AKG headphones K240 & K44

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.

There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
faults.

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
> K240 MkII headphones
>
> There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
> peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
> earpiece.

How do you measure the frequency response of headphones? I've always
been curious about my headphones, but I don't think I can trust what
shoving an SPL meter mic into the cups shows me. Do you have a test
fixture? Is it reasonable for mere mortals like me to build one?



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
>there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
>K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
>would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
>monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.
>
>There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
>peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
>earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
>they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
>faults.

How are you measuring these?

Both of those could be measuring artifacts.

>For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
>minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
>sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
>semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

They are a much newer design also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>How do you measure the frequency response of headphones? I've always
>been curious about my headphones, but I don't think I can trust what
>shoving an SPL meter mic into the cups shows me. Do you have a test
>fixture? Is it reasonable for mere mortals like me to build one?

There are several standard test fixtures. Most of the plots you see in the
real world are done on an IEC 60711 ear simulator, or with the older
Zwislocki coupler. Both provide fairly good mechanical analogies to the
ear which are accurate between about 200 Hz and 10 KHz. However, both will
give slightly different plots.

There are no standard pinna simulations.

Also, the standard headphone measurements are usually made at 94 dBSPL
since that is the level at which the sound pressure is one pascal and so
it makes the math much easier. Unfortunately there are some headphones for
which the response changes a bit with level.

I think you could probably make an IEC 60711 equivalent pretty easily with
a little machine shop work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

> For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
> minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
> sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
> semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
price of any K240.

Which K44 do you have, or do you know?



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
> >All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
> >there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
> >K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
> >would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
> >monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.
> >
> >There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
> >peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
> >earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
> >they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
> >faults.
>
> How are you measuring these?

See other reply

> Both of those could be measuring artifacts.

Unlikely, given that I could also hear them clearly.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> > For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
> > minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
> > sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
> > semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.
>
> The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
> K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
> difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
> name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
> price of any K240.
>
> Which K44 do you have, or do you know?

It is the Perception model.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
> > K240 MkII headphones
> >
> > There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
> > peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
> > earpiece.
>
> How do you measure the frequency response of headphones? I've always
> been curious about my headphones, but I don't think I can trust what
> shoving an SPL meter mic into the cups shows me. Do you have a test
> fixture? Is it reasonable for mere mortals like me to build one?

The dips and peaks were very obvious just by listening, but I decided I
ought to make some sort of rough-and-ready measurements before posting a
criticism, even if those weren't to any recognised standard.

I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.

The voltage level at 1 Kc/s, fed into the headphones from a signal
generator, was adjusted until the bar display on the Tascam reached a
mark about 12dB below peak, then the signal generator attenuator was
used to keep the response at that level over the range of frequencies
tested.

I checked, by compressing the ear pads, that any major variations were
not due to standing waves or air leakage; there was some overall sound
pressure increase as the cavity was compressed, but standing wave
effects were negligible and the headband alone seemed to give sufficient
consistent pressure for my measurements.

Not super-accurate, not a World Standard, but good enough to measure the
gross faults that my ears had already told me were there.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[William Sommerwerck]

As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious".

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

> I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
> Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
> small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
> the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
> input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.

Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what
you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
>
>
> > I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
>
> > Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
>
> > small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
>
> > the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
>
> > input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.
>
>
>
> Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what
>
> you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>

If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover surface of the books.

I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in there.

Mark

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
> >
> > > Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
> >
> > > small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
> >
> > > the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
> >
> > > input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what
> >
> > you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
> If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover
> surface of the books.
>
> I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in
> there.

I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
>>>
>>>> Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
>>>
>>>> small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
>>>
>>>> the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
>>>
>>>> input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what
>>>
>>> you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover
>> surface of the books.
>>
>> I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in
>> there.
>
> I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
> but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
> because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
> little woolly-headed at times).
>
>
Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 1:41 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
>> For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
>> minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
>> sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
>> semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.
>
> The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
> K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
> difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
> name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
> price of any K240.
>
> Which K44 do you have, or do you know?
>
>
>

K44 were cheap plastic junk (though better junk than other junk around
same price).

