Headphone Q?

[ChrisCoaster]

It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
serious set of cans. In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.

I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.

That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?

I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
experienced Sennheiser products.

Thanks for your input,

-ChrisCoaster
"If you scream on roller-coasters you're missing the ride!!"

[William Sommerwerck]

Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a bad one.

If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or something even
better. I don't think you'll regret it.

I own STAX Lambda Pro 'phones and the SRM-T1 amplifier. They're better than
the Sennheisers, but not exactly cheap.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 29, 9:16*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a bad one.
>
> If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or something even
> better. I don't think you'll regret it.
>
> I own STAX Lambda Pro 'phones and the SRM-T1 amplifier. They're better than
> the Sennheisers, but not exactly cheap.
___________
Cannot find that on their site.

Pretty much the 380 has a slightly lower impedence, slightly higher
max SPL, and a higher high-end frequency response - which will be lost
on me(!). Also, the pressure exerted on the head is slightly more(?)
- 6n vs 4n for the 280s. Whatever that value means. They both isolate
acoustically to almost the same degree, both have replaceable parts
(cord & ear pieces), and you can walk around a room freely with
either.

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 29, 9:16*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a bad one.
>
> If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or something even
> better. I don't think you'll regret it.
>
> I own STAX Lambda Pro 'phones and the SRM-T1 amplifier. They're better than
> the Sennheisers, but not exactly cheap.
___________
Cannot the 580 on their site. Discontinued?

Pretty much the 380 has a slightly lower impedence, slightly higher
max SPL, and a higher high-end frequency response - which will be
lost
on me(!). Also, the pressure exerted on the head is slightly more(?)
- 6n vs 4n for the 280s. Whatever that value means. They both
isolate
acoustically to almost the same degree, both have replaceable parts
(cord & ear pieces), and you can walk around a room freely with
either.


-CC

[Geoff]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
> It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
> serious set of cans. In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
> I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
> plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.
>
> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
> much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.
>
> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
> investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?
>
> I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
> experienced Sennheiser products.
>
> Thanks for your input,

Dunno. But apart from the great isolation, I find my HD-280s slightly blaaa
to listen to, and bloody uncomfirtable.

Try ATH-M50s and you might just be blown away.

geoff

[nebulax]

On Sep 29, 9:30*pm, ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:16*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
> wrote:> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a bad one..
>
> > If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or something even
> > better. I don't think you'll regret it.
>
> > I own STAX Lambda Pro 'phones and the SRM-T1 amplifier. They're better than
> > the Sennheisers, but not exactly cheap.
>
> ___________
> Cannot the 580 on their site. Discontinued?
>
> Pretty much the 380 has a slightly lower impedence, slightly higher
> max SPL, and a higher high-end frequency response - which will be
> lost
> on me(!). *Also, the pressure exerted on the head is slightly more(?)
> - 6n vs 4n for the 280s. Whatever that value means. *They both
> isolate
> acoustically to almost the same degree, both have replaceable parts
> (cord & ear pieces), and you can walk around a room freely with
> either.
>
> -CC


I think the Sennheiser 580 has been discontinued, but the 600 and the
650 are still available, which were basically improvements on the
original 580 design. I have a pair of 565's (cheaper than the 580's,
but also discontinued), and while I've never compared them directly to
the other Senn phones, they're still the best overall cans I've ever
owned.

-Neb

[Kompan]

On Sep 30, 4:41*am, "geoff" > wrote:
> ChrisCoaster wrote:
> > It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
> > serious set of cans. *In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
> > I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
> > plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.
>
> > I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
> > much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.
>
> > That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
> > investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?
>
> > I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
> > experienced Sennheiser products.
>
> > Thanks for your input,
>
> Dunno. But apart from the great isolation, I find my HD-280s slightly blaaa
> to listen to, and bloody uncomfirtable.
>
> Try ATH-M50s and you might just be blown away.
>
> geoff

+1 for ATH-M50

[Arny Krueger]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message


> It should be federal law that every house and home have
> at least one serious set of cans.

I'm a bit too much of a Libertarian for that sort of thing! ;-)

> In my case they are
> the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro. I have received nothing but
> pleasure from listening to anything I've plugged this
> model into and any style of music or even movie audio.

I have a pair of MD-280 Pros (and most of the rest of the phones I mention
here) and they are what they are. Good value at the very least. Very tight
fitting but that means that they have good bass. Might be a bit elevated on
the top end, but in the realm of right. Good on-location recording phones
because they have pretty good isolation and decent balance. They can get
uncomfortable in extended use.

> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can
> say I "pretty- much" know what a quality headphone is
> supposed to sound like.

MDR-V6 and MDR 7506 are more comfortable, but a little lighter on the bass
for the same reason. Poor isolation if you need isolation. A tad harsher on
the high end,. Again, in the realm of right. I've worn out a pair of MDR-V6
and a pair of MDR 7506. I replaced the 7506s. Still use them on my other
music/video production PC.

MDR V600s have far more bass, tighter but still fairly comfortable seal, and
a smoother high end. Perhaps, a little light on the high end. I'm not so
sure about them - probably what many would call a "DJ headphone".

> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth
> the investment and will I notice any difference between
> it and the 280?

The 580 used to be a reasonable step up, but they are out of production.
Sad. Nice phones at a nice price point.

The 580, 600, 650 and up are open-ear headphones with minimal isolation but
good bass. Very smooth. They have been compared favorably to Stax. I've
heard the Stax but not in a formal comparison. Again, all a bit different,
all very smooth, and all in the realm of right. Very much saltier than
280s.

Someone mentioned the ATH-M50s. Got a pair of those right here on this PC.
Very smooth, a bit light in the bass compared to say the 280s and MDR 600s,
but far more comfortable. Again, in the realm of right. A tad more expensive
than HD 280s but close if you shop around. Maybe, a logical next step up for
you. Not what I'd call good on-site recording phones due to the lack of
isolation.

Different horses for different courses. ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a bad one.

I have. They are now making a couple lines of cheap nasty headphones for
the home market. Actually, I think they are just rebadging them. This
does not in any way degrade their regular headphones, though, just that
you should watch out.

>If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or something even
>better. I don't think you'll regret it.

All the headphones in this line are good, but they all sound different, and
they all have different leakage characteristics.

>I own STAX Lambda Pro 'phones and the SRM-T1 amplifier. They're better than
>the Sennheisers, but not exactly cheap.

Better for a lot of things, but not much good for tracking or working in
noisy environments.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Wecan do it]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
...
> It should be federal law that every house and home have at
> least one
> serious set of cans. In my case they are the Sennheiser
> HD-280 Pro.
> I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to
> anything I've
> plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie
> audio.
>
> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say
> I "pretty-
> much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound
> like.
>
> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth
> the
> investment and will I notice any difference between it and
> the 280?
>
> I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here
> have
> experienced Sennheiser products.
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> -ChrisCoaster
> "If you scream on roller-coasters you're missing the ride!!"

