[genericaudioperson]

Hello,

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

Does that mean a high-ohm rating has a correlation to sound quality?

[Eeyore]

genericaudioperson wrote:

Hello,

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

Does that mean a high-ohm rating has a correlation to sound quality?

No.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"genericaudioperson" wrote ...
I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

The higher impedance ones are more likely the ones designed
for the more "conventional" market. The lower-impedance ones
(32 ohms, etc.) sound more like they were designed for the iPod
crowd.

(Lower impedance for iPod, because portable players like iPod,
et.al. run on a lower voltage and it takes a lower impedance to get
equivalent power (=sound levels).

Does that mean a high-ohm rating has a correlation to sound quality?

No. There is no real correlation between impedance and "sound quality".

[Dec [Cluskey]]

Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

No matter what studio you visit in the world they will always have
those earphones....TV... Radio .... whatever.

There will always be individual DJ's and home Hi-Fi buffs who will
swear by differing makes and models but the standard has, and it
seems, will always be DT100.

They can be purchased in various Impedance values. Basically,
impedance has nothing to do with quality, only to do with loudness.
So, the higher the impedance the lower the loudness....Okay? In
simple terms. I am sure that a lot of contributors will have a lot to
say about that statement? I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM
speaker will be much louder than an 8 OHM speaker when driven by the
same amp.?

This stuff has always been 'black magic'.

Dec [Cluskey]

On Jun 29, 1:33 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"genericaudioperson" wrote ...

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

[Agent 86[_2_]]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM
speaker will be much louder than an 8 OHM speaker when driven by the
same amp.?

All other things being equal, it will be about 3dB louder.

In which universe does 3dB qualify as "much louder"?

Might want to re-examine that theory.

[William Sommerwerck]

I base my theory on the fact that a 4 ohm speaker will be
much louder than an 8 ohm speaker when driven by the
same amp?

Much?

Given an amp that's a constant voltage source, a 4-ohm (not OHM) speaker
will pull twice the power that an 8-ohm speaker does. That's 3dB -- only a
_slight_ difference in loudness. And that assumes both speakers have the
same efficiency -- which they probably don't. The 4-ohm speaker could very
likely play at a lower level.

[Bill Ruys]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

No matter what studio you visit in the world they will always have
those earphones....TV... Radio .... whatever.

There will always be individual DJ's and home Hi-Fi buffs who will
swear by differing makes and models but the standard has, and it
seems, will always be DT100.

They can be purchased in various Impedance values. Basically,
impedance has nothing to do with quality, only to do with loudness.
So, the higher the impedance the lower the loudness....Okay? In
simple terms. I am sure that a lot of contributors will have a lot to
say about that statement? I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM
speaker will be much louder than an 8 OHM speaker when driven by the
same amp.?

This stuff has always been 'black magic'.

Dec [Cluskey]


I don't think I'd call Ohm's Law "black magic" ;o)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:

Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

Does that mean a high-ohm rating has a correlation to sound quality?

No, not at all. But the cheaper ones tend to be lower impedance so they
will be louder with portable gear that has limited voltage drive (due
to running on batteries).

You'll still find a few 600 ohm ones too. That used to be the industry
standard for years and years. They sound great plugged into an Ampex,
not so good plugged into an iPod.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:

I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM speaker will be much louder than an
8 OHM speaker when driven by the same amp.?

Only if you think 3dB is 'much louder' !

Most ppl wouldn't.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

No matter what studio you visit in the world they will always have
those earphones....TV... Radio .... whatever.

Not so much any more. I still have a pair in the truck... they aren't
all that great-sounding, but they always work and they don't leak much.
You used to see the DT100 and the AKG K240M in every studio, although
these days they are pretty well displaced by newer designes.

They can be purchased in various Impedance values. Basically,
impedance has nothing to do with quality, only to do with loudness.
So, the higher the impedance the lower the loudness....Okay? In
simple terms. I am sure that a lot of contributors will have a lot to
say about that statement? I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM
speaker will be much louder than an 8 OHM speaker when driven by the
same amp.?

