Decent headphones for mix checking and for tracking

[[email protected]]

What I'm looking for are phones that are in the "you'd have to spend a lot more to get better" category for headphone checking a mix and for tracking. If there are different models you'd recommend for each that's okay.

Thanks.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>What I'm looking for are phones that are in the "you'd have to spend a lot more to get better" category for headphone checking a mix and for tracking. If there are different models you'd recommend for each that's okay.
>

I remain a huge fan of the MDR-V6. Very artificial sounding, hugely
exaggerated top and bottom, absolutely useless for judging tonality.
But an absolute miracle for hearing noises and editing points down
into the noise floor.
--scott


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

[S. King]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:02:09 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>What I'm looking for are phones that are in the "you'd have to spend a
>>lot more to get better" category for headphone checking a mix and for
>>tracking. If there are different models you'd recommend for each that's
>>okay.
>>
>>
> I remain a huge fan of the MDR-V6. Very artificial sounding, hugely
> exaggerated top and bottom, absolutely useless for judging tonality.
> But an absolute miracle for hearing noises and editing points down into
> the noise floor.
> --scott

+1. The Sony MDR-7506 is the "professional" equivalent, whatever that
means. Both models are also favorites for location sound mixing for film
and video.

SteveK

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
S. King > wrote:
> > I remain a huge fan of the MDR-V6. Very artificial sounding, hugely
> > exaggerated top and bottom, absolutely useless for judging tonality.
> > But an absolute miracle for hearing noises and editing points down into
> > the noise floor.
> > --scott

> +1. The Sony MDR-7506 is the "professional" equivalent, whatever that
> means. Both models are also favorites for location sound mixing for film
> and video.

I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been using
for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty surprises when
listening back to something later. Which is all I can ask of cans. But
that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For the odd occasion I do
music on location, I'll find a cupboard somewhere where I can use
speakers. ;-)

--
*If you can read this, thank a teecher

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[geoff]

On 12/03/2014 12:43 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>
> I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been using
> for more years than I care to admit.


That'd be Beyer ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff:

Beyer! Ja!

[PStamler]

There are some reviews of newish headphones in the current issue of Recording.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>
>I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been using
>for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty surprises when
>listening back to something later. Which is all I can ask of cans. But
>that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For the odd occasion I do
>music on location, I'll find a cupboard somewhere where I can use
>speakers. ;-)

Wow, I have not even thought about those things in thirty years. Don't
you find that they're like wearing a C-clamp on your head though?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
> >
> >I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
> >using for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty
> >surprises when listening back to something later. Which is all I can
> >ask of cans. But that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For
> >the odd occasion I do music on location, I'll find a cupboard somewhere
> >where I can use speakers. ;-)

> Wow, I have not even thought about those things in thirty years. Don't
> you find that they're like wearing a C-clamp on your head though?

For location dialogue recording you need to keep the background noise out
and make sure you're only hearing the mics. Without having them at
deafening level.

--
*I want it all and I want it delivered

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 12:43 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> >
> > I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
> > using for more years than I care to admit.


> That'd be Beyer ?

It would. ;-)

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Nate Najar]

I hate the sony 7506 for exactly the same reason Scott likes them. God I hate them. But I also use them, for those purposes.

I really like the Audio Technica ATH m50 for a clean, reasonably balanced sound on which to check mixes etc.... The only thing is that they're a bit bass heavy and they're a bit "clamp-ish" on the head, but not as bad as some others.

[[email protected]]

Shure SRH-440? I find mine to have relatively smooth response, and only slightly bottom-shy.


As far as the ATH-mX line goes, I'm waiting to hear more reviews about the revamped m30, 40 and 50.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

> For location dialogue recording you need to keep the
> background noise out and make sure you're only hearing
> the mics. Without having them at deafening level.

Sony made two supra-aural (not circumaural) headphones with pads that actually
sealed the ear, the MDR-CD5 and MDR-CD6. (I still have a pair of the latter.)
Their combination of good sealing, plus high sensitivity & power handling,
made it possible to stand directly behind the conductor, with the orchestra
going full-blast, and hear (mostly) the mics.