I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)


geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff > wrote:

> On 22/08/2014 1:41 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >
> >> For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
> >> minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
> >> sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
> >> semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.
> >
> > The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
> > K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
> > difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
> > name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
> > price of any K240.
> >
> > Which K44 do you have, or do you know?
> >
> >
> >
>
> K44 were cheap plastic junk (though better junk than other junk around
> same price).
>
> I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
> dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
by reflections from my head.

Before that, I was aware of the 'glittery' and hissy response at the top
end, so I also suspected the HF peak long before I found it by
measurement.


> And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)

I'm older than that.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >>> On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
> >>>
> >>>> Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
> >>>
> >>>> small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
> >>>
> >>>> the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
> >>>
> >>>> input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what
> >>>
> >>> you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover
> >> surface of the books.
> >>
> >> I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in
> >> there.
> >
> > I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
> > but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
> > because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
> > little woolly-headed at times).
> >
> >
> Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
dips like that in the response curve.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 5:31 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>
> < ...snip... >
>
>
>> And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)
>
> I'm older than that.
>
>
Hmm, do you still use micro mics for small capacitors? :-)

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious". "


Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 9:31 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

>> I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
>> dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?
>
> Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
> tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
> measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
> 'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
> by reflections from my head.
>\

Perhaps a faulty set ? I might have some in a box somewhere to compare
- will have a scratch around.


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
>pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.
>
>It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
>have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
>and "obvious". "
>
>Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.

The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never
>>> heard AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

>> It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral.
>> If they have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should
>> be simple and "obvious".

>> Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads
>> as do MDR-7506s.

> The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.

Scott, please re-read what I said.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Scott, please re-read what I said.

Read what you wrote.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:23:23 PM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott .panix.com...
>
> <thekmam> wrote:
>
> >> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never
>
> >>> heard AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.
>
>
>
> >> It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral.
>
> >> If they have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should
>
> >> be simple and "obvious".
>
>
>
> >> Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads
>
> >> as do MDR-7506s.
>
>
>
> > The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.
>
>
>
> Scott, please re-read what I said.
__________

I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones do not translate too well to how we(humans) hear.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:23:23 PM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott .panix.com...
> <thekmam> wrote:

>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>> As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never
>>>> heard AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

>>> It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral.
>>> If they have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations
>>> should
>>> be simple and "obvious".

>>> Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads
>>> as do MDR-7506s.

>> The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.

> Scott, please re-read what I said.
__________

> I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones
> do not translate too well to how we (humans) hear.

A "perfectly flat" headphone does not sound flat. This has been known for
probably 60 years. Subjectively flat headphones do not measure "flat". THIS IS
NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

The OP was not happy with the AKG headphones. This wasn't surprising, as I've
never heard an AKG headphone, at any price, that was any good, by any standard
of "goodness". (That includes the original K1000.)

Audiophile headphones are supposed to be subjectively flat. Monitoring
headphones usually have some intentional coloration that recording engineers
prefer (such as the fat bass of the 7506). (If I'm wrong, correct me.)

OF COURSE the MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral. That's its point.
But its non-neutrality is intentional, not a side-effect of bad design. It is
otherwise a relatively neutral transducer. (I've never heard the 7506, but I
have heard the V-90.)

In other words, any monitor should have subjectively flat response /except/
for those errors the engineer thinks will be useful in judging the recording.
Perhaps this is so intuitively obvious that there's no way to say it without
sounding stupid.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
> pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.
>
> It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
> have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
> and "obvious".

An unreasonable mandate given the variety of human ear shapes.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Nate Najar]

I like the regular 240 headphones (not the mkii) for tracking and editing. They sound pleasant and fit very comfortably.

