Originally Posted by hello people ➡️

Right. Thing is, I'd read over and over how great the HD600's were for mixing. I finally bought a set and instantly found that they just felt overblown in the low end. I'm talking anywhere around 100hz-300hz or so, roughly. Very roughly that area. That's how they seem to me. They are similar in that regard (but even worse I think) to the Beyer dt880's, which I also have. I just expected a little more of an even, tight sound from the 600's. Not this overblown low end. I don't get why I read so many recommendations for the 600's to be great for mixing when in use they seem to really blow out the low end.

I'm the first one to put my hand up and say I'm doing it wrong or I'm using them wrong or my mixes are poorly defined in the low end etc. It still puzzles me that on the freq charts the 600's show low end roll off...yet seem to me to be low end wooly.

The idea of going into the thousands of dollars for headphones really blows my mind and is just not something I'd ever entertain. So I have to settle for Sony MDR7506, HD600's, Beyer dt880's, 770's and several others etc. Which I guess, ha, add up to the price of one top notch headphone. But this is the general business model with audio gear. The idea is for you to buy cheap stuff that you constantly upgrade. First it's a $100 headphone, then $250, $350, $500 etc. By the time you're done, you've spent the $1500 or $2000 at Sweetwater that you could have just spent on 1 great headphone.

Originally Posted by DrAudioBot ➡️

The low end of my DT-880's was quiet okay but I hated the rest and it was absolutely impossible to make any decisions on these (Beyer-peak was insane, general width/soundstage was extremely confusing to me). HD 600 works much, much better. Slight bump below 60Hz, little dip at 150Hz and I am totally happy with them. I also prefer the more "dry" sound compared to Beyers. Sold the 880's recently and have no regrets.

I use https://eqmac.app/ to EQ my headphones by the way.

Originally Posted by hello people ➡️

I think the 600's are a bit more dry, yeah. That's a good way to put it. I never get much of a sense of the peaks in either phone. I seem to need Sony MDR 7506 or something for that. Maybe my high freq hearing is not so good any more. Maybe I should just mix into a simple corrective eq for the 600's that tone down a little of the 100-400hz bump.

Originally Posted by echo44 ➡️

Hi all, I have the beyerdynamic 1990 pro , They are nice headphones looking to upgrade to the next level whatever that means. I am looking for more clarity particularly in the high end. I use my cans 20 % mastering, 80% pleasure listening. I am using a Neve headphone amp.
Right now the Sennheiser 800s are being discounted. Do you guys think it is a significant upgrade? Any other recommendations?

Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci ➡️

I have the 1990's also. I really like the big sound stage and detail in the high end they provide however as a result they can sound a little thin. I went with the Focal Clear MG's and I have been very happy with them. There is more meat to the music, a fuller sound and they definitely are a step up. The high end sounds natural though it takes a little time to get used to. Once I got to know the high end, adjusting my mixes has been very good. The sound stage is closer up than the 1990's. Sometimes I like the bigger sound stage but generally the Focal's are my main choice. Oh there is also less ear fatigue with the slightly reduced high's.

Originally Posted by echo44 ➡️

Does anyone have an opinion on the Sennheiser 800s?

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness ➡️

Yo. I'm starting to look into some headphones suitable for EQ checking and potentially using during downtime or any disruptions which stop me using my Focal Trios which I love and use for about 8 hours a day.

First choice is Clear MG Pros.

https://www.focal.com/headphones/clear-mg-professional/

Has anyone had a chance to use these for any length of time? I really like sticking with companies and I have a good long time relationship with Focals reps in the UK so I'm starting by looking at their pro headphones, which is currently a fairly small range still.
Amp wise I use an RME ADI 2 pro FS which is very flexible with different headphones designs and is known for giving a very low noise and fairly flat response.

I listened to some Clear MGs in a local high end AV shop, but it was thru a fairly "hifi warm" streaming box and I felt the stereo image was incredible and then mid range was very very flat, but the low end felt a bit overly fluffed up thru this amp.

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness ➡️

Yo. I'm starting to look into some headphones suitable for EQ checking and potentially using during downtime or any disruptions which stop me using my Focal Trios which I love and use for about 8 hours a day.