Until the amp clips, sure. That's the thing... a lower-Z headphone will
require more current from the amp, but less voltage. You get whichever
one is appropriate for the amp you have, or vice-versa.

This stuff has always been 'black magic'.

Not really. The only thing that becomes worrisome is the difference between
ear canal volumes, which results in the bass response being different from
person to person, even if measured directly with a microphone in the ear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Geoff]

genericaudioperson wrote:
Hello,

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

Does that mean a high-ohm rating has a correlation to sound quality?

No. And lower impedence phones may cause players such as Discmans (Discmen
?) , MP3 players, (LoF)iPods etc, to give distorted playback.

geoff

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
Hi Richard

[snip]
They can be purchased in various Impedance values. Basically,
impedance has nothing to do with quality, only to do with loudness.
So, the higher the impedance the lower the loudness....Okay? In
simple terms. I am sure that a lot of contributors will have a lot to
say about that statement? I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM
speaker will be much louder than an 8 OHM speaker when driven by the
same amp.?

This stuff has always been 'black magic'.

Dec [Cluskey]

The 'black magic' is less puzzling when you consider that most solid state
amp outputs are very nearly zero ohms impedance. Thus, speakers and
'phones "bridge" the source and the design of the load determines how much
power is drawn. An inefficient design will not be as loud as an efficient
one. No magic there! ;-)


On Jun 29, 1:33 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"genericaudioperson" wrote ...

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[drichard]

Hi Scott and all,

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, but what do you consider
some of the "newer designs" that are beginning to displace the AKG
phones? I have a pair of K240's that I like, but I'm considering new
headphones and will want to check out other options if they are truly
better.

Dean

On Jun 28, 9:59 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

No matter what studio you visit in the world they will always have
those earphones....TV... Radio .... whatever.

Not so much any more. I still have a pair in the truck... they aren't
all that great-sounding, but they always work and they don't leak much.
You used to see the DT100 and the AKG K240M in every studio, although
these days they are pretty well displaced by newer designes.

They can be purchased in various Impedance values. Basically,
impedance has nothing to do with quality, only to do with loudness.
So, the higher the impedance the lower the loudness....Okay? In
simple terms. I am sure that a lot of contributors will have a lot to
say about that statement? I base my theory on the fact that a 4 OHM
speaker will be much louder than an 8 OHM speaker when driven by the
same amp.?

Until the amp clips, sure. That's the thing... a lower-Z headphone will
require more current from the amp, but less voltage. You get whichever
one is appropriate for the amp you have, or vice-versa.

This stuff has always been 'black magic'.

Not really. The only thing that becomes worrisome is the difference between
ear canal volumes, which results in the bass response being different from
person to person, even if measured directly with a microphone in the ear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[exalted wombat]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:53:56 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:



"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:

Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Dec's been around recording studios for a long time. He's picked up a
lot of knowledge, but he isn't very technical. He often thinks he
knows the One True Answer :-)

[Eeyore]

exalted wombat wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:

Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Dec's been around recording studios for a long time. He's picked up a
lot of knowledge, but he isn't very technical. He often thinks he
knows the One True Answer :-)

Well, it's true they are a standard of sorts but they still don't sound that
good !

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote ...
Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones,

Perhaps you meant to address the original poster,
"genericaudioperson". I have plenty of headphones,
thanks. (Mostly Sony MDR-7506)

it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.
No matter what studio you visit in the world they will always have
those earphones....TV... Radio .... whatever.

I've never seen/heard them.

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard wrote:

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, but what do you consider
some of the "newer designs" that are beginning to displace the AKG
phones? I have a pair of K240's that I like, but I'm considering new
headphones and will want to check out other options if they are truly
better.

What is better? For what?

