Headphones and Earphones Benchmarking Test Files(audiocheck.net)
audiocheck.net
Headphones and Earphones Benchmarking Test Files
http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php
18 comments
The binaural recordings are more than a little spooky. Even knowing before hand that they were going to play the sound of someone knocking on doors I had to fight the temptation to turn and look at sho was knocking on the desk next to me.
I'm on a second floor, right beside a window. I clicked play without reading the description. It scared the life out of me.
Same here. I work right next to the sliding glass door in our kitchen (door is to the right of me). Didn't read the description fully and jumped when it sounded like someone was knocking at my door, then at the window to the rear-left of me...
I didn't have my headphones handy, and I just randomly played the 22 kHz >> 8 kHZ test on my MBP's built in speakers and all of a sudden my dogs just started going nuts when the announcer gets to around 14 kHz. Oops!
I guess my ears are strange, I couldn't hear 22 kHz >> 19 kHz (tried on headphones and speakers) but could hear 18 kHz >> 9 kHz. If under 14 sounded anything to your dogs like it did to me I feel sorry for them, I felt like barking.
ME TOO. That was my exact experience: second floor, window, didn't read ahead. My volume was near cranked too. Just about jumped out of my skin.
Also, extremely cool!
Also, extremely cool!
Happened to me. I way laying in bed already, next to a window, when I did the same... ;-)
I have a door to the right of me, so when the recording started, I had that exact sensation. "The door! ... oh, wait..." Amazing how powerful sound is as a trigger of urgent emotions and responses.
Even spookier might be the inadvertently following discovery of the ASMR role play sub-community on YouTube.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ASMR+role+play+sub-community...
Different strokes, I suppose.
Different strokes, I suppose.
/shrugs
Seems weird from the outside, but the feeling is really quite nice, and very relaxing. The pseudoscientific name is annoying though.
Seems weird from the outside, but the feeling is really quite nice, and very relaxing. The pseudoscientific name is annoying though.
I didn't read it, I was wearing open headphones and I just spent 5 minutes trying to work out who had knocked on the door near me.
Even when I replay it I get freaked out.
Even when I replay it I get freaked out.
I have to say that I never heard anything like that...
I was expecting some immersion but not at that level, definitely going to check more binaural stuff now
Not quite as good, but here's a classic (Virtual Barber Shop):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA
Nice. I swear I could feel the tips of my hair twitching when the scissors went through. (and my headphones are pretty basic)
I recently heard an extremely accurate 7.1 binaural recording in a laboratory setting. It was quite extraordinary, but mind that it takes quite a lot of production effort. The day isn't here yet that we can go outside with a pair of mics and come home with accurate binaural recordings.
Wow, yes, I really did turn to see who was knocking on my desk.
Is it just me, or does the left channel id clip have quite a different equalisation/sound to the right one?
Also, regarding the centre/twisted test clips - these are encoded as mp3 (for playing - the downloads are wav). Mp3s often encode stereo by encoding the average of the two channels and the difference between the two channels, with a lower bit rate. If one channel is inverted, then the average of the two channels will be zero, so all the sound information is encoded in the lower bit rate difference, which would give it a lower quality. Something to be aware of when making test clips like this.
Is it just me, or does the left channel id clip have quite a different equalisation/sound to the right one?
Also, regarding the centre/twisted test clips - these are encoded as mp3 (for playing - the downloads are wav). Mp3s often encode stereo by encoding the average of the two channels and the difference between the two channels, with a lower bit rate. If one channel is inverted, then the average of the two channels will be zero, so all the sound information is encoded in the lower bit rate difference, which would give it a lower quality. Something to be aware of when making test clips like this.
You are describing the "Joint Stereo" encoding mode. I haven't tested his files, but MP3 encoders also offer a "Stereo" mode, which encodes the channels entirely separately.
i did not read the text before. and i have a flatmate who sometimes knocks on the wall to alert me to something. i actually did stop the audio file and went over into the other room, only to find that he was not home. SPOOOKY. even after i read the text it was perfectly convincing. even when i held my hand to the wall to check the (nonexisting) vibrations the immersion did not fully end. Wow!
I just dodged a slap in the face from my petrified girlfriend on her way back form the door :-) Sounds like it works even without headphones.
This reminded me of this (somewhat related) article about the science behind audio quality, signals and all the myths surrounding it. Very recommended.
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Still checking out the post but to anyone looking at getting a nice set of headphones, the Sennheiser 600s (mentioned in the post) can be picked up (especially used or open box) much cheaper than $500. I'd actually recommend going ahead and looking at the 650s which run $350 and under on eBay or directly from Senn during a sale. Gotta be able to have open backed headphones though, they leak a lot.
Just keep in mind that the expensive and well regarded headphones aren't always the best for you. There's no best really, as far as subjective listening experience goes.
I have the Sennheiser HD650s and AKG K701s. Used to have the HD595 also. I tend to prefer the latter for most music, as well as speech. The Senns I find more preferrable for movies and classical music.
I also have an ancient pair of Grado SR-80s (or SR-60s?), which are by no means an expensive high-end headphone. But I still like their sound on some things.
Other people prefer considerably bassier headphones and I can see how that is a valid preference, especially considering how some electronic music is mixed.. in fact, I wouldn't mind having such a pair for myself.
I have the Sennheiser HD650s and AKG K701s. Used to have the HD595 also. I tend to prefer the latter for most music, as well as speech. The Senns I find more preferrable for movies and classical music.
I also have an ancient pair of Grado SR-80s (or SR-60s?), which are by no means an expensive high-end headphone. But I still like their sound on some things.
Other people prefer considerably bassier headphones and I can see how that is a valid preference, especially considering how some electronic music is mixed.. in fact, I wouldn't mind having such a pair for myself.
Absolutely agree, I was more wanting to point out to people not fully in the know that $500 was either an old price or a non-US price.
I've got a nice set of GE monitors from probably the mid 70s and they sound fantastic for music that's not incredibly bass heavy and were a quarter so that was nice.
Have you tested the Senn Momentums? They are closed and have a lot more low end than the 600/50s. I really liked them but, since I'm mostly alone at work, I went with the 650s.
I've got a nice set of GE monitors from probably the mid 70s and they sound fantastic for music that's not incredibly bass heavy and were a quarter so that was nice.
Have you tested the Senn Momentums? They are closed and have a lot more low end than the 600/50s. I really liked them but, since I'm mostly alone at work, I went with the 650s.
HD595s aren't worth buying directly. It's cheaper to buy HD555s and mod them. They have the exact same driver, with a piece of sound dampening material that can be removed.
http://mikebeauchamp.com/misc/sennheiser-hd-555-to-hd-595-mo...
http://mikebeauchamp.com/misc/sennheiser-hd-555-to-hd-595-mo...