First choice is Clear MG Pros.

https://www.focal.com/headphones/clear-mg-professional/

Has anyone had a chance to use these for any length of time? I really like sticking with companies and I have a good long time relationship with Focals reps in the UK so I'm starting by looking at their pro headphones, which is currently a fairly small range still.
Amp wise I use an RME ADI 2 pro FS which is very flexible with different headphones designs and is known for giving a very low noise and fairly flat response.

I listened to some Clear MGs in a local high end AV shop, but it was thru a fairly "hifi warm" streaming box and I felt the stereo image was incredible and then mid range was very very flat, but the low end felt a bit overly fluffed up thru this amp.

Originally Posted by andyisdead ➡️

Good evening everyone,

I just wanted to give an update on my journey with the LCD-Xs I acquired early this year.


In my previous post I stated that I didn't think I would have needed processing on the monitoring path with the Audezes.
I was specifically referring to correction EQ and I wrote that the one mix I did on the LCD-Xs right after acquiring them translated pretty decently.
Well, hat was pure beginner's luck I'm afraid... you know, when you don't overanalyze it, just go with the flow and everything for some reason seems to fall into place just perfectly? That's was the case.

After that not much luck anymore…

I tried to do some work on them (w/ no correction) always referencing on monitors to double check what I had accomplished. No matter how much referencing I performed though, I always struggled to make sense of them.

To try and mitigate the problem I first tried to use Sienna for correction. I had it readily available so I gave it a shot. Sienna is capable but I always had the impression that it made things sound a little too pretty at least with the LCD-Xs. I tried every version, from the basic one to the fully fledged GURU version. I always struggled to find a stable reference point. Plus, me running an Intel Mac, the CPU load of Sienna was a bit too much. To be clear, I had great success with Sienna correcting the humble (yet respectable for the price) ATH-M40x's which translated super well to the external world.
But with the Audezes, man what a struggle...

I then tried my own custom approach based on the Oratory1990 curves. It took me a while to modify the response to suite my ears/brain.

It was somewhat of a painful process, but in the meanwhile I’d at least consolidated some knowledge on some clean digital EQs I own.

I confirmed the fact that I don’t like the way Pro-Q3 sounds one bit. It seems to accentuate the transients when boosting and to eat up harmonics in a weird way when cutting. The sound that comes out of Pro-q3 feels kind of stressed if that make sense. Having it strapped on the monitoring path influencing all my moves, I became super sensitive to how it responds I guess. And the fact that it has its own Q values, what a pain in the butt.
I confirmed that CraveEQ2 is pretty lovely and it’s kind of mellow sounding and a touch too soft/not focused enough for this application IME and that, surprise, UVI Shade sounds scaringly close to MDWEQ!

Fast forward several weeks and I was about to give up and sell them because with the aforementioned EQs the response wasn’t what my brain expected to hear.
But then I thought I would give them another go and tried a bunch of stuff.

I tried SoundID Reference but it didn't sound right (it’s kind of all wrong to me, can’t pinpoint exactly why though..) and the correction curve is far less customizable than I would expect from a calibration software that costs what it costs.

Then shortly after a couple of things happened at the same time: I dialled in a customized version of the Oratory1990 curve in the newly acquired Kirchhoff EQ and I found it to be the EQ gave the response that made the most sense to my ears/brain. It took me a while as I referenced tons and tons of material and did some test work and what not. Then just for fun and giggles I tried CanOpener Studio to bring some crossfeed action in and, ohhh boy, what an incredible difference!

Of course Kirchhoff made an important difference but CanOpener brought it all together big time! Wow! What a brilliant combo! Now it all sound precise and focused.
If you haven’t I suggest you give CanOpener a go. It makes the stereo image much more coherent and now my brain can make sense of it.


Conclusions? The Audezes ain’t going anywhere!
Now I finally see myself doing serious remote work from some hot tropical island of the Indian Ocean with just my laptop, my interface and the LCD-X’s, all while sipping some sort of delicious cocktail from a tall glass adorned with tiny multi-colored umbrellas: green, yellow and blue. That was the plan all along anyway.


He that perseveres will be rewarded, right?


BTW, I’m running both Kirchhoff and CanOpener inside of Rogue Amoeba Audio Hijack Pro and it rocks!


Merry Peach-MAS y’all! 🍑
Andy

Originally Posted by andyisdead ➡️

Good evening everyone,

I just wanted to give an update on my journey with the LCD-Xs I acquired early this year.


In my previous post I stated that I didn't think I would have needed processing on the monitoring path with the Audezes.
I was specifically referring to correction EQ and I wrote that the one mix I did on the LCD-Xs right after acquiring them translated pretty decently.
Well, hat was pure beginner's luck I'm afraid... you know, when you don't overanalyze it, just go with the flow and everything for some reason seems to fall into place just perfectly? That's was the case.

After that not much luck anymore…

I tried to do some work on them (w/ no correction) always referencing on monitors to double check what I had accomplished. No matter how much referencing I performed though, I always struggled to make sense of them.

To try and mitigate the problem I first tried to use Sienna for correction. I had it readily available so I gave it a shot. Sienna is capable but I always had the impression that it made things sound a little too pretty at least with the LCD-Xs. I tried every version, from the basic one to the fully fledged GURU version. I always struggled to find a stable reference point. Plus, me running an Intel Mac, the CPU load of Sienna was a bit too much. To be clear, I had great success with Sienna correcting the humble (yet respectable for the price) ATH-M40x's which translated super well to the external world.
But with the Audezes, man what a struggle...

I then tried my own custom approach based on the Oratory1990 curves. It took me a while to modify the response to suite my ears/brain.

It was somewhat of a painful process, but in the meanwhile I’d at least consolidated some knowledge on some clean digital EQs I own.

I confirmed the fact that I don’t like the way Pro-Q3 sounds one bit. It seems to accentuate the transients when boosting and to eat up harmonics in a weird way when cutting. The sound that comes out of Pro-q3 feels kind of stressed if that make sense. Having it strapped on the monitoring path influencing all my moves, I became super sensitive to how it responds I guess. And the fact that it has its own Q values, what a pain in the butt.
I confirmed that CraveEQ2 is pretty lovely and it’s kind of mellow sounding and a touch too soft/not focused enough for this application IME and that, surprise, UVI Shade sounds scaringly close to MDWEQ!

Fast forward several weeks and I was about to give up and sell them because with the aforementioned EQs the response wasn’t what my brain expected to hear.
But then I thought I would give them another go and tried a bunch of stuff.

I tried SoundID Reference but it didn't sound right (it’s kind of all wrong to me, can’t pinpoint exactly why though..) and the correction curve is far less customizable than I would expect from a calibration software that costs what it costs.

Then shortly after a couple of things happened at the same time: I dialled in a customized version of the Oratory1990 curve in the newly acquired Kirchhoff EQ and I found it to be the EQ gave the response that made the most sense to my ears/brain. It took me a while as I referenced tons and tons of material and did some test work and what not. Then just for fun and giggles I tried CanOpener Studio to bring some crossfeed action in and, ohhh boy, what an incredible difference!

Of course Kirchhoff made an important difference but CanOpener brought it all together big time! Wow! What a brilliant combo! Now it all sound precise and focused.
If you haven’t I suggest you give CanOpener a go. It makes the stereo image much more coherent and now my brain can make sense of it.


Conclusions? The Audezes ain’t going anywhere!
Now I finally see myself doing serious remote work from some hot tropical island of the Indian Ocean with just my laptop, my interface and the LCD-X’s, all while sipping some sort of delicious cocktail from a tall glass adorned with tiny multi-colored umbrellas: green, yellow and blue. That was the plan all along anyway.


He that perseveres will be rewarded, right?


BTW, I’m running both Kirchhoff and CanOpener inside of Rogue Amoeba Audio Hijack Pro and it rocks!


Merry Peach-MAS y’all! ������
Andy

Originally Posted by DAH ➡️

looks weird

Originally Posted by andyisdead ➡️

What looks weird? I’m sorry but I don’t get it…

Originally Posted by TheKosherButcher ➡️

People really still sleep on Canopener!!

Which phase mode are you using for Kirchhoff?

Originally Posted by DAH ➡️

nickname andyisdead along with the signature Andy

Originally Posted by thermos ➡️

Kirchhoff here as well, Can Opener for mixing specifically (a must) but NOT for mastering. I find it can blur the mids a bit. But yes, for mixing absolutely the way. Did you try the reveal curve? Oratory always seems like too much to me.

Originally Posted by huejahfink ➡️

Ask your rep contact if they have a loaner pair maybe, Joe? It wouldn't surprise me if they did, with it being more of a professional investment product.
I doubt anything will beat checking them out for a few days in your own environment and with your own refs and tools.

Originally Posted by thermos ➡️

I have the OG clears which I used for about a year. Nice headphones, I had a hard time making dynamics choices on them that translated. Eventually the tonality bothered me and I moved on, I think it was the metal drivers and the bass, which was good but loose. A lot of people tend to prefer the tonality of the OG clears to the new MG. The pro and non pro models are the same headphone, just a different look and cables.

I would probably take a pair of eqed HD600s over the Clears honestly, and would take a pair of Audeze LCD-1 over both. The Clears are better headphones than both, but I'm talking about for working with and translation. I eq my headphones when working (sonarworks at the time for clears and HD600s and now equilibrium with various curves).

Also worth noting I think: its good to explore what you relate to best with headphones in terms of dynamic, planar or electrostatic drivers. I prefer planars personally: tighter bass and less fatigue (lower THD usually). I can work on Audeze allllll day, whereas my ears got tired with Clears or other dynamic drivers. Definitely worth trying some different stuff, they all have their drawbacks.

Edit: if you are looking to spend $1500 on headphones, I recommend at least checking out the Audeze mm500. They are like the revised lcd-x, with a much flatter midrange response and better repeatability of fit/seal (which can be an issue with the larger Audeze). I am really liking them, maybe even more so than the LCD5 as they are less diffuse sounding and the seal is better. They don’t have anywhere near the detail but are still very very detailed. They need like 2 weeks to break in though, before that they sound kind of boring and lifeless.

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness ➡️

Interesting.

Funnily enough three things I use everyday are HD600s, Sonarworks and Equilibrium!

Headphones sure are personal and need some proper listening time when you consider the inside of your infinitely unique skull is resonating..!

Originally Posted by andyisdead ➡️

My mids seem fine over here… I guess it depends on the settings? Off the top of my head I don’t remember mine…

Haven’t tried the Reveal thingie. I might, to have an additional frame of reference.
But I personalized the Oratory curve to the way I’m used to hearing things:
Brought back some of the highs it was trying to make me cut, pushed some of the high mids boosts a little down and added a flat tilt of -1bB at 1kHz cuz I always want more bass than treble.

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness ➡️

Interesting.

....

Headphones sure are personal and need some proper listening time
when you consider the inside of your infinitely unique skull is resonating..!

Originally Posted by The_Phoenix_2018 ➡️

The ^wisest words^ in this entire, nearly 1800 post thread!

Same goes, to a degree, regarding speakers/monitors.

Originally Posted by Joe_caithness ➡️

Yo. I'm starting to look into some headphones suitable for EQ checking and potentially using during downtime or any disruptions which stop me using my Focal Trios which I love and use for about 8 hours a day.

First choice is Clear MG Pros.

https://www.focal.com/headphones/clear-mg-professional/

Has anyone had a chance to use these for any length of time? I really like sticking with companies and I have a good long time relationship with Focals reps in the UK so I'm starting by looking at their pro headphones, which is currently a fairly small range still.
Amp wise I use an RME ADI 2 pro FS which is very flexible with different headphones designs and is known for giving a very low noise and fairly flat response.

I listened to some Clear MGs in a local high end AV shop, but it was thru a fairly "hifi warm" streaming box and I felt the stereo image was incredible and then mid range was very very flat, but the low end felt a bit overly fluffed up thru this amp.

Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️

Much less so for monitors, though. With closed-back headphones, your ear canals are part of the resonant system and so the low frequency response is dependent on the volume of your ear canal. If you put a microphone inside your ear and measure the system response, it's different from one person to another. So of course one set of headphones won't work for everyone.
--scott