I mean, the headphones I'd want for casual listening, for tracking, and
for editing are all very different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

exalted wombat wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:53:56 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:

Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Dec's been around recording studios for a long time. He's picked up a
lot of knowledge, but he isn't very technical. He often thinks he
knows the One True Answer :-)

Well, he's got a point. It's hard to beat the DT100 for tracking work,
even though they do sound like rubbish.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[drichard]

Hi Scott,

It's for my home studio, so they should be multi-purpose. Mostly as an
alternative way of checking a mix or for casual listening, but
sometimes for tracking or editing. But volume levels will not be high
during tracking, so the ability to play loud is not important. Very
accurate reproduction, closed-back design, and comfort seem to be the
important considerations.

Dean

On Jun 29, 8:34 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
drichard wrote:

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, but what do you consider
some of the "newer designs" that are beginning to displace the AKG
phones? I have a pair of K240's that I like, but I'm considering new
headphones and will want to check out other options if they are truly
better.

What is better? For what?

I mean, the headphones I'd want for casual listening, for tracking, and
for editing are all very different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[drichard]

Hi,

Replying to myself...

In the past someone mentioned that they liked Audio Technica ATH-A700
phones. Do those fit the description I've offered?

Dean

On Jun 29, 9:05 am, drichard wrote:
Hi Scott,

It's for my home studio, so they should be multi-purpose. Mostly as an
alternative way of checking a mix or for casual listening, but
sometimes for tracking or editing. But volume levels will not be high
during tracking, so the ability to play loud is not important. Very
accurate reproduction, closed-back design, and comfort seem to be the
important considerations.

Dean

On Jun 29, 8:34 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:



drichard wrote:

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, but what do you consider
some of the "newer designs" that are beginning to displace the AKG
phones? I have a pair of K240's that I like, but I'm considering new
headphones and will want to check out other options if they are truly
better.

What is better? For what?

I mean, the headphones I'd want for casual listening, for tracking, and
for editing are all very different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[William Sommerwerck]

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, but what do you
consider some of the "newer designs" that are beginning to
displace the AKG phones? I have a pair of K240's that I like,
but I'm considering new headphones and will want to check
out other options if they are truly better.


This has been repeated ad nauseum, but I'll repeat it yet again...

The issue in selecting 'phones for monitoring is... Do they tell you what
you want or need to know about the recording?

That's it. The question of who uses them or what _they_ think of them is
immaterial.


When I used to make live recordings with a Sony PCM-F1, I used Sony MDR-CD6
'phones. Though they weren't the 'phones I would have chosen for critical
listening, they had three characteristics that made them great for live
monitoring...

1. Though supra-aural, they had thick foam-rubber pads that provided good
isolation. *
2. They were highly efficient.
3. They could handle a lot of power.

The combination of these three characteristics made it possible to stand
directly behind the conductor and drown out the direct sound of the
orchestra with the sound picked up by the mics. That's very handy when
you're recording in an unfamiliar venue and have to experiment with mic
placement.

* This sort of hybrid design ought to be revived. AFAIK, only the Sony
MDR-CD5 and MDR-CD6 used it.

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard wrote:

It's for my home studio, so they should be multi-purpose. Mostly as an
alternative way of checking a mix or for casual listening, but
sometimes for tracking or editing. But volume levels will not be high
during tracking, so the ability to play loud is not important. Very
accurate reproduction, closed-back design, and comfort seem to be the
important considerations.

These are all in complete conflict. You don't get accurate reproduction
with a closed back, and you don't _want_ accurate reproduction for tracking
or editing.

Buy a Grado SR-60 and a Sony MDR-V6. That gives you both extremes although
nothing in-between....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com

On Jun 29, 9:05 am, drichard wrote:

It's for my home studio, so they should be
multi-purpose. Mostly as an alternative way of checking
a mix or for casual listening, but sometimes for
tracking or editing. But volume levels will not be high
during tracking, so the ability to play loud is not
important. Very accurate reproduction, closed-back
design, and comfort seem to be the important
considerations.