I'll note here that the Sennheiser 5x5 line has lately been replaced by the 5x8 line, which from all I've been able to gather is hardly different at all.
I've got a pair of HD558s which I quite like; indeed, they're the best headphones I've ever owned. What I'm curious about is this: Can someone who's actually done the foam mod give me an idea of whether the result is worth the risk? I'm pretty sure I can complete the modification without damaging my headphones, but I'd like to know it's worth my while before I carry it out. Thanks in advance!
I've got a pair of HD558s which I quite like; indeed, they're the best headphones I've ever owned. What I'm curious about is this: Can someone who's actually done the foam mod give me an idea of whether the result is worth the risk? I'm pretty sure I can complete the modification without damaging my headphones, but I'd like to know it's worth my while before I carry it out. Thanks in advance!
Oh, it's like 0 risk, and takes 5mins max, and it does seem like an improvement to me. You can put back the foam if you don't like it.
Well, all right, then!
> Can someone who's actually done the foam mod give me an idea of whether the result is worth the risk?
I'd be more interested in a carefully controlled double blind trial.
I suspect most people would not be able to tell the difference between modfied and unmodified headphones, and that is before making adjustments for the terrible source quality of most people's MP3 collections.
I'd be more interested in a carefully controlled double blind trial.
I suspect most people would not be able to tell the difference between modfied and unmodified headphones, and that is before making adjustments for the terrible source quality of most people's MP3 collections.
I'm not looking for an idea of whether the foam mod would be worth every HD558 owner's time and effort, but only of whether it'd be worth mine. Nor am I, at least in terms of my music collection, "most people"; I rip my discs via EAC to FLAC, and the only MP3s I have are the 320K CBR transcodes I use in contexts, such as my phone, where storage space or codec compatibility constraints preclude FLAC. (Before someone raises the point, it's not that I imagine I can hear a difference between FLAC and 320K CBR; I just don't see a point in throwing away any information I don't have to, and disk is so dirt-cheap any more -- my primary storage right now is a four-disk 1TB RAID-1 which cost me less to build than I paid for the first 500MB hard disk I ever bought -- that I really don't have to.)
I'd like to see a double-blind trial as well, but that's not what I'm after here; all I'm looking for, in the comment to which you replied, is a sense of whether it's worth my time to modify my headphones. Will I hear a difference? If I do, will it be genuinely there or simply a result of the placebo effect? Who knows? Who cares? If we were talking about $1000 cables, then, sure, it's worth asking those questions. But this is a non-destructive, easily reversible fifteen-minute modification to a pair of $150 headphones I already own, and can afford to replace if I slip and impale a driver or something. Given the minimal stakes, I'm strongly inclined to just go ahead and see what happens. If it makes, or seems to make, a difference, then great! I'll stick with it. If not, I'll put the foam back. Either way, I figure it's worth a shot.
I'd like to see a double-blind trial as well, but that's not what I'm after here; all I'm looking for, in the comment to which you replied, is a sense of whether it's worth my time to modify my headphones. Will I hear a difference? If I do, will it be genuinely there or simply a result of the placebo effect? Who knows? Who cares? If we were talking about $1000 cables, then, sure, it's worth asking those questions. But this is a non-destructive, easily reversible fifteen-minute modification to a pair of $150 headphones I already own, and can afford to replace if I slip and impale a driver or something. Given the minimal stakes, I'm strongly inclined to just go ahead and see what happens. If it makes, or seems to make, a difference, then great! I'll stick with it. If not, I'll put the foam back. Either way, I figure it's worth a shot.
You will notice a difference.
Whether that difference is real, or some psychological boost you get from the "free upgrade to better headphones" is debatable.
I wouldn't do it because I'm a ham-fisted klutz and I'd probably damage something. Other people are not as clumsy as me!
Whether that difference is real, or some psychological boost you get from the "free upgrade to better headphones" is debatable.
I wouldn't do it because I'm a ham-fisted klutz and I'd probably damage something. Other people are not as clumsy as me!
> You will notice a difference.
None whatsoever, actually, with either music (1938 Karajan/Berliner Philharmonic recording of the overture to "The Magic Flute"), or the "Ultimate Headphone Test" files; any difference made by removing the foam is evidently so subtle as to be completely lost on me. I don't feel like dismantling my headphones again to put the foam back right now, so I'll leave it out (stuck to the inside of a Zip-loc bag, since I don't have any proper backing paper handy to preserve the adhesive) until the next time I take the pads off for cleaning, and put the foam back in then. I doubt I'll notice any more difference in sound at that point than I do now.
> I wouldn't do it because I'm a ham-fisted klutz and I'd probably damage something.
On the other hand, the modification really is as simple as its adherents purport it to be, especially since the cord is detachable; the only even vaguely dicey moment I had was when I took out the left driver and found that its connection to the cord socket PCB is made by a wire that's both quite short and very fine, and that the foam would have to come out past the wires to both drivers. If I'd dropped the driver, I'd probably have needed to trim the wire and heat up my iron, so I'm glad I didn't do that. Other than that, it was a snap; anyone can do it in ten minutes who has screwdriver, tweezers, and reasonably steady hands.
Edit: Now I think about it, what I really should have done was take the foam out of one side, but leave it in the other, and see if I could pick out any difference that way; having both sides in the same state makes it essentially impossible to compare. Perhaps, when it next comes time to clean my pads, I'll give that a try.
None whatsoever, actually, with either music (1938 Karajan/Berliner Philharmonic recording of the overture to "The Magic Flute"), or the "Ultimate Headphone Test" files; any difference made by removing the foam is evidently so subtle as to be completely lost on me. I don't feel like dismantling my headphones again to put the foam back right now, so I'll leave it out (stuck to the inside of a Zip-loc bag, since I don't have any proper backing paper handy to preserve the adhesive) until the next time I take the pads off for cleaning, and put the foam back in then. I doubt I'll notice any more difference in sound at that point than I do now.
> I wouldn't do it because I'm a ham-fisted klutz and I'd probably damage something.
On the other hand, the modification really is as simple as its adherents purport it to be, especially since the cord is detachable; the only even vaguely dicey moment I had was when I took out the left driver and found that its connection to the cord socket PCB is made by a wire that's both quite short and very fine, and that the foam would have to come out past the wires to both drivers. If I'd dropped the driver, I'd probably have needed to trim the wire and heat up my iron, so I'm glad I didn't do that. Other than that, it was a snap; anyone can do it in ten minutes who has screwdriver, tweezers, and reasonably steady hands.
Edit: Now I think about it, what I really should have done was take the foam out of one side, but leave it in the other, and see if I could pick out any difference that way; having both sides in the same state makes it essentially impossible to compare. Perhaps, when it next comes time to clean my pads, I'll give that a try.
Yeah, I have to agree that you really start to see diminishing returns. Going from Koss PortaPros to HD595's was a huge change and I spent most of my free time the next week listening to music. I just upgraded again to HifiMan HE500's and thought they sounded better, but my listening experience is more or less unchanged. Worse, they are quite heavy planar magnetic headphones and I don't enjoy wearing them as much. Maybe I need a better headphone amp, but part of me is convinced I might have hit my ceiling for my listening perception. Maybe I should have just gotten those Grados...
I have a similar setup than you do and bought the schiit modi and magni (~200$ dac and amp). I'm very happy with the purchase and recommand it as a first dac/amp.
http://schiit.com/
http://schiit.com/
I had Grado SR225i's, and they were probably the best sounding headphones I've used. Unfortunately, they caused fairly intense and immediate ear pain. The headband has the tightest I've ever encountered (I might have a large head, but most other headphones I've used have fit well), and the ear cups are apparently designed for people with tiny, perfectly circular ears. After doing a bit of research, it seems a lot of people do extensive modding on Grado's to make them bearable to wear. I didn't feel up to that, so I returned them.
I now use the Beyerdynamic DT990's (32 ohm version, because the FUD about needing a headphone amplifier scared me away from the higher resistance versions) and couldn't be more happy with them.
I now use the Beyerdynamic DT990's (32 ohm version, because the FUD about needing a headphone amplifier scared me away from the higher resistance versions) and couldn't be more happy with them.
I'm not sure what they were thinking with the SR225i. I found them unbearably bright, sound-wise. And really, really uncomfortable. Something about having the drivers so close to my ears with the bright Grado sound is way too much for me. (I admit I may be used to the darker sound of Sennheisers, since I beat a $40 pair of them into the ground and loved them.)
I've been dragging my feet selling them. Now I kind of want to. Thanks. :)
I've been dragging my feet selling them. Now I kind of want to. Thanks. :)
I was listening to a lot of progressive metal at the time, so "the Grado sound" worked really well. But I would agree that they don't have the best sound for a broad range of music.
If you're going high end, the head-fi meetups can be great, listen to hundreds of pairs of AKG, Beyer Dynamic, Shure, ATH, Denon, Grados etc, many more than any store stocks. (I also like the gear reviews in Recording mag, which are pitched at people building their own studios
http://www.head-fi.org/f/62/meets-get-togethers-factory-tour...
here's buyer's guide also http://www.head-fi.org/a/2013-head-fi-summer-buying-guide-in...
http://www.head-fi.org/f/62/meets-get-togethers-factory-tour...
here's buyer's guide also http://www.head-fi.org/a/2013-head-fi-summer-buying-guide-in...
Everyone has them, but my ATH-M50s blew those tests away. I had thought originally they were shitty because the music I listened to through them sounded like it would distort on occasion, but I'm pretty sure now it's just how poorly those songs are mixed, and the headphones were impartial observers, and they're right around the $100 mark.
Most popular music produced in the last twenty or so years has been horribly mismastered, with effectively no dynamic range whatsoever; once they're done smashing the shit out of it, the result consists of nothing but silence and peaks, which can easily produce distortion and clipping at any volume level high enough for the music to be audible at all.
A lot of older music gets remastered the same way when it's re-released; this is one of the legitimate reasons for preferring vinyl, since you can be sure you won't find that problem on an LP. (Granted, you'll have to put up with Rice Krispies instead, but some find that preferable to trying to suffer through modern mastering, and I can't really say I blame them.)
A lot of older music gets remastered the same way when it's re-released; this is one of the legitimate reasons for preferring vinyl, since you can be sure you won't find that problem on an LP. (Granted, you'll have to put up with Rice Krispies instead, but some find that preferable to trying to suffer through modern mastering, and I can't really say I blame them.)
To add, if you're looking for a great overall performer that isn't super expensive ($300+), look at the Sony MDR-7506 (~$100 on Amazon) or AudioTechnica M50 (~99-$130 depending on model).
These plus a good USB-DAC (like those based around NwAvGuy's ObjectiveAmp) will make your listening experience much nicer.
These plus a good USB-DAC (like those based around NwAvGuy's ObjectiveAmp) will make your listening experience much nicer.
I'm a huge fan of my Sony MDR-V6's - I'd love to do a comparison test between the V6's and the 7506's some time.
How do audiophiles get a chance to do this? I've never seen a "headphone store" on a street corner.
How do audiophiles get a chance to do this? I've never seen a "headphone store" on a street corner.
I came here to vouch for the v6 as well. With the Beyer Dynamics velour pads, they're just incredible. Comfortable, great all around sound and doesn't break the bank.
(source: I was an audio engineer in a previous life. I also own 3 pairs)
(source: I was an audio engineer in a previous life. I also own 3 pairs)
In NYC, you can check out Park Audio, Tekserve, and B&H (although B&H had horrible amplification last I checked).
+1 Sony MDR-7506
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+mdr-7506+%22on+set%22
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sony+mdr-7506+%22on+set%22
+1 for AudioTechnica from me, definitely the best headphones I've ever owned, especially at that price
I'll chip in my experience with the ATH-M50, which I bought after my Sennheiser HD280 Pro died (after 10+ years; cracked the headband). They have great reviews, but I simply did not enjoy the sound. The high frequencies were far over expressed, and I was genuinely surprised that others seem to like them. Maybe I just got a bad pair.
I returned them and grabbed the V-MODA CrossFade LP. Its bass response is heavier than even the ATH-M50s, and a much better high frequency response. Their only downside is a dip in the middle frequencies. It gives them that club sound (DJs general dip the mids in clubs, as it makes it easier for people to hear one another). I like it for most of my music, but they definitely suck the life out of classical music and other similar, balanced sounds.
I'll probably grab pair of open Sennheisers to compliment my V-MODA. I'm hesitant only because Sennheiser, despite the HD-280 Pro being built like a tank, they've burned me multiple times now on shoddily constructed portable headphones.
I returned them and grabbed the V-MODA CrossFade LP. Its bass response is heavier than even the ATH-M50s, and a much better high frequency response. Their only downside is a dip in the middle frequencies. It gives them that club sound (DJs general dip the mids in clubs, as it makes it easier for people to hear one another). I like it for most of my music, but they definitely suck the life out of classical music and other similar, balanced sounds.
I'll probably grab pair of open Sennheisers to compliment my V-MODA. I'm hesitant only because Sennheiser, despite the HD-280 Pro being built like a tank, they've burned me multiple times now on shoddily constructed portable headphones.
