Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Well, Zayed, Koss and Sennheiser make good-quality phones. I suggest
    sealed-earpiece type since they filter out extraneous noise, and
    give (usually) better bass response than open foam type.
    
    However ! There are some other things you can do about your mixdowns.
    First, realize that headphones are much more sensitive and give
    much greater 'detail' to the sound than speakers do. Listen to your
    mixes thru your speakers. What exactly is wrong ? If the bass is
    too loud then you know the headphones are lacking in bass, and you
    are overcompensating. If the mix sounds flat, lacking reverb,
    then realize that all the reverb you hear thru the phones disappears 
    thru speakers.. the detail is lost, so raise the reverb level, even 
    if it sounds strange thru headphones.
    
    The ideal would be headphones that give approximately the same response
    as good speakers. This is primarily in the bass frequencies, so
    that should be your criteria for new headphone purchase.
    
    karl moeller sws tucson arizona usa

     I find I get better mixes if I keep the headphone volume below
     'concert level'. (See the early note titled "Aural Burnout")
     Keep the headphone level at the low end of 'comfortable'.
    
     Personnaly I prefer the foam 'open-ear' type phones for mixdown
     sans speaker purposes. Bass drives me bonkers in sealed units.
     It makes my ears feel like aneroid barometers.
    
    Edd 
    
    P.S. If mercury barometers are full of mercury, are aneroid barometers
         full of aneroids????
    
    

    
    Hi Zayed 
    
    Happy New Year !
    
    I have had exactly the same problem and having  seen your set-up
    I know it's not the quality of the Set-up. What I have been doing
    recently is checking my final mix-down and stereo synth tracks on
    my small Ghetto-Blaster. This gives you a much more effective check
    on what the mix might sound like on another system. I picked this
    tip up from Sound on Sound.
    
    					Paul.
    
    				

    RE: -1
    >> I picked this tip up from Sound on Sound.
          
    Paul, what's "Sound on Sound". An English magazine?

    Yes "Sound on Sound" is an english magazine. I think it have been
    out for a little more than one year.
    
    Svein.
    

I recently bought Beyerdynamic Studio Monitor headphones, their top-line model, 
for around $150 (discounted from $180).  They combine good bass response, 
extreme comfort due to the soft cloth used for ear-pads, both horizontal and 
vertical adjustability of the top-bar to fit ANY head, the soft cloth lets you 
hear yourself sing in pitch but blocks out noise further away than noise you 
are making yourself, frequency response cannot be criticised and dynamic range 
and imaging are both as good as the best $1000 speakers on the market.

I bought mine at Waltham Camera & Stereo.  After selling a pair of AKG's and 
returning for credit a pair of Nakamichi's.  They are a German brand that 
should be widely available in Europe.  They give natural sound, which is so 
important for studio mixing.  They are the most commonly-used headphones in 
major recording studios on the East Coast here in the U.S.


				Mark

Also, the soft fabric of the Beyer is great for long hours of use, like most 
mixing and recording, because it doesn't cause the ears to sweat like most 
vinyl earphones do that are so common from other manufacturers.

I considered Stax, but they're horrendously overpriced.  I actually think the 
Beyer headphones sound better and more natural anyway.


				Mark

    RE:.5
    Would you consider "Sound on Sound" worth checking out?
    If you have a copy could you type in the address, so
    I could order a sample copy?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Timo

    
    
    Yes Sound on Sound is quite good it is dedicated to our interests
    i.e. electronic and is pretty much on a par with Music Technology.
    
    				Paul.

    I've poked all around this fine metropolis of Tucson Arizona USA,
    called the larger magazine distributors, gone to the University,
    NO ONE had heard of Music Technology magazine. I only heard of it
    because an E-Mu technician told me there was a review of the Emax 
    sampler in the latest issue.
    
    Is it worth subscribing to? Please post address if so.
    