[geoff]

On 13/03/2014 1:04 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
> I hate the sony 7506 for exactly the same reason Scott likes them. God I hate them. But I also use them, for those purposes.
>
> I really like the Audio Technica ATH m50 for a clean, reasonably balanced sound on which to check mixes etc.... The only thing is that they're a bit bass heavy and they're a bit "clamp-ish" on the head, but not as bad as some others.
>


Sanp. Both paragraphs.

But I also love my K and Q701s, for comfort and sound.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been using
> for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty surprises when
> listening back to something later. Which is all I can ask of cans. But
> that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For the odd occasion I do
> music on location, I'll find a cupboard somewhere where I can use
> speakers. ;-)

You prefer the sound/acoustics of a cupboard to decent headphones?

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Trevor > wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
> > using for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty
> > surprises when listening back to something later. Which is all I can
> > ask of cans. But that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For
> > the odd occasion I do music on location, I'll find a cupboard
> > somewhere where I can use speakers. ;-)

> You prefer the sound/acoustics of a cupboard to decent headphones?

Yes. Every time. ;-)

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
>> > I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
>> > using for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty
>> > surprises when listening back to something later. Which is all I can
>> > ask of cans. But that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For
>> > the odd occasion I do music on location, I'll find a cupboard
>> > somewhere where I can use speakers. ;-)
>
>> You prefer the sound/acoustics of a cupboard to decent headphones?
>
> Yes. Every time. ;-)

Fair enough, there's always one I guess. :-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
>>> > I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
>>> > using for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty
>>> > surprises when listening back to something later. Which is all I can
>>> > ask of cans. But that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For
>>> > the odd occasion I do music on location, I'll find a cupboard
>>> > somewhere where I can use speakers. ;-)
>>
>>> You prefer the sound/acoustics of a cupboard to decent headphones?
>>
>> Yes. Every time. ;-)
>
>Fair enough, there's always one I guess. :-)
>
>Trevor.

It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on headphones and
get something that translates into speaker playback. If I don't have a truck,
I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set up in a bathroom or a dressing
room to check my feeds and mix than try and do it on headphones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all
> on headphones and get something that translates into
> speaker playback.

I used to go for exaggerated directionality and spaciousness over the
headphones, and it generally worked.

I used to to have a homebrew crosstalk /generator/, which made 'phone
listening sound more like speakers. Does anyone make them (hardware or
software)?

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all
>> on headphones and get something that translates into
>> speaker playback.
>
>I used to go for exaggerated directionality and spaciousness over the
>headphones, and it generally worked.

It's better than nothing but it's still catch as catch can.

>I used to to have a homebrew crosstalk /generator/, which made 'phone
>listening sound more like speakers. Does anyone make them (hardware or
>software)?

Headroom still makes a shuffler which does help a lot for some things but
doesn't really allow judging direct vs. ambient balances.

There are some room simulators out there, though, which might have good
promise for field monitoring. Dolby makes one, Sennheiser used to make
something called the Lucas, and there are a few others out there. I have
never tried one for the application though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
>>>> > I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
>>>> > using for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty
>>>> > surprises when listening back to something later. Which is all I can
>>>> > ask of cans. But that is mainly for location dialogue recording. For
>>>> > the odd occasion I do music on location, I'll find a cupboard
>>>> > somewhere where I can use speakers. ;-)
>>>
>>>> You prefer the sound/acoustics of a cupboard to decent headphones?
>>>
>>> Yes. Every time. ;-)
>>
>>Fair enough, there's always one I guess. :-)
>>
>
> It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on headphones
> and
> get something that translates into speaker playback. If I don't have a
> truck,
> I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set up in a bathroom or a dressing
> room to check my feeds and mix than try and do it on headphones.

Not me, I only do multitrack recording and worry about things like imaging
when I'm mixing. And I have no idea how you can really judge imaging on tiny
speakers in a broom closet anyway. Maybe if that's how you expect it to be
played back perhaps.

