Arny Krueger wrote:

Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to Sennheiser
HD580/600/650.

Curious why you omit the 590. My beat to **** and tough old
pair was stolen recently and I really miss them.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to Sennheiser
HD580/600/650.

I've used the 7506s for tracking headphones for a long time, but it's not
because I think they're accurate, but that their inaccuracies and isolation are
useful, and they are pretty durable.

YMMV

stv

"Bob Cain" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to Sennheiser
HD580/600/650.

Curious why you omit the 590. My beat to **** and tough old
pair was stolen recently and I really miss them.

I just don't know anything about them, I only spoke about what I know.

"TarBabyTunes" wrote in message

Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to Sennheiser
HD580/600/650.

I've used the 7506s for tracking headphones for a long time, but it's
not because I think they're accurate, but that their inaccuracies and
isolation are useful, and they are pretty durable.

I agree in the sense that 7506s sound so different from HD580/600/650 that
it seems like one has to be less accurate than the other.

However, I believe it was Scott who wisely pointed out in one of the current
similar threads in another group that the sound quality of headphones is
based on resoances in chambers that are part of the listener's head, and
vary strongly from person to person.


YMMV

Exactly.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
: "TarBabyTunes" wrote in message
:
: Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to Sennheiser
: HD580/600/650.
:
: I've used the 7506s for tracking headphones for a long time, but it's
: not because I think they're accurate, but that their inaccuracies and
: isolation are useful, and they are pretty durable.
:
: I agree in the sense that 7506s sound so different from HD580/600/650 that
: it seems like one has to be less accurate than the other.
:
: However, I believe it was Scott who wisely pointed out in one of the current
: similar threads in another group that the sound quality of headphones is
: based on resoances in chambers that are part of the listener's head, and
: vary strongly from person to person.
:
:
: YMMV
:
: Exactly.
:
:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
: "TarBabyTunes" wrote in message
:
: Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to Sennheiser
: HD580/600/650.
:
: I've used the 7506s for tracking headphones for a long time, but it's
: not because I think they're accurate, but that their inaccuracies and
: isolation are useful, and they are pretty durable.
:
: I agree in the sense that 7506s sound so different from HD580/600/650 that
: it seems like one has to be less accurate than the other.
:
: However, I believe it was Scott who wisely pointed out in one of the current
: similar threads in another group that the sound quality of headphones is
: based on resoances in chambers that are part of the listener's head, and
: vary strongly from person to person.
:
:
I just can't resist this off topic post. Here goes.
Since sound quality of headphones is based on resonance's in chambers that are part of the
listener's head, I wonder what, if anything G.Dumbya Bu$h would hear with each of the various
phones? Would the left and right phone driver just cancel since they would be connected
directly by an empty spheroid?

"anybody-but-bush" Anybody But wrote in message
link.net

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

However, I believe it was Scott who wisely pointed out in one of the
current similar threads in another group that the sound quality of
headphones is based on resonances in chambers that are part of the
listener's head, and vary strongly from person to person.

I just can't resist this off topic post. Here goes.
Since sound quality of headphones is based on resonance's in chambers
that are part of the listener's head, I wonder what, if anything
x. sxxxxxxx xxxxxx (a politician) would hear with each of the various
phones? Would the
left and right phone driver just cancel since they would be connected
directly by an empty spheroid?

Empty spheres have no facilities for reception of information. Therefore,
sound goes in and just bounces around. If the sphere is really hard-shelled,
then more and more sound goes in and keeps bouncing around until the
structural integrity of the sphere is breached. Then there is complete
structural collapse.

IOW, the politician's head simply explodes.

Viewing the situation more generally, the sound goes in and just bounces
around, unless the sphere is totally evacuated. If the sphere is totally
empty, there is no medium to propagate the sound. The sound and the
information it has encoded in it then goes into the politician's head and
the information simply disappears.

These effects are non-partisan, and equally applicable to politicians
belonging to any political party.

However, I believe it was Scott who wisely pointed out
in one of the current similar threads in another group
that the sound quality of headphones is based on
resonaces in chambers that are part of the listener's
head, and vary strongly from person to person.

