Another headphone choice question

[Chelonian]

Not even a year ago, I asked about inexpensive headphones for recording and wound up buying SENNHEISER HD 206 Closed-Back Over Ear Headphones. I have no good basis for judgment, but these sounded reasonable to me and I went with them. However, after wearing them for a while (>20 minutes, say), they started to hurt my ears. Just the pressure on my earlobes, possibly in combination with the temple tips of my eyeglasses.

I recently must have run over the cord with my rolling chair, because the connector broke a bit (possibly reparably). But I was thinking this may be a good time to ask about more comfortable headphones that might be comparable in price and sound quality. I bought these for $38, which I thought was a reasonable price for my as yet humble needs.

 

[TalismanRich]

Not trying to be snooty or anything, but $38 isn't a "reasonable price", it's bottom rung of the ladder. I paid more than that for AKG headphones in the early 70s! I tried some low dollar Tascams, but they were dreadfully dark and lifeless. A good set of headphones should last you for years!

I have 3 sets of headphones that I use, Sony 7506, AKG K240 and Senn HD280s. They are all around the $100 range but they all have, to me, drastically different sound characteristics. The Sonys are pretty bright and very revealing, the AKGs are neutral, but somewhat soft sounding and the Sennheisers are strong on the bass but seem weak on the upper mids. For casual listening, I like the AKGs. Their balance is closest to what I hear from speakers. The HD280 seem to be a bit heavy and more uncomfortable, but they really do great at isolation.

Others to consider are the AudioTechnica M40x and M30x, both in a similar price range. I haven't used them but if you look at AT's information, they all have slightly different characteristics.

 

[grimtraveller]

Not trying to be snooty or anything, but $38 isn't a "reasonable price", it's bottom rung of the ladder

I am the champ of the cheapskates, and even I shelled out more than £80 {current value, £95 ¬¬>> $120} for mine.

Others to consider are the AudioTechnica M40x and M30x, both in a similar price range. I haven't used them but if you look at AT's information, they all have slightly different characteristics.

I have been using the M40x for a number of years now. They are the only headphones I've ever had in my life, that when a pair stopped working, I went for a repeat performance. That could mean anything, something or nothing at all, but it at least tells you that I like and rate them.

 

[Chelonian]

Not trying to be snooty or anything, but $38 isn't a "reasonable price", it's bottom rung of the ladder.

Other people recommended them here last year and that's why I got them. But fair enough and thanks for the input and specific recommendations!

I tend to wonder if I'm going to be even able to hear the differences you do, or if my listeners will (if I ever have any). Sure, if I were trying to produce music for audiophiles, I'd want to use the best equipment I can. But given many people are going to be listening on less than optimal equipment, I wonder if it makes sense to worry about anything other than a fairly basic sounding earphones performance. I'm not saying I'm sure, it's just a wondering of mine.

Any thoughts on my point about physical discomfort from wearing headphones? The ones I have are described as "closed back over the ear" style and I'm now wondering if any such headphones with that style will be uncomfortable for me. Or maybe these were just too tightly pressing inward onto my ears...or the circumference was too small...or something about the material.

Can one get something that sounds good but might be easier to wear for >1 hr without it feeling unpleasant to the earlobes?

 

[Steenamaroo]

I had a pair of those 206s (or 201s?) for a cheap spare pair for laptop use, or whatever.
I found the same, in terms of comfort. They don't go right around your ear.

The HD280s are better, in terms of size, but not perfect, and they're very heavy tight cans as TasilsmanRich says.

I got a pair of Beyerdynamic DT770s once the HD280s finally gave up and the difference, in terms of comfort, is night and day.
They're great sounding headphones too, but the cups are big enough to go right around your ears and they're a soft fabric.
They're much lighter headphones than the 280s. I could happily wear them for long sessions.

The main tradeoff is they're not going to give you anywhere near the isolation of the HD280s.
Personally I don't care about that so I'm happy but in a live band environment or something I'd want the 280s.

I also picked up a pair of AKG K52s for cheap, to replace the 201s.
They're not good sounding headphones - Very badly designed IMO.
The metal head bands resonate, which is very irritating, and they sound boxy and hollow.
I ended up modding mine by adding dense material inside the plastic covers, and replacing the pads with old DT770 pads, both of which made a huge difference, but they're still not great.
Very light and comfortable, though.