Lets talk Sennheiser HD600's. Nothing to complain about the
sound, I 've worn them for hours every night for a few years
now. I hook them to the center channel on the TV so I can
understand what is being said without blasting out my wife.
Extreem comfort.

These cans were made with break away 2 prong connectons on
each can. They never worked properly, always cutting out and
driving me crazy. I had to open up the outside screen cover
and solder the wires to the little tabs they put inside there.
Now after a couple of years I just opened them up again and
had to resolder them cause where I ty-wrapped the wire to the
can the super thin wires broke and they started cutting out
again. No I am not dancing with these things on just sitting
on a couch and watching TV. The cloth covered pads are holding
up but the black foam that protects the drivers from my ears
has fallen apart and disappeared long ago. I think they are
not too durable.

I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot less.

peace
dawg
>

[William Sommerwerck]

> Lets talk Sennheiser HD600's. Nothing to complain about the
> sound, I 've worn them for hours every night for a few years
> now. I hook them to the center channel on the TV so I can
> understand what is being said without blasting out my wife.
> Extreem comfort.

> These cans were made with break away 2 prong connectons on
> each can. They never worked properly, always cutting out and
> driving me crazy.

I solved this problem with my 580s... I said to Sennheiser "Fix it -- or
else." That was several years ago, and I've had no problems since.

In most states there is no limitation of warranty of products that are
fundamentally flawed.

[Reinhard Zwirner]

William Sommerwerck schrieb:
>
> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a bad one.
>
> If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or something even
> better. I don't think you'll regret it.

Please don't compare apples and pears! The HD 580 and the later
mentioned HD 600/HD 650 are OPEN headphones while the HD 280 is
a closed one. Obviously this feature is important for the OP,
otherwise he wouldn't search information about the HD 380 pro:

<http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/home_en.nsf/root/professional_headphones-headsets_headphones_502717?Open&row=1>

HTH

Reinhard

[Arkansan Raider]

Wecan do it wrote:

> I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
> still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot less.
>
> peace
> dawg
>
>

I like the AKG 240, and I own a pair of the 270s. I like the sound, as
they seem pretty flat, but I also sweat my ears off when I wear them too
long.

---Jeff

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> Lets talk Sennheiser HD600's. Nothing to complain about
>> the sound, I 've worn them for hours every night for a
>> few years now. I hook them to the center channel on the
>> TV so I can understand what is being said without
>> blasting out my wife. Extreem comfort.
>
>> These cans were made with break away 2 prong connectons
>> on each can. They never worked properly, always cutting
>> out and driving me crazy.
>
> I solved this problem with my 580s... I said to
> Sennheiser "Fix it -- or else." That was several years
> ago, and I've had no problems since.
>
> In most states there is no limitation of warranty of
> products that are fundamentally flawed.

I've heard of lots of people who had problems like this with 580s. I guess I
was either lucky, or enough of a late adopter to get the enhanced model. In
the application I used the 580s for, lots of headphones have bit the dust
completely and totally including V900s.

The 580s needed some parts replaced over the year - a cord and a headband
that someone stepped on. The Sennheiser web site allowed me to order them
and the prices were reasonable. I'd still have the 580s and use them every
day, except that someone broke into my house and stole them.

[Wecan do it]

"Reinhard Zwirner" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck schrieb:
>>
>> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a
>> bad one.
>>
>> If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or
>> something even
>> better. I don't think you'll regret it.
>
> Please don't compare apples and pears! The HD 580 and the
> later
> mentioned HD 600/HD 650 are OPEN headphones while the HD 280
> is
> a closed one. Obviously this feature is important for the
> OP,
> otherwise he wouldn't search information about the HD 380
> pro:

>
> HTH
>
> Reinhard

I thought we were talking about Sennheiser, not a type of can.
SORRY for making your eyes or your national pride hurt!

peace
dawg

[Reinhard Zwirner]

Wecan do it wrote:
>
> "Reinhard Zwirner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >>
> >> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a
> >> bad one.
> >>
> >> If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or
> >> something even
> >> better. I don't think you'll regret it.
> >
> > Please don't compare apples and pears! The HD 580 and the
> > later
> > mentioned HD 600/HD 650 are OPEN headphones while the HD 280
> > is
> > a closed one. Obviously this feature is important for the
> > OP,
> > otherwise he wouldn't search information about the HD 380
> > pro: [...]

> I thought we were talking about Sennheiser, not a type of can.

You're right, we were talking about Sennheiser; but we were
talking about cans, too! The OP obviously owns a HD 280 (=closed)
and asked for information about/experience with HD 380 (=closed).
In another posting he mentioned the acoustical isolation of both
headphones. My conclusion: he's interested in new headphones with
acoustical isolation.

Therefore all answers mentioning open Sennheiser headphones seemed
somehow misleading to me. Maybe I'm wrong <shrug> ... I just tried
to help.

> SORRY for making your eyes or your national pride hurt!
?????????

Best regards

Reinhard

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 30, 1:43*pm, Reinhard Zwirner > wrote:
> Wecan do it wrote:
>
> > "Reinhard Zwirner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> > >> Sennheiser makes very good headphones. I've never heard a
> > >> bad one.
>
> > >> If you're going to get a better headphone, go to the 580 or
> > >> something even
> > >> better. I don't think you'll regret it.
>
> > > Please don't compare apples and pears! The HD 580 and the
> > > later
> > > mentioned HD 600/HD 650 are OPEN headphones while the HD 280
> > > is
> > > a closed one. Obviously this feature is important for the
> > > OP,
> > > otherwise he wouldn't search information about the HD 380
> > > pro: [...]
> > I thought we were talking about Sennheiser, not a type of can.
>
> You're right, we were talking about Sennheiser; but we were
> talking about cans, too! The OP obviously owns a HD 280 (=closed)
> and asked for information about/experience with HD 380 (=closed).
> In another posting he mentioned the acoustical isolation of both
> headphones. My conclusion: he's interested in new headphones with
> acoustical isolation.
>
> Therefore all answers mentioning open Sennheiser headphones seemed
> somehow misleading to me. *Maybe I'm wrong <shrug> ... I just tried
> to help.
>
> > SORRY for making your eyes or your national pride hurt!
>
> ?????????
>
> Best regards
>
> Reinhard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
_______________________
You've all been great. Yes, I do prefer closed cans, and would like
to upgrade within the Sennie line if possible. The fact sheed over
at http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/products.nsf/resources/8F67C484DF2CD44AC1257482003BEB49/$File/HD_280_Pro_GB.pdf
details the freq. resp. of this phone, and it pretty much corresponds
to what I hear.

