[LAU] headphones

[lynne shorthose]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:54:03 +0200
Fons Adriaensen <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:38:03PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> 
> > > Never EVER trust that indication. It's _always_ useless. Everybody just
> > > twists and bends the definition so much that they can essentially put
> > > any numbers there. It's worse than useless, it's misleading.
> > 
> > Apart from the fact that probably only small children (to young to wear 
> > phones) are able to hear that full range. For everyone else / everyone older 
> > the higher frequencies (above 16kHz or 19kHz) are only psychoacoustics. And 
> > if these are important to you on a headphone, you need to get one that has a 
> > (preferable flat:) frequency response up to 96kHz...
> 
> Very true. The one spec that is probably even more useless
> is the power rating of amplifiers.
> 
> Some manufacturers are (were) honest about FR specs. 
> The M15 tape recorder from Telefunken was probably one
> of the best ever made as regards sound quality, yet the
> official FR spec was 50 Hz to 15 kHz...
> 
> Returning to headphones, I have a HD600 which
> is great, but outside the price range considered by the OP.
> I use it often to play the piano (Linuxsampler) at night,
> and indeed sometimes you just forget you are using headphones,
> in particular if you add some room response to the otherwise
> dry sound of most electronic / software instruments.

don't suppose anyone here has experience of both the HD600 and 
HD650 models and so knows how they compare?
it's just that i treated myself to the 650s a while ago in the
hope of using them for mixing and mastering, but don't think
them at all suitable after having listened to them extensively.

i've always wondered whether the 650s were a step down from the
much lauded 600s, or whether i just wouldn't recognise quality
and neutrality if they broke into my house and spelt their names
on my fridge with alphabet magnets.
:)

cheers,
pete.