[Nate Najar]

what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes. ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.

N

[Arny Krueger]

"Nate Najar" wrote in message


what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal
bleed but very comfortable with good sound? I have a
pair of sony mdr7506 and they sound terrible.

Sennheiser HD 280s are IMO smoother and provide better isolation, in a
similar price range.

[Frank Stearns]

Nate Najar writes:

what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Interesting. Have they been hit hard with high level? What do you find objectionable
in them? (What vintage are yours? Wouldn't doubt that a materials change in a given
production run would affect sonics.)

Got mine in 2004; I use them for field work here. They've been a good for the money.
And from what I could tell auditioning a lot of phones, they were the least "plastic
sounding in the high mids". (I've even had some on-the-fly field mixes translate
reasonably well that had been done on those cans.) I've heard better, but the money
needed was quite a jump.

I'll be curious as to what folks have to say, as my mine are overdue for
replacement.

and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes. ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.

Much the same here.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Neil Gould]

Nate Najar wrote:
what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes. ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.

Although I use Sennheiser headphones for both tracking and rough mixing,
they are different models. Unlike your preference, I want to hear what's
going on in the room while tracking, especially if there's more than one
person playing or if I'm playing an acoustic instrument. This is such a
personal decision that I don't think I'd make a purchase based on someone
else's specific recommendation.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

They do, but they're great for tracking! The pitched up high end can
be a real help even when it's driving you up the wall.

Beyer DT-100 and its successors are more natural up top but you may find
you need a lot more level in them for tracking.

AKG K-240 leak a lot more but some people like them anyway.

and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes. ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.

The MDR-V6 and family are also very good for hearing crap while editing,
but they are painful to wear for very long.

The Etymotic in-ears might be worth trying out too.... they are very natural
and the isolation is excellent but you can't share them around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nate Najar" wrote in message


what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal
bleed but very comfortable with good sound? I have a
pair of sony mdr7506 and they sound terrible.

Sennheiser HD 280s are IMO smoother and provide better isolation, in a
similar price range.

.... but are like having your head in a vice. ATH-M50 are far more
comfortable, sound better, but have slightly higher leakage.

geoff

[LAB]

what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they sound
terrible.

As I wrote at the end of this page:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/headp...-akg-k141.html

Some time ago I bought a cheap AKG K518LE from HTFR (GB). It's a closed
headphone. BF response was very, very strong and there were resonances in
the mid-low region, then I added some glass wool and 47 Ohm // 10uF in
series to each speaker.
Now sound is very good. I like it more than K141. I'm satisfied; I use it
also with my mp3 player.
Cable is cheap, it breaks easily. I replaced it with another one salvaged
from an old Sennheiser HD40.

--
Gianluca

[adam79[_4_]]

Check out the Fostex T20RP mkII. They're cheap and have a balanced sound.

-Adam

Nate wrote:
what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.
and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes. ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.
N


--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 6, 11:59*am, Nate Najar wrote:
what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? *I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes. *ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. *I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.

N
__________________

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Are we learning something?
(your mileage may vary)

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Are we learning something?
(your mileage may vary)

Yeah, but they're all different.

Don't forget Fostex and Etymotic.

And the headphones you want for tracking are probably not the headphones
you want for editing, which will definitely not be the headphones you want
for casual listening.
--scott

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

[cporro]

i like my akg 240s for checking mixes. but i never use them for
tracking vocals since the vocalists i've tracked with like to monitor
at the threshold of pain and that would bleed into the mic with an
open headset.

Etymotic in-ears. i use these and some gun muffs. i think your rec
scott. i like the Etymotics and can listen to them a long time. not
sure which models i got. take a bit of time to get them in and out of
your ears and you have clean them after a bit. but with gun muffs they
would great for figuring out mic placement. probably over 40db iso.

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 7, 10:10*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Are we learning something?
(your mileage may vary)

Yeah, but they're all different.

Don't forget Fostex and Etymotic.