When listening to music flat - no EQ - all headphones sound slightly
bass shy to me. I've been that way since birth - turn up the bass
knob!! But overall the HD-280's tone is balanced and I hear details
of songs that I would miss through lesser phones(ear buds, Sony MDR-
V300(poor man's MDR-V600!). For instance, listening to some early 70s
songs where the song builds - guitar, + vocals, +keyboards, +drums,
etc., I can actually hear the analog hiss just preceeding each track
as it's punched in! And that's on a 256kbps MP3, let alone a CD.

So I take it no one hear has had hands-on(or ears-on) experience with
the 380?

I just wish there was a site that measured and reviewed headphones in
the $100-200 price range so I could make an informed choice. I live
by a budget, so $180 or so is the most I'd spend on a headphone that
would never leave the house. I know all the "serious" brand names -
Sony, Sennheiser, AKG, Grado, Audio-Technica, Koss, etc. And just
those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me that's a brand I
should also consider. I'm just looking for objective testing to know
I'm getting one with the best combination of flat freq response,
isolation, and decent SPL when driven by anything from a wimpy Sansa
View mp3 deck up to a JVC home theater receiver.

-CC

[Geoff]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>
> I don't like the 280's at all. I gave mine away. Bright, thin,
> unmusical. DJ phones.

None of the DJs I know are either bright or thin. But definitely unmusical,
except one maybe... !

geoff

[Geoff]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
> Wecan do it wrote:
>
>> I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
>> still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot less.
>>
>> peace
>> dawg
>>
>>
>
> I like the AKG 240, and I own a pair of the 270s. I like the sound, as
> they seem pretty flat, but I also sweat my ears off when I wear them
> too long.

I have both, as well as hd280, k240, k141S, mdr-7506 and ATH-M50.

The 270s also fit the bright and thin description, and the K240s somewhat
less so. However the MK2 version seem very bright and thin.

Must be catering to those with HF loss.

The only thing I use the HD280 for is tracking vocalists. However I am happy
to use the ATs even for recreational listening, far more than the K240s.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

> And just those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me
> that's a brand I should also consider.

I reviewed many headphones at Stereophile, and AKGs were among the worst --
colored, and not particularly clean. I don't know why they're so popular.

[Arkansan Raider]

geoff wrote:
> Arkansan Raider wrote:
>> Wecan do it wrote:
>>
>>> I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
>>> still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot less.
>>>
>>> peace
>>> dawg
>>>
>>>
>> I like the AKG 240, and I own a pair of the 270s. I like the sound, as
>> they seem pretty flat, but I also sweat my ears off when I wear them
>> too long.
>
> I have both, as well as hd280, k240, k141S, mdr-7506 and ATH-M50.
>
> The 270s also fit the bright and thin description, and the K240s somewhat
> less so. However the MK2 version seem very bright and thin.
>
> Must be catering to those with HF loss.
>
> The only thing I use the HD280 for is tracking vocalists.

Funny, that's what I use *my* cans for. <g>

> However I am happy
> to use the ATs even for recreational listening, far more than the K240s.
>
> geoff
>

I've some in-ears that I kinda' like, but I only use them with my iPod
or my computer.

They're Shure E2c's.

---Jeff

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 30, 8:44*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > And just those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me
> > that's a brand I should also consider.
>
> I reviewed many headphones at Stereophile, and AKGs were among the worst --
> colored, and not particularly clean. I don't know why they're so popular.
____________________
One theory of mine:

Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
do not possess anything near flat hearing.

The less perfectly flat, more colored headphones appeal to larger
groups(the "boomy bass" set or the "tinny treble" crowd).

I calibrate TV sets in my spare time for folks. They appreciate that
the picture conforms to broadcast/professional standards, but don't
particularly like the image. Complaints of the color not being bold
enough or that the picture is "too soft" abound. But crank the
contrast, color, & sharpness back up, and they're in heaven!

Thoughts on this?

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 30, 9:10*pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:
> geoff wrote:
> > Arkansan Raider wrote:
> >> Wecan do it wrote:
>
> >>> I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
> >>> still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot less.
>
> >>> peace
> >>> dawg
>
> >> I like the AKG 240, and I own a pair of the 270s. I like the sound, as
> >> they seem pretty flat, but I also sweat my ears off when I wear them
> >> too long.
>
> > I have both, as well as hd280, k240, k141S, mdr-7506 and ATH-M50.
>
> > The 270s also fit the bright and thin description, and the K240s somewhat
> > less so. *However the MK2 version seem very bright and thin.
>
> > Must be catering to those with HF loss.
>
> > The only thing I use the HD280 for is tracking vocalists.
>
> Funny, that's what I use *my* cans for. <g>
>
> > However I am happy
> > to use the ATs even for recreational listening, far more than the K240s..
>
> > geoff
>
> I've some in-ears that I kinda' like, but I only use them with my iPod
> or my computer.
>
> They're Shure E2c's.
>
> ---Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
________________________

Here we are: http://www.headphonesolutions.com/

Anybody been there? How do your favorite head-huggers stack up?

Based on their reviews, the HD-280s I own are no mistake.

-CC

[Richard Crowley]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
> One theory of mine:
> Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
> to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
> do not possess anything near flat hearing.
>
> The less perfectly flat, more colored headphones appeal to larger
> groups(the "boomy bass" set or the "tinny treble" crowd).
>
> I calibrate TV sets in my spare time for folks. They appreciate that
> the picture conforms to broadcast/professional standards, but don't
> particularly like the image. Complaints of the color not being bold
> enough or that the picture is "too soft" abound. But crank the
> contrast, color, & sharpness back up, and they're in heaven!
>
> Thoughts on this?

You can probably figure out for yourself what is meant when we
refer to a graphic equalizer set for a "California Smile".

[Geoff]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:44 pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
> wrote:
>>> And just those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me
>>> that's a brand I should also consider.
>>
>> I reviewed many headphones at Stereophile, and AKGs were among the
>> worst -- colored, and not particularly clean. I don't know why
>> they're so popular.
> ____________________
> One theory of mine:
>
> Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
> to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
> do not possess anything near flat hearing.

