people have been wondering about this for the intervening three years (—”_—”)
.... but I just remembered this thread and thought I'd post what I actually ended up doing. Namely: first I found my old AKG K240 that I thought were long lost, and used them for a couple more ears. Tried various other headphones whenever I had a chance*. Then a coworker let me try his Grado SR60e, and I just loved how they sounded. And they're only $80 a pair, so I bought some. I feel like everything's there, much clearer than the AKGs, and nothing is exaggerated to the point of annoyance. Bass is emphasized, but still sounds tight, not boomy or tubby - it's enough that I can listen at low volume and still hear the low end clearly without sounding overwhelming if I turn the volume up. And crucially they fit my head pretty well. After a couple days, I do think they're a little tiring to wear ... my ears get rather warm under the foam pads, and they do clamp a hair tighter than I'd like. Closed cans would have been nice for isolation, but, oh well. I didn't try anything that sounded better to me. * Re. trying out headphones: It turns out, millennial tech workers in an open-plan office are a great pool of headphone enthusiasts who will often gladly let you borrow their cans for a test run. I think the reasons are that a) big headphones are back in style and b) they perform an essential dual function - both blocking or covering all the distracting conversations around you while also visibly signaling to people "I'm concentrating, don't bother me". It used to be you would just, you know, CLOSE A DOOR, but you don't see those things around much anymore. A couple other phones I tried and took notes on: - Sennheiser HD-25: Borrowed for 30 min. Impressions: Very nice bass, good mids, pretty good balance, treble slightly more forward than I'd like but probably could live with it. Listening to music on these is nice. A little on the tight side; ears feel a bit hot and uncomfortable after that time. - AT-M50x struck me as pretty similar to the A700. Nice bass. A bit harsh highs. - Sennheiser HD280 Pro - Tried at a local Guitar Center where they nicely let me open a box. Too tight for my head. Maybe I just have a weird head. Seemed like they would be very uncomfortable for long periods. Sound was good, if a bit bright for my taste. Very good isolation. On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, slinkp wrote: Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 1/12/2017 5:32 AM, slinkp wrote:
- Sennheiser HD280 Pro - Tried at a local Guitar Center where they nicely let me open a box. Too tight for my head. Maybe I just have a weird head. Seemed like they would be very uncomfortable for long periods. Sound was good, if a bit bright for my taste. Had some, sold them. Sound was thin and harsh, like sticking needles in my ears ..... geoff |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
slinkp wrote:
Then a coworker let me try his Grado SR60e, and I just loved how they sound= ed. And they're only $80 a pair, so I bought some. They sound really good. They are great for casual listening. I have a pair in the office myself. But sit down with the AKG and the Grados and a parametric and see how much EQ you have to add before you notice it. You can hear little changes a lot more easily on the AKG. I feel like everything's there, much clearer than the AKGs, and nothing is = exaggerated to the point of annoyance. Bass is emphasized, but still sounds= tight, not boomy or tubby - it's enough that I can listen at low volume an= d still hear the low end clearly without sounding overwhelming if I turn th= e volume up. And crucially they fit my head pretty well. The Grados make everything sound good, even recordings that aren't actually good. That's great for casual listening or to give the customer something to listen through, that's not so good for studio work. After a couple days, I do think they're a little tiring to wear ... my ears= get rather warm under the foam pads, and they do clamp a hair tighter than= I'd like. You should have heard the earlier versions with the torture pads. The new improved pads came out about five years ago and make them much more pleasant. - AT-M50x struck me as pretty similar to the A700. Nice bass. A bit harsh h= ighs. I didn't like them, but I liked the M70s. Go figure. - Sennheiser HD280 Pro - Tried at a local Guitar Center where they nicely l= et me open a box. Too tight for my head. Maybe I just have a weird head. Se= emed like they would be very uncomfortable for long periods. Sound was good= , if a bit bright for my taste. Very good isolation. Did you try the Beyer DT240? It's a little forward for me, but not bad and not too expensive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, slinkp wrote:
Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. Maybe you need to shrink your head. I have the Sony, what's the number, something like, MDR7650 and they offer premium sound and comfort! Jack A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
3 kc the magical frequency!
Jack |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? -- Les Cargill |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Les Cargill wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Adrian Tuddenham wrote: What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Ah. So for some models of 'phones, there is effectively no cavity, and I suspect making one would munge the measurements severely. So I wonder is a piece of whitewood with a hole drilled to have the electret's surface flush with, or slightly under the plane of the wood would work? Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves That's interesting - thanks for that. I would have thought you'd want the geometry of things to be pretty rigidly controlled; didn't think of moving the elements as a control like that. -- Les Cargill |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). The thing is, you don't want flat response in this environment. First of all, this doesn't necessarily give you an accurate measurement because the shape of the ear canal dramatically affects response above around 1kc or so. Which is why we have things like the Zwislocki coupler for measuring earphones. Secondly, for sealed headphones, the volume inside the cups (which most unfortunately includes the volume inside your ear canal) changes the response on the low end substantially. (Unfortunately this means that the measured response of headphones on my head will not be the same as on your head.) But the real big deal is that you don't _want_ flat on-axis response from a headphone driver. In normal life, you're listening to sources that are in front of your head, 90 degrees off-axis, so you want the response to simulate that of an off-axis source. Which.... means an upper midrange dip somewhere. But exactly _where_ depends on a person's head. And this is why headphones that measure and seem flat to one person may not to another. If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves This is a fair way of identifying issues that result from the first two effects I described... but the third one is the killer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 31/12/2017 2:45 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. And nobody noticed this huge dip ? Maybe the transducers have had an aging r=effect which is causing this now ? The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. Cheap and maybe not quite so nasty ? I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. Still pretty cheap. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. How about testing some more recent higher-end AKGs. And some actual listening testing, because steady-state frequency response is only one of many factors in sound quality. And arguably a minor one at that ... geoff |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2017 2:45 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: [...] I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. And nobody noticed this huge dip ? Maybe the transducers have had an aging r=effect which is causing this now ? I was quite surprised that nobody had noticed it. I heard it first on a sweep tone and thought my ears were playing tricks, so I set up a rough-and-ready test rig and confirmed it by measurement. Whatever was causing it was almost identical on both earpieces. It would be interesting to test another pair from the same era and then comare this with some of the later models, but I only have the one pair that I bought secondhand. There is no way of knowing what conditions my headphones were subjected to before I bought them; but it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could cause such a dip, let alone one that would have been exacerbated by poor storage conditions. I thought the manufacturer's data sheet or some of the independent reviews might shed some light on this dip, but I was soon disabused of such a quaint notion. There doesn't appear to be any sort of meaningful specification for the performance of these headphones and the reviews on the Web are utter bo**ocks; it doesn't look as though anyone has ever bothered to check their frequency response. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. Cheap and maybe not quite so nasty ? They are both cheaper and better sounding than the K-240s that I tested. They do have minor defects, but I can live with those and make allowance for them when doing rough checks on recording quality. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. Still pretty cheap. They seem to be a lot lower in sensitivity, but I presume that is the trade-off for a flatter frequency response. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. How about testing some more recent higher-end AKGs. And some actual listening testing, because steady-state frequency response is only one of many factors in sound quality. And arguably a minor one at that ... I would be quite happy to do some simple frequency response tests if someone is prepared to loan me suitable candidates. Perhaps more elaborate dynamic testing would show up minor differences in the performance of headphones that show apparently good static responses; but when there are such gross errors in the basic properties, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on to test for anything more subtle. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 31/12/2017 11:06 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