If you simply want comfort the K52s would do the job, although I don't get the impression they'd survive much abuse.
If sound quality and making judgements is a factor, as well as comfort, I'd recommend Beyerdynamic.

 

[Steenamaroo]

But given many people are going to be listening on less than optimal equipment, I wonder if it makes sense to worry about anything other than a fairly basic sounding earphones performance. I'm not saying I'm sure, it's just a wondering of mine.

It makes a difference, for sure.
I get where you're coming from but if, for example, you mix on headphones with little to no bass
you're going to be turning the bass up in your mix to compensate,
then that's probably going to sound over the top to someone listening back on an overly bassy setup.

Your mix should be somewhere in the middle - not too anything.

To achieve that you need to have neturality/honesty in your monitoring setup, although pretty much every one here has had to make compromises.
Very few people have the luxury of a perfect monitoring setup and environment.

It's also really important to know your monitoring setup, even if it is only headphones, so listen to lots of familiar music on them and get to know their quirks.
If you can get used to how other music sounds on your speakers/headphones, then it's much easier to make your music fall in line.

 

[TalismanRich]

I tend to wonder if I'm going to be even able to hear the differences you do, or if my listeners will (if I ever have any). Sure, if I were trying to produce music for audiophiles, I'd want to use the best equipment I can. But given many people are going to be listening on less than optimal equipment, I wonder if it makes sense to worry about anything other than a fairly basic sounding earphones performance. I'm not saying I'm sure, it's just a wondering of mine.

It makes a difference, for sure.
I get where you're coming from but if, for example, you mix on headphones with little to no bass
you're going to be turning the bass up in your mix to compensate,
then that's probably going to sound over the top to someone listening back on an overly bassy setup.

Your mix should be somewhere in the middle - not too anything.

To achieve that you need to have neturality/honesty in your monitoring setup, although pretty much every one here has had to make compromises.
Very few people have the luxury of a perfect monitoring setup and environment.

It's also really important to know your monitoring setup, even if it is only headphones, so listen to lots of familiar music on them and get to know their quirks.
If you can get used to how other music sounds on your speakers/headphones, then it's much easier to make your music fall in line.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Chelonian, look at what Steen said (underlined and in red above).

As for your listeners hearing the differences in the headphones, that's NOT the issue (although most people would easily be able to tell the difference).

Think of it like editing a photo. If you have rose colored glasses, you see lots of red/pink, so you reduce that shading. Then when it shows up on a normal screen, it's all green/blue and no red. If you ever did photography in the old days, you surely ran into the issue of incandescent light vs daylight film. Use daylight film and incandescent lighting looks all yellow and brown. Use Incandescent balanced film outside and it looks all blue. And, God forbid, you shot in florescent or mercury vapor lights, everything was green! Today, they use electronic white balancing to do the corrections.

The same thing with audio. If you headphones are bassy, you'll cut the bass down and everyone else will hear shrill and bright unless they are using the same headphones as you. It's not a case of catering to "audiophiles". You really want something neutral. And the best way to determine that is to listen and compare different ones. Something like the headphone comparators at places like Guitar Center are great for that. Or if you have any buddies that have good headphones, try them.

 

[markmann]

I've been using Sony mdrv6 for many years and they are very comfortably and sound good. I replaced the earpad covers with the velvety beyerdynamic ones and they are great.

 

[Papanate]

I've been using Sony mdrv6 for many years and they are very comfortably and sound good. I replaced the earpad covers with the velvety beyerdynamic ones and they are great.

I use these as well - very balanced if not a tad treblely.

 

[Serendipity Records]

Think of it like editing a photo. If you have rose colored glasses, you see lots of red/pink, so you reduce that shading. Then when it shows up on a normal screen, it's all green/blue and no red. If you ever did photography in the old days, you surely ran into the issue of incandescent light vs daylight film. Use daylight film and incandescent lighting looks all yellow and brown. Use Incandescent balanced film outside and it looks all blue. And, God forbid, you shot in florescent or mercury vapor lights, everything was green! Today, they use electronic white balancing to do the corrections.

Excuse the tangent!

I recently did some color grading on some performance footage, in two parts - one camera angle, no lighting changes. Unfortunately, one of the videos was graded in the afternoon, and one was done in the evening, when my computer "warms" its screen color to help me sleep better (no joke, it's a thing, at least on Macs). Needless to say, the one edited in the evening turned out horrendously.

But yeah.

I have 3 sets of headphones that I use, Sony 7506, AKG K240 and Senn HD280s. They are all around the $100 range but they all have, to me, drastically different sound characteristics. The Sonys are pretty bright and very revealing, the AKGs are neutral, but somewhat soft sounding and the Sennheisers are strong on the bass but seem weak on the upper mids. For casual listening, I like the AKGs. Their balance is closest to what I hear from speakers. The HD280 seem to be a bit heavy and more uncomfortable, but they really do great at isolation.

Others to consider are the AudioTechnica M40x and M30x, both in a similar price range. I haven't used them but if you look at AT's information, they all have slightly different characteristics.

For recording, I'd almost recommend getting a slightly flattering set. Unless you're burning EQ on your own recording, live lol. And yes, revealing, so from what I see above the Sonys would be best.

 

[Steenamaroo]

I'd believe that.
What's surprised me was how easy it is to become acclimatised to 'Night Shfit' and not even realise its on.
If you toggle it on and off quickly the difference is night and day (booo) but letting it fade-in over half an hour whilst watching a movie you could be forgiven for not noticing.

Reminds me of the 'step away' advice with audio mixing.
The number of times I've over-worked something and convinced myself its amazing only to give it 'one last check' in the morning and find it's terrible.
Never trust your eyes, or ears, folks.

 

[Chelonian]

The same thing with audio. If you headphones are bassy, you'll cut the bass down and everyone else will hear shrill and bright unless they are using the same headphones as you. It's not a case of catering to "audiophiles". You really want something neutral. And the best way to determine that is to listen and compare different ones. Something like the headphone comparators at places like Guitar Center are great for that. Or if you have any buddies that have good headphones, try them.

You make a good case! I think what has been holding me back is justying $150+ headphones given that I'm quite unsure about several other aspects of my recording set-up. I feel good about my interface (MOTU M2), but I'm not sure about my mic (Blue Spark), and guess the recording room (a 10'x10' untreated box with carpet) is really not helping matters. Plus, I'm kind of mostly guessing when it comes to digital effects and mixing to enhance my vocals. I try things but it's just very trial and error and not based on any principles (yet. I hope to learn).

So I guess my point is, I could spend 5x more on headphones and yet the biggest sound quality bottleneck lies elsewhere, in fact several elsewheres. That said, sure, non-neutral headphones would only be making a bad problem worse, I get that. I just don't know if it's justified until I prove to myself I can make decent quality recordings in this place.

 

[grimtraveller]

So I guess my point is, I could spend 5x more on headphones and yet the biggest sound quality bottleneck lies elsewhere, in fact several elsewheres. That said, sure, non-neutral headphones would only be making a bad problem worse, I get that. I just don't know if it's justified until I prove to myself I can make decent quality recordings in this place.

This is true. However, even if your bottleneck lay elsewhere, in having a fairly decent set of headphones, you'll be hearing those bottlenecks on better quality ~ which is part of getting to know your monitoring set-up.

 

[Cosmic]

"But given many people are going to be listening on less than optimal equipment, I wonder if it makes sense to worry about anything other than a fairly basic sounding earphones performance. I'm not saying I'm sure, it's just a wondering of mine."
That's upside-down logic. Regardless of what the final audience wants to listen on or not listen on, you need to know what your tracking sounds like, as cleanly and accurately as possible, particularly as your room is less than ideal. If you can't hear the flaws now, they will just be there for later for someone else to discover.

AKG 271 closed-ear (or, for less money, the open-ear 240) are studio-standard, flat-frequency accurate cans. They are also among the most comfortable things you can wear for tracking sessions. Buy used if needed; there are plenty of them out there.
They won't sound "Hi-Fi"; they will seem lacking in bass, but they give you a great window into your mic placements and your instrument sounds.
They have been around forever for a good reason; I have two sets for tracking.
For mixing, I use monitors, of course.

C.