This is certainly true in theory, but does not seem to be true in practice.
Ignoring "taste," the consensus of which 'phones are accurate, and which not, is
very strong. Have you ever met any serious, knowledgeable listener who didn't
think the Sennheisers were at or near the top? (No one has mentioned Grado,
which also tend to get high rankings.)

First, those resonances affect both live and reproduced sound.

Second, the shape and folds of the pinna ought to have an effect, but don't seem
to be as critical as you'd think. Common sense suggests there ought to be fewer
audible differences among circumaural headphones than supraural (as the former
do a better job of interacting with the pinna), but I know of no research on the
subject.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
However, I believe it was Scott who wisely pointed out
in one of the current similar threads in another group
that the sound quality of headphones is based on
resonaces in chambers that are part of the listener's
head, and vary strongly from person to person.

This is certainly true in theory, but does not seem to be true in practice.
Ignoring "taste," the consensus of which 'phones are accurate, and which not, is
very strong. Have you ever met any serious, knowledgeable listener who didn't
think the Sennheisers were at or near the top? (No one has mentioned Grado,
which also tend to get high rankings.)

For the most part, the open ear phones have less difference from listener
to listener.

The Grado headphones sound great, but they are not at all analytic. I would
not consider them accurate so much as euphonic, and they will tend to make
poor recordings sound much better.
--scott

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

The Grado headphones sound great, but they are not at all analytic.
I would not consider them accurate so much as euphonic, and they
will tend to make poor recordings sound much better.

The ones I heard I found quite accurate, overall, but (as a classical listener)
I didn't much care for their rather "forward" sound.

To put it kindly, the Grados were never designed for "portable" use. They are
indeed "klunky."

These effects are non-partisan, and equally applicable to politicians
belonging to any political party.

It's just not limited to politicians, it applies to assholes as well.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"TarBabyTunes" wrote in message

Depending on who you believe, anything from Sony 7506 to
Sennheiser HD580/600/650.

I've used the 7506s for tracking headphones for a long time, but it's
not because I think they're accurate, but that their inaccuracies and
isolation are useful, and they are pretty durable.

I agree in the sense that 7506s sound so different from HD580/600/650
that it seems like one has to be less accurate than the other.

I have 7506s and they could not be described as 'accurate'. Spectacular
yes, especailly in their trouser flapping bass, , and very useful for
spotting error in the (very forward) midrange.

7506s fatiguing for casual listening - I use K240s for that. K271 a bit more
towards the 7506s in mids and highs. And my old clunker K270s just sound
flat + broken now - maybe they are ....

HD414 just don't have sufficient clean output at LF (but again, mine could
be broken).

geoff

: These effects are non-partisan, and equally applicable to politicians
: belonging to any political party.
:
: It's just not limited to politicians, it applies to assholes as well.

I disagree. What cans can you get to fit over your asshole without all the sound leaking out
from the upper and lower cracks.
:
:

: It's just not limited to politicians, it applies to assholes as well.

I disagree. What cans can you get to fit over your asshole without all the
sound leaking out
from the upper and lower cracks.

I don't do the can-can, but the watusi is another matter altogether.

anybody-but-bush wrote:
These effects are non-partisan, and equally applicable to
politicians belonging to any political party.

It's just not limited to politicians, it applies to assholes as well.

I disagree. What cans can you get to fit over your asshole without
all the sound leaking out from the upper and lower cracks.

There's nothing worse than leakage.....

( )*( )

geoff

Can anyone explain what is meant by 'Diffuse Field frequency response'
and the thinking behind it? Also, are there any of the currently available
highest quality headphones which do not use this equalisation?

IIRC, it means that the subjective frequency response of a diffuse sound field
(which is what you're sitting in if you're not on top of the instruments) is
different from the other kind of field (the name of which I forget).

Stax made an equalizer for their electrostatic headphones that specifically
creates the diffuse field EQ.

Jock wrote:


BTW, can anyone explain what is meant by 'Diffuse Field frequency response'
and the thinking behind it? Also, are there any of the currently available
highest quality headphones which do not use this equalisation?

It is the frequency response in the condition wherein the
direction as well as the magnitude of the instantaneous
velocity vector of the sound field at a point is random.

A directional mic would show a different frequency response
for a source of white noise at some point fixed with respect
to it than it would in a diffuse field conditions because
the direction of the velocity vector is very correlated in
time from a fixed source. When correlated like that, the
frequency dependant sensitivity pattern of the mic yields a
precise equalization for each angle of incidence. In the
diffuse field, you are getting a weighted average of all
angles of incidence.

If you equalize for the diffuse field then sound from the
front will only be partially favored. If equalized for
pointing at the source, that direction will be entirely
favored at the expense of all off axis sources.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

: I have seen comments from people saying that they find the HD600s slightly
: lean/bright - I did wonder if the HD650s were a reaction this, resulting in
: headphones which produce a nice/luxurious sound??? I haven't heard them, so
: it is nothing more than a guess.
:
:
: YMMV.
:
: Karl Winkler
: Lectrosonics, Inc.
: http://www.lectrosonics.com

Karl:
I have had my 600's for 5 years and I also own 7506 and AKG240. I am curious of threads
discussing phones so I read a lot of this kind of thread. I have nevr heard anyone call the HD
600's lean or bright. It just ain't true. In fact the 7506 could be bright but not lean and
the 240 could be lean but not bright, neither of the three are lean and bright. Sorry.

Phil Abbate
www.philsaudio.com
:

"anybody-but-bush" Anybody But wrote in message
k.net...
: I have seen comments from people saying that they find the HD600s
slightly
: lean/bright - I did wonder if the HD650s were a reaction this, resulting
in
: headphones which produce a nice/luxurious sound??? I haven't heard them,
so
: it is nothing more than a guess.
: YMMV.
:
: Karl Winkler
: Lectrosonics, Inc.
: http://www.lectrosonics.com
Karl:
I have had my 600's for 5 years and I also own 7506 and AKG240. I am
curious of threads
discussing phones so I read a lot of this kind of thread. I have nevr
heard anyone call the HD
600's lean or bright. It just ain't true. In fact the 7506 could be bright
but not lean and
the 240 could be lean but not bright, neither of the three are lean and
bright. Sorry.


Guys, what do you think of this text considering HD600's:

http://home.t-online.de/home/meier-audio/

On left, under the "projects" box, click "tips and tricks".

We're thinking about buying HD600's, they would be used with Digi's 001..

More precisely, I'm not talking about the hi-fi "burn-in" stuff there is,
which is a load of BS IMO, I'm talking about the output impedance
mismatches, which could well be a major factor in contributing to the
differences we have in our opinions about different headphone models.

"anybody-but-bush" Anybody But wrote in message nk.net...
: I have seen comments from people saying that they find the HD600s slightly
: lean/bright - I did wonder if the HD650s were a reaction this, resulting in
: headphones which produce a nice/luxurious sound??? I haven't heard them, so
: it is nothing more than a guess.
:
:
: YMMV.
:
: Karl Winkler
: Lectrosonics, Inc.
: http://www.lectrosonics.com

Karl:
I have had my 600's for 5 years and I also own 7506 and AKG240. I am curious of threads
discussing phones so I read a lot of this kind of thread. I have nevr heard anyone call the HD
600's lean or bright. It just ain't true. In fact the 7506 could be bright but not lean and
the 240 could be lean but not bright, neither of the three are lean and bright. Sorry.

Phil Abbate
www.philsaudio.com
:

Phil,

First, it looks like you've quoted *me* with the above passage, but I
did not write that. I wouldn't call the HD600 "lean" but as others
have pointed out, the source matters. However, I also wouldn't call
the HD600 "lush". IMO, it's a very neutral headphone, and an
absolutely great headphone. The 650 *is* a touch on the lush side, and
wonderful for a more involving listening experience.

Again, YMMV.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com