Just a note; the band on my HD280 cracked, but I contacted their support and they sent me a new one... the fix required soldering, but was easy enough. I can't believe that I am still using the same pari of phones after 8 years (they get a lot of abuse). They have a lot of good pro equipment (I am especially fond of several of their microphones, the 441 and 421), I just stay away from their more consumer-oriented products.
I'd much rather stick with the Beyerdynamic DT990 PRO's that you can get for less than $150 USD.
I'm using Sennheiser HD280 Pro, and they performed perfectly in the tests. Really excellent headphones. They're closed cup, so people don't hear what I'm listening to, and I use them on flights to cut out flight noise.
I used a pair of HD 280 Pros for about a year before I got my 558s, and I have to say, isolation is the only area in which the former outdoes the latter; in particular, as far as comfort goes, the 280s made me feel like I was wearing a bench vise on my skull, while the 558s sit so lightly that I barely notice I'm wearing them at all.
Since I was working in a cubicle environment at the time, I figured I'd keep the 280s at work, primarily for their excellent isolation, and the 558s at home, where I maintain a quiet environment in which open headphones' lack of isolation doesn't pose a problem. That lasted about a week before I started carrying the 558s to work, because I could simply no longer stand to wear the 280s.
It really is a shame the 280s are so big and clunky, because they are, as you say, quite good headphones otherwise, albeit IMHO a little weak in the lower part of the frequency range. HD558s being as cheap as they are, and from all I can gather being also the price/performance sweet spot of the Sennheiser 5x8 range, my experience leads me to suggest that it'd be worth your while to consider picking up a pair.
(And I hear elsethread that the 558 foam mod makes them effectively indistinguishable from the twice-as-expensive and even more neutral HD598; I can't speak to that from personal experience, as I have yet to do the mod, but if true then the HD558 is most certainly the standout performer of its range.)
Since I was working in a cubicle environment at the time, I figured I'd keep the 280s at work, primarily for their excellent isolation, and the 558s at home, where I maintain a quiet environment in which open headphones' lack of isolation doesn't pose a problem. That lasted about a week before I started carrying the 558s to work, because I could simply no longer stand to wear the 280s.
It really is a shame the 280s are so big and clunky, because they are, as you say, quite good headphones otherwise, albeit IMHO a little weak in the lower part of the frequency range. HD558s being as cheap as they are, and from all I can gather being also the price/performance sweet spot of the Sennheiser 5x8 range, my experience leads me to suggest that it'd be worth your while to consider picking up a pair.
(And I hear elsethread that the 558 foam mod makes them effectively indistinguishable from the twice-as-expensive and even more neutral HD598; I can't speak to that from personal experience, as I have yet to do the mod, but if true then the HD558 is most certainly the standout performer of its range.)
I use HD280's for guitar practice from my POD. They work really well in this case: as they're very analytical, and they don't leak. The closed cup helps me focus on listening to my playing v. the drums/bass.
However, they're really hard on most music that hasn't been mastered well. And that is pretty much all modern music.
However, they're really hard on most music that hasn't been mastered well. And that is pretty much all modern music.
That's what I'm wearing right now. Since I almost entirely away from horrifically mismastered stuff, it works out OK. Bass may not be the strongest but I'm not personally a big bass person. They're definitely monitor-style headphones meant for accuracy rather than "bass-boosting". If you're looking for a closed headphone set with that as the goal, it's a decent buy as they seem to run ~$80, given how many people are tossing around multi-hundred dollar recommendations.
It really does seal you off from your environment a bit... I can't hear my cell phone ring in my pocket when I have them on.
It really does seal you off from your environment a bit... I can't hear my cell phone ring in my pocket when I have them on.
I own Grado this and Sennheiser that, even a decent pair of JVC the other, but one of my favourite, best sounding and most comfortable sets is my Superlux HD681s. €20.
I believe they use the same drivers (and superficial design) as AKG K240s.
In this case, they passed the tests reasonably well I think. Great frequency response (cut in at the limits of my hearing), no rattle, all the rest... I might put together a few sets for this test, though I suspect the Grados will fail rattle :)
I believe they use the same drivers (and superficial design) as AKG K240s.
In this case, they passed the tests reasonably well I think. Great frequency response (cut in at the limits of my hearing), no rattle, all the rest... I might put together a few sets for this test, though I suspect the Grados will fail rattle :)
I have a pair of HD681s that I was using until just a moment ago. The sound isn't as good as my Shure SRH440s, but for 1/3 the price and greater comfort they're sure (heh) close enough. Great value, indeed.
If you want closed cans check out PSB M4U 1. They fold up for transport and are low impedance for use with phones, laptops, etc. Obviously they sound better with an amp but they still sound very good with a MBP's crappy DAC + amp. For $300 they're very hard to beat.
I've heard some people saying recent MBP's have very decent DAC's now. Not sure how true it is, but worth pointing out.
They most likely have the Cirrus CS4207, which is quite good.
http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/cs4207.html
http://ifixit.org/blog/5515/macbook-pro-retina-15-teardown/
http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/cs4207.html
http://ifixit.org/blog/5515/macbook-pro-retina-15-teardown/
I have a pair of Sony CD-1700 and they're really wonderful headphones, I love them. Light, comfortable, and great sound (hardly distinguishable from the CD-3000, quite close to the Sennheiser 600 but more aerial and comfortable). Probably bought 15 to 18 years ago.
650s require a decent amp to get the most out of. More $$$
In the heyday of car audio, there were test CDs that had similar material - tracks to compare left/right, phasing, soundstage, frequency response, and so on. They're still available from Crutchfield - look for "AutoSound 2000".
While geared for car audio (tight control over listener position, questionable speaker placement and acoustics), they're also good for home systems, and somewhat good for headphone/earphone selection. You want disc 2 for basic setup, and disc 1 if you plan on using an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer.
While geared for car audio (tight control over listener position, questionable speaker placement and acoustics), they're also good for home systems, and somewhat good for headphone/earphone selection. You want disc 2 for basic setup, and disc 1 if you plan on using an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer.
There's actually at least one on Spotify - search for "Sheffield Lab". Very handy for end-to-end testing your streaming setup.
But these are mp3s, they're 44,1 kHz VBRs. How is this supposed to be accurate?
Shouldn't these files be PCM .wav or at least .FLAC?
They are 320kbps mp3's. The difference between that and flac is practically undetectable to the human ear[0]
[0] http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf
Yes. What my concern about this is is actually the lower and higher frequencies in the mp3s. With these the loss was neglectable. I thought preserving the full range and quality was paramount with audio testing, but I'm not an expert or an audiophile, it was just my preconception.
