Headphone: Impedance Over Frequency
ChrisCoaster
response, noise isolation, and other measures of headphones that are
not typically found in a big-box type electronics store.
One of the measures is impedance over frequency. The particular
headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance(mid30s
ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
Since impedance means resistance, am I right in guessing that these
headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
higher impedance at those freqs?
Thanks in advance for any clarification I may need.
-ChrisCoaster
"Just because a ride loops doesn't mean it rocks"
William Sommerwerck
> headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance (mid30s
> ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
> Since impedance means resistance, am I right in guessing that these
> headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
> higher impedance at those freqs?
Yes, if the source impedance of the amplifier is comparable to the
headphone's impendance. If it's much lower, there will be little or no
effect.
Portable players often had a resistor in series withy the output, of 10 to
100 ohms. It was probably intended to protect the amplifier from a short,
but it also altered the response of headphones if their impedance curve had
peaks or dips.
John Williamson
are affected by the ear canal among other things.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Arny Krueger
news:23d99df5-531e-4c06...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
Headphones are designed to work with a specific source impedance. If the
'phone's impedance curve is not flat, then sourcing them with a different
impedance will necessarily change their in-use frequency response.
However, there are other strong individual influences, such as the shape of
your ears, both inner and outer.
For example, with most phones I can hear a pretty clear difference in the
bass if I press them up against my head, or pull them out a little. So even
the headband tightness can affect response in the 100 Hz region.
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
Thanks! You guys not venturing out into the "black friday" mess
yet? :)
Here's the thing. I've had Sennie HD280s Pros now since 2007, and
have been more than satisfied with them as far as tonal balance,
detail, and isolation from the world outside go. And I'm sure a lot
of you *know* your headphones and nobody on here in their right mind
owns anything made by Skull Candy(!).
I'm looking to supplant/replace them with something under $200 that I
can get on amazon typically for around $150. They must be sealed(not
openback), and again, fit the budget I mentioned.
Two headphones I've looked at are from Shure - the SRH440 and -840.
The biggest difference based on reviews seems to be their prices, and
that the 840 extends a little deeper in the lows and a hair higher at
the highs. Also, their impedance is lower than that of the
Sennheiser, and pretty flat with no humps.
Fellows I'm having one of those "can I do better" moments with regards
to the HD-280s, and at this point don't really need another headphone
hanging around, but would one of those close-backs from Shure eclipse
the Sennheiser in quality, or just be their equal.
Thanks for your opinions on all these headphones, if you've had them
on your heads.
-ChrisCoaster
"Looping coasters are MAD over-rated!"
William Sommerwerck
> If the 'phone's impedance curve is not flat, then sourcing them with
> a different impedance will necessarily change their in-use frequency
> response.
This might be true of professional headphones. It is not generally true of
consumer products. And if, in the exceptional case that a pair of headphones
had an essentially flat impedance curve, the source impedance would have no
effect on the response.
When I reviewed headphones at Stereophile, my final listening was through an
attentuator with an output impedance of about 0.9 ohms. However, I also
listened with a Discman having an output impedance of at least 100 ohms. In
some cases this resulted in audible response changes.
Laurence Payne
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
>I was looking at a site that allowed me to view graphs of frequency
>response, noise isolation, and other measures of headphones that are
>not typically found in a big-box type electronics store.
>
>One of the measures is impedance over frequency. The particular
>headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance(mid30s
>ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
>Since impedance means resistance, am I right in guessing that these
>headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
>higher impedance at those freqs?
Maybe, if all other things are equal. Which they most definitely
won't be!
Laurence Payne
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>Two headphones I've looked at are from Shure - the SRH440 and -840.
There is no point whatsoever in LOOKING at headphones. Ask for
opinions, if you like, to find out if there's a consensus on what's
good in a particular price band. Then (unless the price band is low
and you're prepared to experiment) go and listen to them.
ChrisCoaster
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:50:07 -0800 (PST), ChrisCoaster
>
>
> >Two headphones I've looked at are from Shure - the SRH440 and -840.
>
> There is no point whatsoever in LOOKING at headphones. Ask for
> opinions, if you like, to find out if there's a consensus on what's
> good in a particular price band. Then (unless the price band is low
> and you're prepared to experiment) go and listen to them.
Mann, welcome to Earth, son! Of KAWRSE I wanna LISTEN to em! ;)
"Look at" is just a human metaphor for take a listen, take a
testdrive, whatever.
But try that at a big box. Sure, they've got boomin' Sony cans with
bass out the ying yang, but this is audio.pro, right? And who the heck
are "Skull Candy"? And Koss? There just doesn't seem to be a solid
concensus on them, at least not in the last 5 years.
And there just arent that many "audio parlors" left around here, even
in wealthy Fairfield County. I don't even know if the audiophile shop
in Greenwich that sold me the Sennheiser still exists. I'd love to be
able to listen to all the AKGs, Sennies & Shures just to get my head
around what's out there.
I'd probably have to get them through Amazon, spend a few days with
them on, and then return them if they don't excel the HD-280s.
-CC
John Williamson
rec.arts.movie-production.sound
The r.a.m.p.s guys really *need* good, comfy headphones.
There are many, extremely heated, threads on which is the best headphone
for monitoring. Sound quality and comfort of wear come into it a lot,
and often, what one person condemns as low grade rubbish which makes it
feel as if his head's in a vice while he's listening through a blanket,
another will proclaim as the best thing since sliced bread, and the fun
of it is, they're often *both* right.
I've not tried them, but the Sony MDR-7506 get some good reviews. I like
my pair of Beyer DT-100s, but they're not to everybody's taste.
William Sommerwerck
> is the best headphone for monitoring.
The issue is not absolute quality, but what you're listening for, what you
want to know about the recording that will tell you whether the final result
will be what you were aiming at.
Peter Larsen
> I was looking at a site that allowed me to view graphs of frequency
> response, noise isolation, and other measures of headphones that are
> not typically found in a big-box type electronics store.
> One of the measures is impedance over frequency. The particular
> headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance(mid30s
> ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
> Since impedance means resistance, am I right in guessing that these
> headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
> higher impedance at those freqs?
No, with a high impedance source they will be louder in that range. The
point in favour of using "real amplifiers" as headphone amps is that doing
that mostly offers the optimum frequency response, there is probably some
exception.
> Thanks in advance for any clarification I may need.
Ohms law.
> -ChrisCoaster
> "Just because a ride loops doesn't mean it rocks"
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
I want the headphone to pass as much as possible the original sound of
whatever I'm listening to - as much of that as the device I'm
listening to will deliver.
I don't know if that makes me an audiophile or a studio professional
monitor type.
Actually, I don't even know why the two are considered different!
Don't audiophiles and studio engineers want absolute transparency in
the sound they are monitoring?
-CC
William Sommerwerck
>> what you want to know about the recording that will tell you
>> whether the final result will be what you were aiming at.
___________________
> I want the headphone to pass as much as possible the original
> sound of whatever I'm listening to -- as much of that as the device
> I'm listening to will deliver.
Then you want either very, very good dynamic headphones -- or electrostatic
headphones.
> I don't know if that makes me an audiophile or a studio professional
> monitor type.
> Actually, I don't even know why the two are considered different!
> Don't audiophiles and studio engineers want absolute transparency
> in the sound they are monitoring?
Hell, no.
If you're recording acoustic music -- jazz, classical, folk -- you probably
want to hear exactly what the recording sounds like.
But when you're recording music that has little "acoustic" representation,
the recording is a artificial "construct". What /it/ sounds like is less
important than how it's heard on the average listener's equipment -- juke
box, small bookshelf speakers, whatever.
In fairness, the quality of even cheap audio equipment has gotten pretty
good. So using high-quality monitoring might not cause the problems it (and
it did) 20 years ago.
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
> ___________________
> But when you're recording music that has little "acoustic" representation,
> the recording is a artificial "construct". What /it/ sounds like is less
> important than how it's heard on the average listener's equipment -- juke
> box, small bookshelf speakers, whatever.
>
____________________
Pretty much the state of pop music today - close-miked and/or lots of
processing.
Still, I certainly don't want my headphone to emulate the sound of
cheap clunky bookshelf speakers that came with a $59.99 all-in-one
stereo system!
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. . . ." if the headphone I'm
wearing passes tape hiss from earlier analog tracks, or if I can hear
the squeak of a kick or hi-hat pedal, or the thump of the hammers
inside a piano case as they return to their resting positions between
notes, or the tapping of the lead singer's foot during the guitar solo
of a mellow 70s number. If I can hear that, then I'll be satisified
that I'll hear what the artist(s) intended. If I didn't want to hear
those things, I'd use my old walkman headphones(still in my bottom
dresser drawer!) or listen to music on a pocket transistor radio. ;)
I'm exaggerating a bit there, but you get my point - I want my
headphone to pass it all, with no obvious peaks or dips in the
frequency response along the way. Not long before typing this, I
watched the pilot of "Miami Vice" over Hulu with the HD280 Pros on.
I'm sure if the engineers who produced that 1983 vintage show knew I
was listening through them, they'd be horrified by all the stuff that
they *didn't* want me to hear! LOL.
-CC
david correia
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I don't know if that makes me an audiophile or a studio professional
> > monitor type.
>
> > Actually, I don't even know why the two are considered different!
> > Don't audiophiles and studio engineers want absolute transparency
> > in the sound they are monitoring?
>
> Hell, no.
>
> If you're recording acoustic music -- jazz, classical, folk -- you probably
> want to hear exactly what the recording sounds like.
>
> But when you're recording music that has little "acoustic" representation,
> the recording is a artificial "construct". What /it/ sounds like is less
> important than how it's heard on the average listener's equipment -- juke
> box, small bookshelf speakers, whatever.
>
> In fairness, the quality of even cheap audio equipment has gotten pretty
> good. So using high-quality monitoring might not cause the problems it (and
> it did) 20 years ago.
A good mix will sound good on whatever you play it on. That's what makes
it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
It's why pro studios invest lotsa $ on their control room. So you know
exactly what you have. Engineers listen to their work on both large and
small monitors. If they are lucky, the control room's large monitor set
up is accurate. (Often it is not. It is not an easy thing to achieve.
And I don't know of a small monitor that is accurate.) But your mix has
to work on both.
I would use the word accuracy, rather than transparency, although we may
be talking about the same thing.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Sean Conolly
A lot of monitoring involves what I call 'forensic listening'. If something
is a little off you want it to grab your attention, which is not what you
want for day-to-day listening pleasure. Good monitors - headphones or
speakers - only make it sound good if it IS good.
But for headphone monitoring, fatigue is a very real concern. If the
headphones aren't comfortable to listen to AND wear, for hours on end, they
will become a serious distraction to what you're trying to do - making good
sounding music. I still use a 12 year old set of Sonys that I picked out
because they fit both of those requirements nicely, and still do.
Sean
Laurence Payne
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
> if the headphone I'm
>wearing passes tape hiss from earlier analog tracks, or if I can hear
>the squeak of a kick or hi-hat pedal, or the thump of the hammers
>inside a piano case as they return to their resting positions between
>notes, or the tapping of the lead singer's foot during the guitar solo
>of a mellow 70s number. If I can hear that, then I'll be satisified
>that I'll hear what the artist(s) intended.
An interesting angle - you want headphones analytical enough to reveal
the unwanted elements of the original recording :-) I wonder if in
100 years people will be listening to antique CDs saying "..this brain
implant really brings out the compression artifacts..."?
Laurence Payne
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>A good mix will sound good on whatever you play it on. That's what makes
>it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
Yes, if "good" means "portable". If mixing for commercial release it
probably does. But if you have control over the playback
circumstances (think maybe of the specifications for movie theatres)
could a mix be further optimised?
William Sommerwerck
> what makes it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
I doubt that such a thing is possible.
Around 30 years ago (ouch!), a customer of Barclay Recording brought in a
mix he was proud of. It sounded fine on modest speakers, but when played on
really good ones, it sounded downright strange.
It might be that speakers have improved to the point that this is no longer
true. But a mix monitored on B&W 800-series speakers probably will sound
different heard on planar speakers (Apogee, Martin-Logan, QUAD, etc). And
vice-versa.
If you simply want to hear what's on the recording with a minimum of
"editorialization", get a pair of STAX headphones, a STAX headphone amp, and
the STAX ED-1 diffuse-field equalizer.
Scott Dorsey
ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
>I was looking at a site that allowed me to view graphs of frequency
>response, noise isolation, and other measures of headphones that are
>not typically found in a big-box type electronics store.
>
>One of the measures is impedance over frequency. The particular
>headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance(mid30s
>ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
>Since impedance means resistance, am I right in guessing that these
>headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
>higher impedance at those freqs?
No. What you care about on that plot is how low the impedance gets
and to make sure the output impedance of the headphone amp is an order
of magnitude lower than the lowest point on it.
IF the output impedance of the headphone amp is too high, then you WILL
start hearing issues at the frequencies where the impedance dips. This
is bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
LAB
around 100-125Hz as a result of higher impedance at those freqs?
No, not necessarily. Speakers (and headphones) are electro-mechanical
devices. Where impedance become higher there is a system resonance (= less
losses), then less power is required for the same acoustic level.
About headphone amps output impedance we could debate for a long time.
If headphone out comes from a power amp's out: there is a voltage
divider (two resistors), then out impedance (resistance) would be between
100 and 200 Ohm.
If an operational amplifier is used: out resistance could be about
75...150 Ohms for stability reasons (cable's capacitive load) or
short-circuit current limiting.
If an output transformer is used: out impedance will be the output
(tube?) amp resistance seen through the transformer.
I think many manufacturers design "Hi-Fi" headphones (not the ones for
portable players, I mean) for an amp output resistance about 100~150 Ohms.
--
Gianluca
hank alrich
Of course good mixes will change slightly over the plethora of available
playback systems. A good mix won't change much, and importantly, nothing
will disappear or appear, parts will still be hearable to the extent the
playback system can resolve detail.
The mixes I've been working with just recently hold up on systems
ranging from Dunlavy SCIVA's to my laptop to headphones, autos, etc.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
http://hankalrich.com/
ChrisCoaster
>
> I would use the word accuracy, rather than transparency, although we may
> be talking about the same thing.
>
> David Correiawww.Celebrationsound.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
________________
Transparency, as I take it, refers to how little a device adds to, or
detracts from, the intent of a musical or visual presentation. How
little of itself does it lend to it?
Is it's audio frequency response flat enough so that any colorations
are minimized? On a monitor, are the internal and user settings such
that the colors of a produced video/film accurately reflect the
intentions of the artist?
So in that sense, yes, transparency could = accuracy.
Pertaining to headphones, this means I would want the flattest freq
response - and impedance - possible in my given price range. I fully
accept that my own inner ears will color anything that passes through
my ear, but I would NOT want headphones that attempt to compensate for
some "average" loudness curve of the human ear. That is what an
equalizer and analyzer are used for to correct.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
> >> am I right in guessing that these headphones will sound slightly weak
> around 100-125Hz as a result of higher impedance at those freqs?
>
> No, not necessarily. Speakers (and headphones) are electro-mechanical
> devices. Where impedance become higher there is a system resonance (= less
> losses), then less power is required for the same acoustic level.
>
> Gianluca
__________________
Specifically, the Sennheiser HD280 pro, acc to headphone.com , has an
avg impedance from 100Hz to 10kHz of 64ohms. Between 80 &100Hz that
impedance rises to around 150ohms.
For the Shure SRH440, impedance is mostly flat, just below 50ohms from
100Hz to 10kHz.
So you're saying, in the case of the Sennheiser, that sounds between
80-100Hz will be louder as a result of that hump?
Also, assuming the same volume level and no other adjustments,
wouldn't the Shure be noticeably louder because its impedance is lower
than the Sennheiser's?
-CC
Don Pearce
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
>One of the measures is impedance over frequency. The particular
>headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance(mid30s
>ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
>Since impedance means resistance, am I right in guessing that these
>headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
>higher impedance at those freqs?
No, quite the opposite in fact. Most amplifiers supply the headphone
socket via a resistor of a few hundred ohms. The result of this is
that a nominally flat set of headphones will actually be louder where
its impedance is greatest, and quieter where it is lowest.
d
ChrisCoaster
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:08:53 -0800 (PST), ChrisCoaster
>
Guess I have a lot to learn. I never could get my head around all
this talk of "impedance" and "resistance".
Is there a good reference out there that could lay it out for the
terminally dense? ;)
-CC
Don Pearce
Ohm's Law has this pretty much covered. You can get into impedance if
you like, but I think resistance will give you the answers.
d
ChrisCoaster
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heck, from their names I thought they both were blocking or resisting
something!
To understand Ohms law one must understand math. Forgive me Donald
but I can barely add 2 and 2! :)
-CC
Don Pearce
They are. The name is very apt. Think of a wire as a hose, and
electricity as water flowing through it. A resistor would be you
stepping on the hose, but not blocking it completely. A slight
compression would be a few ohms, a major kink would be hundreds of
kilohms. I think you can see that if you have both of those in one
hose, it is the major kink that decides how much water flows, not the
slight compression. That is sort of how the headphone impedance
problem resolves itself.
>To understand Ohms law one must understand math. Forgive me Donald
>but I can barely add 2 and 2! :)
>
>-CC
Ah, well. You need to get someone to sit you down with it. If you can
add, you can at least do the first part of Ohms law. Resistances
connected in series (one after the other) add. If both those
resistances are 2 ohms, you are home and dry!
d
ChrisCoaster
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:25:50 -0800 (PST), ChrisCoaster
>
>
>
>
>
-CC
Don Pearce
No. First multiply them. Now add them. Now divide the multiplied total
by the added total. In mathspeak it is (R1 x R2)/(R1 + R2).
d
ChrisCoaster
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:22:41 -0800 (PST), ChrisCoaster
>
>
>
>
>
Scott Dorsey
>I want the headphone to pass as much as possible the original sound of
>whatever I'm listening to - as much of that as the device I'm
>listening to will deliver.
This is not possible. In part it's because your ears are part of the
system, and the size and shape of your ear canal will change the
measured response of the system.
>I don't know if that makes me an audiophile or a studio professional
>monitor type.
>
>Actually, I don't even know why the two are considered different!
>Don't audiophiles and studio engineers want absolute transparency in
>the sound they are monitoring?
Most of them are a lot more about reducing leakage; if you're in a
situation where you don't care about leakage you might as well use
speakers anyway. On top of that, for a lot of jobs like tape editing
you might want severely tipped-up high end (which is why the Sony MDR-V6
is so popular for editing and production sound work... it's very
inaccurate but it is very useful).
LAB
obtaining the total conductance. The reciprocal is the total resistance.
--
Gianluca
William Sommerwerck
>> sound of whatever I'm listening to - as much of that as the device
>> I'm listening to will deliver.
> This is not possible. In part it's because your ears are part of the
> system, and the size and shape of your ear canal will change the
> measured response of the system.
Not when the drivers are well-spaced from the ears, as they are in the
bigger STAXes, and the ill-fated Alte-Kocher Gesselschaft K1000s.
Even when the drivers sit close to the ears, there is very strong agreement
among listeners about headphone accuracy.
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
>
> Even when the drivers sit close to the ears, there is very strong agreement
> among listeners about headphone accuracy.
You mean DISagreement, right? ;)
-CC
ChrisCoaster
> ChrisCoaster <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:
> >I want the headphone to pass as much as possible the original sound of
> >whatever I'm listening to - as much of that as the device I'm
> >listening to will deliver.
>
> This is not possible. In part it's because your ears are part of the
> system, and the size and shape of your ear canal will change the
> measured response of the system.
>
Understood.
Again, I want everything *up to my ears* to be as relatively
transparent/accurate as possible given my budget.
As I previously posted, a good EQ and maybe an analyzer can account
for any inaccuracies my ears - or anyone else's - contribute to this
system.
-CC
William Sommerwerck
>> agreement among listeners about headphone accuracy.
> You mean DISagreement, right?
Not at all. Take two dozen "serious" listeners and ask them which headphones
are accurate and inaccurate, and there will be strong agreement.
Disagreements seem mostly to be in the area of which headphones are
best-suited for monitoring. As someone else pointed out, engineers vary in
what they are listening for.
William Sommerwerck
> transparent/accurate as possible given my budget.
What is your budget? You're not going to get a new pair of "monitoring
quality" headphones for $100.
Eric B
Bizarre! Where are the engineers. All dynamic playback transducers
have/ show a bump in the impedance at or near their resonant
frequency. (BTW- an in line resistor is linear with respect to
frequency) Please look at loudspeaker component specs that show
impedance vs frequency, they all do this. The impedance vs frequency
charts show even weirder things when crossovers and tuned boxes are
involved.
Headphones can not be really accurate. They can be very useful for
some things but DO NOT trust what you hear. The most fundamental issue
is that the sound from the two sides doesn't mix in the air, therefor
you can have two sides that are completely out of phase and not be
able to hear that something is wrong. This is more devilish if the
phase problem is subtle.
The factors in choosing headphones are:
How do you like the sound? How do other engineers feel about them?
Are they comfortable? Do they cause listening fatigue?
Will they break? Are they servicable? Are they portable?
Do they do what you want for isolation (both in and out)
Does the impedance match the amplifier being used. This does not
mean the numbers are equal. 600 ohm phones used to be common because a
single amplifier would be used to drive several phones. If you used
several 8 ohm phones in parallel the impedance the amp sees would be
too low causing distortion, heat and burn out. That same 600 ohm
headphone used with a modern op amp driver intended to drive only one
set of phones with a only fraction of a Watt will not be loud enough.
I recommend Beyer DT100 or DT770. Through years of experience I know
they are reliable and sturdy- and serviceable. I use AKG 240 studio
because I got a good deal on them. These 3 models are not the best
sounding- they are the best at isolation and after hours of working
under them my ears don't hurt. The Sony MDRs are great for portability
because they fold, and also because many people (especially in film
and location work) know them. However, they do make my ears hurt. I
have used the Sennheisers in passing but don't feel confident
commenting on them.
All headphones these days have a moulded 1/8" jack with an adapter
to 1/4" The quality of this connector and the strain relief is of the
utmost importance. If they break- well, what good are the phones if
the connector breaks and they are a pain re-solder.
Good luck, Eric B
William Sommerwerck
It depends on how you define accurate.
I've owned STAX headphones for many years, and -- as great as they are --
have felt that my Acoustats and Apogees are more "accurate". However, I
can't precisely describe the difference, other than that the speakers have
somewhat more "presence".
> They can be very useful for some things but
> DO NOT trust what you hear.
Unless you're aware of how headphone listening differs from "live" or
speaker listening. This can be learned.
> The most fundamental issue is that the sound from the two
> sides doesn't mix in the air, therefore you can have two sides
> that are completely out of phase and not be able to hear that
> something is wrong.
You're kidding, of course. You won't hear combing effects, but you sure will
hear phase errors in the range the ear can detect them.
STAX makes (or used to make) an equalizer (the ED-1) that corrects for the
difference in the ear's "free field" and "diffuse" responses. The difference
is quite audible. This is one reason for choosing the STAX.
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
Actually, the Shure SRH 440 & 840 can both be had for $150 or less on
Amazon depending on when you look. And both closed models often get
"better than . ." comments when sided with the Sennheiser HD280 pro.
That's my ceiling - about $150. Elsewhere, expect to pay closer to
$200
for either headphone.
I consider the HD280 to be my first *real* or, serious, headphone. I
had the MDR-V6 15 years ago, disappeared during college, and I wish I
still had them, at least for comparison sake. But the Sennheiser is
no walkman headphone or budget job, to be sure!
-CC
William Sommerwerck
>> "monitoring quality" headphones for $100.
Actually, the Shure SRH 440 & 840 can both be had for $150 or less on
Amazon depending on when you look. And both closed models often get
"better than . ." comments when sided with the Sennheiser HD280 pro.
for either headphone.
I consider the HD280 to be my first *real* or, serious, headphone.
I had the MDR-V6 15 years ago, disappeared during college, and
I wish I still had them, at least for comparison sake. But the
Sennheiser is no walkman headphone or budget job, to be sure!
Sennheiser makes very good headphones. But (no offense intended)...
I would not consider any of them "lower" than the 580 to be suitable for
monitoring. Not by my standards, anyway.
Shure has the brains to make really good headphones. But I haven't heard
them and can't intelligently comment.
Scott Dorsey
>>> I want the headphone to pass as much as possible the original
>>> sound of whatever I'm listening to - as much of that as the device
>>> I'm listening to will deliver.
>
>> This is not possible. In part it's because your ears are part of the
>> system, and the size and shape of your ear canal will change the
>> measured response of the system.
>
>Not when the drivers are well-spaced from the ears, as they are in the
>bigger STAXes, and the ill-fated Alte-Kocher Gesselschaft K1000s.
This is true. The thing is, once you're in that range, you might as
well use speakers anyway because you have no isolation at all.
>Even when the drivers sit close to the ears, there is very strong agreement
>among listeners about headphone accuracy.
I have not experienced that at all with closed-ear headpphones, although
it's pretty good with open-ear phones.
Laurence Payne
>>Not when the drivers are well-spaced from the ears, as they are in the
>>bigger STAXes, and the ill-fated Alte-Kocher Gesselschaft K1000s.
>
>This is true. The thing is, once you're in that range, you might as
>well use speakers anyway because you have no isolation at all.
Isn't the idea to give you a quality speaker experience without
annoying the folks next door?
Scott Dorsey
If that is indeed the goal, they're a good choice for that (although of
course the imaging is still weird). Thing is, most folks doing audio
work use headphones because they need something that blocks outside
sound in some way, or because they magnify something that they are listening
for.
Mike Rivers
> Headphones can not be really accurate. They can be very useful for
> some things but DO NOT trust what you hear. The most fundamental issue
> is that the sound from the two sides doesn't mix in the air, therefor
> you can have two sides that are completely out of phase and not be
> able to hear that something is wrong. This is more devilish if the
> phase problem is subtle.
There are a couple of gadgets on the market now that supposedly allow
you to adjust for that. SPL makes one, so at least there's one that isn't an
audiophool product. The big problem with accuracy of headphones is that
your head isn't the same as my head and neither of our heads are exactly
like the dummy that it was designed and tested with. What goes on between
the headphone diaphragm and the ear drum is dependent on how the
various parts of the ear are shaped.
> How do you like the sound? How do other engineers feel about them?
> Are they comfortable? Do they cause listening fatigue?
> Will they break? Are they servicable? Are they portable?
> Do they do what you want for isolation (both in and out)
Agree on all of the above, other than perhaps what other engineers
think about them. One of the nice things about the new Shure phones
is that the seem to be built pretty studio-proof.
> Does the impedance match the amplifier being used.
Isn't that what this tread is supposed to be about? <g> I think
a better question would be "Can your amplifier drive them adequately?"
But, too, headphones tend to get plugged into various sources during
the day, or week, or month. You don't want them to sound radically
different when you plug them into your portable recorder than when
you plug them into your console's headphone jack, or the amplifier
that feeds the players in the studio.
david correia
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > A good mix will sound good on whatever you play it on. That's
> > what makes it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
>
> I doubt that such a thing is possible.
It's what a recording engineer does for a living. Will my clients will
only listen to their recordings in my control room?
As soon as they walk out the door, they will play it in their car. And
on their stereo when they get home. And then rip the CD onto their
computer and listen on their iPod. etc etc etc etc
>
> Around 30 years ago (ouch!), a customer of Barclay Recording brought in a
> mix he was proud of. It sounded fine on modest speakers, but when played on
> really good ones, it sounded downright strange.
>
> It might be that speakers have improved to the point that this is no longer
> true. But a mix monitored on B&W 800-series speakers probably will sound
> different heard on planar speakers (Apogee, Martin-Logan, QUAD, etc). And
> vice-versa.
>
Yes it will sound different. What I said that it will sound good. It's
why, when I mix, I listen to:
a stereo pair with 15" bass drivers
another with 6" drivers
little AppleDesign computer speakers
and headphones.
If it doesn't sound right on even one of them, the mix ain't done.
I also listen to my work on a pair of DQ-10's at home, but of course,
it's too late to do anything about it then ;>
> If you simply want to hear what's on the recording with a minimum of
> "editorialization", get a pair of STAX headphones, a STAX headphone amp, and
> the STAX ED-1 diffuse-field equalizer.
I have never head the above, but call me skeptical about a headphone
being the best monitoring setup for a recording engineer. For starters,
the stereo image of headphones is quite different from speakers. I never
trust headphones when it comes to stereo placement.
I would like to hear the above, tho. I only recently found a headphone
that I thought wasn't that bad, which is a first for me, the AT ATH-M50.
It's only a hundred bucks. How much for the above?
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
david correia
Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:16:39 -0500, david correia
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >A good mix will sound good on whatever you play it on. That's what makes
> >it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
>
> Yes, if "good" means "portable". If mixing for commercial release it
> probably does. But if you have control over the playback
> circumstances (think maybe of the specifications for movie theatres)
> could a mix be further optimised?
Every playback system has plusses (hopefully) and minuses. If, e.g., you
were doing a dance mix for a specific venue, and you knew that club's
playback had way too much top, sure, you could roll that off a little.
Is that what you mean?
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
William Sommerwerck
>> a minimum of "editorialization", get a pair of STAX
>> headphones, a STAX headphone amp, and the
>> STAX ED-1 diffuse-field equalizer.
> I have never head the above, but call me skeptical about a headphone
> being the best monitoring setup for a recording engineer. For starters,
> the stereo image of headphones is quite different from speakers. I never
> trust headphones when it comes to stereo placement.
No argument. But the OP was asking for headphone advice. Within that
context, my recommendation is a reasonable one.
> I would like to hear the above, tho. I only recently found a headphone
> that I thought wasn't that bad, which is a first for me, the AT ATH-M50.
> It's only a hundred bucks. How much for the above?
I'd have to look it up, but at current exchange rates, probably in the $2K
range.
Laurence Payne
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >A good mix will sound good on whatever you play it on. That's what makes
>> >it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
>>
>> Yes, if "good" means "portable". If mixing for commercial release it
>> probably does. But if you have control over the playback
>> circumstances (think maybe of the specifications for movie theatres)
>> could a mix be further optimised?
>
>
>Every playback system has plusses (hopefully) and minuses. If, e.g., you
>were doing a dance mix for a specific venue, and you knew that club's
>playback had way too much top, sure, you could roll that off a little.
>
>Is that what you mean?
That's part of it. But surely you could mix to the strengths of a
particular system, not just to its weaknesses?
Arny Krueger
"david correia" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:noemail-BE13BF...@forte.easynews.com...
This, with some variation in the specifics, seems to be accepted practice.
A recording needs to sound good when played with a number of systems whose
performance varies over the normal range. Of course it will sound different
on the various systems, but must not sound strange or significantly
different from other good recordings on any of them.
My test systems include:
(1) A pair of reasonably high quality headphones such as Senn HD 280/Sony
7506/AT ATH-M50. I frequently use all 3 at various points in the production
process.
(2) The standard OEM audio system in my 2006 Mercury Milan with the tone
controls adjusted for best measured performance.
(3) A home stereo system of reasonable competence including a good 12"
subwoofer.
(4) POS computer speakers
>> If you simply want to hear what's on the recording with a minimum of
>> "editorialization", get a pair of STAX headphones, a STAX headphone amp,
>> and
>> the STAX ED-1 diffuse-field equalizer.
Possibly very good, perhaps even too good.
> I have never head the above, but call me skeptical about a headphone
> being the best monitoring setup for a recording engineer. For starters,
> the stereo image of headphones is quite different from speakers. I never
> trust headphones when it comes to stereo placement.
> I would like to hear the above, tho. I only recently found a headphone
> that I thought wasn't that bad, which is a first for me, the AT ATH-M50.
> It's only a hundred bucks. How much for the above?
I've been told by people who own and measured both, that the Stax system
they compared them to, was not appreciably more accurate than Senn
HD580/600s.
I owned and happily 580s for years until they got stolen. In my opinion they
tend to be too forgiving.
Scott Dorsey
>On Nov 28, 6:05=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> ChrisCoaster =A0<ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:
>> >I want the headphone to pass as much as possible the original sound of
>> >whatever I'm listening to - as much of that as the device I'm
>> >listening to will deliver.
>>
>> system, and the size and shape of your ear canal will change the
>> measured response of the system.
>
>transparent/accurate as possible given my budget.
It doesn't work that way with sealed headphones. The volume of your ear
canals affects the low frequency resonance of the headphones. Your ears
may be accurate, and the headphones may be accurate on someone else's head,
but the actual measured response of the headphones on your head may still be
wrong.
This is not really an issue for open-backed phones, mind you.
>As I previously posted, a good EQ and maybe an analyzer can account
>for any inaccuracies my ears - or anyone else's - contribute to this
>system.
Sadly, that doesn't work so well either. Listen to some headphones, get
something you like. Go to the AES show or NAMM or something and bring a
CD.
GregS
>In article <hequh5$n03$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > A good mix will sound good on whatever you play it on. That's
>> > what makes it a good mix. Actually, it is an impressive feat.
>>
>> I doubt that such a thing is possible.
>
>It's what a recording engineer does for a living. Will my clients will
>only listen to their recordings in my control room?
>
>As soon as they walk out the door, they will play it in their car. And
>on their stereo when they get home. And then rip the CD onto their
>computer and listen on their iPod. etc etc etc etc
>
>>
>> Around 30 years ago (ouch!), a customer of Barclay Recording brought in a
>> mix he was proud of. It sounded fine on modest speakers, but when played on
>> really good ones, it sounded downright strange.
>>
>> It might be that speakers have improved to the point that this is no longer
>> true. But a mix monitored on B&W 800-series speakers probably will sound
>> different heard on planar speakers (Apogee, Martin-Logan, QUAD, etc). And
>> vice-versa.
>>
>
>Yes it will sound different. What I said that it will sound good. It's
>why, when I mix, I listen to:
>
>a stereo pair with 15" bass drivers
>another with 6" drivers
>little AppleDesign computer speakers
>and headphones.
I wonder how many people think that a 15 inch will go lower
than a 6 inch automaticaly. Its certainly not always true.
greg
>David Correia
>www.Celebrationsound.com
GregS
>I was looking at a site that allowed me to view graphs of frequency
>response, noise isolation, and other measures of headphones that are
>not typically found in a big-box type electronics store.
>
>One of the measures is impedance over frequency. The particular
>headphone I was looking at - MINE! - had the same impedance(mid30s
>ohms) from 20Hz to 20kHz except for a broad hump around 100Hz.
>headphones will sound slightly weak around 100-125Hz as a result of
>higher impedance at those freqs?
>
>
>-ChrisCoaster
>"Just because a ride loops doesn't mean it rocks"
I was looking through posts, and find nothing on response.
You would have to look at a plot to see if any changes exist.
Changes in Z don't ordinarily represent changes in level except for the
output Z of the amp, thus 100-125 should sound louder.
Measurments should confirm this.
Any manufacturer who can't see the need for driving phones to at least 30 ohms
needs to evaluate this. At least in my Szekeres amp design, I tried to
get down in that range for driving headphones.
The only set of headphones I had, and have since sold, were the Koss electrostatic, which
came with a real time plot of that paticular set. That drive impedance was another
story, but could be driven directly from an amp.
greg
Arny Krueger
news:hf19hr$5s1$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
For example, take a classic 15" high efficiency driver and compare it to a
very low-efficiency 6".
ChrisCoaster
Guys, I guess the thing that confuses me here is that both the thing
driving the headphone(the amp) and the headphone itself, have certain
specified levels of both impedance and resistance. And that is where
I remain thoroughly confused! How do the impedances of the driving
source and the speaker interact, and what portions of the audio will
be correspondingly louder or softer?
Secondly, this has gotten a lot more complicated than I ever
envisioned it would be. I cannot afford a $500 HD-580, let alone a
$2,000 Stax headphone!
I do believe that there are "bests" at each price point. I.E. The
Sony MDR-V300 is one of the best on-the-ear phones around $50. The
HD280 is one of the best headphones you can get around $100. The
Shure SRH440 *might* be one of the best headphones around $150 - I say
might be because I have never actually listened to them. You cannot -
and should not - compare headphones around the $50 price-point to
those at the $100 or $200 level. It's not a fair comparison.
Succinctly, I'm looking for recommendations on what might be two or
three of the best headphones for about $50 more than the Sennheiser
HD280. Of course I realize it's what sounds best to my ears that will
broker the deal, buuuut - I'm hearing a lot of mostly positive chatter
about the two Shures I've mentioned throughout this thread: the
SRH-440 and -840.
-CC
Scott Dorsey
>Guys, I guess the thing that confuses me here is that both the thing
>driving the headphone(the amp) and the headphone itself, have certain
>specified levels of both impedance and resistance. And that is where
>I remain thoroughly confused! How do the impedances of the driving
>source and the speaker interact, and what portions of the audio will
>be correspondingly louder or softer?
As long as the output impedance of the amplifier is an order of magnitude
lower than the lowest impedance of the headphone at any frequency, there
is no interaction to worry about.
If the input impedance of the amplifier is too high, then the response
of the headphone will drop at points where its impedance drops.
Impedance effects are pretty much a non-issue with professional equipment
that has a good headphone stage. They are a definite issue when plugging
into an iPod, though.
>Secondly, this has gotten a lot more complicated than I ever
>envisioned it would be. I cannot afford a $500 HD-580, let alone a
>$2,000 Stax headphone!
>I do believe that there are "bests" at each price point. I.E. The
>Sony MDR-V300 is one of the best on-the-ear phones around $50. The
>HD280 is one of the best headphones you can get around $100. The
>Shure SRH440 *might* be one of the best headphones around $150 - I say
>might be because I have never actually listened to them. You cannot -
>and should not - compare headphones around the $50 price-point to
>those at the $100 or $200 level. It's not a fair comparison.
That's the way these things work. And the Sony MDR-V300 is very shrieky
sounding... but maybe you want that for editing. I love the MDR-V6 for
editing and it's not a bad set for tracking but I'd never call them
accurate.
If you're looking for accurate and you're looking for good isolation in
the $100 or $200 level you might even consider the Etymotic in-ear sets.
I have some of the older ones and love them; the isolation is better than
a closed-ear headphone and you can put hearing protectors on over top for
even better isolation. Is it going tobe the sound you want? I don't know.
>Succinctly, I'm looking for recommendations on what might be two or
>three of the best headphones for about $50 more than the Sennheiser
>HD280. Of course I realize it's what sounds best to my ears that will
>broker the deal, buuuut - I'm hearing a lot of mostly positive chatter
>about the two Shures I've mentioned throughout this thread: the
>SRH-440 and -840.
I'm not a huge fan of the Shures but they are workable. The thing is,
you still haven't said what you want the headphones for. For a lot of
general listening work I might even recommend the Grados, but for monitoring
the Grados tend to make everything sound better than it really is.
William Sommerwerck
> Stax system they compared them to, was not appreciably more
They are wrong. I have both, and the STAX are noticeably better. As good as
the 580 is, I would never use it for critical monitoring.
> I owned and happily 580s for years until they got stolen.
> In my opinion they tend to be too forgiving.
They certainly lack the snap and detail of good 'stats.
ChrisCoaster
> I'm not a huge fan of the Shures but they are workable. The thing is,
> you still haven't said what you want the headphones for. For a lot of
> general listening work I might even recommend the Grados, but for monitoring
> the Grados tend to make everything sound better than it really is.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
_______________________
Quite simple - I listen to music a lot. And I want something - within
my budget - that allows me to hear the musicians' intentions as
transarently as possible.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
I saw the Stax at their website and HOLY COW! Those things really are
'ear speakers'. Huge!
I'm more concerned about saving for a down payment on a mortgage right
now, so any 'phones over $500 are completely out of the question. I'm
just looking for the next level up, in the closed-back category, from
the HD-280 pro. Everyone I've put the Sennies on has had to either
sit down quickly and absorb what they are listening to, or they clasp
the phones with their hands as their eyes pop nearly out of their
heads! I kid you not! They exclaim "These must have set you back a
thousand bucks!", when I tell them a tenth of that, they just look at
me in disbelief, "sound like that does not go for $100 dollars, no
WAYY!" I wonder what the 440 or 840 from Shure would do to them.
-CC
Peter Larsen
> Quite simple - I listen to music a lot. And I want something - within
> my budget - that allows me to hear the musicians' intentions as
> transarently as possible.
stax, grado, sennheiser, perhapt audio technica m50 (?) - will know soon,
just ordered it in a bulk purchase with some of my friends. With second hand
stax's beware of their pre-polarized versions, test carefully, I have a pair
where I just checked briefly that it made sound and then accepted ... need
to fix that srd-5 box so that I can use my SD3's again. And their large
earspeakers, oh so airly ....
> -CC
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
david correia
Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
I would be more concerned about the weaknesses. The strengths I would
take for granted.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Arny Krueger
"ChrisCoaster" <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:adc2bb1f-3e83-443d...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> I'm more concerned about saving for a down payment on a mortgage right
> now, so any 'phones over $500 are completely out of the question. I'm
> just looking for the next level up, in the closed-back category, from
> the HD-280 pro.
If you don't need phones with HD-280 type isolation and you want a more
refined sound, then just move up the Sennheiser line. The 580s are
regrettably out of production. I believe that the 600s are essentially the
same product as the 580, just with fancier trim to justify the higher price.
They are still under $500. Way under if you shop around.
William Sommerwerck
> my budget - that allows me to hear the musicians' intentions as
> transarently as possible.
If someone knows of $200 headphones with sound quality comparable to STAXes,
please let me know.
It's unfortunate Yamaha no longer makes orthodynamic headphones, as they are
noticeably better than regular dynamic 'phones. I use a pair for portable
listening.
If music is so important to you, start saving up for STAX "earspeakers".
William Sommerwerck
> just ordered it in a bulk purchase with some of my friends.
Please let us know what you find out.
> With second hand
> stax's beware of their pre-polarized versions, test carefully, I have a
pair
> where I just checked briefly that it made sound and then accepted ... need
> to fix that srd-5 box so that I can use my SD3's again. And their large
> earspeakers, oh so airly ....
To the best of my knowledge, STAX has never made electret headphones. Even
their tiny 001 earphones are true electrostats. They're very good, but
pricey.
William Sommerwerck
now, so any 'phones over $500 are completely out of the question. I'm
just looking for the next level up, in the closed-back category, from
the HD-280 pro. Everyone I've put the Sennies on has had to either
sit down quickly and absorb what they are listening to, or they clasp
the phones with their hands as their eyes pop nearly out of their
heads! I kid you not! They exclaim "These must have set you back a
thousand bucks!", when I tell them a tenth of that, they just look at
me in disbelief, "sound like that does not go for $100 dollars, no
WAYY!" I wonder what the 440 or 840 from Shure would do to them.
This happens all the time... "I don't have any money, but I want something
terrific."
Shure makes some good stuff, but they don't have Sennheiser's long
experience in headphone design.
Find a used pair of Yamaha YHP-1 headphones.
Scott Dorsey
>Quite simple - I listen to music a lot. And I want something - within
>my budget - that allows me to hear the musicians' intentions as
>transarently as possible.
Is this for casual listening then? If it is for casual listening, I highly
recommend the Grados.
Scott Dorsey
>To the best of my knowledge, STAX has never made electret headphones. Even
>their tiny 001 earphones are true electrostats. They're very good, but
>pricey.
I have worked on several Stax headphones that were electrets. There is
nothing any less "true" about them just because they use an electret instead
of an external polarizing voltage.
ChrisCoaster
Casual Listening - According to the 'Coaster:
- Listening with ear-buds while reading a book on a jetliner.
- Listening to classic rock on a 20year-old boombox while installing
the wax ring in preparation for a new toiletbowl(!)
- Cranking the living room stereo while shampooing the carpets.
- Cranking the living room stereo while 5 of your best friends are at
the dining table munching out on chicken & beans, another 5 are
crowded around the wide-screen with chips & beer, yelling at the
football game, and yet 2 more are debating the merits of the Cowboys
vs the Giants!
- Listening to your mp3 through the car stereo while passing idiots on
local streets doing 25 in a 30 on your way to work at half past five
in the morning!
Now THEM's "casual listening". :D LOL!!
With that graduate-level course on casual listening out of the way(!),
I must state that when listening to music I often am doing little
else. I may be reading, but typically this is stretched out on the
couch or bed with the headphones on. Otherwise, I'm sitting or laying
there with hands crossed and eyes closed, being slowly mesmerized by
my playlist on shuffle. I really want to LISTEN to the music, not
just be able to hear it well.
And I feel that that can be accomplished quite readily under the $200
price point.
-CC
hank alrich
I honestly think you do not really need a different set of cans at this
time. FWIW. The HD280's are not bad, and when talking headphones, that's
good.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
http://hankalrich.com/
hank alrich
I think you have to deal with the weaknesses first if you're going to
get the strengths to show up.
hank alrich
> On Nov 30, 3:40 pm, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
You're overthinking this. The headphones you have are good. What do you
really need to accomplish? If all you have are closed phones, get an
decent openback pair.
If you just feel a pressing need to get rid of money (there goes yer
mortgage), I can send you my PO box #. <g>
david correia
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
If you're looking for accuracy, listen to the AT ATH-M50 sometime. $100.
Pretty good time to go house shopping.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
William Sommerwerck
It's YHD-1. Sorry.
> If you're looking for accuracy, listen to the AT ATH-M50 sometime. $100.
No offense, but I already have STAX Lambda Signature headphones.
I do have a pair of Audio-Technica electret headphones. They require an
adapter box (included) for your power amp. There's also a second set of
headphones. You can have them for $150 plus shipping.
Arny Krueger
message news:hf5mh1$fi7$1...@news.eternal-september.org
>>> Find a used pair of Yamaha YHP-1 headphones.
>
> It's YHD-1. Sorry.
>> If you're looking for accuracy, listen to the AT ATH-M50
>> sometime. $100.
IME that price is a bit optimistic. I think I had to pay more like $115 for
mine and street prices in the $150 range are not uncommon.
> No offense, but I already have STAX Lambda Signature
> headphones.
Just because they are expensive and use an inherently expensive technology
is no guarantee that they sound any better.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that headphone performance is
strongly influenced by the geometry of the wearer's head and ears, as well
as how they are adjusted on the head. While we might agree about what
sounds good, what sounds best to you is probably not what sounds best to me.
Having heard several different models of Stax on several different
occasions, I would say that the ones I've heard sounded very good. I would
never demean their sonic quality. However, their performance is not
head-and-shoulders above highly-regarded but considerably less expensive and
more practical headphones such as the upper end of the Sennheiser line.
The practical effectiveness of headphones is a big issue for working
professionals. While HD600s sound great, I'd never use them for live
recording or live sound. Hideously poor isolation, which is highly relevant
in those applications and an inherent part of their design. While I'm on
that topic, highly-regarded headphones like Sony MDR 7506 and even the AT
ATH-M50 are sorely lacking in the isolation department. Different horses
for different courses.
If I saw someone monitoring a live recording session with Stax, the first
thing that would probably come into my mind is "Dilettante". If they were
listening at home or doing production in an isolated setting, I'd probably
think: "Lucky Them". Different horses for different courses.
> I do have a pair of Audio-Technica electret headphones.
It appears that AT's greatest strengths are with standard electrodynamic
headphones.
> They require an adapter box (included) for your power
> amp. There's also a second set of headphones. You can
> have them for $150 plus shipping.
If I was going to spend $150 on headphones, I'd probably add about $75 and
see if I could get some HD 600s.
William Sommerwerck
>> headphones.
> Just because they are expensive and use an inherently expensive technology
> is no guarantee that they sound any better.
You've obviously never heard electrostatic headphones. In fact,
electrostatic on the whole are usually very good. The "goodness" is built
into the technology -- every single bite of it.
> Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that headphone performance is
> strongly influenced by the geometry of the wearer's head and ears, as well
> as how they are adjusted on the head. While we might agree about what
> sounds good, what sounds best to you is probably not what sounds best to
me.
That's why the better STAXes hold the driver well-away from the pinnae.
> Having heard several different models of Stax on several different
> occasions, I would say that the ones I've heard sounded very good. I would
> never demean their sonic quality. However, their performance is not
> head-and-shoulders above highly-regarded but considerably less expensive
and
> more practical headphones such as the upper end of the Sennheiser line.
I have 580s, and they're no match for STAXes. As for the new Sennheisers...
I'm curious, but not about to rush right out in a buying frenzy.
Arny Krueger
>>> No offense, but I already have STAX Lambda Signature
>>> headphones.
>
>> Just because they are expensive and use an inherently
>> expensive technology is no guarantee that they sound any
>> better.
>
> You've obviously never heard electrostatic headphones.
That's a completely insane thing for you to say, William. I've said
otherwise here, recently and several times. I guess you think I'm lying. If
you think I'm lying about things this simple and basic then communications
between us have completely broken down.
There's no purpose to discussing anything with a person as out-of-touch with
reality as you, William.
End of discussion.
ChrisCoaster
>
> End of discussion.
_______________
And, end of the in-fighting! That goes for all of us here.
I've been enjoying the points raised by my inquiries into impedance,
and general inquiries into the quality of headphones at various price
points.
Let's keep up the good parts of this thread and not let it degenerate
into Iraq. Please??? ;)
After all, this is rec.audio.PRO.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
Well folks, an update:
I finally went with the Shure SRH440, after auditioning, for 10
minutes each, it and an AT model I don't quite recall - it had weird
gray holes on the outsides of the cans(tuned ports???) and a straight
(non-coiled)cord and good old fashioned 1/4" stereo male connector. I
think these are the ones: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/7c784888146c212e/index.html
.
I just felt that the sound form the Shure was "fuller", as in, no
drops or absences in the frequency spectrum. I think both my HD-280
and the AT above have a very slight edge BELOW the 440, but the 440
outshines(literally) both in the very upper midrange(6-8kHz). The
Audio-Technicas I tested seemed to be lacking something between 4-6kHZ
and actually sounded muffled relative to the Sennheisers I own and the
Shures I just picked up.
First thing I did once I got home was load up a variety of CDs in the
carousel and play 'em louder than I normally listen to through the
Shures hooked up to my receiver with all tone controls flat, loudness
off, for two uninterrupted hours. After that I actually listened to
them, through my mp3 player and through the receiver, and was not at
all disappointed. They fill in the mid-bass(100-130Hz) and upper mid-
range quite well, exactly according to the specs at headphone.com .
They will also transport you to a nightclub provided you give the 32
or 60Hz EQ fader a small nudge during those progressive house or hip-
hop numbers.
The Shures and A-Ts both didn't squeeze my head quite as strongly as
the Sennies - something I don't mind at all and would prefer for
isolation's sake, but overall they prove that *reasonably* accurate/
realistic sound can be had through a set o' cans for under $200.
-CC
Peter Larsen
>>> If you're looking for accuracy, listen to the AT ATH-M50
>>> sometime. $100.
> IME that price is a bit optimistic. I think I had to pay more like
> $115 for mine and street prices in the $150 range are not uncommon.
>> No offense, but I already have STAX Lambda Signature
>> headphones.
> Just because they are expensive and use an inherently expensive
> technology is no guarantee that they sound any better.
Those stax'es do sound any better no matter what you compare them to.
> If I saw someone monitoring a live recording session with Stax, the
> first thing that would probably come into my mind is "Dilettante".
It can't be done, not with the lambda. They have an attenuation of 0.000001
dB.
>If
> they were listening at home or doing production in an isolated
> setting, I'd probably think: "Lucky Them". Different horses for
> different courses.
>> I do have a pair of Audio-Technica electret headphones.
> It appears that AT's greatest strengths are with standard
> electrodynamic headphones.
>> They require an adapter box (included) for your power
>> amp. There's also a second set of headphones. You can
>> have them for $150 plus shipping.
> If I was going to spend $150 on headphones, I'd probably add about
> $75 and see if I could get some HD 600s.
HD25's are not bad, but the M50 is very good. No matter what, closed
headphones are for short time listening, also because of the hearing damage
risk. The lambda is less bad in that respect since it is near the ears, but
not on them.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
>> stax, grado, sennheiser, perhaps audio technica m50 (?) - will know
>> soon, just ordered it in a bulk purchase with some of my friends.
> Please let us know what you find out.
I like them with this laptop, if I was very much into headphone listening
for purism's sake I'd look for a low output impedance amp, ie. a small
poweramp, and expect a firm nice bottom. At spec'ed 32 Ohm the damping
factor on an average "headphone output" is 0.1 or similar ...
>> With second hand
>> stax's beware of their pre-polarized versions, test carefully, I
>> have a pair where I just checked briefly that it made sound and then
>> accepted ... need to fix that srd-5 box so that I can use my SD3's
>> again. And their large earspeakers, oh so airly ....
> To the best of my knowledge, STAX has never made electret headphones.
Your knowledge is broken, I have a pair of fairly recent, ie. only 20 years
old, stax's that I bought also with the intention of using their powering
unit with my SR3's, but they do not have the polarisation power part of it
.... so i'm back to repairing the old box ... a hum did it in ...
> Even their tiny 001 earphones are true electrostats. They're very
> good, but pricey.
Stax is good, be it vinyl or headphones. Wish I had been able to afford
their dedicated headphone amp ... they ARE still around btw. - my
understanding is that they went belly up and were recreated by staff or
affiliates. Quite helpful btw. - found and scanned a diagram of that SRD5
powering unit, manufacturing number 00000004, on request.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Moshe Goldfarb
> HD25's are not bad, but the M50 is very good. No matter what, closed
> headphones are for short time listening, also because of the hearing damage
> risk. The lambda is less bad in that respect since it is near the ears, but
> not on them.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
I use the M50 and I find them to sound pretty accurate.
I think I paid about $125 USD a year ago.
My only complaint is I wish the cushions were softer.
William Sommerwerck
That's a different Stax. Unless the headphone company has started making
LPs.
Peter Larsen
Yes, two completely different and independent business ventures.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Arny Krueger
news:4b3c5b3d$0$56784$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Stax is good, be it vinyl or headphones.
>
>> That's a different Stax. Unless the headphone company
>> has started making LPs.
>
> Yes, two completely different and independent business
> ventures.
The idea of conflating the two is actually quite shocking!
Peter Larsen
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
Why, one made/makes good hardware for listening, the other equally good
software.
Perhaps someone out there knows why either party selected that name?
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
William Sommerwerck
> selected that name?
The record company was apparently making a pun on "stacks of wax" (wax being
phonograph records). I don't know the origin for STAX headphones. (It
appears to be an Anglicizing of part of the company's Japanese name.)