Headphones - Are They Needed?

[miketurn]

@JCJR
Thank You for your response

@JCJR
@sprnva
I did some more research and now I am quite a bit more confused.
It is true, many mention that the AT M50x are not really a flat headphone (bass and treble enhanced).
I read some great explanations of why they are still considered so great even without a flat response but I am still a bit confused, because are they sounding so good because of their enhanced response and that is why they are chosen so often over others?

Not to say that I will be mixing with them, but many mention they use the 50s to mix and or to reference their mixes, I would imagine if the response isn't flat, this would be a little more difficult to do so. I know you can get used to them and adjust, but it seems odd to have to so this, why not just buy a flatter pair?

Again I know that these questions can't be answered 100% but I am just trying to come up with enough to make a decision.

[sprnva]

I think that's the problem reading other people's opinions about headphones/monitors. Some want it to be as flat as possible, others want a bit more life in it and find flat to be too sterile. Either option is good so long as you learn them and know where to compensate.

I also did some more research and read that open-backed headphones might be a better fit for me. They're supposed to be better for mixing than closed phones (which are all I have here). Also looking at frequency response graphs on headphone.com makes it a little easier to see where the bumps/dips are with certain headphones. I've read a bunch of posts from people saying they got headphone X and it's great. Then I look at the graph and the bass is hyped to hell. Maybe that's what they wanted and it's working for them. For example, the MDR-7506 doesn't look all that great when looking at it's frequency response graph. It has a major dip in the high treble area and is hyped in the mid section (assuming I'm reading things right).

With my new-found "knowledge" I'm swinging more towards the AKG K70x or Sennheiser HD 558 now. Anything is better than what I have right now

[incubus]

Didn't read everything because usually can threads are too vast.

Bottom line from someone who uses cans every single day and has had a few.

-Open are best for mixing, terrible for tracking (and I mean terrible)

-I'll never get rid of my Senn 580's until I die. They are simply beautiful but you really need a quiet space to appreciate open cans. Not an easy thing to do. You can't get them anymore but the point is that if they weren't so bad for tracking, they'd be my go-to's.

-Still love my KRK 8400's for a versatile set. They don't hype anything, they allow me to play amp sims with guitar and bass w/o the funky fizz some cans produce, comfy, built fairly well* and not tough on the wallet. You can mix with them, but they are best suited for tracking and every-day use.

*I've had to replace parts on my two sets (mostly cords, which I frack too often) but the good news is parts are easy to find and not overly expensive (about what anyone else charges). And the cord is detachable, it's a shit-drag to f**k a cord up and not be able to replace it, been there, done that

[xoxos]

cheers mate, as long as no one has any fun writing things i'm good

[JCJR]

I think that's the problem reading other people's opinions about headphones/monitors. Some want it to be as flat as possible, others want a bit more life in it and find flat to be too sterile. Either option is good so long as you learn them and know where to compensate.

I also did some more research and read that open-backed headphones might be a better fit for me. They're supposed to be better for mixing than closed phones (which are all I have here). Also looking at frequency response graphs on headphone.com makes it a little easier to see where the bumps/dips are with certain headphones. I've read a bunch of posts from people saying they got headphone X and it's great. Then I look at the graph and the bass is hyped to hell. Maybe that's what they wanted and it's working for them. For example, the MDR-7506 doesn't look all that great when looking at it's frequency response graph. It has a major dip in the high treble area and is hyped in the mid section (assuming I'm reading things right).

With my new-found "knowledge" I'm swinging more towards the AKG K70x or Sennheiser HD 558 now. Anything is better than what I have right now

Thanks sprnva for that link to headphone.com.

Sample in-ear phones comparison

It is interesting info but hard to know how to use the info, at least perhaps if lacking audiology knowledge. By comparison, with a well-done audio measurement of a room + speakers, or a well-done anechoic measurement of a speaker, I would at least have some foggy general impression of how the room or speaker will sound, and assuming the measurements are well-done, be able to do a bit of "pre-selection" of which speakers might be desirable.

But for whatever reason, I've read that what is measured on phones isn't necessarily what one might expect to hear. Dunno why. Headphone.com offers three selections, raw freq response, adjusted freq response, and freq response. Didn't yet see an explanation of how the numbers are crunched, though I saw that they use a dummy measurement head.

I have perhaps irrational admiration for etymotics as a company. They have been around a long time and make fancy-schmanzy audiology testing equipment and such. Published PhD's on the staff, etc. On some of their documentation for in-ear phones and hifi hearing protection are shown similarly puzzling graphs, measured vs perceived frequency response charts and such.

Certain intentional freq contouring of the in-ear phones drive, so that the "non flat" phones should better-conform to what "flat speakers in a good room" ought to sound like.

The comparison linked above is between one of Shure's most expensive models, a couple of Westones, and Etymotics ER4P which I own and am familiar with.

The ER4P and Westone w2 appear the flattest of the two, but all of them show drastic high-mid rolloffs which would be completely unacceptable in a studio monitor. On the other hand, I bet all four of those products sound great, with plenty of mids and highs, and not obnoxious levels of bass. Perceptually, the ER4P with a good airseal, to me they sound "about as flat as a pancake" with plenty of low bass and balanced mids and smooth crisp highs.

It depends on where you draw the center line. Those kind of curves could be interpreted as "relatively flat" in bass and low mids, with drastic HF rolloff. Or alternately, you could call them "kinda sorta" flat in the upper mids and highs with a gargantuan bass boost.

Sampling their measurements of closed-back studio phones, seems that most of the phones have in the ballpark of +10 dB at 40 Hz. The beyerdynamic DT770, some users say they are too bassy, some say they don't have enough bass. Some reviewers say they are too bright and others say they are not bright enough. The biggest diff I notice between DT770 and ATM50 charts as done by headphone.com, is that both of them appear to have similar levels of bass boost that would be completely unacceptable in a speaker, and both of them roll off the highs, but the ATM50 rolls off the highs more drastically than DT770.

Looking at the charts, I almost regret not snagging DT880, which appears flatter on the chart, but dunno what it would sound like. To me, DT770 sound a little too generous in the bass and "about right" in mids and highs. But different folks hear different things in the same cans, apparently.

All these companies are doing the best they know how, and though some cans are of course intentionally bass-boosted, some of the bass boost on many of these charts might be "necessary to generate a flat-sounding perception in phones" rather than gratuitous bass boosting for its own sake.

Maybe the nature of phones-to-ear interface would tend to show different "typical" curves of in-ear vs sealed vs open, as each design tries to tailor the response to sound flat to an ear rather than to mics in a dummy head? Dunno. Just random thoughts.