That hearing is applied to all listening, not just headphone, and calibrates
their own norm.

geoff

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 30, 9:38*pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
>
> > One theory of mine:
> > Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
> > to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
> > do not possess anything near flat hearing.
>
> > The less perfectly flat, more colored headphones appeal to larger
> > groups(the "boomy bass" set or the "tinny treble" crowd).
>
> > I calibrate TV sets in my spare time for folks. *They appreciate that
> > the picture conforms to broadcast/professional standards, but don't
> > particularly like the image. *Complaints of the color not being bold
> > enough or that the picture is "too soft" abound. *But crank the
> > contrast, color, & sharpness back up, and they're in heaven!
>
> > Thoughts on this?
>
> You can probably figure out for yourself what is meant when we
> refer to a graphic equalizer set for a "California Smile".
___________________
Uggh - how inefficient - and inaccurate! Either a transducer can
reproduce top and bottom with authority, or it can't! :D

Curving the EQ like that only muddles matters. However there is a
curve that can be used to emphasize the correct frequencies at softer
than average listening levels. Once called the "Fletcher Munson"
curve, it is now known generically as the Equal-Loudness Contour. It
moderately cuts frequencies just below and just above the core vocal
range, boosts the mid-treble region(8-12kHz), cuts most everything
above 16kHz, and progressively boosts frequencies from 250 down to
about 20Hz.

http://www.cnet.com/i/bto/20071012/FletcherMunson.png

I'm not saying phones or speakers should be curved like this, but this
is a useful loudness curve when listening at background levels.

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 30, 9:42*pm, "geoff" > wrote:
> ChrisCoaster wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:44 pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
> > wrote:
> >>> And just those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me
> >>> that's a brand I should also consider.
>
> >> I reviewed many headphones at Stereophile, and AKGs were among the
> >> worst -- colored, and not particularly clean. I don't know why
> >> they're so popular.
> > ____________________
> > One theory of mine:
>
> > Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
> > to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
> > do not possess anything near flat hearing.
>
> That hearing is applied to all listening, not just headphone, and calibrates
> their own norm.
>
> geoff
________________
Yes. And your norm will sound different from my norm, which in turn
will differ from Suzy down the hall's norm, which will differ from the
norm for the guy changing tires at Sears, etc.

The point is, I actually prefer flat phones or speakers because I know
I'm getting accurate reproduction - even if they don't sound flat to
"my ears".

-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Sep 30, 9:42*pm, "geoff" > wrote:
> ChrisCoaster wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:44 pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
> > wrote:
> >>> And just those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me
> >>> that's a brand I should also consider.
>
> >> I reviewed many headphones at Stereophile, and AKGs were among the
> >> worst -- colored, and not particularly clean. I don't know why
> >> they're so popular.
> > ____________________
> > One theory of mine:
>
> > Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
> > to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
> > do not possess anything near flat hearing.
>
> That hearing is applied to all listening, not just headphone, and calibrates
> their own norm.
>
> geoff
___________________________
For everyone:

Here is the site I've been dying for:
http://www.headphone.com/technical/product-measurements/build-a-graph.php?graphID%5B0%5D=533&graphID%5B1%5D=353&graphID%5B2%5D=&graphID%5B3%5D=&graphType=0&buttonSelection=Compare+Headphones

I hope the thing works, otherwise just type in www.headphone.com and
select up to four models to compare freq resp, impedance, etc. Looks
like my Sennies aren't that bad compared to some of the stuff in
there. But WHERE are the high-end Sonys? I used to own the 7506 -
basically a rebranded MDR-V6, and was most satisfied with the sound.

-CC

[Geoff]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

> ________________
> Yes. And your norm will sound different from my norm, which in turn
> will differ from Suzy down the hall's norm, which will differ from the
> norm for the guy changing tires at Sears, etc.
>
> The point is, I actually prefer flat phones or speakers because I know
> I'm getting accurate reproduction - even if they don't sound flat to
> "my ears".

Exactly - because the same ears are applied to the phones as to the 'real
world'.

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
> > You can probably figure out for yourself what is meant when we
> > refer to a graphic equalizer set for a "California Smile".
> ___________________
> Uggh - how inefficient - and inaccurate! Either a transducer can
> reproduce top and bottom with authority, or it can't! :D

Saying that someone set their EQ to a "California Smile" isn't meant
as a *compliment*, at least not among the Cognoscenti. :-)

[nebulax]

On Sep 30, 10:29*pm, ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:42*pm, "geoff" > wrote:
>
> > ChrisCoaster wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 8:44 pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
> > > wrote:
> > >>> And just those three letters - AKG - instinctively tells me
> > >>> that's a brand I should also consider.
>
> > >> I reviewed many headphones at Stereophile, and AKGs were among the
> > >> worst -- colored, and not particularly clean. I don't know why
> > >> they're so popular.
> > > ____________________
> > > One theory of mine:
>
> > > Headphones(or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound appeal
> > > to the least number of listeners because the majority of human beings
> > > do not possess anything near flat hearing.
>
> > That hearing is applied to all listening, not just headphone, and calibrates
> > their own norm.
>
> > geoff
>
> ___________________________
> For everyone:
>
> Here is the site I've been dying for:http://www.headphone.com/technical/product-measurements/build-a-graph...
>
> I hope the thing works, otherwise just type inwww.headphone.comand
> select up to four models to compare freq resp, impedance, etc. *Looks
> like my Sennies aren't that bad compared to some of the stuff in
> there. *But WHERE are the high-end Sonys? *I used to own the 7506 -
> basically a rebranded MDR-V6, and was most satisfied with the sound.
>
> -CC



To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and sometimes
painfully so. Granted, when you're using them in the field, they'll
point out details that might be lost on a murkier sounding pair of
cans, but I'd never use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.

-Neb

-Neb

[Bigguy[_4_]]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It should be federal law that every house and home have at
>> least one
>> serious set of cans. In my case they are the Sennheiser
>> HD-280 Pro.
>> I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to
>> anything I've
>> plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie
>> audio.
>>
>> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say
>> I "pretty-
>> much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound
>> like.
>>
>> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth
>> the
>> investment and will I notice any difference between it and
>> the 280?
>>
>> I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here
>> have
>> experienced Sennheiser products.
>>
>> Thanks for your input,
>>
>> -ChrisCoaster
>> "If you scream on roller-coasters you're missing the ride!!"
>
> Lets talk Sennheiser HD600's. Nothing to complain about the
> sound, I 've worn them for hours every night for a few years
> now. I hook them to the center channel on the TV so I can
> understand what is being said without blasting out my wife.
> Extreem comfort.
>
> These cans were made with break away 2 prong connectons on
> each can. They never worked properly, always cutting out and
> driving me crazy. I had to open up the outside screen cover
> and solder the wires to the little tabs they put inside there.
> Now after a couple of years I just opened them up again and
> had to resolder them cause where I ty-wrapped the wire to the
> can the super thin wires broke and they started cutting out
> again. No I am not dancing with these things on just sitting
> on a couch and watching TV. The cloth covered pads are holding
> up but the black foam that protects the drivers from my ears
> has fallen apart and disappeared long ago. I think they are
> not too durable.
>
> I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
> still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot less.
>
> peace
> dawg
>
>
I've seen a few 'problems' with Senny 'phones where people have
unplugged the cable and then re-plugged it the wrong way round.
If you don't look closely you can miss the fact that there is a large
and a small pin (for correct phase) and force it in the wrong way round.

