Diffuse field equalized headphones recommendation

Speaker measurements in production areas are always taken with a wand microphone. LOL, I visit Hollywood production studios on an almost weekly basis. In the bigger facilities, the rooms are always treated (very fancy - almost anechoic like, with use of more absorbers than diffractors); and trust me, the studio monitors do not sound like HD800s. The big Studios take their sound very seriously. And yes, I happen to like Studio target curves for normal listening.

 

Yeah. HD800s are a bit too bright IMO. They do certain things great. But not really studio reference, neutral, flat awesomeness stuff.

I like the tilted down curve on many stuff. Not sure if that's the most common one. For me it really depends on what's playing. I like flat quite a bit as well.

 

Different measurement methods. Flat curve 1m on-axis on level with tweeter =often results in= slightly downward sloping at listening position. Makes sense if you think about it.

Stereophile and hobbyist speaker builders measure 1m on-axis on level with tweeter, namely because they won't know how your listening room sounds like. Studios, if they EQ, will be at the listening position with downward slope - mainly because they already know the environment.

Different approaches, different target curves, different applications, but roughly same sound in the end.

That's how I EQ my speakers. Very similar to the 1970 B&K curve or what I hear at the good studios.

 

So in the end, I assume we can all agree that Sennheiser did have a target curve (and a method to their madness) with the HD800; but that target curves are a game of dicksmanship (because we don't know what individuals are going to like, and we definitely shouldn't let Imperial Stormtroopers tell us what target curve we should be using)?

 

They can also be used to Obi-Wan folks. Different types of dicksmanship.

 

Very true. The appeal to authority as a marketing technique (inventor: has a physics degree, can cast fireballs, uses a G.R.A.S. or dScope, relies on "established" curves, is a Time Lord, plots distortion in linear scale, etc.) This was somehow lost in the discussion.

 

John and Joe. Which one is Mario and which one is Luigi?

 

Well, the reference IMO is not a particular speaker, but a flat frequency response and linear phase. That's what I think many speakers are shooting for, commercial or pro.

It is easier perhaps to measure this with a speaker maybe because it is easier to succesfully construct a large anechoic chamber (or approach it), than a micro anechoic chamber inside a headphone cup. Let's not get into the cross channels debate.

That doesn't mean that headphones should not shoot for a flat response. I personally think they should if the goal is neutral. At least a smooth response would be nice.

As far as flat, the definition I understand better is the one where the frequency response is "white" or with the same power as a function of frequency across the entire audio band.

BTW, the Mesiah has spoken to you my son. Go on and fanatically spread the Mesiah's word. And do participate in this heavenly forum.

 

Now that I think of it, that's actually a horrible target if measured flat at the listening positioning in an anechoic chamber. It's going to turn out bright with a slight depression around 2-3k (wall reflections and reverb tend to increase this region).

Why didn't Sennheiser consult mastering engineers in mastering studios or use prior research based on the B&K curve / and methodology?

 

Mmmmm, I know the mirage omni's in-room response is somewhat/relatively flat, but in an anechoic chamber they seem to measure with a tilt (according to most every other measurbator friendly magazine).

 

The HP50s are not bad. But I like the Focal Spirit headpones better SQ wise. They are head clamping torture devices though.

 

Grados are not that bad. I like my KSC-75s quite a bit.