Really quite expensive headphones - thoughts, advice?

Freebird

Don't forget you can tweak the sound signature these days with software such as Sonarworks. Personally, I always seek out neutral sounding headphones for audio work and add some Tilt EQ & Crossfeed for casual listening.

If I were buying today, I would consider the 1990 Pro, HD600 & K712 Pro.

Megii

oaf said:

Megii said:

Doesn't help at all lol - the DT 1990 is probably the main contender I'd mentally picked out as a possible affordable upgrade to my Fidelios, and there I was thinking to settle where I am, and you go and post this... One thing I've heard is the the detail resolution on the 1990s is superb, and I think I'd enjoy that. Also the bass extension very good which is a thing for me. As to the treble, I think I'd probably be fine with that too -  some say the Fidelios are over bright/sibilant, but I have no issues there. I'll look up about the RME Babyface Pro.

I have a feeling the 1990s would match you nicely then, especially with the bass pads on (which is how they ship if I remember correctly). You can always swap over to the neutral ones if you ever want to use them with your DAW. I see they're currently just under £384 at Amazon, about £15 less than they typically go for I think

oh you swine! I suppose I did ask though...

Freebird said:

Don't forget you can tweak the sound signature these days with software such as Sonarworks. Personally, I always seek out neutral sounding headphones for audio work and add some Tilt EQ & Crossfeed for casual listening.

If I were buying today, I would consider the 1990 Pro, HD600 & K712 Pro.

Interesting, I'll have a look at Sonarworks, cheers for that thought.

Stuckfast

Rocker said:

Smaller sized files are compressed with a computer algorithm 'decision' to remove what it deems as unnecessary information in the WAV files.  When these files are played, they cannot give you the full WAV sound as some or a lot of information has been stripped out.  Permanently.  Generally though highly compressed music files [small size] sound more vivid and more in your face when listened to on the in-ear buds which have a very limited dynamic range and usable frequency response  [the things supplied with mobile phones, iPods etc.] but if the music is compared to the uncompressed version on good headphones and/or a good hi-fi system, the limitations of the highly compressed files become glaringly obvious.  High levels of compression music files have their uses though, in a noisy environment as in a car, the reduced dynamic range helps the music sound overcome the car/road noise.

I think you're confusing two different things here.

Data compression is applied to reduce file size. It can be lossless as in FLAC, or lossy as in MP3. Lossy data compression has some effect on the audio quality, depending on how much data is thrown away. It's never a positive.

Audio compression is applied to reduce dynamic range and allow things to be made louder. It has nothing to do with the file format or the data bandwidth. We are coming out of a long period where audio compression was widely used to make albums super loud on CD. As you say this does have benefits when you're listening in a noisy environment but it's generally detrimental to sound quality if overdone.

Freebird

Rocker said:
We are coming out of a long period where audio compression was widely used to make albums super loud on CD. As you say this does have benefits when you're listening in a noisy environment but it's generally detrimental to sound quality if overdone.

It's always an eyeopener when I load lossless reference tracks into my DAW, some of them are really slammed to the limit.

Winny_Pooh

Freebird said:

Rocker said:
We are coming out of a long period where audio compression was widely used to make albums super loud on CD. As you say this does have benefits when you're listening in a noisy environment but it's generally detrimental to sound quality if overdone.

It's always an eyeopener when I load lossless reference tracks into my DAW, some of them are really slammed to the limit.

Lossless has no bearing on the level of limiting at the time of mastering, just affects the file compression and encoding. Only remasters generally change the limiting used. 

Megii

Just to stoke the fire a bit, I watched this the other day - I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgEjI5PZa78

Grumpyrocker

The science is very clear on "HD Audio".

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Freebird

Winny_Pooh said:

Freebird said:

Rocker said:
We are coming out of a long period where audio compression was widely used to make albums super loud on CD. As you say this does have benefits when you're listening in a noisy environment but it's generally detrimental to sound quality if overdone.

It's always an eyeopener when I load lossless reference tracks into my DAW, some of them are really slammed to the limit.

Lossless has no bearing on the level of limiting at the time of mastering, just affects the file compression and encoding. Only remasters generally change the limiting used. 

I never said it did, but that is the format I used to convert my CD collection 

Some of my favourite albums are in desperate need of remastering.

Megii

Grumpyrocker said:

The science is very clear on "HD Audio".

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

most interesting, cheers

Stuckfast

24-bit audio as a delivery format is just silly. The effective dynamic range of a pop/rock album is nowhere near that of 16-bit audio never mind 24-bit. If you actually used all the dynamic range that is possible in a 16-bit system you'd have to turn it up stupidly loud to even hear the quiet passages!

There *is* an interesting argument that high sample rates such as 96 or 192 kHz allow better representation of transients, though -- this is what the MQA system is partly about. I've heard an audio demo which was thought-provoking if not completely conclusive.

prowla

I have some Etymotic ER4-P in-ear earbuds and they are rather good.

ROOG

Quad ERA 1 headphones are getting good write ups 
but my favourite dynamic headphone is the fostex th900 both a bit more than you were budgeting for but worth a listen.

Megii

prowla said:

I have some Etymotic ER4-P in-ear earbuds and they are rather good.

ROOG said:

Quad ERA 1 headphones are getting good write ups 
but my favourite dynamic headphone is the fostex th900 both a bit more than you were budgeting for but worth a listen.

Thank you both - I'll put these onto my mental one day test run list, along with the Beyer DT1990s and other suggestions on here, but I think, at least for now, I am opting to stick with what I have, which is still a very good setup for my needs.  Why are we, or at least some of us, always wanting something better. I'm the same with guitars...

Re the high definition audio/mp3/other formats debate, I'm happy to accept that I may not be at the audiophile level where my hi fi kit starts to reveal deficiencies in any significant way. Mp3s at 320 kbs do seem to sound just fine to me. Sometimes the quality of the original recording is not so great, and that is revealed, but that's another thing.

I think it was back in maybe the early 90s that Sony was trying to introduce SACD as a replacement/upgrade format to take over from cd, and there was also the competing DVD audio. There was talk in hi fi magazines about hjgh end speakers fitted with extra "super tweeters" that could reproduce the very hi frequencies possible, and how this gave extra realism etc. . It didn't catch on, and in the end things went more towards mp3s, and cd sales declined, as we know. But I now wonder if if was all nonsense anyway? Not sure on that one, but just an aside.

Aornic

I find some of these posts quite interesting. I used to be a headphone/audio gear reviewer and am now a seller of such. It's quite a niche hobby, especially compared to guitars!