This gives intermittent dropout with cable movement.

We had an outbreak of this on our HD25s - 'educating' the talent fixed
things... ;-)

Guy

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
> wrote:

>
>I calibrate TV sets in my spare time for folks. They appreciate that
>the picture conforms to broadcast/professional standards, but don't
>particularly like the image. Complaints of the color not being bold
>enough or that the picture is "too soft" abound. But crank the
>contrast, color, & sharpness back up, and they're in heaven!
>
>Thoughts on this?

If I'm going to pay for colour, I want LOTS of colour! If I'm going
to pay for a wide screen, I want the picture stretched to fill EVERY
inck, no matter what format it was transmitted in! That's my
priorities, and I'll adjust to the distortions they bring.

Also, my wife is beautiful and my children are bright.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message


> You can probably figure out for yourself what is meant
> when we refer to a graphic equalizer set for a
> "California Smile".

Given that people tend to listen to music at lower levels than it was
performed, and the frequency response of many home speakers, the "smile" has
some psychoacoustic justification.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Headphones (or speakers) with especially flat, calibrated sound
>>> appeal to the least number of listeners because the majority of
>>> human beings do not possess anything near flat hearing.

>> That hearing is applied to all listening, not just headphone, and
>> calibrates their own norm.

> Yes. And your norm will sound different from my norm, which in turn
> will differ from Suzy down the hall's norm, which will differ from the
> norm for the guy changing tires at Sears, etc.
> The point is, I actually prefer flat phones or speakers because I know
> I'm getting accurate reproduction -- even if they don't sound flat to
> "my ears".


The problem is, if the phones don't sound flat to your ears -- then they
aren't flat.

Specifically... If the tonal balance * of the playback of a recording does
not match that of the live sound, then it follows that something is wrong.
Assuming that everything is "right" up to the speakers or headphones, then
the speakers or headphones aren't "flat".

Or more precisely, they don't have the response that your ears and brain
/interpret/ as flat. In other words, "measured flat" is not the same as
"perceived flat". This is one of the reasons STAX made an equalizer that
corrects for the subjective difference between "free field" listening and
headphone listening.

* I'm using this term as an overly simple substitute for "flat". There are
other aspects to flatness than just tonal balance.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The point is, I actually prefer flat phones or speakers because
>> I know I'm getting accurate reproduction - even if they don't
>> sound flat to "my ears".

> Exactly - because the same ears are applied to the phones
> as to the 'real world'.

Yes, in theory. No, in practice. See my preceding post.

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
>The point is, I actually prefer flat phones or speakers because I know
>I'm getting accurate reproduction - even if they don't sound flat to
>"my ears".

Problem is that they don't exist.

In the case of headphones, your ear canal is part of the system and the
volume of your ear canal will affect the low end response. So headphones
which measure accurately on my head may measure poorly on yours. Most
"flat" headphones are flat when measured with the IEC standard ear model,
which may not reflect your ears.

In the case of speakers... well... they get used in rooms. And I have
never seen a room that was flat +/- 3dB across the audible spectrum
throughout the room (although I have seen a COUPLE very carefully treated
studio facilities that were flat +/- 12dB across the spectrum throughout
the room and were +/- 3dB in a small sweet spot).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Wecan do it]

"Bigguy" > wrote in message
...
> Wecan do it wrote:
>> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It should be federal law that every house and home have at
>>> least one
>>> serious set of cans. In my case they are the Sennheiser
>>> HD-280 Pro.
>>> I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to
>>> anything I've
>>> plugged this model into and any style of music or even
>>> movie audio.
>>>
>>> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can
>>> say I "pretty-
>>> much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound
>>> like.
>>>
>>> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth
>>> the
>>> investment and will I notice any difference between it and
>>> the 280?
>>>
>>> I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here
>>> have
>>> experienced Sennheiser products.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input,
>>>
>>> -ChrisCoaster
>>> "If you scream on roller-coasters you're missing the
>>> ride!!"
>>
>> Lets talk Sennheiser HD600's. Nothing to complain about the
>> sound, I 've worn them for hours every night for a few
>> years now. I hook them to the center channel on the TV so I
>> can understand what is being said without blasting out my
>> wife. Extreem comfort.
>>
>> These cans were made with break away 2 prong connectons on
>> each can. They never worked properly, always cutting out
>> and driving me crazy. I had to open up the outside screen
>> cover and solder the wires to the little tabs they put
>> inside there. Now after a couple of years I just opened
>> them up again and had to resolder them cause where I
>> ty-wrapped the wire to the can the super thin wires broke
>> and they started cutting out again. No I am not dancing
>> with these things on just sitting on a couch and watching
>> TV. The cloth covered pads are holding up but the black
>> foam that protects the drivers from my ears has fallen
>> apart and disappeared long ago. I think they are not too
>> durable.
>>
>> I have a set of AKG 240K I used for over 20 years and they
>> still are in one piece and sounding good too. Cost a lot
>> less.
>>
>> peace
>> dawg
>>
>>
> I've seen a few 'problems' with Senny 'phones where people
> have unplugged the cable and then re-plugged it the wrong
> way round.
> If you don't look closely you can miss the fact that there
> is a large and a small pin (for correct phase) and force it
> in the wrong way round.
>
> This gives intermittent dropout with cable movement.
>
> We had an outbreak of this on our HD25s - 'educating' the
> talent fixed things... ;-)
>
> Guy

Your explanation seems plausible. If you are correct then it
looks like another instance of poor German engineering. If you
key a connector for phase then don't do it half way so the
casual user can plug it in backwards by mistake and cause an
intermittent dropout condition. Who is going to educate the
f*cktarded engineers at Sennheiser and who is going to give me
a new set of HD600's without the design problem.

Another time I took home a set of Sennheiser wireless cans.
They worked for about 15 feet then became intermittent.
Checking on the internet after my purchase showed that many
other unsatisfied buyers found that the wireless model had a
poor mechanical attachment which resulted in the can breaking
off the headband and Sennheiser having designed it so no
replacement parts could fix it. I took that product back for
a refund

This kind of poor engineering is why I will only have one set
of Sennheiser cans until these die, then I will have none.

I do have 3 of their 421 mics that I like.

Dont give these jokers any more of your money.

peace
dawg

[Geoff]

nebulax wrote:
> To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and sometimes
> painfully so. Granted, when you're using them in the field, they'll
> point out details that might be lost on a murkier sounding pair of
> cans, but I'd never use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.