(Listening to an original .wav song with my headphones and then an mp3 of 192 or 320 kpbs quality, the difference seems obvious, but mostly at the low- and the high-ends.)
Have you considered doing a test of this? Write a program that plays a random choice from the three formats, and keep track (hidden from you) of which is which. Have it quiz you on which it is playing / has played, and see if you get interesting results! :)
you could use Foobar's blind test component for this
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxtester/id427554135?mt=12 works great. Turns out I can barely tell the difference between 96k and 128k.
You can tell the difference between 320kbps and a wav file across a wide range of music? You might want to try and get in contact with a competent researcher in this area as they may be interested in studying you
Hehe, absolutely no. A 320 kpbs MP3 and .wav are hard to distinguish, but the high freq range is usually the one where things are missing, and the lows also but only if there are a lot deep sweeps and bass. If I wouldn't have a wav and an mp3 for comparing I wouldn't be able tell the difference. I don't have the high-end headcans or the finesse for that.
>The difference between that and flac is practically undetectable to the human ear
For most things, yes. There are some sounds that do not compress well, however. Harpsichords and trumpets in particular are pretty noticeable.
This is probably a failure of the major algorithms rather than a damnation of audio compression in general. I imagine even they will someday be basically imperceptible in difference.
Right now, though, I can score 100% on a blind ABx test on most horn instruments =\
For most things, yes. There are some sounds that do not compress well, however. Harpsichords and trumpets in particular are pretty noticeable.
This is probably a failure of the major algorithms rather than a damnation of audio compression in general. I imagine even they will someday be basically imperceptible in difference.
Right now, though, I can score 100% on a blind ABx test on most horn instruments =\
[deleted]
This surprised me as well.
The door knocking sound is absolutely phenomenal in a sense that my brain has never been tricked like this by such a simple sound into thinking that it wasn't from my headphones but from the surrounding area.
Great idea, but it's not just evaluating your headphones, but also your DAC, amplifier (both of which are typically crap in most computers), and your own hearing limits.
[EDIT]: Headphone tone and response also changes over time - what sounds ideal at 0 hours will sound very different after 100 hours of break-in and use.
Would help if there was a note about this on the site, and recommendations for basic steps you can take to correct for these.
I'm spoiled - headphone.com is based out of my hometown, so I can listen to any headphones I want on their expensive equipment and find what really works the best.
[EDIT]: Headphone tone and response also changes over time - what sounds ideal at 0 hours will sound very different after 100 hours of break-in and use.
Would help if there was a note about this on the site, and recommendations for basic steps you can take to correct for these.
I'm spoiled - headphone.com is based out of my hometown, so I can listen to any headphones I want on their expensive equipment and find what really works the best.
Headphone "break-in" is a myth up there with coloring the edges of your CDs with a green magic marker.
"What I do know is that during the course of these measurements some things changed. While the data showed only very small differences, the data was clearly above the noise, and a general trend observable. The data also showed a discontinuity around the 20 hour mark in both the FR and THD data. While, it seems to me, much of the change observed could easily be due to movement, especially in the frequencies above 5kHz, some changes seem more likely due to break-in. In particular, the changes in frequency response around the fundamental resonance of the driver at 80Hz, and in %THD+noise at the same frequency and at around 40Hz."
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-brea...
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-brea...
That article is a little light on the details of the test setup and measurement procedure but, if I'm reading it correctly, he played pink noise at a fairly high level for ~90 hours straight. The measured differences are likely due to voice coil heating and slight position and seal variations over time.
You missed the paragraph right before that:
> Did I show break-in exists? No. There are too many variables still. Was it simply movement? I don't know. If I did it again to another brand new pair would I get the same results? I don't know. If I did it to an already broken in pair would I get the same results? I don't know.
Testing one pair of headphones one time doesn't show anything.
> Did I show break-in exists? No. There are too many variables still. Was it simply movement? I don't know. If I did it again to another brand new pair would I get the same results? I don't know. If I did it to an already broken in pair would I get the same results? I don't know.
Testing one pair of headphones one time doesn't show anything.
The author seems to be suffering from a "there's no such thing as headphone break-in" bias. Their results show changes, but they deny it (while subsequently accepting it: "some changes seem more likely due to break-in"). Broader tests would be certainly be useful, but that test certainly doesn't prove that break-in is a myth, either.
Given that people accept break-in is required for, and changes the sound qualities of, larger speakers, it would seem that the benefit of doubt should go to the "headphones do break-in over time". After all, headphones are speakers, just smaller.
To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
Given that people accept break-in is required for, and changes the sound qualities of, larger speakers, it would seem that the benefit of doubt should go to the "headphones do break-in over time". After all, headphones are speakers, just smaller.
To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
What do you think permanently changes electro-mechanically during this mythical "break in"?
The mass of coil and diaphragm? Can't.
The compliance of the surround? Won't.
The resistance, inductance or capacitance of the coil? Can't.
The shape or size of the chamber? Can't.
The magnet strength? Won't.
The coil/magnet coupling? Can't.
The relative placement of interacting parts? Won't.
The stiffness of the diaphragm? Won't.
I think that about covers all the possibilities. It is far more likely that the listener's perception changes due to expectation. Far, far more likely.
The mass of coil and diaphragm? Can't.
The compliance of the surround? Won't.
The resistance, inductance or capacitance of the coil? Can't.
The shape or size of the chamber? Can't.
The magnet strength? Won't.
The coil/magnet coupling? Can't.
The relative placement of interacting parts? Won't.
The stiffness of the diaphragm? Won't.
I think that about covers all the possibilities. It is far more likely that the listener's perception changes due to expectation. Far, far more likely.
> but that test certainly doesn't prove that break-in is a myth, either
It's impossible to prove a negative. The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" and there was not enough evidence to show this by the author's own admission.
Given the ocean of audiophile bullshit out there, it's not unreasonable to take the default position of assuming a claim is bullshit until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
It's impossible to prove a negative. The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" and there was not enough evidence to show this by the author's own admission.
Given the ocean of audiophile bullshit out there, it's not unreasonable to take the default position of assuming a claim is bullshit until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
> The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time"
And the test was positive, given the test parameters. The author didn't want to extrapolate beyond that (I attribute that to the author's own biases against break-in: "I rarely hear break-in", "voodoo" when referring to break-in), which is their prerogative.
Not to mention that by their very criteria, "all I'm looking for here is a clear trend where the data changes smoothly from the start to the end reference", it did happen.
However, theirs is not the only test out there which shows differences over time. In my limited googling, the consensus seems to be "headphones do break in, even if the effects are limited".