geoff wrote: On 31/12/2017 2:45 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: [...] I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. And nobody noticed this huge dip ? Maybe the transducers have had an aging r=effect which is causing this now ? I was quite surprised that nobody had noticed it. I heard it first on a sweep tone and thought my ears were playing tricks, so I set up a rough-and-ready test rig and confirmed it by measurement. Whatever was causing it was almost identical on both earpieces. Presumably both earpieces have been subject to the same usage, aging, and storage conditions. SDo I wouldn't be surprised. It would be interesting to test another pair from the same era and then comare this with some of the later models, but I only have the one pair that I bought secondhand. There is no way of knowing what conditions my headphones were subjected to before I bought them; but it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could cause such a dip, let alone one that would have been exacerbated by poor storage conditions. I find it hard to imagine that professionals over several decades using these headphones also hadn't noticed. Only JJ wouldn't be surprised. I thought the manufacturer's data sheet or some of the independent reviews might shed some light on this dip, but I was soon disabused of such a quaint notion. There doesn't appear to be any sort of meaningful specification for the performance of these headphones and the reviews on the Web are utter bo**ocks; it doesn't look as though anyone has ever bothered to check their frequency response. I find that concept to be utter ******** ;- ) There *will* be a reason. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. To me K44s sound like they look. Cheap and plasticy. Haven't heard K52s. Again, something is grossly wrong with the K240s. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. How about testing some more recent higher-end AKGs. And some actual listening testing, because steady-state frequency response is only one of many factors in sound quality. And arguably a minor one at that ... I would be quite happy to do some simple frequency response tests if someone is prepared to loan me suitable candidates. Perhaps more elaborate dynamic testing would show up minor differences in the performance of headphones that show apparently good static responses; but when there are such gross errors in the basic properties, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on to test for anything more subtle. Maybe pick up another pair of old K240s and compare ? And another thought (though not necessarily specific to the particular conundrum - what is the output load impedance specification of the sig gen ? geoff |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Yet another update.
After a few days, the Grado SR60e was hurting my head too much, and the amount of background sound in my main environment (open office workspace) was driving me nuts. I ended up buying ATH-M50x after all. To my taste they aren't quite as nice as the Grados, and they cost twice as much; but they are a lot more comfy to wear and filter out a lot more background noise. They are definitely hyped in the lows and more aggressive than I'd like up top, but after living with them for a couple weeks I still find them quite listenable without EQ. Really nice sense of space. I kept hoping I'd find something I'd like even better, but there was nothing else I tried that came close without going a LOT more expensive. Also: Plug for Audio46 in Manhattan. A headphones-only shop that has a pretty wide range of things stocked, will let you try on pretty much anything with your own player. I went a couple times and tried a lot of things (I did not keep a list) before making my final decision. They seemed happy to either offer advice or leave me alone (I'm more a "leave me alone" customer). Prices were on par with what I've seen online. Incidentally, I do remember trying the ATH M40x that some here mentioned. I didn't take notes but a direct comparison of 50 vs 40 was pretty dramatic .... I judged the 50 well worth the extra cost. Don't know which one measures more flat but I do remember that on all the different source tracks I tried, I vastly preferred the 50. - Paul On Wednesdapay, October 1, 2014 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, slinkp wrote: Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Hi,
Sorry if it has been already mentioned... Sennheiser HD 202, bought about 10 years ago for about 35 USD (certainly cheaper in the USA), no idea if they are discontinued by now and replaced by other models. No fancy room/space simulations, possibly not for sophisticated audiophiles, but not bad to me, I do _not_ want such fancy staff anyway, and they are comfortable enough to stay a few hours with it on my head. Materials proved to be stable (unlike other brands like Koss, two of their headphones with rotten cushions in a couple of years). |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Hi,
The AKG450 is a nice one, a closed over-ear one. A cheaper one which I have is the Teufel Aureol Real, an open over-ear one, if it is available in your area. The AKG is slightly more transparent in the very high range; I had to be pointed out the differences before I noticed them. I bought the Teufel just because it was open. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Headphones | Audio Opinions | |||
does anyone like the AKG K-400 headphones? | Pro Audio | |||
USB Headphones hack - Soldering a 3.5mm plug instead of the headphones | Tech | |||
[eBay] FS: Headphones AKAI ASE 22, nice headphones vintage ... very low starting price ... 2 Euro!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | Marketplace | |||
Seeking Recommendations for Open Headphones and Closed Headphones | Audio Opinions |