The ATH-M50s have similar trouser-flapping bass to the 7506s, but lack the
wasp-sting treble.


geoff

[Geoff]

geoff wrote:
> nebulax wrote:
>> To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and sometimes
>> painfully so. Granted, when you're using them in the field, they'll
>> point out details that might be lost on a murkier sounding pair of
>> cans, but I'd never use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.
>
> The ATH-M50s have similar trouser-flapping bass to the 7506s, but
> lack the wasp-sting treble.


Replying to myself might seem a bit lame, but bass-wise both the 7506s and
ATH-M50s give me the same bass listening experience as my 20Hz-20KHz stereo
speakers.

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" > wrote in message

> nebulax wrote:
>> To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and
>> sometimes painfully so. Granted, when you're using them
>> in the field, they'll point out details that might be
>> lost on a murkier sounding pair of cans, but I'd never
>> use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.
>
> The ATH-M50s have similar trouser-flapping bass to the
> 7506s, but lack the wasp-sting treble.

I agree that M50s are smoother on the top end than the 7506s, but neither of
them are any great shakes when it comes to bass. They aren't thin but they
don't go all that deep. M50s are good all-day headphones.

True trouser-flapping bass requires a larger driver or better seal, or both.
The high end Sennheisers are remarkable because they have really pretty good
bass, but are open-air, so no seal.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 18:51:06 -0400, geoff wrote
(in article >):

> geoff wrote:
>> nebulax wrote:
>>> To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and sometimes
>>> painfully so. Granted, when you're using them in the field, they'll
>>> point out details that might be lost on a murkier sounding pair of
>>> cans, but I'd never use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.
>>
>> The ATH-M50s have similar trouser-flapping bass to the 7506s, but
>> lack the wasp-sting treble.
>
>
> Replying to myself might seem a bit lame, but bass-wise both the 7506s and
> ATH-M50s give me the same bass listening experience as my 20Hz-20KHz stereo
> speakers.
>
> geoff

As in, that's a good and proper thing, right?

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:15:46 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "geoff" > wrote in message
>
>> nebulax wrote:
>>> To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and
>>> sometimes painfully so. Granted, when you're using them
>>> in the field, they'll point out details that might be
>>> lost on a murkier sounding pair of cans, but I'd never
>>> use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.
>>
>> The ATH-M50s have similar trouser-flapping bass to the
>> 7506s, but lack the wasp-sting treble.
>
> I agree that M50s are smoother on the top end than the 7506s, but neither of
> them are any great shakes when it comes to bass. They aren't thin but they
> don't go all that deep. M50s are good all-day headphones.
>
> True trouser-flapping bass requires a larger driver or better seal, or both.
> The high end Sennheisers are remarkable because they have really pretty good
> bass, but are open-air, so no seal.

Agreed Arny,

I went to M50 last year (4 pair). Smoother top. A little more clunky to wear
than 7506, but very comfortable if you're going to be wearing them a long
time and better sealing.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[mputrino]

On Sep 29, 8:13*pm, ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
> serious set of cans. *In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
> I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
> plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.
>
> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
> much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.
>
> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
> investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?
>
> I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
> experienced Sennheiser products.
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> -ChrisCoaster
> "If you scream on roller-coasters you're missing the ride!!"

Try this web site: http://www.headphone.com/

On the left hand side, you can compare headphones. The ones you are
asking about are in there.

Mike

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 2, 7:15*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> True trouser-flapping bass requires a larger driver or better seal, or both.
> The high end Sennheisers are remarkable because they have really pretty good
> bass, but are open-air, so no seal.
_____________
Ironic, though that the higher end of a respected headphone mfg line
would be mostly open air. And here I am getting better sound at just
over $100, simply because the HD-280 pro is sealed.

Is open more power efficient than sealed, even though everyone around
you will hear your music(defeating the purpose of a good can in the
first place)?


-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 2, 5:27*pm, mputrino > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:13*pm, ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
> > serious set of cans. *In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
> > I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
> > plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.
>
> > I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
> > much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.
>
> > That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
> > investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?
>
> > I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
> > experienced Sennheiser products.
>
> > Thanks for your input,
>
> > -ChrisCoaster
> > "If you scream on roller-coasters you're missing the ride!!"
>
> Try this web site:http://www.headphone.com/
>
> On the left hand side, you can compare headphones. The ones you are
> asking about are in there.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
_________________
Read my reply to geoff on Sept 29 at 9:42pm - you'll see that I'm
actually the one who found and recommended that very good site to
everyone here. Actual graphs!

Just look for the flattest frequency response curves and pick from one
of those models(provided they are still available or overstocked
somewhere).
I noticed that most of the headphones that are appreciably flatter
than my HD-280s drop off precipitously either below 100Hz, or, above
10kHz, while the HD-280 maintains, especially that bottom region.
Perhaps I might even just stick with what I have and save the money
for something else.

-CC

[Richard Crowley]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
> Ironic, though that the higher end of a respected headphone mfg line
> would be mostly open air. And here I am getting better sound at just
> over $100, simply because the HD-280 pro is sealed.

I always held the opposite observation. The "pro" models seem to be
mostly closed, while the "consumer" models were open.

> Is open more power efficient than sealed,

To the contrary. Any sound that leaks past your earballs and
into the local environment is nothing but wasted power.

> even though everyone around
> you will hear your music(defeating the purpose of a good can in the
> first place)?

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 2, 7:15*pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" wrote ...
>
> > Ironic, though that the higher end of a respected headphone mfg line
> > would be mostly open air. *And here I am getting better sound at just
> > over $100, simply because the HD-280 pro is sealed.
>
> I always held the opposite observation. *The "pro" models seem to be
> mostly closed, while the "consumer" models were open.
>
> > Is open more power efficient than sealed,
>
> To the contrary. Any sound that leaks past your earballs and
> into the local environment is nothing but wasted power.
>
>
>
> > even though everyone around
> > you will hear your music(defeating the purpose of a good can in the
> > first place)?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
___________
I guess I was thinking in terms of "back pressure" that a closed
headphone transducer has to work against to produce a certain volume.
I figured a diaphram in free air works more "freely" than one in a
closed cabinet(speaker) or sealed headphone.

Guess I have some things to learn.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
>Is open more power efficient than sealed, even though everyone around
>you will hear your music(defeating the purpose of a good can in the
>first place)?

It's easier to get flat response from an open system for a number of
different reasons. You don't have to deal with internal reflection
issues, for instance. Also you have much less of an issue with
tonal differences from different shaped ears.