    Is it possible to get a copy of that Emax review ? Paul ? Anyone?
    
    thanks karl moeller

    Despite Mark's implied dislike of AKGs, I highly recommend that
    you consider their K240 'phones in one of several forms.  K240s
    are *everywhere*, and are far more commonly used than the Beyers
    Mark mentions.  They are very comfortable, but they are vinyl and
    can get sweaty.  I have three pairs; I was going to get another
    set, but if Mark thinks the Beyers are even better they warrant
    checking out.  Incidentally, the AKGs cost half what the Beyers cost.
                
    len.
    

    
    Second the 240's, I use them for at home, dj work and for mixing
    bands (mixdown, not live). They do have a fairly strong spring,
    so they aren't as comfortable as open air phones, but you do get
    used to it after a while. I paid $69.95.
    
    I've tried the Beyer's, they're quite nice although *extremely*
    flat. Probably perfect for critical monitoring but rather boring
    for casual listening.
    
    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Fostex T series. I almost
    went with T20's but they weren't flexible enough to use as a dj
    cue headphone (one earpiece only). They sound a lot like the Beyer's
    but are smaller and therefore offer a bit less isolation from back-
    ground sounds. T20's are about $55-60.
    

    CdH
    

    Its funny how things come up for discussion in this notes file at
    the same time I'm thinking about them.  
    
    Due to my good old Senhiser 414's getting a little worn after all 
    these years, and a little distorted in one ear at high volumes due 
    to accidentally punching up a feedback loop on my mixer a day or 
    two after I bought it, I've been considering a new pair.
                                                                   
    Now I love my old Senhisers, they've lasted exceptionally well,
    and I would recommend them highly, but I thought I'd see if I 
    could find something even better.  I have tryed the AKG 240's
    and other models of senhisers, but none sounded as good to me
    as my 414's.  By the way, they make a Pro or deluxe version of
    the AKG 240's.  Sony's are good for the money but not quite best.
                                                               
    However, I did listen to a pair of Senhiser's Studio Reference head-
    phones, and liked them very much, unfortunately, I have yet to find
    a place that sells them.  
    I called Waltham Camera, but they're out of the Beyer's mentioned in
    .6, I'd like to check them out too before making a decision.
    
    The Senhiser Studio Ref's are closed air type, around $150, and
    a little large, but still light.  I've always liked the ruggedness
    of Senhiser's; steel reinforced cable, unbreakable, plugs at the
    phones end.  
                                       
    Does anyone know where to get these Studio Reference Headphones?
                                        
    Fredric
                                                               

Len, and others:

The AKG K240's are the headphones I was using for the past five years before
selling them in November.  Sonically they are decent, though they certainly
don't deliver natural sound and the two-to-one price difference of the Beyer
is more than made up for by more than a 10-to-1 performance difference.  Not
to mention comfort.

The AKG's block out all external sound, so that I couldn't sing in tune or play
the wood recorder in tune while overdubbing.  The bass is muddy (I have learned
through an intensive study of audiophile equipment these past two months that
bass presence isn't desirable; merely bass tightness: volume is often a
substitute for clarity).

My main reason for replacing the AKG's wasn't sonic but health.  I was getting
horrible earaches and head colds any time I used them for more than an hour or
two at a time.  They were NEVER comfortable in real terms; merely comfortable
in relative terms compared to the steel-jaw Pioneer headphones I had before and
many of the other headphones on the market (especially the Nakamichi's which I
returned a week later after coming down with the worst head cold in four years).

It is well documented that the use of headphones may trigger health problems
even at reasonable volumes when there is distortion present in the signal.  It
is even more important that headphones deliver natural sound than speakers.

The AKG's don't image well.  They are not bad headphones, and are the best of
the lot below $100.  But someone who skimps by $50 on headphones is cheating
themselves and possibly courting frequent infections.

I have tried Sennheiser and they are very similar to AKG in all respects.

Signet is another brand worth trying.


				Mark

    
    
    Both Sound on Sound and Music Technology ran a review of the E-Max
    this month and generally the reviews were very favorable. I will
    dig out the appropriate copies and get them xeroxed (this should
    get done monday) and will post the subscription adresses here.
    