And the test was positive, given the test parameters. The author didn't want to extrapolate beyond that (I attribute that to the author's own biases against break-in: "I rarely hear break-in", "voodoo" when referring to break-in), which is their prerogative.
Not to mention that by their very criteria, "all I'm looking for here is a clear trend where the data changes smoothly from the start to the end reference", it did happen.
However, theirs is not the only test out there which shows differences over time. In my limited googling, the consensus seems to be "headphones do break in, even if the effects are limited".
My limited googling shows the opposite:
http://www.wired.com/2013/11/tnhyui-earphone-burn-in/
> Shure has tested some thoroughly used pairs of its E1 earphones, which first launched in 1997. And guess what? They measure the same now as when they came off the line. In fact, during the 15 years Shure has been actively selling earphones, its engineers have reached the same conclusion again and again: The sound produced by these tiny transducers during final testing is the same sound you’ll get in a day, in a year, and in five years… unless something goes wrong.
Since there was only one test of one pair with no control, we don't know if the difference is a manufacturing variable, a testing error, or something else.
I don't know enough about statistics, are the differences shown by the author statistically significant?
http://www.wired.com/2013/11/tnhyui-earphone-burn-in/
> Shure has tested some thoroughly used pairs of its E1 earphones, which first launched in 1997. And guess what? They measure the same now as when they came off the line. In fact, during the 15 years Shure has been actively selling earphones, its engineers have reached the same conclusion again and again: The sound produced by these tiny transducers during final testing is the same sound you’ll get in a day, in a year, and in five years… unless something goes wrong.
Since there was only one test of one pair with no control, we don't know if the difference is a manufacturing variable, a testing error, or something else.
I don't know enough about statistics, are the differences shown by the author statistically significant?
Also,
> To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
Really? How many slices of bread should I go through to make sure the pop-up mechanism in my toaster is solid before making my bespoke artisanal toast? How long should I run my oscillating fan before allowing moving air to touch my delicate skin? Should I limit myself to only stapling two pages until my stapler is properly adjusted?
Sarcasm aside, even very complicated pieces of equipment like combustion engines don't require break-in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_%28mechanical_run-in%...
> To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
Really? How many slices of bread should I go through to make sure the pop-up mechanism in my toaster is solid before making my bespoke artisanal toast? How long should I run my oscillating fan before allowing moving air to touch my delicate skin? Should I limit myself to only stapling two pages until my stapler is properly adjusted?
Sarcasm aside, even very complicated pieces of equipment like combustion engines don't require break-in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_%28mechanical_run-in%...
Amusing that you bring up engines which do require break in. A brand new motor operates less efficiently producing both less horsepower and less fuel efficent than a broken in motor.
"In general, people no longer break in the engines of their own vehicles after purchasing a car or motorcycle, because the process is done in production." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_(mechanical_run-in)#En...
Anyways there is very little dispute that headphones sound different off the shelf compared to having been used for a significant amount of time. People dispute if those changes are noticeable or not, but few dispute that the sound signature changes.
Anyways you have brought forth no evidence to support your claim, while dismissing evidence against you opinion as non-conclusive. At the least you might want to be less dismissive and silly with your analogies.
"In general, people no longer break in the engines of their own vehicles after purchasing a car or motorcycle, because the process is done in production." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_(mechanical_run-in)#En...
Anyways there is very little dispute that headphones sound different off the shelf compared to having been used for a significant amount of time. People dispute if those changes are noticeable or not, but few dispute that the sound signature changes.
Anyways you have brought forth no evidence to support your claim, while dismissing evidence against you opinion as non-conclusive. At the least you might want to be less dismissive and silly with your analogies.
I did in a separate comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7686552
> Shure has tested some thoroughly used pairs of its E1 earphones, which first launched in 1997. And guess what? They measure the same now as when they came off the line. In fact, during the 15 years Shure has been actively selling earphones, its engineers have reached the same conclusion again and again: The sound produced by these tiny transducers during final testing is the same sound you’ll get in a day, in a year, and in five years… unless something goes wrong.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7686552
> Shure has tested some thoroughly used pairs of its E1 earphones, which first launched in 1997. And guess what? They measure the same now as when they came off the line. In fact, during the 15 years Shure has been actively selling earphones, its engineers have reached the same conclusion again and again: The sound produced by these tiny transducers during final testing is the same sound you’ll get in a day, in a year, and in five years… unless something goes wrong.
"Matt Engstrom, director of monitoring products at Shure, admits there is evidence that suggests transducers in larger headphones can experience burn-in, and that this could, in theory, produce different sound over time."
I would agree that IEMs (the E1 is an IEM which is different than headphones) don't require burn in and the signiture change is not noticable. But even your evidence against burn in doesn't dispute headphones with large drivers (traditionally audiphile grade headphones) have sound signiture that alter with use.
Thank you for providing more evidence for my point and against yours. I would reccomend reading past the title next time.
I would agree that IEMs (the E1 is an IEM which is different than headphones) don't require burn in and the signiture change is not noticable. But even your evidence against burn in doesn't dispute headphones with large drivers (traditionally audiphile grade headphones) have sound signiture that alter with use.
Thank you for providing more evidence for my point and against yours. I would reccomend reading past the title next time.
The full paragraph is:
"Matt Engstrom, director of monitoring products at Shure, admits there is evidence that suggests transducers in larger headphones can experience burn-in, and that this could, in theory, produce different sound over time. Again, no one has shown this conclusively, largely because a) companies aren’t rushing to tell audiophiles they’ve been wrong all these years and b) there’s no single industry standard for testing headphones."
Matt Engstrom is not very sure is he? His evidence "suggests" burn-in which "could, in theory" (sounds like the colloquial meaning of 'theory' too, not the scientific meaning) change the sound.
So really no one knows.
"Matt Engstrom, director of monitoring products at Shure, admits there is evidence that suggests transducers in larger headphones can experience burn-in, and that this could, in theory, produce different sound over time. Again, no one has shown this conclusively, largely because a) companies aren’t rushing to tell audiophiles they’ve been wrong all these years and b) there’s no single industry standard for testing headphones."
Matt Engstrom is not very sure is he? His evidence "suggests" burn-in which "could, in theory" (sounds like the colloquial meaning of 'theory' too, not the scientific meaning) change the sound.
So really no one knows.
> even very complicated pieces of equipment like combustion engines don't require break-in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_%28mechanical_run-in%....
As pointed out by modoc below, your link identifies exactly why break-in is still required for motors. That section lays out that break-in procedures have changed over time, but break-in is still required.
As pointed out by modoc below, your link identifies exactly why break-in is still required for motors. That section lays out that break-in procedures have changed over time, but break-in is still required.