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 12:55 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 22/08/2014 9:31 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
>>> I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
>>> dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?
>>
>> Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
>> tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
>> measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
>> 'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
>> by reflections from my head.
>> \
>
> Perhaps a faulty set ? I might have some in a box somewhere to compare
> - will have a scratch around.
>
>
> geoff
>


OK, found some K240 Monitor (600R) and no notch, or significant boost.
Ditto with K271. And K240 (mark1) were some of these nicer sounding AKG
phones, IIRC. Don't think I've listened to K240Mk2.

Agree with the 'tizziness' thing with the K271s.

So I'd say yours were faulty, or the notch was 'elsewhere'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 4:10 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

> OF COURSE the MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral. That's its
> point. But its non-neutrality is intentional, not a side-effect of bad
> design. It is otherwise a relatively neutral transducer. (I've never
> heard the 7506, but I have heard the V-90.)

Apart from the epic (exaggerated) bass of the 7506s they have
ear-shreddingly bright low treble.


I'm pretty sure that's what Scott was referring to, as they are useful
for picking out high-mid and treble problems.

..... and painful for casual music-listening at anything more than a whisper.

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Ron C > wrote:

> On 8/21/2014 5:31 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > geoff > wrote:
> >
> > < ...snip... >
> >
> >
> >> And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)
> >
> > I'm older than that.
> >
> >
> Hmm, do you still use micro mics for small capacitors? :-)

Jars!


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff > wrote:

> On 22/08/2014 12:55 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 22/08/2014 9:31 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >
> >>> I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
> >>> dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?
> >>
> >> Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
> >> tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
> >> measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
> >> 'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
> >> by reflections from my head.
> >> \
> >
> > Perhaps a faulty set ? I might have some in a box somewhere to compare
> > - will have a scratch around.
> >
> >
> > geoff
> >
>
>
> OK, found some K240 Monitor (600R) and no notch, or significant boost.
> Ditto with K271. And K240 (mark1) were some of these nicer sounding AKG
> phones, IIRC. Don't think I've listened to K240Mk2.
>
> Agree with the 'tizziness' thing with the K271s.
>
> So I'd say yours were faulty, or the notch was 'elsewhere'.

I had wondered about a fault, but both sides were similar (the notches
differed in frequency very slightly ).

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>> I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
>>> but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
>>> because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
>>> little woolly-headed at times).
>>>
>>>
>> Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?
>
> No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
> that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
> rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
> error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
> 'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
> dips like that in the response curve.
>
>
Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
surface with dummy ear cavities.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > John Williamson > wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >>> I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
> >>> but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
> >>> because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
> >>> little woolly-headed at times).
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?
> >
> > No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
> > that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
> > rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
> > error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
> > 'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
> > dips like that in the response curve.
> >
> >
> Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
> ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
> hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
> surface with dummy ear cavities.

Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
dummies now anticipated.)


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 22/08/2014 10:16, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>> I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
>>>>> but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
>>>>> because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
>>>>> little woolly-headed at times).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?
>>>
>>> No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
>>> that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
>>> rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
>>> error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
>>> 'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
>>> dips like that in the response curve.
>>>
>>>
>> Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
>> ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
>> hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
>> surface with dummy ear cavities.
>
> Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
> dummies now anticipated.)
>
>
<Hits delete key>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard
>> a
>> pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

>> It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If
>> they
>> have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be
>> simple
>> and "obvious".

> An unreasonable mandate given the variety of human ear shapes.

This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of
the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:29:38 +0100, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>>> I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
>>>> but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
>>>> because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
>>>> little woolly-headed at times).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?
>>
>> No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
>> that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
>> rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
>> error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
>> 'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
>> dips like that in the response curve.
>>
>>
>Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
>ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
>hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
>surface with dummy ear cavities.