    You will ahve to mail me Karl to say how I can get them to you.
    
    (I thought MT was produced in the States as well)
    
    
    
    				Paul.
    

    MUSIC TECKNOLOGY UK is published by Music Technology Ltd, part of
    the Music Maker Publications Group,
    
    Alexander house, 
    1 Milton Road,
    Cambridge
    England
    CB4 1UY     Phone (0223) 313722
    
    
    
    MUSIC TECHNOLOGY (US) is published by
    
    Music Maker Publications Inc,
    7361 Topanga Canyon Blvd,
    Canoga Park,
    CA 91303,
    USA                   Phone (818)704-8777
    
    
    
    - Andrew

    I own a set of Signet headphones.  They're nice for listening but they
    color sound too much to be used as mixdown units.  The bass is real
    heavy, the highs are very pronounced, and the midrane is, well, weak.
    Ok if you're listening to pre-recorded stuff, but not good for mixdown. 

    I always try to mix using my Advent (utility cabinets) as monitors.
    They seem to provide a decent monitor, and don't color the sound much.
    If I absolutely have to use headphones, I use (you're gonna hate this)
    a set of 10 yr old Radio Shack Nova-10s.  Their response is so flat
    that you can't help but get a decent mix.  They're also sealed, which
    helps kill outside noise (such as the kid sitting on the cat). They
    aren't the most comfortable things in the world, though. 

    In general, if I can't mixdown in a noise-free environment, I don't
    mixdown.  My 2 cents.

8^)

    I find next to impossible to get a good mix on headphones.  It might
    sound fine on them but then you listen to them on speakers and
    it sounds terrible (the equalization is all wrong).  Also it's also
    tough to tell how much reverb to use.
    
    I finally got a pair of Yamaha NS-10s from Tweeter, Etc for $170.
    They were being discountinued.  This speakers are an industry standard
    for mixing and you can usually find a pair in most 24-trk
    installations.  They have a very flat response.  My post NS-10 mixes
    sound better than those I did before (my engineering is getting
    better, too).
    
    Dave

    
    Did you put the rag in front of the tweeter yet (seriously)?
    
    CdH
    

    I kind of agree with Dave, it's difficult to mix solely on 
    headphones; the spacial imaging is different, and reverb sounds
    different than when it is combined with the ambience in a room.
    
    My speakers are JBL 240ti's which are clear, distortionless, and
    produce bass that is more felt than heard.  I also like to
    have some small trashy speakers to check a mix on, like Auratones;
    any cheap 1-way speaker will work.  Adding a *touch* of bass and high
    treble boost that wasn't necessary with good speakers helps a bit
    if your music makes it to the radio or boom box.
    
    I use headphones and a set of Radio Shack Minimus 7's to record and 
    edit with.  Shuttling reels, especially with tape lifters up can be 
    hard on tweeters.                                                 
    
    I think its also good to listen to your mix at various volumes, due
    to the human ear's variable frequency response. 
           
    re -2, I'm surprised that you find Senhisers and AKG's alike for
    the reasons you mentioned.  Senhisers are so light they need little
    tension to stay on your head.  A few times I've searched around
    the studio looking for my mis-placed 414's, only to realized that
    they were on my head, and everytime I tell that story expecting
    a laugh, people say: "I've done that before!"  :-) honest!
                                                             
    Fredric
    

I meant to say Sennheiser and AKG have similar acoustic properties, not that 
they felt the same.  The implication was there from my blanket statement 
though, I guess.

There is no such thing as EQ when it comes to natural sound.  EQ only gets in 
the way with headphones and speakers that do not deliver natural sound.  EQ is 
a form of distortion, and is often used by manufacturers to hide design 
weaknesses.  I must have spent close to 100 hours researching all of the 
equipment out there at various mainstream and high-end stores, and it was 
quite an education.  It turns out that natural sound speakers and headphones 
have the same spatial imaging and acoustic properties at all volumes.  The 
loudness switch on most receivers is meant to disguise bad speaker and 
headphone design.  I am able to use my new headphones to produce mixes that 
sound good on any system.  Since I am hearing the natural sound when I mix, 
the colouration of the mix-down system is not affecting the mix and thus the 
effects of colouration on playback systems is minimised since it becomes a 
difference from the norm rather than a difference from another difference.