The Gamecube controller I bought recently required break-in. I was used to my old, nicely worn one where the analogue control stick was easy to move small amounts from side-to-side, as the internal springs had softened. On a new one, the new springs make the stick feel slightly stuck in the central position.
My newly built Aircooled flat-4 needed running in. Lots of moving parts with fine tolerance needed bedding in. I quickly followed with an oil change to remove the anticipate swarf that resulted. Oil consumption reduced after 500 miles or so as the piston rings sealed up.
Then the vacuum diaphragm on my distributer needed to soften a little. On first use it wasn't flexible enough to move the advance arm quickly within the distributer so my spark advance curve was to low. After breaking it in it is much more responsive.
I would guess speaker diaphragm movement changes as materials wear, weaken or transform into their expected constituency.
Your toaster on the other hand.. maybe the oil will burn off the elements and your toast will taste nicer?
Then the vacuum diaphragm on my distributer needed to soften a little. On first use it wasn't flexible enough to move the advance arm quickly within the distributer so my spark advance curve was to low. After breaking it in it is much more responsive.
I would guess speaker diaphragm movement changes as materials wear, weaken or transform into their expected constituency.
Your toaster on the other hand.. maybe the oil will burn off the elements and your toast will taste nicer?
Replying to minikites here:
your link says: "For many kinds of equipment (with automotive engines being the prime example), the time it takes to complete break-in procedures has decreased significantly from a number of days to a few hours, for several reasons."
So the break-in period has gotten smaller, but certainly isn't gone. Also many/most modern car/motorcycle manufacturers still have break-in periods specified lasting hundreds or thousands of miles.
your link says: "For many kinds of equipment (with automotive engines being the prime example), the time it takes to complete break-in procedures has decreased significantly from a number of days to a few hours, for several reasons."
So the break-in period has gotten smaller, but certainly isn't gone. Also many/most modern car/motorcycle manufacturers still have break-in periods specified lasting hundreds or thousands of miles.
(For anyone who isn't familiar with the latter myth: http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm)
> but it's not just evaluating your headphones, but also your DAC, amplifier (both of which are typically crap in most computers), and your own hearing limits.
That's a good thing though. I want to know which headphones or speakers work best with my equipment in my normal conditions with my hearing. I don't care which ones are "the best". I want "the best for me".
That's a good thing though. I want to know which headphones or speakers work best with my equipment in my normal conditions with my hearing. I don't care which ones are "the best". I want "the best for me".
> I want "the best for me".
I agree - this should absolutely be your goal.
That said, as an example of why these differences matter, my MacBook pro spits out a lot of noise and has a different sound profile when compared to my iPhone, which sounds completely different than my Mac mini which is connected to my headphone amp/dac. When evaluating headphones, evaluate them on the device you'll be listening to them on. Don't trust your laptop to tell you how your phone will sound (or vice versa).
Also, if you do transfer the files to your mobile player - make sure they aren't automatically converted to lower quality files.
I agree - this should absolutely be your goal.
That said, as an example of why these differences matter, my MacBook pro spits out a lot of noise and has a different sound profile when compared to my iPhone, which sounds completely different than my Mac mini which is connected to my headphone amp/dac. When evaluating headphones, evaluate them on the device you'll be listening to them on. Don't trust your laptop to tell you how your phone will sound (or vice versa).
Also, if you do transfer the files to your mobile player - make sure they aren't automatically converted to lower quality files.
I almost got a heart attack listening to the 'Binaural Test', I have a v-moda crossfade m-100 and it's so incredibly realistic.
It's even freaky when I know that it's just an audio file playing.
It's even freaky when I know that it's just an audio file playing.
A real sleeper in headphone market is the $33 Philips SHL9705A-28. They are as comfortable as anything on-ear that I have listened to and better sounding than most of the high-end devices. They put the ATH-M50 to shame. The AKG-K702, not so much. I like their sound better than either the Senn HD598 or HD650 to which they are very similar. I listen to and objectively measure and test 'phones for a living.
Aw shucks. I see they are discontinued (some left on Amazon though.) That's the problem with Philips, they have such a huge line that consumers can't find their way through it to find the gems and thus they languish. In general I will say emphatically that nobody offers better cost/performance than Philips.
Aw shucks. I see they are discontinued (some left on Amazon though.) That's the problem with Philips, they have such a huge line that consumers can't find their way through it to find the gems and thus they languish. In general I will say emphatically that nobody offers better cost/performance than Philips.
Can anybody tell me why not all music or audio is recorded binaurally? Because it sounds incredibly realistic, I really do not understand why this is not used at all, not even released together with normal releases. Or at the movies or something.
This is the first time in years I even see it mentioned and people sound all surprised and somewhat freaked out. It's not new technology or something, as far as I know anyway. My father happens to be an audiophile so that's why I happen to know, but it seems like really cool technology that nobody uses.
This is the first time in years I even see it mentioned and people sound all surprised and somewhat freaked out. It's not new technology or something, as far as I know anyway. My father happens to be an audiophile so that's why I happen to know, but it seems like really cool technology that nobody uses.
Most music isn't recorded live. Most instruments are recorded individually in mono, either because they are mono (e.g., and electric guitar, keyboard) or because they are rigged with a mic (e.g., drums). The stereo effect then gets added in the mix.
Hmm right. What about movies though? Those would sound super great, wouldn't they?
Edit: Or wait, they record sounds for movies individually too, most of the sound you hear is not there "live" or something... Or at least I think I saw that in some making-of once.
Edit: Or wait, they record sounds for movies individually too, most of the sound you hear is not there "live" or something... Or at least I think I saw that in some making-of once.
I think you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_(filmmaking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_(filmmaking)
Yeah that's indeed what I meant. Is that why movies are not binaural?
The article mentions headphones priced from 500, 400, 300 and 40 USD. Anybody got any recommendations for something around 100-120 USD? I Currently have the Audio Technica ATH PRO5 MS and looking to upgrade.
And I just saw aroch's link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7685820
And I just saw aroch's link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7685820
If your upper limit's a little flexible, you might consider the Sennheiser HD558, which usually retails around $150; I've had mine for some months, and it is my considered opinion that they're the best headphone to be had under $300.
In particular, they make the MDR-7506 look bloated in the lows and weak in the mids and highs; I once compared the two headphones with a Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic recording of Tchaikovsky's overture '1812', and it wasn't even a contest -- the 7506 rendered the final crescendo so badly, with the cannon fire so thoroughly overwhelming the entire rest of the orchestra, that I couldn't even stand to listen to all of it.