That is the last thing you want. You are trying to include a part of
the human hearing mechanism. What you want to know is that the ear's
environment is being presented with a flat frequency response. After
that the ear does what it needs to do in processing the sound.

d

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

> > wrote:
>>William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
>>pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.
>>
>>It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
>>have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
>>and "obvious". "
>>
>>Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.

>The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.

Agreed. And the 7506s are non-neutral in a useful way in that the scooped response
works well when listening at low levels (my preference with cans). That's also
helpful when a noisy location environment requires high levels, and you're wearing
earplugs with the cans.

But what I like the best about them is that among nearly all dynamic cans I've
heard, they don't have some sort of nasty "plasticy" tonality imprinted. Oh, it's
there, but it's at a tolerable low level.

Plus, they're not overly uncomfortable over long wearing periods; you can beat the
crap out of them; and they are consistent. After 10 years, I replaced the pads on
one old set and also bought another complete new set at the same time. The two sound
exactly the same. I was not expecting that.

I'm not a Sony salesman (and always prefer to use real monitors!), but for US$100
and all things condsidered these seem like a good buy.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones do not translate too well to how we(humans) hear.

No, I mean that headphones are a tool that engineers use, and sometimes you
do not want them to be flat or accurate. The MD-7506 is popular because it
is so exaggerated on top and bottom that it becomes a useful tool for editing
and field recording work.

You can't judge EQ accurately on a 7506, but it's not _for_ that. That's a
job for a different tool. It's not pleasant to listen to or accurate, but it
isn't supposed to be. It's not for that either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of
>the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
>to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

They often don't!
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove)
>> the effect of the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how
>> is it that people tend to agree on what a given pair of headphones
>> "sound like"?

> They often don't!

What about Sennheisers? Almost everybody agrees that most of their products
are basically neutral.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2014 7:27 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of the pinna on the sound
> entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend to agree on what a
> given pair of headphones "sound like"?

They do? No, every headphone manufacturer thinks his sounds like it's
supposed to "sound like." Consumers don't know what they want, but
sometimes they like what they get.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 8/22/2014 7:27 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of the pinna on
>> the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
>> to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

> They do?

Of course. Supra-aural phones sit /on/ the pinna, while circum-aural phones
/surround/ the pinna. Neither maintains the pinna's full effect in modifying
the sound.


> Every headphone manufacturer thinks his sounds like it's supposed to "sound
> like."

No, there are ways of rationally judging the subjective response of a
headphone. This has been understood for many years.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:

> So let's break this down another way: Ratings.
>
> On Amazon, for instance, the HD-280 Pro, MDR-V6 & 7506, Shure
> SRH-440, and even the Grado SR-60 and 80, average 4.5 out of 5
> stars.
>
> What explains that - people not knowing what to listen for, or what
> sounds good in a can?

One possibility: "This was a really expensive set of headphones and they
sound a lot better than the ones that came with my iPod."

Another possibility: "Free shipping."

I doubt that most people who rate things on Amazon (or just about any
other "ratings" web site) don't have a standard for comparison. If they
like it, they'll rate it high. If they don't like it or it feels flimsy
or they broke it when getting it out of the box, they'll rate it low.





--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2014 2:39 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of the pinna on
>>> the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
>>> to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

>> They do?

> Of course. Supra-aural phones sit /on/ the pinna, while circum-aural
> phones /surround/ the pinna. Neither maintains the pinna's full effect
> in modifying the sound.

"They do?" referred to the statement that people tend to agree on what a
given pair of headphones sounds like. Not about how the headphones
interaction with the pinnae affects the sound.

There's a design for a standard headphone test fixture somewhere, and
most manufacturers use that when testing their own products (and the
competition). You can probably find it on the web if you look, and care.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> 'm pretty sure that's what Scott was referring to, as they are useful
> for picking out high-mid and treble problems.

