[slinkp]

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

[Tim Sprout]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Nate Najar]

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.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Les Cargill[_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.

http://www.amazon.com/Koss-KTXPRO1-Titanium-Portable-Headphones/dp/B00007056H


- Paul


--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

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

[geoff]

On 3/10/2014 4:00 a.m., wrote:
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



I don't find the M50s tight at all - they seem very bendy, and my head
isn't particularly narrow. Now Senny HD280s - THEY are like vices !

geoff

[Chuck[_10_]]

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

[[email protected]]

Chuck wrote: "Grado SR80i"


+1!!!!!

[slinkp]

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?

[Chuck[_10_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[cedricl[_2_]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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!

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[None]

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?

[None]

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.

[slinkp]

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

[geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[[email protected]]

3 kc the magical frequency!

Jack

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[geoff]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[slinkp]

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

[Nicola B. Bernardelli]

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).

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

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