And the headphones you want for tracking are probably not the headphones
you want for editing, which will definitely not be the headphones you want
for casual listening.
--scott

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

I just want the set that f$%ks with the sound the very least.

-CC

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nate Najar" wrote in message


what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal
bleed but very comfortable with good sound? I have a
pair of sony mdr7506 and they sound terrible.

Sennheiser HD 280s are IMO smoother and provide better
isolation, in a similar price range.

... but are like having your head in a vice.

That's part of the usual price for such good isolation.

ATH-M50 are far more comfortable, sound better, but have slightly
higher leakage.

I have both ATH M50s and HD 280s and I use them almost interchangably. I
believe that the M50s to have far higher leakage. On balance, they are both
fine sounding phones, but I would only take the HD280s to a live concert
recording session.

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

I just want the set that f$%ks with the sound the very least.

Such a thing does not exist.

It's made worse by the fact that when you seal the back of the headphones,
you emphasize the big resonance of the ear cavity itself. You can compensate
for this, but everyone's ear has a slightly different volume. So if you
stick the same pair of headphones on two people and insert measurement
microphones in their ear canal, the _measured response_ will be different.
Consequently the headphones most neutral on my head may not be the ones
most neutral on yours.

Add to this the fact that for tracking and editing you don't actually
want the most accurate headphones. There's a reason for that whacking
huge top end boost on the Sonys; it's remarkably useful even though it
may be unpleasant.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Nate Najar wrote:

what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound?

Sennheiser HD25, use earplugs if it is loud around you. Their
stereo-perspective translates well and allows meaningfull and correct
adjustments of a mic pair. I have regretted it when I tried using the M50
headphonees for on site monitoring. I am not familiar with measurements of
them, but I tend to assume a narrow high frequency peak. Also they have a
full bass, but it gets misleading if you'r in the room the audio exists in.
The slimmer bass-range of the HD25 and their modest - 6 to 12 dB assumed -
isolation works better in real life usage when you need to be be able to
evaluate stereo.

I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Ears are different, ours do however seem to be similar.

and then I need a pair for editing/checking mixes.

AT M50, they have a great tonal balance that translates well to
loudspeaker-playback IF there is no simultanous performance-audio to confuse
you. I like them at home when loudspeaker-playback would be unsuitable, but
they seem to cause ear fatigue when levels stop being modest. Which is why I
suppose a narrow peak in the treble-range.

ideally I'd have
the same pair- just something comfortable and sounds good. I don't
use phones THAT much, nor for any extended period when editing, but
occasionally I do use them.

Reminds me, I need to get that SRD5 fixed .... hopefully it only was the
resistors that blew when my NAD302 hummed wildly some time ago due to a
semi-pulled soundcard mini-jack. Which is to say that things Stax tend to be
good but beware of second hand electret-versions, I have had to discard a
pair ... the energized ones are more durable. Grado's are also great for
@home-use, a friend has a pair that I should not have tried to use for a
recording, I ended up putting the main pair too close to a choir.

Yes, it is non-simple, as non-simple as selecting phono-cartridges. What
complicates that is possibly also the playback room's influence -
loudspeaker euphonics included - what complicates the headphone-choice is
that the acoustic impedance of your specific ear canal influences their
response.

N

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[FL]

On May 6, 11:59*am, Nate Najar wrote:
what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal bleed but very
comfortable with good sound? *I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

I had been using the Sony 7506s for years because of their closed-back
design giving me isolation for location recording work. I also used
them at home for editing. As time progressed, I became more aware of
ringing, such that a short impulse that should sound like a click
would sound like a "ping". As I frequently determine edit points by
playing up to the transition point - located just after the attack of
a note - and then comparing with the edit point in the other take, I
really need phones that give me good, clean transients. I decided that
the Sonys had to go.

I made up a test CD of various pieces of music I was very familiar
with, along with a track of single sample long clicks, and another
track of some very short noise bursts. I went to my local store where
I was allowed to audition some AT M50s, Beyer 770s, AKG 271s, and a
pair of Sennheisers whose model number I can't remember, but was in
that pricerange (approx. $250 - $350 CDN).