I.e., sometimes veryuseful for editing.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/22/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
>
> > So let's break this down another way: Ratings.
> >
> > On Amazon, for instance, the HD-280 Pro, MDR-V6 & 7506, Shure
> > SRH-440, and even the Grado SR-60 and 80, average 4.5 out of 5
> > stars.
> >
> > What explains that - people not knowing what to listen for, or what
> > sounds good in a can?
>
> One possibility: "This was a really expensive set of headphones and they
> sound a lot better than the ones that came with my iPod."
>
> Another possibility: "Free shipping."
>
> I doubt that most people who rate things on Amazon (or just about any
> other "ratings" web site) don't have a standard for comparison. If they
> like it, they'll rate it high. If they don't like it or it feels flimsy
> or they broke it when getting it out of the box, they'll rate it low.

Research has indicated that in many cases many of the reviews were
written by paid company shills.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
>>
>> > So let's break this down another way: Ratings.
>> >
>> > On Amazon, for instance, the HD-280 Pro, MDR-V6 & 7506, Shure
>> > SRH-440, and even the Grado SR-60 and 80, average 4.5 out of 5
>> > stars.
>> >
>> > What explains that - people not knowing what to listen for, or what
>> > sounds good in a can?
>>
>> One possibility: "This was a really expensive set of headphones and they
>> sound a lot better than the ones that came with my iPod."
>>
>> Another possibility: "Free shipping."
>>
>> I doubt that most people who rate things on Amazon (or just about any
>> other "ratings" web site) don't have a standard for comparison. If they
>> like it, they'll rate it high. If they don't like it or it feels flimsy
>> or they broke it when getting it out of the box, they'll rate it low.
>
>Research has indicated that in many cases many of the reviews were
>written by paid company shills.

MANISCHEVITZ RATED 79 BY WINE SPECTATOR!
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

> I doubt that most people who rate things on Amazon (or just about
> any other "ratings" web site) don't have a standard for comparison.
> If they like it, they'll rate it high. If they don't like it or it feels
> flimsy
> or they broke it when getting it out of the box, they'll rate it low.

One "don't" too many, there.

I'm a Vine reviewer, and am generally surprised at the high quality of the
reviewing. Most of the people who grab expensive items actually give them
thoughtful reviews.

"Shill" reviews are fairly easy to spot. Most are inane gushes.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

On 8/22/2014 2:39 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>> Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of the pinna on
>>>> the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
>>>> to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

>>> They do?

>> Of course.
[paragraph break should have been inserted here by YT]
>> Supra-aural phones sit /on/ the pinna, while circum-aural
>> phones /surround/ the pinna. Neither maintains the pinna's full effect
>> in modifying the sound.

> "They do?" referred to the statement that people tend to agree on what
> a given pair of headphones sounds like. Not about how the headphones
> interaction with the pinnae affects the sound.

Which is the point -- this agreement /shouldn't/ occur.

> There's a design for a standard headphone test fixture somewhere, and most
> manufacturers use that when testing their own products (and the
> competition). You can probably find it on the web if you look, and care.

Just because the coupler is a standard, doesn't mean it gives subjectively
useful results.

The issue of headphone response is further confused by the difference between
free-field and diffuse-field response. Shall we go into that? It's only 1PM,
and I'm running out of energy.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/22/2014 2:39 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >>> Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of the pinna on
> >>> the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
> >>> to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?
>
> >> They do?
>
> > Of course. Supra-aural phones sit /on/ the pinna, while circum-aural
> > phones /surround/ the pinna. Neither maintains the pinna's full effect
> > in modifying the sound.
>
> "They do?" referred to the statement that people tend to agree on what a
> given pair of headphones sounds like. Not about how the headphones
> interaction with the pinnae affects the sound.
>
> There's a design for a standard headphone test fixture somewhere, and
> most manufacturers use that when testing their own products (and the
> competition). You can probably find it on the web if you look, and care.

....but will you ever find the results of the tests on the Web?

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2014 3:47 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Just because the coupler is a standard, doesn't mean it gives
> subjectively useful results.

Maybe so, maybe not, but at least it's a way to compare measurements, or
at least determine if a particular headset is working the way it was
designed (that is, measures within tolerance to the manufacturer's gold
standard)


> The issue of headphone response is further confused by the difference
> between free-field and diffuse-field response. Shall we go into that?
> It's only 1PM, and I'm running out of energy.

No, because if you're talking about subjective results, all subjects are
different. If you don't like 'em, try something different.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
> there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
> K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
> would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
> monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.
>
> There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
> peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
> earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
> they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
> faults.
>
> For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
> minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
> sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
> semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.
>

I would still recommend the Koss PRO35A for over-the-ear (open) phones.
Nearly no isolation, but they don't fatigue, don't hurt and sound pretty
smooth. They're excellent for bass-checking mixes, too - they
have quite a bit of bass.

They're not ideal for tracking - click bleed is a problem, even
at low volumes. I've taken to using a pair of plug-phones I like for
tracking acoustic instruments when a click is in play.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>> I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
>>>>> but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
>>>>> because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
>>>>> little woolly-headed at times).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?
>>>
>>> No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
>>> that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
>>> rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
>>> error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
>>> 'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
>>> dips like that in the response curve.
>>>
>>>
>> Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
>> ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
>> hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
>> surface with dummy ear cavities.
>
> Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
> dummies now anticipated.)
>
>

Heck, just shove an omni measurement mic up yer nose! :)

(Warning: don't try this at home kids! )

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 23/08/2014 12:36 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones do not translate too well to how we(humans) hear.
>
> No, I mean that headphones are a tool that engineers use, and sometimes you
> do not want them to be flat or accurate. The MD-7506 is popular because it
> is so exaggerated on top and bottom that it becomes a useful tool for editing
> and field recording work.
>
> You can't judge EQ accurately on a 7506, but it's not _for_ that. That's a
> job for a different tool. It's not pleasant to listen to or accurate, but it
> isn't supposed to be. It's not for that either.
> --scott
>


When I got mine pair (soon after they were first out) I was listening to
some music at home late at night, and had a sudden panic-attack that my
loudspeaker had inadvertently come on, and was waking the house. The
illusionary effect was such that I could have sworn that my trousers
were flapping !


geoff

[geoff]

On 23/08/2014 12:54 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>> This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove)
>>> the effect of the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how
>>> is it that people tend to agree on what a given pair of headphones
>>> "sound like"?
>
>> They often don't!
>
> What about Sennheisers? Almost everybody agrees that most of their
> products are basically neutral.


I find my HD280s are great for iso, but rather thin and tizzy at the top.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
> dummies now anticipated.)

This is, in fact, the correct way of doing it. You're blocking the ear
canal so you're missing the main canal resonance but everything else should
be good.

The tiny Beyer lav mikes were used in one study and seemed to be a good
choice because they were small enough not to block the ear canal.
--scott

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
> > dummies now anticipated.)
>
> This is, in fact, the correct way of doing it. You're blocking the ear
> canal so you're missing the main canal resonance but everything else should
> be good.
>
> The tiny Beyer lav mikes were used in one study and seemed to be a good
> choice because they were small enough not to block the ear canal.

I was using some naked pressure capsules about 5mm diameter. Their S/N
ratio isn't wonderful, but their response is inherently flat because
there is nothing in their construction big enough to interfere with the
sound.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
>
> > I doubt that most people who rate things on Amazon (or just about
> > any other "ratings" web site) don't have a standard for comparison.
> > If they like it, they'll rate it high. If they don't like it or it feels
> > flimsy
> > or they broke it when getting it out of the box, they'll rate it low.
>
> One "don't" too many, there.
>
> I'm a Vine reviewer, and am generally surprised at the high quality of the
> reviewing. Most of the people who grab expensive items actually give them
> thoughtful reviews.
>
> "Shill" reviews are fairly easy to spot. Most are inane gushes.

That depends on the skill of the pro writer.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gray_Wolf]

On 21 Aug 2014 21:18:46 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> > wrote:
>>William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
>>pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.
>>
>>It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
>>have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
>>and "obvious". "
>>
>>Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.
>
>The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.
>--scott

Scott, What's your opinion on the Sony MDR-V600? What could I replace
them with for stunningly superior performance? :-)
Thanks.

[[email protected]]

Gray_Wolf wrote: "Scott, What's your opinion on the Sony MDR-V600? What could I replace them with for stunningly superior performance? :-) "

The only things the V600s share in common with the V6 or 7506 is their manufacturer. If the 7506 is "not neutral" then the V600 is the Swiss Alps, response-wise! They were, at the time, Sony's 'Beats', LOL. All boom & sizzle, not much in between. Big stiff plasticky cheap ear muffs that made my ears sweat. I should know: I bought one back when I didn't know better.

My personal picks are the Shure SRH440 or the Beyer DT-880 Pro(250ohm version).

[Scott Dorsey]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>>
>>The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.
>
>Scott, What's your opinion on the Sony MDR-V600? What could I replace
>them with for stunningly superior performance? :-)

I have no idea! I remember trying them out when they came out and being
surprised they were diffeernt than the MDR-V6 (which is like the MDR-7506),
but how they were different I don't remember.

Personally I like the MDR-V6 for editing, the Grado SR-80 for casual
listening, the Etymotic in-ears for field recording, and I have to admit
I'm still using the Beyer DT-100s for tracking. I have a pair of Stax
but they fall off when I move my head...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gray_Wolf]

On 24 Aug 2014 09:50:09 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>>>
>>>The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.
>>
>>Scott, What's your opinion on the Sony MDR-V600? What could I replace
>>them with for stunningly superior performance? :-)
>
>I have no idea! I remember trying them out when they came out and being
>surprised they were diffeernt than the MDR-V6 (which is like the MDR-7506),
>but how they were different I don't remember.
>
>Personally I like the MDR-V6 for editing, the Grado SR-80 for casual
>listening, the Etymotic in-ears for field recording, and I have to admit
>I'm still using the Beyer DT-100s for tracking. I have a pair of Stax
>but they fall off when I move my head...
>--scott

Thanks for the reply, I'll check around. Is that the Stax
electrostatics you have?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

> Thanks for the reply, I'll check around. Is that the Stax
> electrostatics you have?

I've had Lambda Signature phones for a long time (along with the diffuse-field
equalizer). I used them occasionally when making live recordings, but I
most-often used the MDR-CD6, because it could block a full orchestra when I
was standing right behind the conductor.

I can't recommend STAX headphones for anything other than strictly acoustic
music.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 25-08-2014 15:30, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Gray_Wolf" wrote in message

> I can't recommend STAX headphones for anything other than strictly
> acoustic music.

My SR3's used to be good for anything where open headphones would do the
job, until an earth loop caused the resistors in the powering box to
burn open.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig > wrote:
>Scott, which model of the Etymotic in-ears are you using?

I have the ER-4s... not the binaural ones, the stereo ones. I have custom
ear-molds that were done by a local audiologist and then wear a Peltor
hearing protector over top of the whole thing for additional isolation.

>I'm taking a look at all of the headsets mentioned in this thread for
>future use.
>
>I currently own a set of AKG 270Ss and I had a set of AT M40s (they broke
>when I got stupid and didn't watch the kiddos closely enough). The
>isolation is WONDERFUL for tracking, but the sound is boxy, shallow, and
>upper mid-heavy for listening. The same thing was happening with the M40s.

Yes!

>Is that the kind of sound the AT M50s have? And if so, is there much in
>that price range that will allow for un-boxy neutrality?

I don't know.

You might really like the cheap Grados... they aren't boxy at all, and they
are great for casual listening, but they tend to make bad recordings sound
good.
--scott

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