This topic belongs in AUDIO, and has been discussed there somewhat (more with 
speakers than headphones).

It is good to check both headphones and speakers as the ambience is different 
(this has nothing to do with natural vs. distorted sound).  Headphones are 
best for mix-down, speakers for verification of the mix.  The headphones give 
more control, but the speakers help to determine if you overdid anything such 
as reverb or stereo panning, etc.

None of the people who put down my suggestion had even tried it, which annoys 
me.  I'm not arrogant enough to assume my solution is the best one for 
everyone, but people so often do a disservice to themselves when they close 
their mind to a new solution due to perceived cost or due to some previous 
loyalty to another brand.  I know, because I almost stuck with the Nakamichis 
just because the sound was superior to the AKG's and because the only thing I 
knew of at the time that was better were the $380 Stax headphones.  And I 
almost made the same mistake by buying an NAD receiver or integrated amp.  By 
buying extremely high quality and reliable separates, which were actually 
cheaper than if I had bought a Nakamichi receiver, I have cleaned up my 
electronics to the point that I would only need an 8-track if I was going to 
use all eight tracks simulatenously or if I was going to lay down SMPTE 
tracks.  My signal is clean enough now that I can bounce back and forth from 
2-track to 4-track without noticeable degredation of the sound.  Better that 
sound-on-sound/sound-with-sound mixing, in fact; at which the Tascam 234 
produces noticeable distortion and cross-talk.

For those who plan to actually go into a store, several stores preferably, and 
try out all the headphones, I would recommend listening for twenty to thirty 
minutes.  Five minutes is not long enough, because certain designs do not 
produce instantaneous fatigue like the Nakamichi's do, and it takes a while 
for the sweat to build up while using the ones with non-breathing vinyl ear 
pieces.


				Mark

    
    Re:EQ
    
    Cmon, Mark, most studios use a high quality 1/3 or 1/6 octave eq
    for their high level playback monitors. Absolutely flat response
    of the finished product is essential. We're talking real quality
    eq's here, Klark-Technik, UREI, White et al. The smaller monitors,
    NS10's, Auratones etc. are run without eq for low level comparison.
    Besides, they don't need eq because they're fairly flat to begin
    with and are used in a nearfield application.
    
    I agree with you completely about the natural sound aspect, most
    people just don't NEED eq's in their system. However, they do have
    their place, and the music you purchase was mixed down using eq'd
    monitors.
    
    CdH
    

    First of all, loudness compensation is used to compensate for a
    psychoacoustic effect, specifically that at low volumes the *ear*
    hears the midrange sounds preferentially.  It is common knowledge
    that our sensory systems are "nonlinear" (e.g., the eye perceives
    colors differently at low intensity levels).  To say that loudness
    compensation is used to mask defects of inferior equipment is just
    plain untrue.  It's also simply not possible for speakers to sound
    "the same" at all volume levels, except to an instrument.
    
    Second, wildly subjective statements like "10 times better" are
    meaningless and have no place in an objective discussion of aural
    quality.
    
    Finally, I beg to differ about AKG "sealing off" the listener from
    the external environment.  I have worn AKGs for 5 hours at a time
    when gigging, to hear my click track.  I have no trouble hearing
    the rest of what's going on.  And they don't give me headaches.
    The headaches Mark got are probably more likely a consequence of
    a poorly adjusted headband or an unfortunate coincidental location
    of a head artery and headphone pressure point.
    
    Let's at least distinguish between facts and opinion.
    
    I use 'phones to listen for details (mostly subtle glitches) that are
    masked by the ambient sound field.  I mix based on what I hear from
    my monitors.  'Phones image radically differently from speakers,
    and most people listen over speakers.  'Phones are useful but not
    an end in themselves.
    
    And I still intend to listen to the Beyers first chance I get.
    
    len.
    
    

    I had the opportunity to hear the new AKG 340 headphones, which
    are said to be the next model up from the akg240's.  
    
    My evaluation, is that they do sound even better than the akg240's,
    though they have similar sound coloration.  They also have a self
    adjusting headband which provides a constant pressure on top of the 
    head to keep the phones at proper height.

    Natural Sound, rt 9. in Framingham, has a pair.  Second floor,
    in the Bang & Olfsen room.  They also have Senhisers 560's and
    Stax.   
    I have yet to find the Beyer's anywhere, though.
    
    Fredric

The Beyer's are available at Waltham Camera & Stereo.  I tried the AKG 340's 
at the time, and felt they had more clarity than the K240's and were 
moderately more comfortable.

The Beyer's are the only ones I've seen that allow adjustment of the headband 
in both directions, in order to fit the shape of any head.  This minimises the 
pressure and displaces it more evenly.


				Mark

Re: Headphones:
--------------

1) Beyerdynamic: Is this an open-air type of headphones ?
   And is that their model name (Studio Monitor) ? 

2) Sennheiser: Are any of those mentioned part of the new SL 
   (Slim-line) series ? 

   I have tried (in a shop) their 420's and compared to my five year
   old Koss Pro-something felt immensely lighter/comfortable. I also 
   tried Koss in the same place and they were extremely uncomfortable
   and more expensive.

(Question time)
I have this impression that what I should be looking for in a pair of 
headphones (for monitoring/mixing) is no colouring.

But what is no colour ? How can you tell ? Mustn't you have listened to
a track on what you know are non-colouring headphones/speakers and then
use that as a reference to what the headphones sound like ?

I don't understand how I can listen to a song with a given pair of 
headphones and be able to say that the headphones are responsible for
"emphesizing low-frequencies". 

Couldn't this be the mix of the song itself ? And if the same song
sounded different on another pair, could that then not be "colouration"
of this second pair ?

Which leads me to: Are the specs and frequency-response curves the best 
indicators ? 

Re: MUSIC TECHNOLOGY and SOUND-ON-SOUND
---------------------------------------

I found the product reviews better in MT as they tended to point out both
the pluses AND minuses. SOS seemed to take more of a "neutral" position.

Another magazine that I find worthwhile is "Home&Studio-Recording" which
is published by the same people as MT and can be subscribed to at the same
(UK as far as I know) address that was given in an earlier reply.

zayed

>Which leads me to: Are the specs and frequency-response curves the best 
>indicators ? 

No, your ears are the best indicators.  Specs are usually fairly meaningless, 
as the specs that are provided are usually not the most important ones.

As far as colouration is concerned, this is less of a problem with recordings 
of acoustic music, where you have a known reference point.  I immediately get 
accused of being a musical snob whenever I bring this up, even though I listen 
to plenty of electronic and electric music myself, but I would never dream of 
auditioning any equipment with music that isn't 100% acoustic and has more 
than a minimal amount (preferably none) of signal processing applied.  
Sometimes I will use other stuff to verify a choice, but that's it.  Yazoo's 
"Don't Go" is a good electronic track to use for this purpose.

The Beyerdynamic phones all come in the same box, with a sticker loabel 
telling the product name.  I don't believe they have numbers, just names like 
"Studio", "Monitor", etc.  All I know is mine are their top-of-the-line, and I 
believe the "Monitor" label was used for them as that name usually infers in 
Europe and Great Britain that the equipment is used in professional recording 
studios.  The list price was $180, I paid $150.

I usually use jazz trio recordings at the initial listening stage, as the 
string bass is going to show up most problems in colouration, the percussion 
(particular brush techniques) will show up the tightness of the high end, and 
the piano will show up any unevenness across the frequency spectrum.  Then 
comes human voice, usually a low female voice.  If there's still some debate, 
a bit of brass for mid-to-high frequencies and maybe organ for contrabass.  
But I don't go straight to organ, as every organ is unique.  People usually 
use organ to make sure the low bass is THERE.  Due to the pureness of the 
organ sound, as well as the diversity among individual organs, I think it is 
an overrated instrument as an overall auditioning tool, however.

Obviously, nothing's going to sound very good on a boom box, but the point I 
was making earlier is that colouration will make it more likely that the 
problems in such equipment will magnify any insufficiencies in the mix, so 
that certain frequencies might be accented or diminished to the point that the 
recording falls apart.  I went to one audition with my tape, played the song 
on the guy's portable radio/casette, and couldn't even pick out the melody.  
There were so many parts missing that it sounded like random notes.  Most of 
this was due to what I had done with EQ in the mix-down to compensate for my 
own system's colouration.


				Mark

    re .27
    My opinions:
      
    I like to listen to CD's for testing, as CD's offer full bandwidth,
    good dynamics, and your more likely to get a good source than if
    you're stuck using whatever random stereo the store has handy.
    I much prefer digitally recorded CD's; they have an extra edge 
    that is apparent on better headphones.  I listen to CD's at home.
    
    I try to listen to things I am familiar with.  I used to test
    speakers with mostly classical music or solo instruments, but
    I, personally, listen to (and write) everything *but* classical 
    at home.  So now I try a variety of popular music; things with 
    full range: good low bass, mid range, and treble.  
    
    The best test is your ears.  Specs are less meaningful with 
    headphones except possibly to compare models within the same brand
    or perhaps, to indicate the frequency *range* (not freq. response), 
    cause it's difficult at best to measure the way the human ear hears.
    
    It's impossible to be totally accurate (but there aren't any 
    perfect headphones yet anyway), so choose what sounds
    best for you and your music.  Some songs just sound better on
    certain headphones.  Speakers intended for classical music often 
    sound great for classical, but lack the low bass punch for rock.
    
    I suggest, that you compare a couple of units at a time, the 
    differences, become apparent, as do colorations.  Also, you
    may have a limited hi-fi at home, but you are used to it, and
    probably can identify its limitations.  When you listen to a 
    song you know on the headphones, you can hopefully hear that 
    they sound better/worse, and in what ways. 
    
    By the way, it's always good when trying speakers or phones, 
    to verbally describe the characteristics while using them.
    Much later, it will be easier to remember how they sounded using
    the verbal cues.
    
    All the Senhisers are light, which is partly why they are so 
    comfortable; not sure about the SL though. 
    
    Fredric   DVINCI::CERTO
             
                           

                                   
    I took Mark's recommendation, and went down to Waltham camera 
    to hear the Beyers.  I liked them very much: They are almost as 
    light as the Senhisers and quite comfortable.  I believe the
    sound is better than the Senhiser 560's, with flatter response.
                                                     
    The cord is loosely coiled and nice and long.  The cloth earpieces 
    felt good; they did get warm after 45 minutes, but taking them off 
    for a minute refreshed them.  The band adjusts nicely; Mark, what 
    is the second adjustment you referred to?
                                                               
    I got a brochure that listed the models; the top three are all
    called DT-880 followed by an 'S', 'M', or nothing.
    
                      response    earpiece      price
    DT-880s Studio     5-35k    leatherette    not avail.
    DT-880m Monitor    5-35k    cloth          $180
    DT-880             5-25k    leatherette    $155
                          ^                                   
    Waltham camera carries the second two.  I listened to the 'Monitor'
    model that Mark referred to.  I mentioned to the salesman that
    a friend had paid $150 for them there, and he said he would sell
    them to me at that price, but I'd have to show him the reciept. 
                     
    Fredric      DVINCI::CERTO                                           
                   

RE: .30

The second adjustment is just the fact that the earpieces can swivel instead
of being locked into position.  It can swivel up, down, or sideways rather
than just up and down.  This allows for a more comfortable fit with less
pressure on the ear or temple.

I did a trade, so my receipt isn't actually for $150 as it simply indicates a
difference of $150 after credit.  Sorry I can't really help you there.


				Mark