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> >"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> > I've still not found anything better than the Bayer DT48 I've been
> >>> > using for more years than I care to admit. Never had any nasty
> >>> > surprises when listening back to something later. Which is all I
> >>> > can ask of cans. But that is mainly for location dialogue
> >>> > recording. For the odd occasion I do music on location, I'll find
> >>> > a cupboard somewhere where I can use speakers. ;-)
> >>
> >>> You prefer the sound/acoustics of a cupboard to decent headphones?
> >>
> >> Yes. Every time. ;-)
> >
> >Fair enough, there's always one I guess. :-)
> >
> >Trevor.

> It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on headphones
> and get something that translates into speaker playback. If I don't
> have a truck, I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set up in a
> bathroom or a dressing room to check my feeds and mix than try and do it
> on headphones. --scott

In 1.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Trevor > wrote:
> > It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on
> > headphones and get something that translates into speaker playback.
> > If I don't have a truck, I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set
> > up in a bathroom or a dressing room to check my feeds and mix than try
> > and do it on headphones.

> Not me, I only do multitrack recording and worry about things like
> imaging when I'm mixing.

Ah. I was referring to an 'as live' recording.

> And I have no idea how you can really judge
> imaging on tiny speakers in a broom closet anyway. Maybe if that's how
> you expect it to be played back perhaps.

Far better than on headphones.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Trevor > wrote:
>> > It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on
>> > headphones and get something that translates into speaker playback.
>> > If I don't have a truck, I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set
>> > up in a bathroom or a dressing room to check my feeds and mix than try
>> > and do it on headphones.
>
>> Not me, I only do multitrack recording and worry about things like
>> imaging when I'm mixing.
>
> Ah. I was referring to an 'as live' recording.

I've done hundreds of live recordings. Perhaps you mean only live
*orchestral music* recordings?


>> And I have no idea how you can really judge
>> imaging on tiny speakers in a broom closet anyway. Maybe if that's how
>> you expect it to be played back perhaps.
>
> Far better than on headphones.

Yes, for those who have never learned to use headphones. It's something you
can get used to like anything else. For me judging any semblence of sound
quality in a broom cupboard is much harder, so fortunately we each get to do
whatever works for us.

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Trevor > wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Trevor > wrote:
> >> > It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on
> >> > headphones and get something that translates into speaker playback.
> >> > If I don't have a truck, I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set
> >> > up in a bathroom or a dressing room to check my feeds and mix than try
> >> > and do it on headphones.
> >
> >> Not me, I only do multitrack recording and worry about things like
> >> imaging when I'm mixing.
> >
> > Ah. I was referring to an 'as live' recording.

> I've done hundreds of live recordings. Perhaps you mean only live
> *orchestral music* recordings?

No. Was referring to one which isn't multi-tracked with the intention of
mixing afterwards.

> >> And I have no idea how you can really judge
> >> imaging on tiny speakers in a broom closet anyway. Maybe if that's how
> >> you expect it to be played back perhaps.
> >
> > Far better than on headphones.

> Yes, for those who have never learned to use headphones.

? ;-)

> It's something
> you can get used to like anything else. For me judging any semblence of
> sound quality in a broom cupboard is much harder, so fortunately we
> each get to do whatever works for us.

It's more about balance than sound quality. No reason why you can't have
headphones available too for things speakers may miss.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> It really isn't possible to judge imaging or space at all on
> headphones and get something that translates into speaker playback.

You need to try a pair of HD25's, cheap or costly version, in my experience
they reproduce imaging reliably and are excellently usable for mic setup.

> If I don't have a truck, I'd much rather have a pair of speakers set
> up in a bathroom or a dressing room to check my feeds and mix than
> try and do it on headphones.

Given the choice & for few microphone recording I'll take eye contact with
the event and the equipment, at least in case of a live recording with
audience.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Trevor wrote:

> Not me, I only do multitrack recording and worry about things like
> imaging when I'm mixing. And I have no idea how you can really judge
> imaging on tiny speakers in a broom closet anyway. Maybe if that's
> how you expect it to be played back perhaps.

With suitable headphones you are in the same room every time. Suitable for
mic setup and suitable for mixing are however different concepts, for mixing
I like the M50 better than the HD25, but I get ear fatigue from it sooner, I
think it may have a narrow high frequency peak.

> Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen