Jump to content

dalethorn

Moderator
  • Content Count

    680
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dalethorn

  1. I have heard that Beyer switched over to the 1350-type earpads for the T50p, and also changed the headband pressure, so maybe the new T50p's sound more like the 1350. I would hope so, since they offer the T50p now in all of those designer styles.
  2. You could look at well known brands with good sound like the PX-200IIi, or buy blind (not recommended). Or you could do some research first and then ask for specifics about what you find in your search.
  3. The SRH-940 compares favorably in several ways to the Sennheiser HD-800, with a few exceptions. Given that the HD-800 costs 5 to 6 times as much, the similarities and differences are of great interest to persons whose budgets don't stretch much beyond the SRH-940. The main exceptions are soundstage and resolution of upper harmonic details. Because of the HD-800's huge earcups, large drivers, and some fancy and costly engineering, the HD-800 has possibly the widest (or best) soundstage of any dynamic headphone that I'm aware of. The harmonic details are not as easy to describe, but if you have a chance to make a direct comparison, the differences are much easier to hear when you go from the HD-800 to the SRH-940 rather than the other way around. Note my comments below relating to harmonics. It would be easy to assume that the differences I just described are a really big deal, but that depends on your experience and perceptions, and how much of an audio perfectionist you might be. In my case, having access to many top quality headphones from the HD-800 on down, it's not a big deal. The main similarity between the SRH-940 and the HD-800 is the sound signature, i.e. the overall balance of bass, mids, and treble that give the headphone its basic character. Attempts to measure this characteristic are generally expressed as a frequency response. While the signatures of these two headphones are not identical, myself and others have made comparisons with specific music tracks that did not reveal a substantial difference, so where significant differences are reported, look for specific examples if that is important to you. Summarizing the actual sound of the SRH-940, it is highly detailed and has what is widely regarded as a more-or-less neutral signature over most of its range, with a slight bit of brightness on the high end. Fortunately, whatever extra brightness the SRH-940 may have compared to the average headphone does not contribute to a sibilance problem. I find the 940's soundstage to be above average for a closed-back headphone, and while the bass will not satisfy the so-called bass-heads of the headphone world, I find the bass to be pretty consistent with what I know to be accurate high fidelity reproduction. Again, depending on how accurate you require your bass to be, a decibel or two of variance that's acceptable to some persons might be annoying to others. Other headphones I compared the SRH-940 to are the Shure SRH-1840 and the B&W P5. The P5 sounds slightly hollow compared to the SRH-940, it sounds somewhat muffled on the high end, and sounds a little bit weak in the deep bass. Given that the P5 and SRH-940 sell for about the same price and that the SRH-940 wins in sound quality on all counts (in my opinion), I'd say that the P5's advantage is smaller size and better portability. Compared to the SRH-1840, the 1840 has less brightness in the "presence" area around 4 to 7 khz and a very slight edge in soundstage and upper harmonic detail. The SRH-940 will play at reasonable volume levels with portable devices such as most cellphones, iPods and so on. The straight cord feels strong enough to withstand some abuse, and with the earcups pulled all the way down and rotated against my chest, I can have the headphone around my neck all day long without it getting in my way when I'm not listening to it. It also comes with a coiled cord. Neither cord has an angled plug unfortunately. The other good news with the cord is that it's detachable. The other less-than-good news is that the detachable end is partially proprietary. The detachable plug is a standard sub-mini plug (next size smaller than a 1/8 inch mini-plug), but the plastic fitting behind that plug locks into the jack on the earcup in a way that would require DIY'ers to take the earcup apart if they want to use a different cable without the proprietary connector. The earcups of the SRH-940 completely surround my ears, and it's a close fit. The internal space for ears in each oval earcup measure 2-5/8 by 1-7/8 inches. I find the fit very comfortable, but people with much larger ears may feel very cramped. The carrycase that comes with the SRH-940 is fairly large, and would take up a lot of space in a carry-on bag for airline travel. If this is your situation, I'd recommend carrying the SRH-940 around your neck when boarding, or just wrap it in something thin to place in a suitcase, to give it minimal protection. The entire headphone seems to be plastic except for the velour earpads, and Made In China means they optimized the SRH-940 for lowest production cost. The good news is that it seems to be very well made, and given the sound quality, a real bargain at the usual prices. Isolation from external sounds is good even when not playing music. When playing music, I can't hear the telephone ring from 3 feet away, and the ringer is the old-fashioned kind - very attention-getting. People often ask about the headband and comfort issues, and my experience says that the weight of the 940 is light enough that most of it is supported by the earcups and only a small percentage by the headband. In fact, if a user pulls the earcups down just slightly more than needed to fit their ears, that will lighten the headband pressure to the point that the feeling of wearing the headphone will virtually disappear. In addition to the pop music tracks listed below, which I used mainly for detecting weaknesses or other problems with the sound, I played a wide variety of genres (Jazz, Diana Krall, Bill Evans Trio; Bach organ, Biggs; Beethoven 9th, Solti CSO; Chopin, Moravec; Reggae, Marley, Tosh; Country, Haggard, Yoakam; Verdi, Domingo; Sinatra and Bennett; Punk, Germs, Fear, Sid Vicious, Social Distortion; Medieval, Madrigali, Medieval Babes; Trance, Mylene Farmer, etc.) The following are some of the music tracks I tested with, and the main features I listened for with those tracks: Blues Project - Caress Me Baby (piercing guitar sound, handled well). Cocteau Twins - Carolyn's Fingers (guitar string detail and quality, excellent). Commodores - Night Shift (bass detail, excellent). Germs - Forming (raw garage sound, good). Lick The Tins - Can't Help Falling In Love (tin whistle, very clear and clean). Lou Reed - Walk On The Wild Side (bass impact, good; detail excellent). REM - Radio Free Europe (drum impact, very good). Rolling Stones - She's So Cold (bass impact and guitar sound, very good). U2 - With Or Without You (bass boom/high-pitched instruments/sibilants, handled well). Van Morrison - Into The Mystic (bass, moderate). Who - Bargain (voice trailing off: "best I ever had", very good vocal harmonics).
  4. I would sure like to get a DVD of Beethoven Symphony 9 by NHK Symphony Tokyo dir. by Vladimir Ashkenazy. Videos have been on Youtube for a long time but I don't find a DVD.
  5. The Phiaton MS-400 I purchased is the black and red version, which looks exactly like its photos when you see it up close. The build and quality look good but the cord is thin, so for portable use you need to be careful with that cord. I compared the sound of the MS-400 to the Philips Stretch headphone, because that was the closest thing I had access to which also sounds similar. I did my listening tests with an iPod Touch 2011 version, which controls low-impedance headphones quite well. The most obvious quality of each headphone was the very strong bass, which was boosted overall from the lower midrange down to the very low frequencies. I decided to use the "Bass Reducer" EQ setting on the iPod, because otherwise the bass was too boomy with these headphones, and I did not want to mix in the use of a headphone amp since this review applies strictly to portable use. What surprised me about the EQ setting was how the actual bass with the MS-400 was still strong and detailed, and flat as far as I could tell down to 30 hz. The bass did seem to drop off 3 or 4 db at 20 hz, so bear in mind that's with the reduced bass setting. One more thing I need to mention is how the earpad seal affects the bass response. In my case, when I put the MS-400 on the fit was so immediate and comfortable it was like I didn't even have a headphone on. Amazing comfort and a perfect seal. But when my wife put them on there was a gap at the bottom of the earcups that we couldn't figure out how to plug, and so she did not hear the strong bass that I did. Based on her head and ear shape compared to mine, I'd guess that people with very small heads or unusual ear shapes might not get a perfect seal with the MS-400. Comparing the midrange of the MS-400 to that of the Philips Stretch, the Stretch had a pronounced emphasis in the upper midrange which imparts an "EEEEEEEEE" (in English) effect to the sound. Since the MS-400 midrange sounded so much better, I compared it to the Sennheiser HD-800 as well. Compared to the HD-800, the MS-400 had a slight "AWWWWWW" coloration, but nothing that would offend even with a headphone costing twice as much. The highs of the MS-400 were comparable to the Stretch and not as sparkly or clear as the HD-800, but still very smooth and detailed. The highs did not exhibit any harshness or sibilance that I could attribute to the headphone. My overall impression of the MS-400 is that it's a very good deal at the original price, and a bargain at some of the lower prices I've seen recently. The overall sound is close enough to the Sennheiser HD-800 that I can (and will) use it for home listening and not feel like I'm being deprived of anything important. In addition to the pop music tracks listed below, which I used mainly for detecting weaknesses or other problems with the sound, I played a wide variety of genres (Jazz, Diana Krall, Bill Evans Trio; Bach organ, Biggs; Beethoven 9th, Solti CSO; Chopin, Moravec; Reggae, Marley, Tosh; Country, Haggard, Yoakam; Verdi, Domingo; Sinatra and Bennett; Punk, Germs, Fear, Sid Vicious, Social Distortion; Medieval, Madrigali, Medieval Babes; Trance, Mylene Farmer, etc.) The following are some of the music tracks I tested with, and the main features I listened for with those tracks: Blues Project - Caress Me Baby (piercing guitar sound, handled very well). Cocteau Twins - Carolyn's Fingers (guitar string detail and quality, very good). Commodores - Night Shift (bass detail, very good). Germs - Forming (raw garage sound, very good). Lick The Tins - Can't Help Falling In Love (tin whistle, very clear and clean). Lou Reed - Walk On The Wild Side (bass impact and detail, very good). REM - Radio Free Europe (drum impact, very good). Rolling Stones - She's So Cold (bass impact and guitar sound, very good). U2 - With Or Without You (bass very slightly boomy; high-pitched instruments/sibilants handled very well). Van Morrison - Into The Mystic (bass, moderate). Who - Bargain (voice trailing off: "best I ever had", good vocal harmonics).
  6. I also recommend the Phiaton MS-400, which sounds perfect for this person.
  7. I can't figure out what headphone that is with the purple cups.
  8. So how do the Bose 901a sound? How deep does the bass go? Do the Skullcandy compare favorably to the Beyer 880?
  9. The OP asked for louder bass, and the PX-200-II has much weaker bass than the PX-100-II.
  10. I did some more tests with the Philips Stretch (iPod controls version) last night, and I found that with the iPod EQ set to 'Piano', it improved the sound in the midrange to get a nearly perfect overall balance. But what is really amazing about this headphone is (and I confirmed this with test tones) it goes all the way down to 20 hz flat, and free of distortion in the deepest bass, even when played loud. In that respect it is much better than any of the Sennheiser PX-100-II series. In fact, if the new Beyerdynamic DT-1350 had sounded this good, I would have kept it. I don't hear any midrange colorations with the Philips Stretch.
  11. PX-100ii - be sure it's the PX-100ii, not the PX-100.
  12. I bought the Beyerdynamic DTX-300p in the U.S. for $50.USD. I think it sounds much better than Sennheiser's PX-100ii or PX-200ii, which cost a lot more.
  13. I did not intend to write a second review of the DT-48E, but after spending some time studying the headphone measurements at InnerFidelity, I needed to clear some things up. I did not have any objections to the negative review of the DT-48E there, but since the actual measurements were so far off from what both test tones and music listening indicate for the DT-48E, I decided to re-test it myself and publish the results. Getting an accurate (more or less) fix on the DT-48E's high end wasn't easy, but I think I have it down to about a 6 to 8 db maximum difference between frequencies, between approximately 4 khz and 9 khz. That 6 to 8 db maximum difference is a fraction of the 35 db difference in InnerFidelity's measured response in that range. To increase accuracy, I listened at length to tones in that range with the HD-800, comparing the perceived loudness at different frequencies and checking those perceptions against the graph. For example, the HD-800 measured response was about the same at 6 and 8 khz, but my ears said the 8 khz tone sounded about 3 db (half the volume) weaker. Applying an extra 3 db to the DT-48E's response between 8 and 9 khz compared to 5 khz for example, where the DT-48E's response was the weakest, I came up with the maximum difference of 6 to 8 db. So the perceived difference was 3 to 5 db, and stretching it another 3 db per the HD-800 example gave me the final value of 6 to 8. I stated in a previous post that the 20 db measured peak-to-dip in the DT-48E's bass from 60 to 80 hz turned out to be no more than a 3 db difference with repeated listening comparisons. I did extensive music listening tests comparing these two headphones, to try to determine the qualitative and quantitative differences between the two, taking into consideration the measurements as well as my listening with the test tones. In the end, the HD-800 was brighter in the expected range from approximately 3 to 8 khz, but not by very much. More to the point is that while the Beyer DT-1350 measured fairly close to the DT-48E in that brightness range, the listening tests were very different. The DT-48E tracks close to the HD-800 in the brightness range in listening tests, being slightly darker, but the DT-1350 is very much recessed or darker in that range, and does not compare at all to the DT-48E. In fact, the DT-1350 has a fairly large hollow sound in the midrange, making the overall sound very dry. The DT-48E has a slightly more forward midrange than the HD-800, but none of the hollowness/dryness coloration of the DT-1350. Compared to the HD-800, the overall bass response of the DT-48E is slightly weaker using test tones, varying from 2 to 3 db in my tests. When a good earpad seal is effected with the DT-48E, it does not sound bass-shy compared to the HD-800. However, getting that good seal may be difficult for some people. You have to understand that it's a moisture seal basically, and if your head is very dry, if you're in a low-humidity room, it may take several minutes for the seal to complete. In the meantime before the seal is achieved, users have noted a "bass shyness" and so that perception has become the standard line for the DT-48E. One crucial difference in the HD-800's design, the rear-firing drivers that give it a bigger soundstage or a sense of "depth", makes listening tests more difficult - not so much with test tones, but definitely with music. Some very bright instruments such as the percussion crescendos in the HDTracks release of Jimmy Smith's Basin Street Blues may seem a bit more harsh with the DT-48E, but that's because it's going straight into your ear instead of from an angle, further away as is the case with the HD-800. An extreme example of pushing the sound farther out and away to increase the soundstage would be the Bose 901 loudspeakers. The HD-800 supposedly does its magic without smearing the sound as does the Bose 901, so there you are. My conclusions are as follows: The HD-800 is much more comfortable to use (and the comfort is instantaneous), it does not require any sort of perfect seal to the head for listening or measuring, and the more spacious soundstage all combine to make it the better headphone for the average audiophile, noting the $1100 difference in price. The DT-48E's frequency response variations in the 4 khz to 9 khz seem greater than the HD-800's, but I cannot determine which headphone has the overall brightness that's more accurate for music listening. The DT-48E is not only good for music listening in all genres, it is probably far and away the best and clearest sounding headphone in the sub-$500 range, again noting the need to achieve a good earpad seal. As a studio monitor I doubt that the sound quality has much if any bearing on its suitability to that task, but certain practical issues may override sound quality. For example, I note that while Gordon Holt of Stereophile continued to rate the DT-48 above the Beyer DT-480 for sound quality well into the 1970's, he was seen more often using the DT-480 for monitoring. Having used the much-colored DT-480 myself then, I suspect the ability to put the headphone on and remove it without having to make adjustments or get a perfect seal was the determining factor. Final note: The current (2011) version of the DT-48E is what I tested - the older versions do not have "high fidelity" sound.
  14. Isn't that interesting. When KMET Los Angeles and WMMS Cleveland were playing these in the early 1970's they were progressive rock. So this long after the fact, they've now been reclassified as Classic Rock. I wonder what they will be called in, say, 2040 or 2050? Maybe then they will be History Rock, or Ancient Mystery Rock.
  15. I would think that Who's Next, and Led Zeppelin IV with Stairway to Heaven would be near the top of this list. In 1969, Abbey Road by the Beatles and Let It Bleed by the Rolling Stones were the biggest things of that year by far.
  16. I'm not familiar with your selections, but I'll give you my experience and maybe you can get some useful info from that. I use the Sennheiser PX100ii, the PX200ii, and the Beyerdynamic DTX300p. The PX100ii is dark on the highs but has strong bass, not boomy or bloated though. The PX200ii has light bass, and a good mid and highs but accentuated around 3 khz. The DTX300p is similar to the PX200ii, but does not have the accentuated area. But the DTX300p is harder to make a good fit on the ears because it tends to slide around and not stay in place when you move around.
  17. Well, Marcus, keep your address a secret - that looks like a pretty rich haul.
  18. The Philips O'Neill Stretch has a stronger bass than the average headphone, but it's not just an emphasized upper bass that falls off at lower frequencies. The bass goes all the way down and is still strong in the 30 hz range. The sound from the lower midrange through the upper midrange is tilted to the right somewhat, if you visualize flat (no tilt) as the theoretical ideal. This makes the sound warmer and less bright than the so-called "neutral" headphones such as the B&W P5 or Sennheiser HD-600. While the sound is less bright in the upper midrange, the very high frequencies around 10 to 12 khz are comparable to most of the better headphones costing twice as much or more than the Philips Stretch. While the bass is generally very strong and might seem overpowering with some music and some listeners, I played quite a few tracks, and especially up-close concert videos by David Gilmore and Diana Krall that have strong bass lines, and the bass never seemed to overpower the vocals or midrange instruments. I would rate the overall sound of the Philips Stretch for quality and musicality as good as headphones costing at least twice as much, which makes the Philips a bargain in its price range in my opinion. The sensitivity of the Philips is quite good and it will play very loudly with iPods and other comparable music players. The Philips Stretch is comfortable to wear even after a couple of hours, and there are no comfort or sound quality issues when I'm wearing glasses. This is a closed-back headphone, with isolation from external noise that varies according to the pitch or frequency of the noise (crickets chirping - excellent; running water and fans - good; dishwasher or vaccuum cleaner - not so good). The construction or build quality of the Philips Stretch is very good from what I see, even though much of it is lightweight plastic. It looks good and feels good, but I can't guess what the durability would be if it gets thrown around a lot, especially outdoors. One of the details I really like is the detachable cord, which can be replaced in an instant if need be. What's even better than that in my view is the quality of the cord itself - it's a woven fabric on the outside that seems very strong, and does not cling to things as do the rubberized cords that come with comparable headphones from Sennheiser and other companies. In addition to the pop music tracks listed below, which I used mainly for detecting weaknesses or other problems with the sound, I played a wide variety of genres (Jazz, Diana Krall, Bill Evans Trio; Bach organ, Biggs; Beethoven 9th, Solti CSO; Chopin, Moravec; Reggae, Marley, Tosh; Country, Haggard, Yoakam; Verdi, Domingo; Sinatra and Bennett; Punk, Germs, Fear, Sid Vicious, Social Distortion; Medieval, Madrigali, Medieval Babes; Trance, Mylene Farmer, etc.) The following are some of the music tracks I tested with, and the main features I listened for with those tracks: Blues Project - Caress Me Baby (piercing guitar sound: handled very well). Cocteau Twins - Carolyn's Fingers (guitar string detail and quality: excellent). Commodores - Night Shift (bass detail: fair, slightly boomy). Germs - Forming (raw garage sound: slightly muffled). Lick The Tins - Can't Help Falling In Love (tin whistle: clear and clean). Lou Reed - Walk On The Wild Side (bass impact: slightly boomy. detail: fair). REM - Radio Free Europe (drum impact: strong). Rolling Stones - She's So Cold (bass impact: strong. guitar sound: fair). U2 - With Or Without You (bass: slightly boomy; high-pitched instruments and sibilants: mostly muted). Van Morrison - Into The Mystic (bass: strong). Who - Bargain (voice trailing off: "best I ever had", vocal harmonics: fair).
  19. Beyerdynamic DTX-300p Review Part 2 Visualize the perfect headphone. For many of you, it's what you have now, only in solid platinum that's lightweight and comfortable. With that out of the way, I'll start with a top of the line electrostatic with a few of the ortho qualities thrown in. Ruler-flat response from 20 to 20 khz. A liquid sound like angels singing. Highs that add infinite sparkle to triangles and shimmer to cymbals. Lows that would make earthquakes jealous. And what, you may ask, does any of this have to do with a very low priced portable headphone? Well, I needed a starting point before I start subtracting the qualities you're not going to get for well under $100USD. Next, you might ask if there will be anything left after all that subtracting. The answer is yes - quite a bit of good musical enjoyment with a well-balanced sound, given its limitations. The good news is the lack of things added to the sound, which are the colorations you'd normally expect in this price range. The DTX-300p has a significant emphasis in the middle midrange around 400 hz, at least compared to my main reference, the Sennheiser HD-800. But that raises the issue of how emphasis is determined, other than reading frequency response curves or reviews by trusted sources. I've found that when I listen to one headphone for awhile, for example the HD-800, and switch to another headphone, the DTX-300p in this case, my immediate impression is that the colorations (or the major ones) are in the headphone I just switched to, since I've adjusted to the sound I've been listening to with the previous headphone. What I just described applies to my listening tests whenever one of the headphones being tested has a sound signature that's more familiar than the others, giving it an advantage in the tests. And that's why I decided on a different approach for this second review of the DTX-300p, the first review being my initial impressions based on two days of listening and brief comparisons to other headphones. In my first review I decided that the DTX-300p was most comparable to the Sennheiser PX-200-II, since both of these are lightweight plastic closed-back headphones intended for use with small portable music players. I will take a different view this time. Since the PX-200-II has a very significant emphasis in the upper midrange (the region that produces an "EEEEEEE" [in English] sound coloration), its sound signature is so much different than the DTX-300p, and less desirable in my view, that I've decided to make my comparisons this time to the PX-100-II. The PX-100-II might seem like the wrong choice for a comparison to the DTX-300p, since the PX-100-II is open and the DTX-300p is closed. But since the DTX-300p offers almost no isolation - far less than the PX-200-II which itself has very little isolation, the only significant difference between the PX-100-II and the DTX-300p is the leakage of sound to persons close by. The DTX-300p does well in that regard, since I can use them next to another person who's trying to sleep, and they can't hear anything even though I'm playing music at close to (-4 to -5 db) normal listening volume. As it happens, the difference in sound signature between the PX-100-II and the DTX-300p is a 180-degree turnabout from the PX-200-II to DTX-300p comparison. The DTX-300p is still the headphone in the center, with the emphasis around 400 hz or so, and the PX-100-II has its emphasis much lower - perhaps around 150 hz. In fact, the PX-100-II sounds so dark and distant by comparison that it makes the difference between the PX-100-II and PX-200-II seem twice as far apart as I previously felt they were. Note here that the PX-100-II has been altered to remove the center portion of its foam ear cushions, otherwise it would be darker-sounding still. The PX-200-II and DTX-300p don't have layers of foam between their drivers and your ears, so alterations of that kind weren't applicable to those headphones. Now that I've compared the DTX-300p to headphones at both ends of the color spectrum (my description), the question that confronts me is "Is the DTX-300p more neutral than the Sennheiser 'PX' headphones, or can it be characterized as neutral at all?" Since there are few if any absolutes in this business, I can only offer conjectures based on my experiences so far. I play mostly MP3's, from a wide variety of sources, and with a wide variety of quality from low-fi to approximately CD quality at 320 kbs. I do feel that I have enough good material to make the following judgements, where I proceed with those subtractions I mentioned in the second paragraph of this article. First we subtract some bass. The very deep bass, around 30 hz or so, is not really there. I've heard a hint of it on tracks like the opening of Also Sprach Zarathustra performed by the Pasadena Symphony and Jorge Mester, but even turning up the volume doesn't produce the tone or the impact. The upper bass is there to a limited extent, but lower in volume by about 5 db compared to the PX-100-II, and lower by about 2 db compared to the PX-200-II. The lower midrange is also lower in volume compared to the PX-100-II, but about the same as the PX-200-II. The fact that the lower midrange is also down a few db compared to the Sennheiser HD-800 is why I suggest that the DTX-300p has a significant midrange emphasis around 400 hz, since that tonal area sticks out when the frequency response above and below that area is weaker. While it's obvious comparing the DTX-300p to the PX-100-II and the HD-800 that it has less output in the lower midrange, the lesser output in the upper midrange is more subtle, more difficult to evaluate, and maybe even a bit controversial. That's the area that some observers have suggested is boosted slightly on the HD-800, to add a sense of liveliness or presence. If that's true, it could add to my perception that the DTX-300p's midrange has a lot of emphasis. In either case, the middle midrange is the only area where the DTX-300p has any emphasis as far as I can tell. The very high frequencies of the DTX-300p are muted somewhat, down approximately 3 to 4 db at 12 khz compared to the HD-800, and falling off rapidly from there. The highs of the DTX-300p are comparable to the two 'PX' series headphones. After all of these comparisons, to expensive headphones like the HD-800, to competitive headphones like the 'PX' series, and to absolutes (more or less) like frequency response measurements and so on, I keep coming back to the question of "How does the DTX-300p sound?" And to me it sounds about as good as my source material. Playing Chopin piano works today, mazurkas mostly by Moravec, Pollack, Shakin et al, I got the sense that I was actually in the room with the piano, although the room was open and spacious and did not have close-by walls or other reinforcements that would augment the bass frequencies, which would give more "weight" to the sound. Playing a few Bach organ pieces recorded on mechanical tracker organs with low-pressure pipes, the sound was also realistic and less bass-dependent due to the baroque-era organ design. With the DTX-300p I don't feel like I'm missing treble tones, or extreme highs even though as I noted the highs above 10 khz are down several db compared to mid- and upper-priced headphones. If you are really tuned into the particular sounds of cymbals, triangles and other very high frequency generating instruments, and would be distressed by the failure to reproduce those with full harmonic overtones, the DTX-300p is not for you. If you're a fan of rap, hip-hop, modern church organ or other bass-centric music, you also may find the DTX-300p unsatisfactory for those types of recordings. For me, I tend to be bothered by noticeable colorations in headphones, but when the coloration consists of a moderate boost in the middle midrange with a not too severe rolloff in the lows and extreme highs, I can not only live with that, but actually enjoy most of my music collection on that headphone.
  20. Comparing the DT-1350 to the Sennheiser HD-800 and Beyer DT-48E (2011 version), the DT-1350 has a very pronounced emphasis in the "AWWWWWW" region of the midrange, while the HD-800 has a mild emphasis in the "EHHHHHH" to "EEEEEEE" region, and the DT-48E a mild emphasis about halfway between those two. The headphone I have on hand that most closely matches the midrange sound of the DT-1350 is the Sennheiser PX-100-II (modified to remove the center of the foam cushions), and while the PX-100-II has less of the midrange emphasis than the DT-1350, the DT-1350 has greater clarity and high-end extension which is to be expected given its price range. Bass with the DT-1350 is similar to the HD-800, but somewhat stronger in the 40 to 60 hz region. People who like "full strength" bass should like the DT-1350, since the bass is strong without being excessive or boomy. Bass detail is very good with the DT-1350, and is strong and clear down to 32 hz or lower. The DT-1350's highs are smooth and comparable to the HD-800. One of the things I compared was part of Beethoven's 9th symphony, 4th movement (Solti/Chicago/1972) following the first vocal break where there are some triangle sounds that resolve very well on both headphones. My overall conclusion is that the DT-1350 sounds more forward in the midrange around 400 hz or so compared to the HD-800 and DT-48E, yet has smooth and detailed bass and highs, and so will likely appeal to people who find headphones like the HD-800 too laid back and polite, or too bright in the upper midrange. One thing I especially like with the DT-1350 is how the bass has some of that "reach out and grab you" visceral impact, which few headphones can duplicate and still be fairly tight and detailed. I can't comment on the design of the DT-1350 for studio or professional use, but the thin cord doesn't seem strong enough to withstand the kind of yanking and tugging that occur in those arenas. Comfort is good from the first moments, since the headband has a wide range of adjustment, the right amount of pressure to keep the headphone secure when moving around, and soft earpads that don't pinch the outer ear parts. The 80-ohm impedance of the DT-1350 didn't seem to be a factor in my tests, since I got good volume and essentially the same frequency response whether playing from iPod, iPad, or headphone amp from the iPod "line out" dock connector. In addition to the pop music tracks listed below, which I used mainly for detecting weaknesses or other problems with the sound, I played a wide variety of genres (Jazz, Diana Krall, Bill Evans Trio; Bach organ, Biggs; Beethoven 9th, Solti CSO; Chopin, Moravec; Reggae, Marley, Tosh; Country, Haggard, Yoakam; Verdi, Domingo; Sinatra and Bennett; Punk, Germs, Fear, Sid Vicious, Social Distortion; Medieval, Madrigali, Medieval Babes; Trance, Mylene Farmer, etc.) The following are some of the music tracks I tested with, and the main features I listened for with those tracks: Blues Project - Caress Me Baby (piercing guitar sound, handled well). Cocteau Twins - Carolyn's Fingers (guitar string detail and quality, very good). Commodores - Night Shift (bass detail, very good). Germs - Forming (raw garage sound, excellent). Lick The Tins - Can't Help Falling In Love (tin whistle, very clear and clean). Lou Reed - Walk On The Wild Side (bass impact and detail, excellent). REM - Radio Free Europe (drum impact, very good). Rolling Stones - She's So Cold (bass impact and guitar sound, very good). U2 - With Or Without You (bass slightly boomy; high-pitched instruments/sibilants handled well). Van Morrison - Into The Mystic (bass, moderate). Who - Bargain (voice trailing off: "best I ever had", good vocal harmonics).
  21. I compared the DTX-300p mainly to the Sennheiser PX-200-II, which is a similar design ("closed back"), albeit the DTX-300p is about 2/3 the price of the PX-200-II on average. The DTX-300p is constructed in a very lightweight manner, and didn't look nearly as well made or durable as the PX-200-II at first glance, but that's just an initial impression and since these are both lightweight portable headphones with thin cords, the DTX-300p may hold its own in that area. The DTX-300p has a 90-degree angled stereo miniplug whereas the PX-200-II has a straight plug. In spite of the angled plug on the DTX-300p, there is a 5 mm plastic extension ahead of the metal/electronic end so that it will fit into recessed minijacks on music players, etc. At first I couldn't get the cushions to fit properly on my ears like the PX-200-II's cushions do, but after a bit of bending and wearing the headband forward on my head to angle the earcups forward, I did manage to get a good fit. Getting a secure fit is essential to providing proper bass response. Bass with the DTX-300p is similar to the PX-200-II, which is lighter than average for headphones priced between the DTX-300p and PX-200-II. People who like "full strength" bass might prefer something like the Sennheiser PX-100-II, which has a strong bass that's not excessive or boomy. Still, the DTX-300p's bass has a fair degree of impact in most cases, and the detail is very good. The midrange of the DTX-300p differs from the PX-200-II in where the emphasis lies. The PX-200-II has a "EHHHHHH" to "EEEEEEE" (in English) coloration sound whereas the DTX-300p has a "AWWWWWW" emphasis/coloration, about an octave or two lower. I haven't found either one to be a problem in listening to most music, but your experience could vary depending on what you're most sensitive to. I did compare the midrange of the DTX-300p to Beyer's old studio headphone, the DT-48E (2011 version), and given that the DTX-300p is much less expensive and sounds good on its own, I'll just skip the rest of that comparison and move on to the next test. The DTX-300p's highs are smooth, but rolled off about the same as the PX-200-II, which is down about 6 db or so at 12 khz (compared to most higher-priced headphones) when running from an iPod music player. I didn't sense a deficiency in the highs, which balance well with the rest of the frequency range in my listening tests. My overall conclusion is that the DTX-300p's sound compares favorably to headphones costing nearly twice as much, and whereas some low-to-mid-priced headphones are picky about what type of music sounds best on them, the DTX-300p sounded good with everything I played. In addition to the pop music tracks listed below, which I used mainly for detecting weaknesses or other problems with the sound, I played a wide variety of genres (Jazz, Diana Krall, Bill Evans Trio; Bach organ, Biggs; Beethoven 9th, Solti CSO; Chopin, Moravec; Reggae, Marley, Tosh; Country, Haggard, Yoakam; Verdi, Domingo; Sinatra and Bennett; Punk, Germs, Fear, Sid Vicious, Playpen; Medieval, Madrigali, Medieval Babes; Trance, Mylene Farmer, etc.) The following are some of the music tracks I tested with, and the main features I listened for with those tracks: Blues Project - Caress Me Baby (piercing guitar sound, handled well). Cocteau Twins - Carolyn's Fingers (guitar string detail and quality, excellent). Commodores - Night Shift (bass detail, excellent). Germs - Forming (raw garage sound, good). Lick The Tins - Can't Help Falling In Love (tin whistle, very clear and clean). Lou Reed - Walk On The Wild Side (bass impact fair; detail good). REM - Radio Free Europe (drum impact, good). Rolling Stones - She's So Cold (bass impact and guitar sound, fair). U2 - With Or Without You (bass fair to weak; high-pitched instruments/sibilants handled well). Van Morrison - Into The Mystic (bass, weak). Who - Bargain (voice trailing off: "best I ever had", good vocal harmonics).
  22. Addendum to review: Due to the rolloff at ~14 khz with both the DT-48E and the HD-800 I compared it to, I assumed I would not hear any higher frequencies and let it go at that. After downloading the "free mosquito tones" from the Web, which are accurate as to frequency and loudness, I realized that while the DT-48E has significantly less output than the HD-800 at 14 khz, the DT-48E has much stronger output than the HD-800 at 15 and 16 khz. Beyond that I can't be sure because 17 khz sounds faint to me on both headphones. These tests were performed using an Apple iPod Touch, generation late 2010. A headphone amplifier can make these test tones louder, but they are sufficient for testing using the iPod with these headphones at normal or slightly more than normal listening volume, which is all that an iPod can supply to these kinds of headphones.
  23. I always do a Google search for best price. But check the reliability of the vendor also, which is usually available in reviews.
  24. I have two current headphones from Sennheiser, the PX-100-II and the PX-200-II. Do not forget that I'm talking about the -II models. The PX-100-II is good out of the box, and if you remove the center portion only of the earcushions, the sound becomes almost perfect. Excellent bass and midrange, slightly soft treble. The PX-200-II has weaker bass, but brighter mids and slightly better treble. Most people would be thrilled with the 100, but if you prefer the brighter 'phones, the 200 could be the perfect fit. I highly recommend both, and have reviews at Amazon.
  25. Bass is different. Listening to loudspeakers in a room, highs and mids reflect easily off of walls and make the sound come alive, which would otherwise have a deadness to it, like being in an anechoic chamber. But bass does not reflect so easily. On the one hand, deep bass frequencies easily pass through thin walls and openings in the room, and in most modern houses, usually result in thinness in the deep bass. Another problem with bass in the house are resonances. Room dimensions less than about 18 to 20 feet will build up standing waves and create enforcement at audible frequencies (actually, felt more than heard). This is based on the wavelength of the bass tone, which travels at about 1130 feet per second at sea level. The reason I mention the above is because deep bass as perceived in music is felt more than heard, especially at frequencies below about 40 hz, and that sensation of "impact" is essential to whether a loudspeaker is considered to have proper bass response. Headphones have a similar issue, insofar as being perceived as having proper bass response. Since the deep bass waves don't have a 20-foot length area in which to reflect and reinforce, you might expect that what you don't hear in actual bass tones would not be perceived at all. But the headphone makers make it happen anyway, and most of the higher priced headphones deliver "impact" in the low bass along with the sounds themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...