In the past someone mentioned that they liked Audio
Technica ATH-A700 phones. Do those fit the description
I've offered?

Please see:

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/he...6d2/index.html

Very accurate reproduction,

Check. Sound is not all that dissimilar from Sennheiser HD 580s. IOW, smooth
and a tad warm.

closed-back design,

Check. There are also open-air versions of the same basic headphones called
the ATH-AD700

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/he...56f/index.html

and comfort

Check. Very lightweight, and with large, soft ear-pads. The earpads are so
soft that there might be some problems with maintaining accurate location,
except for the novel soft, spring-loaded headpads.

About $125 US mail order price.

[Peter Fiveland]

Not really. I'm sure there are junk headphones with low impedence and junk
headphones with high impedence.

It DOES make a difference in what type of level you need for headphone amps.
For example- most classic AKG studio headphones had a higher impedence so to
get the same volume, you'd have to crank the level up on the headphone amp
so the headphone amp would have to be able to deliver the audio volume
needed. If you compare it to a equally professional set of headphones like
a Sony 7506 - the Sony would need less volume from the headphone amp but its
lower impedence would be more of a strain on the amp itself (not that it
matters too much).

-Peter

"genericaudioperson" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello,

I've been researching headphones. I noticed a lot of them are rated
at 32 ohms. Then many of the expensive ones are rated at 100+ ohms.

Does that mean a high-ohm rating has a correlation to sound quality?

[genericaudioperson]

I thought you would want accurate reproduction for editing. What sort
of inaccuracy would help the editing process? Not quite following the
idea...

[Arny Krueger]

"genericaudioperson" wrote
in message
oups.com

I thought you would want accurate reproduction for
editing.

To a limited degree. Obviously, you don't want instruments and voices to be
unrecognizable.

What sort of inaccuracy would help the editing process?

Over-detailed, over-punchy. Something that makes any errors really stand
out.

Not quite following the idea...

A few 100's of hours of editing can help straighten out your priorities.

[drichard]

Hi Scott,

Well, then accurate reproduction is the primary goal. But why do you
feel closed-back design is in conflict with accurate reproduction?

Dean


On Jun 29, 11:32 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
drichard wrote:

It's for my home studio, so they should be multi-purpose. Mostly as an
alternative way of checking a mix or for casual listening, but
sometimes for tracking or editing. But volume levels will not be high
during tracking, so the ability to play loud is not important. Very
accurate reproduction, closed-back design, and comfort seem to be the
important considerations.

These are all in complete conflict. You don't get accurate reproduction
with a closed back, and you don't _want_ accurate reproduction for tracking
or editing.

Buy a Grado SR-60 and a Sony MDR-V6. That gives you both extremes although
nothing in-between....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[drichard]

Hi Arny (and all),

I'm just trying to get some ideas of which phones to consider. So I'll
add the AT ATH-H700 and the Sennheiser HD580 to the list, along with
the Grado SR60.

Are the Sony MDR-V6 anything like the Sony 7506? I've tried the 7506's
and didn't care for them.

Dean

On Jun 29, 11:51 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"drichard" wrote in message

oups.com

On Jun 29, 9:05 am, drichard wrote:
It's for my home studio, so they should be
multi-purpose. Mostly as an alternative way of checking
a mix or for casual listening, but sometimes for
tracking or editing. But volume levels will not be high
during tracking, so the ability to play loud is not
important. Very accurate reproduction, closed-back
design, and comfort seem to be the important
considerations.
In the past someone mentioned that they liked Audio
Technica ATH-A700 phones. Do those fit the description
I've offered?

Please see:

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/he...6d2/index.html

Very accurate reproduction,

Check. Sound is not all that dissimilar from Sennheiser HD 580s. IOW, smooth
and a tad warm.

closed-back design,

Check. There are also open-air versions of the same basic headphones called
the ATH-AD700

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/he...56f/index.html

and comfort

Check. Very lightweight, and with large, soft ear-pads. The earpads are so
soft that there might be some problems with maintaining accurate location,
except for the novel soft, spring-loaded headpads.

About $125 US mail order price.

[Arny Krueger]

"drichard" wrote in message
ps.com
Hi Arny (and all),

I'm just trying to get some ideas of which phones to
consider. So I'll add the AT ATH-H700 and the Sennheiser
HD580 to the list, along with the Grado SR60.

Are the Sony MDR-V6 anything like the Sony 7506?

Similar. I've owned both.

I've tried the 7506's and didn't care for them.

I have a pair. Good for editing, but not the most accurate phones around.

[Arny Krueger]

"drichard" wrote in message
ups.com
Hi Scott,

Well, then accurate reproduction is the primary goal. But
why do you feel closed-back design is in conflict with
accurate reproduction?

A cavity resonance due to the closed back.

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:
I thought you would want accurate reproduction for editing. What sort
of inaccuracy would help the editing process? Not quite following the
idea...

A tipped up high end makes editing a LOT easier. It exaggerates glitches and
makes low-level noise easier to hear. I can hear stuff on the MDR-V6 that is
totally inaudible on a more accurate system, which is exactly what you want
for editing work where you need to locate cut points precisely.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard wrote:

Well, then accurate reproduction is the primary goal. But why do you
feel closed-back design is in conflict with accurate reproduction?

Buy the Stax, then.

Closed-back systems necessarily have a low frequency response which is
dependant on the volume of the chamber behind the diaphragm AND the volume
of the chamber in front of it, namely your ear canal. So there are a lot
more listener-to-listener variations with a closed-ear system on the low
end.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"drichard" wrote
Are the Sony MDR-V6 anything like the Sony 7506?

Many of us suspect that V6s are 7506s that didn't
make "the grade" (whatever that is). Physically, they
are indistinguishable except for the gold plating on
the plug, and the label on the side. I have several of
each model and can't tell the difference between them.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Jun 29, 3:53 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Graham

Hmmmmmmmm?

As used on the greatest records of all time?

And in the top studios world wide [and mine!]

Dec [Cluskey]

... http://www.makehits.com

[Dec [Cluskey]]

I've never seen/heard them.

And which planet of the Universe did you arrive from, yesterday? [huge
grin!]

Every studio in the world uses them [well almost!]

I would be astonished to walk into any studio/TV situation/Radio where
there weren't Beyer Dynamic DT 100 earphones... am I wrong?

Dec [Cluskey]
http://www.makehits.com


On Jun 29, 12:46 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote ...

Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones,

Perhaps you meant to address the original poster,
"genericaudioperson". I have plenty of headphones,

[Eeyore]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Hmmmmmmmm?

As used on the greatest records of all time?

How do you use headphones 'on a record' ?


And in the top studios world wide [and mine!]

Not for critical monitoring or mixing I hope !

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:53 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
Hi Richard

Depending on where and when you want to use the headphones, it is good
to remember that the all time Industry Standard earphones are and
always were the Beyer Dynamic DT 100.

They sound rubbish though.

Hmmmmmmmm?

As used on the greatest records of all time?

And in the top studios world wide [and mine!]

Sure. There's a lot of gear used in the top studios worldwide (and mine)
that sounds like rubbish. For a lot of applications, that's just fine.
Tracking phones aren't supposed to sound good, they're supposed to have
low leakage.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

I would be astonished to walk into any studio/TV situation/Radio where
there weren't Beyer Dynamic DT 100 earphones... am I wrong?

You are, sadly, wrong. Fifteen years ago that was absolutely the case,
though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

I would be astonished to walk into any studio/TV situation/Radio where
there weren't Beyer Dynamic DT 100 earphones... am I wrong?

You are, sadly, wrong. Fifteen years ago that was absolutely the case,
though.

Are the DT 150s any better ?

Graham