In general, open-ear phones give you some substantial improvements
if you're designing headphones. But, as you point out, they don't
block outside sounds and they leak somewhat, making them useless for
tracking work.
--scott

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:15:40 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> Is open more power efficient than sealed,
>
>To the contrary. Any sound that leaks past your earballs and
>into the local environment is nothing but wasted power.

What happens to the sound from the back of the diaphragm in a
closed-back design? Is it ported to the ear or is it damped?

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 2, 11:05*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
> >Is open more power efficient than sealed, even though everyone around
> >you will hear your music(defeating the purpose of a good can in the
> >first place)?
>
> It's easier to get flat response from an open system for a number of
> different reasons. *You don't have to deal with internal reflection
> issues, for instance. *Also you have much less of an issue with
> tonal differences from different shaped ears.
>
> In general, open-ear phones give you some substantial improvements
> if you're designing headphones. *But, as you point out, they don't
> block outside sounds and they leak somewhat, making them useless for
> tracking work.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
_____________________
Ahh, reflectivity. I thought about that, and indeed the inside of a
closed headphone is a "room" unto itself, with all the attending
reflection and wave front issues.
Something else I was curious about: How do they flatten the response
(remove the peaks & dips) of a speaker or phone driver? I mean, don't
they just design & build the thing out of the best, most rigid and
efficiently moving materials available? I know impedance plays a role
here too, and that headphone.com site has graphs that allow comparison
of impedance across the spectrum. The HD-280s are a little on the
high side - average 64ohms with a bit of a hump right around 100Hz.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:15:40 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:
>
>>> Is open more power efficient than sealed,
>>
>>To the contrary. Any sound that leaks past your earballs and
>>into the local environment is nothing but wasted power.
>
>What happens to the sound from the back of the diaphragm in a
>closed-back design? Is it ported to the ear or is it damped?

Some of both, and it depends on the frequency too. That's where most
of the problems with the closed-bad designs come from.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>Something else I was curious about: How do they flatten the response
>(remove the peaks & dips) of a speaker or phone driver? I mean, don't
>they just design & build the thing out of the best, most rigid and
>efficiently moving materials available?

The most rigid material is sometimes too heavy. And sometimes it's not
rigid enough. And damping is never an easy task either.

There is no absolute cure for break-up modes, for instance. All you can
do is move them around, you can't totally eliminate them.

Wolfgang Klippel has a book out now on the subject... and there are a lot
of people now using finite element math models to model speaker drivers.
It turns out to be a hard problem.

>I know impedance plays a role
>here too, and that headphone.com site has graphs that allow comparison
>of impedance across the spectrum. The HD-280s are a little on the
>high side - average 64ohms with a bit of a hump right around 100Hz.

If you're talking about electrical impedance... that hump is the _result_
of an acoustical resonance, not the other way around.

Impedance mostly affects the sound in that it affects the size of the
voice coil and how well the voice coil couples. You put a lot of winds
of wire, even thin wire, and the voice coil gets heavy and massy and the
resonant frequency drops. For the most part, the changes you see in
impedance with frequency are due to the mechanical reluctance of the
cone... which could be caused by the driver resonances or the box resonances
too.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
>
>> nebulax wrote:
>>> To my ears, the V6/7506's are a bit too bright, and
>>> sometimes painfully so. Granted, when you're using them
>>> in the field, they'll point out details that might be
>>> lost on a murkier sounding pair of cans, but I'd never
>>> use mine for 'relaxed home listening'.
>> The ATH-M50s have similar trouser-flapping bass to the
>> 7506s, but lack the wasp-sting treble.
>
> I agree that M50s are smoother on the top end than the 7506s, but neither of
> them are any great shakes when it comes to bass. They aren't thin but they
> don't go all that deep. M50s are good all-day headphones.
>
> True trouser-flapping bass requires a larger driver or better seal, or both.
> The high end Sennheisers are remarkable because they have really pretty good
> bass, but are open-air, so no seal.
>
>

I have used the little Koss titanium driver forever. They have great
bass, but don't seem to seal that well and are, to a limit, open-air.
I expect they're something like "cardiod pattern" judging from
how the vents look, and I wonder if it's not something like
proximity effect.

http://www0.shopping.com/xPO-PRO35A

Very low fatigue. They're also very cheap.

--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message

> On Oct 2, 7:15 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> True trouser-flapping bass requires a larger driver or
>> better seal, or both. The high end Sennheisers are
>> remarkable because they have really pretty good bass,
>> but are open-air, so no seal.
> _____________

> Ironic, though that the higher end of a respected
> headphone mfg line would be mostly open air.

It's about the fact that the largest market for high quality headphones are
audiophiles, and audiophiles are more into comfort than isolation.

> And here I am getting better sound at just over $100, simply because
> the HD-280 pro is sealed.

On balance, HD-280s are not what I'd call "headphones for all day use".


> Is open more power efficient than sealed,

No way.

> even though
> everyone around you will hear your music(defeating the
> purpose of a good can in the first place)?

You've obviously got a pro, not an audiophile perspective. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:15:40 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Is open more power efficient than sealed,
>>
>> To the contrary. Any sound that leaks past your earballs
>> and into the local environment is nothing but wasted
>> power.
>
> What happens to the sound from the back of the diaphragm
> in a closed-back design?


> Is it ported to the ear

Rarely. I guess there are ported headphones, but I don't knowingly have any.

> or is it damped?

Usually, it is just run into the inside of a plastic or pressed steel
enclosure with very little damping.

This is one of those areas where the open-ear and closed-back phones differ
quite violently.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 3, 1:20*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 7:15 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> True trouser-flapping bass requires a larger driver or
> >> better seal, or both. The high end Sennheisers are
> >> remarkable because they have really pretty good bass,
> >> but are open-air, so no seal.
> > _____________
> > Ironic, though that the higher end of a respected
> > headphone mfg line would be mostly open air.
>
> It's about the fact that the largest market for high quality headphones are
> audiophiles, and audiophiles are more into comfort than isolation.
>
> > *And here I am getting better sound at just over $100, simply because
> > the HD-280 pro is sealed.
>
> On balance, HD-280s are not what I'd call "headphones for all day use".
>
> > Is open more power efficient than sealed,
>
> No way.
>
> > even though
> > everyone around you will hear your music(defeating the
> > purpose of a good can in the first place)?
>
> You've obviously got a pro, not an audiophile perspective. ;-)
__________________
Actually, I want audiophile, but cannot distinguish the
characteristics between those two.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>__________________
>Actually, I want audiophile, but cannot distinguish the
>characteristics between those two.

The headphones I use for tracking, stage monitoring, field recording,
editing tape, and casual listening are all totally different all have
very different characteristics.