As with almost all Sennheiser products, the HD558s are as neutral as possible (modulo the odd bit of foam, so I gather), and that's not for everyone; I listen mostly to music from the common practice era, so neutrality suits me well, but more modern music probably wants a more forgiving headphone -- listen to new pop masters in a set of "warts and all" cans, and you're going to hear a lot of warts. In any case, if you can make the opportunity to try out the HD558s before you make your choice, I think it's well worth your while so to do.
In particular, they make the MDR-7506 look bloated in the lows and weak in the mids and highs; I once compared the two headphones with a Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic recording of Tchaikovsky's overture '1812', and it wasn't even a contest -- the 7506 rendered the final crescendo so badly, with the cannon fire so thoroughly overwhelming the entire rest of the orchestra, that I couldn't even stand to listen to all of it.
As with almost all Sennheiser products, the HD558s are as neutral as possible (modulo the odd bit of foam, so I gather), and that's not for everyone; I listen mostly to music from the common practice era, so neutrality suits me well, but more modern music probably wants a more forgiving headphone -- listen to new pop masters in a set of "warts and all" cans, and you're going to hear a lot of warts. In any case, if you can make the opportunity to try out the HD558s before you make your choice, I think it's well worth your while so to do.
Any recs on a headphone that doesn't destroy modern music? I listen to prog rock/metal/classical/techno and I think I'm just looking for a nice soundstage and 'fun' headphone. I listen to some of this stuff on the HD280 and it sounds really flat.
I tried the HD700 in the store and it was unbelievable. But I'm not paying that much for headphones.
I tried the HD700 in the store and it was unbelievable. But I'm not paying that much for headphones.
I'd love to help, but the only personal experience I have is with Sennheisers, which even their detractors concede are the most neutral line on the market. Since neutrality is paramount among my requirements for headphones, that suits me just fine, but it's left me without sufficient experience to serve as basis for the sort of recommendation you seek.
Sounds like you should listen to some Grados if open is an option.
You might be able to find a V-Moda M80 around that price too
You might be able to find a V-Moda M80 around that price too
http://www.head-fi.org/a/headphone-buying-guide
Head-Fi has excellent recommendations for all types of headphones (IEMs, closed, etc) at different price points.
Head-Fi has excellent recommendations for all types of headphones (IEMs, closed, etc) at different price points.
Shure SRH440. I've owned and extensively used Sennheiser, Sony, Koss, Audio-Technica AKG, KRK and probably others I've forgotten. For sound quality, the 440s just blow the rest away. In fact, I needed to get some new phones for gaming quite recently, because the Shures' one drawback is that they're heavy and uncomfortable for long stints, and my daughter had effectively taken over the KRKs. I actually used these very recordings to do a quantitative test of the new kids vs. what I already had. I also listened to several different music tracks, and even ran them through a splitter so I could do a true side-by-side comparison. The Shures were simply better than everything else I own, every single time, and they seem to be available for under US$100.
I'll add a +1 for that. I love the SRH440's sound, plus they are closed-back so I can use them at work. Like you I found them to be so-so comfortable so I got SRH840 replacement pads for them on ebay. Cheap and they are super comfortable now.
Great idea. Thanks!
I'm super happy with my Audio Technica ATH-AD700:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CMS0XU/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M...
They're great as long as you don't mind them being bright purple.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CMS0XU/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M...
They're great as long as you don't mind them being bright purple.
I bought what The Wirecutter recommended (RBH EP2) and absolutely love them. Here are their other picks:
http://thewirecutter.com/leaderboard/headphones/
http://thewirecutter.com/leaderboard/headphones/
If you're okay with open headphones Grado makes a couple in that range that are very well regarded. My sr-80s have always treated me well.
I've had a set of Sol Republic Tracks HD's (http://www.solrepublic.com/) for a bit now, and absolutely love them. Their sound quality is amazing, especially lows.
What's a nice pair of wireless headphones that are rechargable? I'm not interested a $500+ pair, but something a bit more mid-range.
I'm tired of tangled wires and my imac sort of spoiled me in that regard.
I'm tired of tangled wires and my imac sort of spoiled me in that regard.
I discovered that I have a ton of internal noise in the 17kHz to 22kHz range, so I cannot even hear those tones because they do not exceed the noise tones I apparently am hearing all the time.
I'd like to do some audio tests / checks on some normal home theater speakers ... no headphones involved.
Any reason not to use these, or are there better sample/reference files for that ?
Any reason not to use these, or are there better sample/reference files for that ?
I've seen a local public address/sound system company using filtered noise with a spectrum analyser to set up loudspeaker systems in 'difficult' halls. The people in charge suggested that single sine waves at high power may not be so good for the speakers.
The site has a catalog of generic test tones designed for all audio equipment: http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtestsaudiotesttones_index.php
You know what's funny? After the left-right tests, I realized that I'd been wearing my headset wrong the whole time I owned them... @@
Happy to see Beyerdynamic finally getting some much needed love.
can anyone here comment on the S-Logic tech in Ultrasone headphones?
Yes. S-Logic is designed to give you a much broader soundstage in a closed headphone. It uses a driver that doesn't hit the ear canal directly, but that is slightly angled to use the ear's outer rim in order to add some depth. Depending on the headphone model it works very well.
Ultrasone sells a lot of different headphones that target different audiences. For instance, the Edition models tend to be very design-oriented and typically get very mixed reviews in terms of sound quality (I can't confirm that from my own experience). Others are for the pro market and tend to sound much more balanced.
I own the Signature Pro, which has the newer generation S-Logic Plus, and I'm extremely happy with it. The soundstage is as wide as that of great open-back headphones (e.g. Sennheiser HD650, which I also have), but you get the isolation and bass punch of closed headphones. I retired all my older headphones (HD650, Grado RS1, Shure SE-535) after getting the Signature Pro. Unfortunately, this model is not exactly cheap ($1300 list price) and quite ugly, but I've never heard better music reproduction.
Ultrasone sells a lot of different headphones that target different audiences. For instance, the Edition models tend to be very design-oriented and typically get very mixed reviews in terms of sound quality (I can't confirm that from my own experience). Others are for the pro market and tend to sound much more balanced.
I own the Signature Pro, which has the newer generation S-Logic Plus, and I'm extremely happy with it. The soundstage is as wide as that of great open-back headphones (e.g. Sennheiser HD650, which I also have), but you get the isolation and bass punch of closed headphones. I retired all my older headphones (HD650, Grado RS1, Shure SE-535) after getting the Signature Pro. Unfortunately, this model is not exactly cheap ($1300 list price) and quite ugly, but I've never heard better music reproduction.
thank you for the thoughtful reply, much appreciated. I am looking to upgrade from my audiotechnica ath-m50 studio monitors