Please Help:Headphones for Mixing and Mastering+Monitoring ?

[3phase]

sennheiser hd 25 best multi purpose headphone ever. and its light wight and sits good and tight on the head..

forget akg headphones,they are no fun and never was..



edit:regarding mixing a stax is defently better.. but thats another story.. the hd 25 ist astonishing truthfull for a monitor headphone


and.. mixing with headphones is only an addition to listening thru speakers.. you might spend the night shift on them.. but never rely on them.. beside headphone listening is damaging the ear more than being in front of a big pa... so dont wear them all the time and learn to run them on low level ( i never learned that.. its not so easy to have something on your ears having a distant low level sound.. i hate it.. most people do )

[lapieuvre]

You must try Grado

[locojohn]

...still i like ATH-M50 but this is only about design!

Cough... Well, they are undoubtedly good in the sound quality department as well. They are great sounding phones! Very good bass response, excellent isolation and overall very open and detailed sound for closed phones. I run them with Gracedesign m902 headphone amp, which makes them reveal everything.

For your purpose you'd better be off with open-back headphones, such as Sennheiser HD 650 or AKG 701. Though you'd need a good quality headphone amplifier to enjoy all the benefits!

Andrejs

[mr.ergonomics]

beside headphone listening is damaging the ear more than being in front of a big pa... so dont wear them all the time and learn to run them on low level ( i never learned that.. its not so easy to have something on your ears having a distant low level sound.. i hate it.. most people do )

I think this is one of the biggest urban legends ever. I did excessive researches on this topic and couldn't find a single proof that headphone listening is damaging your ears, besides too high SPL of course. I don't say this assumption is wrong, because I don't have proof it is, but I think it's mythe making to say it does.

[rikhyray]

beside headphone listening is damaging the ear more than being in front of a big pa... so dont wear them all the time and learn to run them on low level ( i never learned that.. its not so easy to have something on your ears having a distant low level sound.. i hate it.. most people do )

I think this is one of the biggest urban legends ever. I did excessive researches on this topic and couldn't find a single proof that headphone listening is damaging your ears, besides too high SPL of course. I don't say this assumption is wrong, because I don't have proof it is, but I think it's my the making to say it does.

No it is not urban legend (except that it can not be worse than huge pa or Marshall stack). I had SHL 3 years back (everything above 8k was gone on my left ear), took few weeks to get out of it, couple of months to use open cans and about year to be able to use closed cans again.
It is about the direct air pressure, that is why open cans are the "healthier" ones and the IEMs the most dangerous- I wouldnt recommend using those without some kind of protective circuit- just one impulse can be enough to damage your ears.
BTW. Last week did yearly test and was nicely surprised to see that my hearing is getting better, slowly but steadily recovering, not only higher but also lower range expanded. Mostly once damaged, it is for good. However I really changed my way of working and take good care and it shows, but obviously took more than 2 years.

[mr.ergonomics]

good to hear that your hearing get better!

but what you wrote is what I'm talking about. you don't have expert knowledge in this field of physics/medicine (no offence, really) and claim something without having a single proof for it.
I think it's a good question (I ask it myself) if it's more dangerous if the sound source is near the ear. But as far as I understand SPL already includes this (SPL in x meter distance to the source). I only can think of side effects, like the "pressure chamber effect" or something, but since some experts even say that IEMs can prevent hearing loss I don't see an evidence for that.

Again I don't say that headphones are healthy, but I don't find a single proof that they are, besides using them with too high SPL.


just a link regarding IEMs:
http://www.compudio.ca/2008/08/why-iem- ... afety.html

Besides having better sound quality in general, the careful use of IEM can also contribute to the prevention of hearing loss. Here’s why.

The seal of the ear canal from a pair of IEM blocks out external sound, thus reducing the total noise level exposed to the listener. In noisy environment, many with traditional earbuds tend to turn up the volume of their music in order drown out external noises. Under long-term exposure, this creates an extremely hazardous effect on one’s hearing. For example, on the bus, street traffic can reach up to 80 – 90 decibels (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association). In order to sufficiently hear one’s music over this level, one would have to crank their music up to at least 85 – 95 decibels. According to the ASHA, “Sounds louder than 80 decibels are considered potentially hazardous.” Needless to say, this is no way to enjoy music safely.

[rikhyray]

but what you wrote is what I'm talking about. you don't have expert knowledge in this field of physics/medicine (no offence, really) and claim something without having a single proof for it.

I do find it offensive, actually insulting, since you accuse me of unsubstantial statements and lack of competence on the subject, I am not going to post here my diplomas or whatever else evidence of my intellectual abilities, theoretical and practical knowledge in the field. In your case, I wasted my time writing , still I hope some other people might find the information useful.
Listen to salesmen , "prevent" hearing loss with IEM , that is your choice.

[3phase]

good to hear that your hearing get better!

but what you wrote is what I'm talking about. you don't have expert knowledge in this field of physics/medicine (no offence, really) and claim something without having a single proof for it.
I think it's a good question (I ask it myself) if it's more dangerous if the sound source is near the ear. But as far as I understand SPL already includes this (SPL in x meter distance to the source). I only can think of side effects, like the "pressure chamber effect" or something, but since some experts even say that IEMs can prevent hearing loss I don't see an evidence for that.

Again I don't say that headphones are healthy, but I don't find a single proof that they are, besides using them with too high SPL.

proof?

you ask for proof in one sentence and in the other you admit that listening on too high levels can be dangerous... isnt this a bit weard?..

of cause we talk about too high levels..and its easy to have too high levels with headphones.. there is no physical part in the sound..

i ve experianced it..others have experianced it..
i give 10000 times more to word of mouth in the studio scene than anything from the science department..
in the end of the day the science department allways had to adjust to human perception.

science most of the times prooves after a while what people know allready.. sometimes something can be disprooved.. but mainly phenomens percived subjektiv get an objektiv explantion after research...

remember the cd discussion in the early 80´s ..digital 16bit 44k cd format was supposed to be perfect but quite a lot of sound engineers diddnt really experianced it that way..
there was big discussions..and converter tests.. i personaly was able to witness one in a bigger berlin studio in the early 90´s.. they tested dat recorders of that time versus a studer 820... with dolby sr..

with mallets that played zildjan cymbals over good schoeps mics... on a low level..

only the 10000+bucks sony pcm 7030/7040? was able to at least recall the memory to a cymbal.. all the other dat´s in the test produced some metallic shredder sound.. the studer with dolby sr.. one to one...allmost noisefree and clean just sounded the same as the direct listening.. at least allmost.. much better than the best dat on the market at that time... the other pro dats in the field was beyond diskussion..
pacman sounds..

this test hasnt provved that analog is per se superior.. it just had prooven that most real exsisting pro gear at that time was still inferior, and that written statements regarding the topic was wishfull thinking but not reality.. in the end after one decade of dogma the thing was improoved.. suddenly people started to measure jitter. higher samplerates was introduced to allow better filtering.. psychoacoustic phenomens caused by mirror frequencies on the samplerate was discovered and so on..
Today we have a much more detailed picture and addtional knowledege regarding digital audio than back than.. And lots of explanations why the vinyl or tape recordings are percived to sound better... I think that knowledge wouldnt have been gained if the audio world just would have played along.. big parts played along.. but the hard dying rumors..that leaded to all the tests and discussions was prooven somehow wright.. even when the niqist theorem wasnt realy disprooven by it... there was just a bit more to it than just slicing the sound in 40000 pieces to have a clean 20 k response..

I wonder what else will be found in the future regarding that items...wouldnt be surprised if the field would hold some additional surprises.. like..digital audio can cause impotence and make your skin aging or so...

[3phase]

... you have to break them in because they change a lot in the first few hundred hours

Interesting...I've never heard this theory before.
Forgive my scepticism, but is there any documented evidence of this?
Not saying I don't believe it...it seems like it could be entirely possible when I think about it intuitively...the headphone diaphragm stretching with use, etc.

Just curious

go to any audiophile headphone sites faq section and they will reveal it all

like they reveal the benefits of golden power cables?

... but sure..any mechanical device alters it condition over time..and especially swinging devices need a time to get theier desired felxebilty..

applies to speakers .. so it applies to headphones aswell. to what degree i cant tell.. i would suspect a 15 inch woofer beeing more a subjekt to aging than a headphone capsule... or a microphone..

have you known that its common praxis to make new guitars sound better to have them some weeks in contact to a vibratig speaker cabinet to get the wood in a swinging state and therefore accelerate the aging process? .. myth or reality?
one for sure.. guitars that are played sound better than new ones

[anybody human]

I'm sure this has been mentioned. For mixing AKG K240 or 140, they're open back with pretty flat frequency response. You don't get ear (mind) fatigue or hearing damage and they're super accurate for checking time based effects and eq. For tracking I like Sony studio cans but for checking mixes open back AKG's rule.

[3phase]

??? did you ever had good headphones from sennheiser or beyer on your head? akg is really plastik crap that dont sits well on the head and the sound? ok but defenetly not better than the pro lines of sennheiser or beyer..

akg sticked designwise somewhere in the 70´s...

[mr.ergonomics]

but what you wrote is what I'm talking about. you don't have expert knowledge in this field of physics/medicine (no offence, really) and claim something without having a single proof for it.

I do find it offensive, actually insulting, since you accuse me of unsubstantial statements and lack of competence on the subject, I am not going to post here my diplomas or whatever else evidence of my intellectual abilities, theoretical and practical knowledge in the field. In your case, I wasted my time writing , still I hope some other people might find the information useful.
Listen to salesmen , "prevent" hearing loss with IEM , that is your choice.

I really don't want to insult you. And let's be mature here, I don't talk about your intellectual abilities or skills. See my english isn't that well, I have no problem to admit that, that doesn't mean that I don't have other skills where I'm good at. It's only the manner of saying something without a proof like you have one for it what leads to myth. And I don't like myth. Saying "maybe headphones are more dangerous to hearing" is one thing, saying they are is another story.

Again why should hearing with headphones at 80 db be more harmful than hearing to 80 db with speakers? can you give me a reason? no sarcasm here.

[mr.ergonomics]

proof?

you ask for proof in one sentence and in the other you admit that listening on too high levels can be dangerous... isnt this a bit weard?..

of cause we talk about too high levels..and its easy to have too high levels with headphones.. there is no physical part in the sound..

you should read again what I've wrote. I say that I don't know (that doesn't mean there is one) a reason why headphones at the same SPL should be more dangerous then speakers regarding hearing loss. That it's easier to crank up the volume with headphones is another story.

[3phase]

nobody said that.. but how do you know thats 80 db on the headphones? and how do you know when you are getting too loud? because the cups fall from the shelf or because it hurts?

when it hurts its too late allready.. ther are no painreceptors in the ear.. what is causing pain there are dieing receptor cells allready .....

and therefore listening on headphones can cause damage..as listening before a 120 db box can cause damage... but you probably dont have monitors in the studio that can produce 120 db.. many headphones do that easily...

and because ther is no physical responce from the low frequencies at 120 db you easily get too loud... 120 db over big studio monitors is defently wall shakin.. on headphones its just a little itchie

[3phase]

proof?

you ask for proof in one sentence and in the other you admit that listening on too high levels can be dangerous... isnt this a bit weard?..

of cause we talk about too high levels..and its easy to have too high levels with headphones.. there is no physical part in the sound..

you should read again what I've wrote. I say that I don't know (that doesn't mean there is one) a reason why headphones at the same SPL should be more dangerous then speakers regarding hearing loss. That it's easier to crank up the volume with headphones is another story.

you are dangerously missleading with your no proof campaign..

its all about that other story that its easier to crank up the volume..much to easy..therfor they are dangerous.. not because they are evil beeings from space ..no proove necessary