For example, the tipped up top end on the MDR-V6 makes it great for
editing tape and hearing background noise, but it's hard to judge
speech intelligibility on them for dialogue recording as a result.
And they'd drive me up the wall if I had to listen to them for enjoyment.

If I want to listen to music for fun, I use the Grados. They make
everything sound good, even bad sounding stuff. That's bad news for
editing and monitoring work but it has some extreme advantages for
casual listening.
--scott

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

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 3, 4:13*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
> >__________________
> >Actually, I want audiophile, but cannot distinguish the
> >characteristics between those two.
>
> The headphones I use for tracking, stage monitoring, field recording,
> editing tape, and casual listening are all totally different all have
> very different characteristics.
>
> For example, the tipped up top end on the MDR-V6 makes it great for
> editing tape and hearing background noise, but it's hard to judge
> speech intelligibility on them for dialogue recording as a result.
> And they'd drive me up the wall if I had to listen to them for enjoyment.
>
> If I want to listen to music for fun, I use the Grados. *They make
> everything sound good, even bad sounding stuff. *That's bad news for
> editing and monitoring work but it has some extreme advantages for
> casual listening.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
________________
So the HD-280: is that more pro or more audiophile? Somewhere between
the two, or neither?

-CC

[Mike Rivers]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

> So the HD-280: is that more pro or more audiophile? Somewhere between
> the two, or neither?

"Pro" and "audiophile" aren't really opposites, at least in this
context. Pro means
it shows you what you want to hear. Audiophile means that it sounds good
even if
it doesn't, really. Audiophiles want to enjoy music that sound good.
Pros need to
hear what will tell them what they're doing wrong so they can correct it.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> So the HD-280: is that more pro or more audiophile?
>> Somewhere between the two, or neither?

> "Pro" and "audiophile" aren't really opposites, at least in this
> context. Pro means it shows you what you want to hear.
> Audiophile means that it sounds good even if it doesn't, really.
> Audiophiles want to enjoy music that sound good.
> Pros need to hear what will tell them what they're doing wrong
> so they can correct it.

I disagree with your assessment of what "audiophile" means.

Pro headphones tend to be colored in ways that pros like, or find/think-is
useful. My contact at Sony told me that the 7506 -- and other phones -- had
a jacked-up bass end because pros wanted it.

An audiophile headphone is, in theory, neutral. It does not euphonically
color the sound, and does not "improve" the sound of less-than-perfect
recordings.

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>So the HD-280: is that more pro or more audiophile? Somewhere between
>the two, or neither?

It's whatever the marketing department decides they want it to be.

Thing is, though... you take a sonic hit in order to get isolation.
In general, the audiophile folks aren't willing to do that, which is
why most of the typical audiophile headphones are open-ear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> Thing is, though... you take a sonic hit in order to get isolation.
> In general, the audiophile folks aren't willing to do that, which is
> why most of the typical audiophile headphones are open-ear.

Closed-back headphones tend to have a "boxy", not-very-"open" sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> Thing is, though... you take a sonic hit in order to get isolation.
>> In general, the audiophile folks aren't willing to do that, which is
>> why most of the typical audiophile headphones are open-ear.
>
>Closed-back headphones tend to have a "boxy", not-very-"open" sound.

However, modern technology means that they don't have to sound like the
Koss Pro-3 any more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 2, 11:05*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ChrisCoaster > wrote:
>
> >Is open more power efficient than sealed, even though everyone around
> >you will hear your music(defeating the purpose of a good can in the
> >first place)?
>
> It's easier to get flat response from an open system for a number of
> different reasons. *You don't have to deal with internal reflection
> issues, for instance. *Also you have much less of an issue with
> tonal differences from different shaped ears.
>
> In general, open-ear phones give you some substantial improvements
> if you're designing headphones. *But, as you point out, they don't
> block outside sounds and they leak somewhat, making them useless for
> tracking work.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
____________________________
I'm still going to stick with closed. I don't want to hear traffic
going by - even with the windows closed, through headphones.

Has any experimentation been done with "breaking up" the inside of the
cups of closed-headphones? What I mean is instead of flat, put some
raised pattern into the inside of the casings, to break up
reflections, and discourage echo and standing waves.

Like I said before, most of the more expensive models that are truly
"audiophile" seem to be open-back - which I find oxymoronic for
headphones geared for that purpose.

Call the HD-280s "DJ phones" all the reviewers want to, I'm a
believer!

-CC

[david correia]

In article
>,
Kompan > wrote:

> On Sep 30, 4:41*am, "geoff" > wrote:
> > ChrisCoaster wrote:
> > > It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
> > > serious set of cans. *In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
> > > I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
> > > plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.
> >
> > > I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
> > > much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.
> >
> > > That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
> > > investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?
> >
> > > I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
> > > experienced Sennheiser products.
> >
> > > Thanks for your input,
> >
> > Dunno. But apart from the great isolation, I find my HD-280s slightly blaaa
> > to listen to, and bloody uncomfirtable.
> >
> > Try ATH-M50s and you might just be blown away.
> >
> > geoff
>
> +1 for ATH-M50


+ another 1





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

> Has any experimentation been done with "breaking up"
> the inside of the cups of closed-headphones?

My guess is that the bumps wouldn't be large enough to have much of an
effect, even in the midrange.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Oct 4, 8:13*am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > Has any experimentation been done with "breaking up"
> > the inside of the cups of closed-headphones?
>
> My guess is that the bumps wouldn't be large enough to have much of an
> effect, even in the midrange.
_____________

Well the waves won't have much space to get that big, between the back
of the driver and the headphone casing. :D

-CC

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 00:48:16 -0400, david correia wrote
(in article >):

> In article
> >,
> Kompan > wrote:
>
>> On Sep 30, 4:41*am, "geoff" > wrote:
>>> ChrisCoaster wrote:
>>>> It should be federal law that every house and home have at least one
>>>> serious set of cans. *In my case they are the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro.
>>>> I have received nothing but pleasure from listening to anything I've
>>>> plugged this model into and any style of music or even movie audio.
>>>
>>>> I've previously owned the MDR-V6 and the V600, so I can say I "pretty-
>>>> much" know what a quality headphone is supposed to sound like.
>>>
>>>> That said, is the next Sennheiser up - the HD-380 - worth the
>>>> investment and will I notice any difference between it and the 280?
>>>
>>>> I ask this assuming that at least one or two folks on here have
>>>> experienced Sennheiser products.
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input,
>>>
>>> Dunno. But apart from the great isolation, I find my HD-280s slightly blaaa
>>> to listen to, and bloody uncomfirtable.
>>>
>>> Try ATH-M50s and you might just be blown away.
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> +1 for ATH-M50
>
>
> + another 1

Make it 3.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA