Headphone help!! please!!

[pelly3s]

I have personally never heard of Sony MDR-750's, I have heard of the 7502, 7506, 7509's. In every studio I have ever been all I ever see is 7506's, 7509's, and AKG 240's. This seems to be one of those arguements just like what is the best speaker, or does bi-wiring make a difference. best word of advice just go out and listen to a bunch of different headphones for like 20 minutes a peice and see which ones sound best and are less tiring on the ears.

[RGA]

"In other words, you couldn't find a whiff of proof that I'd ever stated that it was not possible for a speaker to be good for both classical and pop recordings. Apology and retraction accepted."

Okay you better explain the following to me better then:

"And most pop recordings are EQ'd and monitored based on how they would sound on small audio speakers and car audio systems, which is how most of them get played back in the end. That's why for a past decade and a half, the Yamaha NS10 was so widely used as a nearfield monitor, not because of its absolute accuracy but because of how its monitoring playback is applicable to those types of systems"

Right so you're saying most pop albums are deliberately made for to sound good on lousy systems: I then read that and thought ok then good systems these recording should then sound lousy which was the way they were recorded - they were recorded to compensate for bad systems so a good system which has no compromise would turn said recordings to trash. But the good classical recordings well - they are all recorded using the best by this logic for only people who are rich have any real taste in music anyway so would be played back on an expensive system that would gleam the best out of it. Sorry but that's the way it sounded to me that if pop sounds good it's because your system isn't....and that's not true in my experience


"So your sample of one is more valid to his sample of hundreds of sessions conducted over the years. You were the one that speculated about treble standing out on that infamous "wall-o-speakers", and I'm just pointing out that the research does not support that as a preferential determinant."


1) Blah blah blah - not good enough as proof from Toole - I don't have it either but I don't pass off in valid environments as a way to PROVE it. My persoanly listening - and other audiophiles.

2) Hi-fi Choice's listening panel is FAR more relevant to a buyer...and even there I don't agree woith their blind listening panels view that the B&W CM2 is a 5 star speaker. I can GENERALLY agree with the overall marks of all the speakers they've tested that I've heard and probably say I agree with the 80% - but then that is all stats and nobody is dumb enough to put all their eggs into omeone elses results of listening tests. Well some are but not me.

[Woochifer]

Right so you're saying most pop albums are deliberately made for to sound good on lousy systems: I then read that and thought ok then good systems these recording should then sound lousy which was the way they were recorded - they were recorded to compensate for bad systems so a good system which has no compromise would turn said recordings to trash. But the good classical recordings well - they are all recorded using the best by this logic for only people who are rich have any real taste in music anyway so would be played back on an expensive system that would gleam the best out of it. Sorry but that's the way it sounded to me that if pop sounds good it's because your system isn't....and that's not true in my experience

Where do I use the terms "lousy" or "trash" or "rich"? I'm pointing out that the Yamaha NS10 was a popular monitoring speaker because it approximated what a recording would sound like when played back on a car audio or compact audio system. If you interpret that to mean "lousy" or "trash" then that's your own thesaurus. A recording monitored and optimized to the NS10 playback is not optimized for a full range speaker, but that does not equate to lousy sound on all full range speaker playbacks either. All it means is that the playback will sound decent on the likeliest types of playback systems that the audience will use. If that has the side effect of sounding "lousy" on some high end audio systems, it certainly doesn't mean that it won't sound good on others. And there are other recordings that simply won't sound good on any system, including a lot of classical recordings (ever listen to any of the digital recordings that used the original Soundstream recorder, or some of Columbia's multitracked classical recordings?). And in case you need to know yet again, at no time did I ever say that it was not possible for a speaker to be good at both pop and classical music.

1) Blah blah blah - not good enough as proof from Toole - I don't have it either but I don't pass off in valid environments as a way to PROVE it. My persoanly listening - and other audiophiles.

Boy, just mention Floyd Toole and you go into a perpetual see no evil, hear no evil mode. What part of Dr. Toole's conclusions get your delicate sensibilities into such an hysterical hissy fit? Or did the Doc kill your puppy in a previous life? I mean, what part of flatter midrange frequency response, or low distortion, or even off-axis response is so agregious in your view? If your personal experience somehow contradicts those conclusions, then I guess you got a basis for screaming bloody murder every time his name is brought up. And if indeed he did kill your puppy, accept my condolances.

2) Hi-fi Choice's listening panel is FAR more relevant to a buyer...and even there I don't agree woith their blind listening panels view that the B&W CM2 is a 5 star speaker. I can GENERALLY agree with the overall marks of all the speakers they've tested that I've heard and probably say I agree with the 80% - but then that is all stats and nobody is dumb enough to put all their eggs into omeone elses results of listening tests. Well some are but not me.

Let's see, you've been complaining about Toole's listening tests having not enough samples (I guess hundreds of test subjects is not enough for you), short duration tests, unfamiliar listening environments. So, I guess that Hi-Fi Choice's methodology solved all of those issues, right? Oh, I get it. Their conclusions agree with your preferences, so therefore their methodology must have greater validity for making generalized conclusions about speaker preferences. I guess you indeed are just smarter than everyone else because some British magazine agrees with you 80% of the time. After all, we're all dumb enough to believe that objective measurements and bias controls are valuable tools in evaluating speakers. Didn't know that all research that doesn't agree with your preferences is invalid just because you said so. I mean, high treble response and wow factor are all that consumers look for in "wall-o-speaker" demos just because you said so -- screw what Toole's team concluded about midrange response, distortion, and off-axis response! I get it now.

[RGA]

Where do I use the terms "lousy" or "trash" or "rich"? I'm pointing out that the Yamaha NS10 was a popular monitoring speaker because it approximated what a recording would sound like when played back on a car audio or compact audio system. If you interpret that to mean "lousy" or "trash" then that's your own thesaurus. A recording monitored and optimized to the NS10 playback is not optimized for a full range speaker, but that does not equate to lousy sound on all full range speaker playbacks either. All it means is that the playback will sound decent on the likeliest types of playback systems that the audience will use. If that has the side effect of sounding "lousy" on some high end audio systems, it certainly doesn't mean that it won't sound good on others. And there are other recordings that simply won't sound good on any system, including a lot of classical recordings (ever listen to any of the digital recordings that used the original Soundstream recorder, or some of Columbia's multitracked classical recordings?). And in case you need to know yet again, at no time did I ever say that it was not possible for a speaker to be good at both pop and classical music.

That is fine - so you would not need to know what kind of music someone listens to in order to make a suggestion - but yet you do this often. A good speaker will do both well - a bad speaker won't.

Boy, just mention Floyd Toole and you go into a perpetual see no evil, hear no evil mode. What part of Dr. Toole's conclusions get your delicate sensibilities into such an hysterical hissy fit? Or did the Doc kill your puppy in a previous life? I mean, what part of flatter midrange frequency response, or low distortion, or even off-axis response is so agregious in your view? If your personal experience somehow contradicts those conclusions, then I guess you got a basis for screaming bloody murder every time his name is brought up. And if indeed he did kill your puppy, accept my condolances.

He is drawing conclusion from limited research - that simple really. It needs to be cross-reference against another type of listening to confirm the results. For instance when Hi-fi Choice does their more real world listening session and rate them - say there are 8 in a given session then if Toole is correct the listening panels in BOTH arenas will choose the identical speaker as BEST and the identical speaker as WORST - every single time. But that isn't even what TOole was doing anyway - he was simply trying to generalize a frequency response - which is more pleasing to some listeners over less pelasing to some listeners in an artificial environment in A/B sessions ...nothing measures totally flat in the real world = and not everyone chose the same speaker as being preferred - so in fact unless YOU and I were in that room on those session there is no way we would know if we were in the 90% who agree or the 5% dissenter group - thanks I listen to speakers before I buy them - you can buy off the graph.

Let's see, you've been complaining about Toole's listening tests having not enough samples (I guess hundreds of test subjects is not enough for you), short duration tests, unfamiliar listening environments. So, I guess that Hi-Fi Choice's methodology solved all of those issues, right? Oh, I get it. Their conclusions agree with your preferences, so therefore their methodology must have greater validity for making generalized conclusions about speaker preferences. I guess you indeed are just smarter than everyone else because some British magazine agrees with you 80% of the time. After all, we're all dumb enough to believe that objective measurements and bias controls are valuable tools in evaluating speakers. Didn't know that all research that doesn't agree with your preferences is invalid just because you said so. I mean, high treble response and wow factor are all that consumers look for in "wall-o-speaker" demos just because you said so -- screw what Toole's team concluded about midrange response, distortion, and off-axis response! I get it now.

You love to invent arguments and turn them around - Where did i say Hi-fi choice is right because I agree with them? They are right because they are right - and that's why i agree with them - their approach is closer to a valid form of listening test. Music listening in a normal listening environment is not a grill session - Hi-fi Choice controls bias to the relevance of the actual buyer - the tests the others do are too far removed from being valid to a shopper.

As for bright speakers selling - that is my observation and salespeople who notice the buying habits of conssumers in my immediate circle for the last 10 years. Dealers often put the treble and bass up to get a speaker to stand out - or any componant. No one wants the plain sounding one when the pomps and pipes model "blows them away" You can fly here right now and I will take you to the Future Shop and when we go into the sound room and look at their subwoofer you will see it cranked full on to max - just to impress the unsuspecting. I would further bet that their receivers have at least one of the two frequncy knobs cranked up.

Speaker makers know that too - they know that when a car crashes it would be great if the crunch is ear startling and the bass thunderous - and the more you can make it thunder and crunch the better chance you will sell your speaker against maybe a more accurate speaker which isn't as jacked up. And you said it way back when that H/T is much bigger a sales point than two channel audio - and multi-channel music is a miniscule seller right now as well - H/T FOR MOVIES is driving the market. If you want to succeed selling your H/T package you better wow em - That is what most shoppers after all WANT. Who cares if music sucks as a result - most people(well most people I know) listen to music in the car more than at home - so Ford Stock radio versus a home theater package speaker system maybe the latter sounds better for two channel music - most people don't care and are quite happy like my friend to listen to his 15 year old Samsung $89.00 portable stereo. If those are some poeple that then go into a panel to listen to a few speakers for 20 minutes what are they going to expect to hear more bass - more treble - hell Bose sells satellites - and that's pretty much ALL they're capable of. Almost all Satelite systems for that matter - so if Great midrange frequency response is what all anyone cares about and will easily choose that then my manager friend who tries his darndest to sell good speakers to people even after they listen to the Totems and Missions and Energies - despite the fact they look way better and are almost as small and built better STILL want the Bose which are easily the WORST in the midrange but boy can you hear the tweeter

[Woochifer]

That is fine - so you would not need to know what kind of music someone listens to in order to make a suggestion - but yet you do this often. A good speaker will do both well - a bad speaker won't.

True, however if someone comes onto this board wanting suggestions for something that will best play hip-hop, I will suggest those speakers that I've heard that do hip-hop well, including those speakers that aren't as good with other genres. Speakers like Paradigm and B&W I regard as fine all-arounders, but neither of them are the best I've heard at hip hop. They'll do justice to the music, but others I've heard are better for that genre, so why not suggest those alternatives as well, especially if the person doesn't care one bit about how a speaker sounds with acoustic music?

He is drawing conclusion from limited research - that simple really. It needs to be cross-reference against another type of listening to confirm the results. For instance when Hi-fi Choice does their more real world listening session and rate them - say there are 8 in a given session then if Toole is correct the listening panels in BOTH arenas will choose the identical speaker as BEST and the identical speaker as WORST - every single time. But that isn't even what TOole was doing anyway - he was simply trying to generalize a frequency response - which is more pleasing to some listeners over less pelasing to some listeners in an artificial environment in A/B sessions ...nothing measures totally flat in the real world = and not everyone chose the same speaker as being preferred - so in fact unless YOU and I were in that room on those session there is no way we would know if we were in the 90% who agree or the 5% dissenter group - thanks I listen to speakers before I buy them - you can buy off the graph.

First off, Toole's tests measured a LOT more than just frequency response. Second, "real world" tests mean that you're no longer controlling for any of the environmental variables, which would make any data generated far less usable and explanatory than anything that Dr. Toole's team put together. Lastly, his tests were not about brand identification, but about identifying the characteristics that most prominently drive what people prefer. Nothing in his tests ever said that there was a speaker that measured perfectly flat, but there are speakers that measure flattER than others in specific frequency ranges, and its the midrange that drives preferences more often in controlled listenings.

You love to invent arguments and turn them around - Where did i say Hi-fi choice is right because I agree with them? They are right because they are right - and that's why i agree with them - their approach is closer to a valid form of listening test. Music listening in a normal listening environment is not a grill session - Hi-fi Choice controls bias to the relevance of the actual buyer - the tests the others do are too far removed from being valid to a shopper.

In other words, Hi-Fi Choice is right because you said so. No need to invent an argument, you just made mine right there.

As for bright speakers selling - that is my observation and salespeople who notice the buying habits of conssumers in my immediate circle for the last 10 years. Dealers often put the treble and bass up to get a speaker to stand out - or any componant. No one wants the plain sounding one when the pomps and pipes model "blows them away" You can fly here right now and I will take you to the Future Shop and when we go into the sound room and look at their subwoofer you will see it cranked full on to max - just to impress the unsuspecting. I would further bet that their receivers have at least one of the two frequncy knobs cranked up.

At low volumes, I would buy that argument simply because human hearing is less sensitive at certain frequencies at low levels. However, the only consistently valid determinent that I've seen over the years is that people will more often prefer something that's louder. Nothing I've ever seen about treble or bass alone driving preferences more so than that.

Speaker makers know that too - they know that when a car crashes it would be great if the crunch is ear startling and the bass thunderous - and the more you can make it thunder and crunch the better chance you will sell your speaker against maybe a more accurate speaker which isn't as jacked up. And you said it way back when that H/T is much bigger a sales point than two channel audio - and multi-channel music is a miniscule seller right now as well - H/T FOR MOVIES is driving the market. If you want to succeed selling your H/T package you better wow em - That is what most shoppers after all WANT. Who cares if music sucks as a result - most people(well most people I know) listen to music in the car more than at home - so Ford Stock radio versus a home theater package speaker system maybe the latter sounds better for two channel music - most people don't care and are quite happy like my friend to listen to his 15 year old Samsung $89.00 portable stereo. If those are some poeple that then go into a panel to listen to a few speakers for 20 minutes what are they going to expect to hear more bass - more treble - hell Bose sells satellites - and that's pretty much ALL they're capable of. Almost all Satelite systems for that matter - so if Great midrange frequency response is what all anyone cares about and will easily choose that then my manager friend who tries his darndest to sell good speakers to people even after they listen to the Totems and Missions and Energies - despite the fact they look way better and are almost as small and built better STILL want the Bose which are easily the WORST in the midrange but boy can you hear the tweeter

You sure make a lot of assumptions about how other people use their systems. In that crunch example, that's more about how loud the system is than anything. And about a system that can reproduce the entire frequency range. If you were to compare two systems that can reproduce most of the frequency range, the one that exaggerates the bass more might fare well in some specific listenings, but will likely fail in most others. With level matching, the speaker that exaggerates the bass will need to be dialed back because, all other things being equal, the bass will drive the overall SPL reading. That's the only way you can get a fair comparison.

The example of Totem, Mission, or Energy vs. Bose is not applicable because the listenings are sighted, which introduces all kinds of biases. Just in the time I've spent in audio stores over the years and overhearing what customers say after a demo with any kind of higher end speaker, very often they won't believe what their own ears tell them because those "other" speakers couldn't possibly sound as good as Bose. They went into the audition expecting that the Bose would sound better, and they came out of the demo still ready to buy Bose, even though their ears were telling them that the Bose sounded inferior. In any kind of bias controlled listening, I doubt that the Bose speakers would be preferred most often because of their generally uneven midrange response and higher distortion levels.

[RGA]

I agree with you on your last paragraph about Bose. I was at my delaer today discussing a lot of the buying habits they've seen over the last 30 years of operation. Your Bose statement is correct - but doesn't just apply to Bose - They have people in who like the sound of an unknown much more than the speaker they came in to buy - but because they have done so much pre-research to actually LISTENING and because of the overwhelming advertising (ie; review(s)) they tend to assume that maybe they're hearing wrong and are supposed to after all like the "best" or rated class A or given 5 star speaker better. People like re-assurment that they dun good when buying. And I have not been exempt from it myself so I can add myself to their 30 years.

Now you or I today would not likely be suckered - but back ten years ago when there was no internet to speak of I did get suckered when I was new to all this.

Research is a good and bad tool depending on what you're doing. There was a fellow on another board who wanted a tIme aligned speaker because he read a lot of research - but never heard them. So he ruled out how many companies right off the bat - not hearing them. He came up with Thiel, Dunlavey, Vandersteen GMA. Nothing wrong with making them your speaker or anything it's personal taste - but the technology itself? I mean the 3 of those I've heard sound almost nothing alike - so there is more to it than Just time alignment.

The problem is the techno-babble drives some - the looks drive some - the hype drives some - I wish sound would drive it ---- if your goal is totally about sound - certainly we have other reasons to buy - Wife factor - kids who could wreck them - I would not want Magnepan if I had cats etc.

[vr6ofpain]

Anyone listen to some Shure E2c's? The $99 in ear. I am debating over these and either the SR60 or SR80(though I read the 80's sound "murky" without a headphone amp).

Keep in mind my tastes are for a more laid back, mellow top end. I would be doing 95% of my listening through the 3.5mm(1/8") jack on my CPU, since my CP-3 does not have a headphone jack.

Anyone willing to describe the sound of their:

- Shure E2c

- Grado SR60

- Grado SR80


Thanks.

btw: I had a pair of Senn's back in high school that sounded good but I wasn't super impressed with, they were ~$80, believe they were the HD455 or something like that, they had red foam on the outsides behind the driver with black plastic diagonal slats over the foam(if this helps bring them to mind to anyone). what I am really hoping is that these Shure's or Grado's sound better than those. Also I am interested and leaning toward the Shure's because they are in ear, because my ears "burn" after wearing on ear's for extended periods of time.

[vr6ofpain]

Get yourself some Koss portaPro's. They are $37.95, very portable(they fold up) and sound awesome. Sound much better than a pair of $80 Sennheiser's(HD-455) I had a while back, and they are more comfortable. I am totally happy with this purchase.

Amazon sells them for $37.95, with free shipping(5-9 business days), and no tax. Can't do much better than that. Think of it this way, you can get a set of Grado SR80's for your home($85.10 @ audioadvisor.com), and a set of these Koss portaPros for the go($37.95 @ amazon.com). Total cost to you, would be less than $150 for both to your door!

Think about it....