I thought that the ATs and the Beyers sounded very similar, but both
had a harshness in the upper frequencies which I associate with uneven
frequency response. The AKGs just sounded clogged, and the Sennheisers
were also harsh sounding to my ears. All of these had better transient
response than the Sonys (clicks sounded like clicks).

I then went to an Apple store where they are selling the new B&W P5
headphones. If you've been to any Apple store, you know what a noisy
zoo those places are, and the first thing I noticed about the P5s was
how well they isolated me from the ambient noise. Then I listened to
my test CD - transients were perfectly clear and precise, and the
music was very even and resembled most closely my memory of my
speakers at home (also B&Ws). Given that these phones have very low
input impedance to facilitate their use with iPods and such, I felt
that they would be very useful in a variety of listening situations,
particularly those where the higher impedance Sonys (at 600 ohms) gave
me reduced listening levels. I was sold.

I've been using the P5s now for about six months, and I continue to be
very satisfied with their sound and their isolation. They do tend to
squeeze the head a bit, but I've found that they've relaxed a bit with
use.

As Scott mentioned, closed back phones do create a resonant cavity
with the ear canal, so what is a pleasantly even frequency response
for me may not be for you.

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...

I just want the set that f$%ks with the sound the very least.

That means either electrostatics, or pricey dynamics. I doubt such phones
will reveal want you want or need to know about your recordings.

[William Sommerwerck]

My favorite 'phones for monitoring live orchestral recordings was the Sony
MDR-CD6. They had an unusual combination of high sensitivity, high
power-handling capacity, and excellent sealing. You could stand directly
behind the conductor and obliterate the sound of the orchestra.

Unfortunately, no one makes anything like these anymore. And I'm not sure
they'd be what you want.

[Scott Dorsey]

FL wrote:
I had been using the Sony 7506s for years because of their closed-back
design giving me isolation for location recording work. I also used
them at home for editing. As time progressed, I became more aware of
ringing, such that a short impulse that should sound like a click
would sound like a "ping". As I frequently determine edit points by
playing up to the transition point - located just after the attack of
a note - and then comparing with the edit point in the other take, I
really need phones that give me good, clean transients. I decided that
the Sonys had to go.

See, I find the ringing that exaggerates transients makes it easier to
hear transition points for editing. It also exaggerates any sort of
low level noise badly out of proportion which can be good for listening
for chair squeaks and paper rustling sounds.

had a harshness in the upper frequencies which I associate with uneven
frequency response. The AKGs just sounded clogged, and the Sennheisers
were also harsh sounding to my ears. All of these had better transient
response than the Sonys (clicks sounded like clicks).

Have you tried the Grados? They don't block outside sound and my experience
is that they tend to make things sound artificially good, but they are very
handy for some things.

I've been using the P5s now for about six months, and I continue to be
very satisfied with their sound and their isolation. They do tend to
squeeze the head a bit, but I've found that they've relaxed a bit with
use.

I will give them a listen myself!
--scott

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

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:

Beyer, AKG, Sony, Sennheiser

Are we learning something?
(your mileage may vary)

Yeah, but they're all different.

Don't forget Fostex and Etymotic.

And the headphones you want for tracking are probably not the
headphones you want for editing, which will definitely not be the
headphones you want for casual listening.
--scott

ATH-M50 do it *all* for me. Maybe my MDR7506 for editing sometimes.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
I don't know homw much stock Geoff you put into headphone . com 's
frequency response graphs, but I think they at least suggest how a can
will sound.

Unfortunately, not really.
--scott

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

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 7, 6:54*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
I don't know homw much stock Geoff you put into headphone . com 's
frequency response graphs, but I think they at least suggest how a can
will sound.

Unfortunately, not really.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
___________________
Well, the deeper bottom I HEAR from my HD280s vs that of the Shure
440s confirms that headphone . com's graphs correctly depicted that
part of both pair's curves.

-CC

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...

I just want the set that f$%ks with the sound the very
least.

Which sound? The sound that comes up the cable or the sound in the room
you're in? If you are recording while sitting in the same room as the music
is playing, both are very important. Read Scott's recent post - the sound
of headphones has a lot to do with the actual details of the construction of
the listener's ears. Even if the brain weren't part of the equation, no two
people hear headphones or earphones the same.

That means either electrostatics, or pricey dynamics. I
doubt such phones will reveal want you want or need to
know about your recordings.

The type of drivers has almost nothing to do with it.

By most informed accounts, Sennheiser and others do about as well with a
very old basic technology: dynamics, as others do with exotics.

At the high end, price seems to be set by how gutsy the marketing department
is. Look at the migration of the top end of Sennheiser's line. AFAIK the
difference between 650s and the old, dropped-from-the line 580s is not that
much. My suspicion is that the 580s sounded way to good for their price
point. Some $#!! stole mine, and I still haven't been able to pony up that
sort of money for that sort of thing. Then Sennheiser moved the goal posts.

[Arny Krueger]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message


I don't know homw much stock Geoff you put into headphone
. com 's frequency response graphs, but I think they at
least suggest how a can will sound.

I would say that their FR curves should be taken as broad generalizations
because of how headphone sound changes with the listener.

I've been eyeing
that m50 for some time, comparing it's curve to the likes
of my HD-280s and 7506, as well as my 440s.

I have a M50 a number of 280s, and a 7506 (my second, after three pair of
V6s)

IME 7506s are relatively harsh, and the M50s are probably the smootest of
the lot for my ears. Smoothness has a lot to do with how come nulls in the
headphone's response curve lines up with the resonances in your ear and ear
canal. YMMV.

The bottom on the AT's looks a little "tubby", around 125-160, with
a dimple in the middle. Elsewhere the curve is very
close and slightly less wrinkly than the Sennheiser and
the Sony. The aforementioned Shures are very smooth, and
to me are the brightest of all three that I own. If they
could improve on two things: a slightly tighter grip on
my head, and, about 20Hz deeper penetration into the
bottom before diving off, they'd be all I listen to! I
encourage others to try the 440s.

If you are a live recordist, you're missing the big picture. IME the 280s
blow most of the others away in terms of isolation. I know not about 440s.
However, my sympathies to anybody who wears a pair of 280s for part of a
day. "Head in a vice" is a common complaint. But, that's the price you pay
for bass isolation.

When I had to buy phones for the musicans to use with the Aviom system at
church, it was a passel of refurbed 280s from DAK. Nobody complains. They
only have to wear them about 30 minutes at a time. None of them are girls
with 'dos to worry about.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...

I just want the set that f$%ks with the sound the very
least.

Which sound? The sound that comes up the cable or the sound in the room
you're in? If you are recording while sitting in the same room as the
music
is playing, both are very important. Read Scott's recent post -- the sound
of headphones has a lot to do with the actual details of the construction
of
the listener's ears. Even if the brain weren't part of the equation, no
two
people hear headphones or earphones the same.

This is certainly common sense, because most headphones don't interact
strongly with the pinnae, and therefore the pinnae's "coloration" would be
reduced or removed. But this doesn't seem to be true in practice. If you ask
listeners which headphones they consider the most-accurate, there is a broad
consensus. (For example, you and I would agree that the 580 is a relatively
neutral reproducer.) In other words, most listeners "hear" headphones much
as they hear sounds in the space surrounding them. *

In reviewing headphones, I discovered there are more-significant effects
from other sources. Try putting on any pair of un-driven headphones and
listening to your speakers. You'll discover that the colorations you hear
strongly correlate with the colorations heard when playing music through the
headphones. The reason for this should be obvious.

* This is not exactly true, but that has no direct bearing on this
discussion.


That means either electrostatics, or pricey dynamics. I
doubt such phones will reveal want you want or need to
know about your recordings.

The type of drivers has almost nothing to do with it.

You're arguing against well-understood laws of physics. And anyhow, that
wasn't my point.


By most informed accounts, Sennheiser and others do about as well
with a very old basic technology: dynamics, as others do with exotics.

I haven't auditioned dynamics better than the 580s, but I assume they've
improved. However, I've yet to hear a dynamic match an electrostatic.

As for "exoticism"... electrostatic speakers predate the Rice-Kellogg
dynamic speaker by more than 20 years. Full-range electrostatic speakers
have been around for 55 years. When you can buy electrostatic speakers at
Fry's, they can hardly be considered "exotic". Your use of "exotic" is a
conscious and uncalled-for slap at people you consider "audiophools".


At the high end, price seems to be set by how gutsy the marketing
department
is. Look at the migration of the top end of Sennheiser's line. AFAIK the
difference between 650s and the old, dropped-from-the line 580s is not
that
much. My suspicion is that the 580s sounded way to good for their price
point. Some $#!! stole mine, and I still haven't been able to pony up
that
sort of money for that sort of thing. Then Sennheiser moved the goal
posts.

I'd gladly sell you mine, but the headband is broken and I haven't fixed it.
It's hard to find adhesives that reliably bond polypropylene.

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 7:30*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in


"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
....
I just want the set that f$%ks with the sound the very
least.

Which sound? The sound that comes up the cable or the sound in the room
you're in? If you are recording while sitting in the same room as the music
is playing, both are very important. *Read Scott's recent post - the sound
of headphones has a lot to do with the actual details of the construction of
the listener's ears. Even if the brain weren't part of the equation, no two
people hear headphones or earphones the same.

That means either electrostatics, or pricey dynamics. I
doubt such phones will reveal want you want or need to
know about your recordings.

The type of drivers has almost nothing to do with it.

By most informed accounts, Sennheiser and others *do about as well with a
very old basic technology: dynamics, as others do with exotics.

At the high end, price seems to be set by how gutsy the marketing department
is. Look at the migration of the top end of Sennheiser's line. AFAIK the
difference between 650s and the old, dropped-from-the line 580s is not that
much. My suspicion is that the 580s sounded way to good for their price
point. *Some $#!! stole mine, and I still haven't been able to pony up that
sort of money for that sort of thing. Then Sennheiser moved the goal posts.
_______________________

Well, I keep saying, it's good to start with a clean canvas - so to
speak.

I say a flatter headphone is better because of the following scenario:

Suppose the geometry of your ears emphasizes the same 600-800Hz region
that model Z headphone also emphasizes? OUCH. Having a recent
audiogram helps in this regard. And then there's side-to-side
differences: Your left ear may be more sensitive to bottom - or top -
than your right. Everything matters, including the headphones'
measured curves.

-CC

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...

Well, I keep saying, it's good to start with a clean canvas - so to
speak.

I say a flatter headphone is better because of the following scenario:

Suppose the geometry of your ears emphasizes the same 600-800Hz
region that model Z headphone also emphasizes? OUCH. Having
a recent audiogram helps in this regard. And then there's side-to-side
differences: Your left ear may be more sensitive to bottom - or top -
than your right. Everything matters, including the headphones'
measured curves.

This is not correct. A headphone that sounds "flat" will not measure flat.

When Koss was developing the ESP-6 electrostatic headphones (almost 50 years
ago!), it stuck a tiny microphone in people's ears to see what the frequency
response at the ear drum actually was. Koss then tried to duplicate this
response.

There is also the issue of "free field" versus "diffuse field" (I think
those are the terms) response. The ear/brain do not hear the same response
from a discrete source as they do from a diffuse sound field. The STAX ED-1
equalizer corrects for this difference.

Regardless...

Several people have pointed out that flat, neutral headphones are useful
when making a simply miked live recording. They do not necessarily tell you
what you need to know when mixing a multi-track recording. I agree.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

This is certainly common sense, because most headphones don't interact
strongly with the pinnae, and therefore the pinnae's "coloration" would be
reduced or removed. But this doesn't seem to be true in practice. If you ask
listeners which headphones they consider the most-accurate, there is a broad
consensus. (For example, you and I would agree that the 580 is a relatively
neutral reproducer.) In other words, most listeners "hear" headphones much
as they hear sounds in the space surrounding them. *

It's not the pinnae, it's the ear canal volume forming a resonant pole.
--scott


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

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 10:26*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message

...

Well, I keep saying, it's good to start with a clean canvas - so to
speak.
I say a flatter headphone is better because of the following scenario:
Suppose the geometry of your ears emphasizes the same 600-800Hz
region that model Z headphone also emphasizes? OUCH. Having
a recent audiogram helps in this regard. *And then there's side-to-side
differences: Your left ear may be more sensitive to bottom - or top -
than your right. *Everything matters, including the headphones'
measured curves.

This is not correct. A headphone that sounds "flat" will not measure flat..

__________________
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. Our last president
had the same problem(!)

You mentioned diffused models. Is the ATH-M40 one of them? I cannot
find it on headphone . com, and suppose it was replaced by the M50
mentioned here earlier.

I tested the M40 and the SRH-440 in store and could not tolerate the
fit or the sound of the M40s for more than half a track! My SRH-440s,
HD-280s, and 7506 all sound more like each other than the ATH-M40
sounds like ANY of them. Hence my question - is the m40 a diffused?

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

This is not correct. A headphone that sounds "flat" will not measure flat.

There is actually an IEC standard ear simulator (well, really three of
them; the standard has improved over the years and the ability to deal with
high frequencies has improved as a result).

The published curves you see on headphones, if they are done properly, are
done with an IEC standard ear and a particular compression driver. There
are some known artifacts in the standard ear that you can look for in the
plots... if you don't see them, they aren't real plots, they are made by
the marketing department.

If they aren't done with the standard ear they aren't useful for comparison
purposes. Still, the matter becomes academic when you realize that your
ear and the standard ear are not the same.

What you want are measurements made of the headphones on your head, but
you have to make those yourself. Or call the NRC.

when Koss was developing the ESP-6 electrostatic headphones (almost 50 years
ago!), it stuck a tiny microphone in people's ears to see what the frequency
response at the ear drum actually was. Koss then tried to duplicate this
response.

There is also the issue of "free field" versus "diffuse field" (I think
those are the terms) response. The ear/brain do not hear the same response
from a discrete source as they do from a diffuse sound field. The STAX ED-1
equalizer corrects for this difference.

Yes. Many of the headphones can be ordered with free field or pressure
response options; the Etymotics and many of the Sennheisers are that way.

Several people have pointed out that flat, neutral headphones are useful
when making a simply miked live recording. They do not necessarily tell you
what you need to know when mixing a multi-track recording. I agree.

When making a simply miked live recording, speakers tell you a whole lot
more about headphones. It's possible to judge ambient vs. direct balances
with practice using headphones, but it's not really possible to judge
imaging. Still, sometimes you're in a situation where all you can use are
headphones and you do your best.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. Our last president
had the same problem(!)

Measure flat how? Flat response on your head? Flat response on my
head? Flat response in free air? Flat response on the IEC standard
ear? Or do you want non-flat response that approximates flat response
of a sound in front of you? Or maybe you want non-flat response that
approximates flat response of a sound to the side of you?

I can measure it fifty different ways. Which way would you like to be
flat?
--scott

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

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. Our last president
had the same problem(!)

Measure flat how? Flat response on your head? Flat response on my
head? Flat response in free air? Flat response on the IEC standard
ear? Or do you want non-flat response that approximates flat response
of a sound in front of you? Or maybe you want non-flat response that
approximates flat response of a sound to the side of you?

I can measure it fifty different ways. Which way would you like to be
flat?

What *I'd* like is a pair that reproduce in my ears exactly what I would
hear if my head were to be in the same position as the microphones.

Until then, I'll have to wing it with what I've got and can afford.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 12:25*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. *Our last president
had the same problem(!)

Measure flat how? *Flat response on your head? *Flat response on my
head? *Flat response in free air? *Flat response on the IEC standard
ear? *Or do you want non-flat response that approximates flat response
of a sound in front of you? *Or maybe you want non-flat response that
approximates flat response of a sound to the side of you?

I can measure it fifty different ways. *Which way would you like to be
flat?
--scott

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

** sigh **

Why must it be so complicated Charlie Brown?



-CC

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 12:40*pm, John Williamson
wrote:


What *I'd* like is a pair that reproduce in my ears exactly what I would
hear if my head were to be in the same position as the microphones.

Until then, I'll have to wing it with what I've got and can afford.

--
Tciao for Now!

John
_____________________
Is your head as wide as Carnegie Hall, Yankee Stadium? . . .


psych!

-CC

[John Williamson]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On May 8, 12:40 pm, John Williamson
wrote:

What *I'd* like is a pair that reproduce in my ears exactly what I would
hear if my head were to be in the same position as the microphones.

Until then, I'll have to wing it with what I've got and can afford.

--
Tciao for Now!

John
_____________________
Is your head as wide as Carnegie Hall, Yankee Stadium? . . .

No, but I normally record with either ORTF or a Jecklin disc.

The closest I've ever got was a pseudo soundfield setup using four
cardiods on a single mount in a cathedral. That got scary when someone
walked past the mics from behind the recording position, and I was
listening on headphones in a locked room.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On May 8, 12:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. Our last president
had the same problem(!)
Measure flat how? Flat response on your head? Flat response on my
head? Flat response in free air? Flat response on the IEC standard
ear? Or do you want non-flat response that approximates flat response
of a sound in front of you? Or maybe you want non-flat response that
approximates flat response of a sound to the side of you?

I can measure it fifty different ways. Which way would you like to be
flat?
--scott

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

** sigh **

Why must it be so complicated Charlie Brown?



Chucke 'Cos we've evolved over many years to listen to live sound in
all its glorious detail, and recording quality's not caught up yet. Give
it another Century or two.......

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

On May 8, 12:40=A0pm, John Williamson
wrote:

What *I'd* like is a pair that reproduce in my ears exactly what I would
hear if my head were to be in the same position as the microphones.

Try the Neumann kunstkopf with the cheaper Etymotic headphones.

Or even try the Neumann kunstkopf with a pair of crappy earbuds from
the five and dime.

You'll find the limiting factor here isn't the headphones.
--scott


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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

This is certainly common sense, because most headphones don't interact
strongly with the pinnae, and therefore the pinnae's "coloration" would
be
reduced or removed. But this doesn't seem to be true in practice. If you
ask
listeners which headphones they consider the most-accurate, there is a
broad
consensus. (For example, you and I would agree that the 580 is a
relatively
neutral reproducer.) In other words, most listeners "hear" headphones
much
as they hear sounds in the space surrounding them. *

It's not the pinnae, it's the ear canal volume forming a resonant pole.

Unless I'm mistaken, the pinnae are considered to have a meaningful effect
on the "energy balance" of the sounds entering the canal.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

What *I'd* like is a pair that reproduce in my ears exactly what I would
hear if my head were to be in the same position as the microphones.

That's impossible in principle, simply because the mics don't deliver a
binaural signal. (Unless they're binaural mics.)

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
On May 8, 12:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. Our last president
had the same problem(!)

Measure flat how? Flat response on your head? Flat response on my
head? Flat response in free air? Flat response on the IEC standard
ear? Or do you want non-flat response that approximates flat response
of a sound in front of you? Or maybe you want non-flat response that
approximates flat response of a sound to the side of you?

I can measure it fifty different ways. Which way would you like to be
flat?

** sigh **

Why must it be so complicated, Charlie Brown?

Because human hearing is complicated.