Mastering On Headphones

[Lehmman]

Originally Posted by fradoca

...it really really depends how you drive them.The advice i can give you to really unleash the potential of the hd 800 is to drive them balanced and with a current drive amplifier like the hpba2.Second thing use a much better cable than the stock one.Use a copper upocc cable with a large gauge like 20 or 21 awg.

Even though I feel the LCD-2 is an excellent sounding headphone, I would still rely on the HD-800 for my mastering sessions.
Much more precise and revealing.
Ref. the HPBA-2, I'm waiting for Mk II version to be released.
Tested Mk I with the 800, and was really impressed.
What was your custom cable?

[Franco]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

That maybe because 240DF's are itself "monitor simulated" and they do not sound like a headphones.

You know, I honestly don't know if these were meant to simulate speakers, I just remember reading that they were a standard for flat frequency response in the radio community for a very long time. It's possible that these room emulation programs work better for close-design headphones as opposed to an open-design headphone like the 240DF (don't like them on my HD650s either, and the "fake stereo" vinyl album versions I make for leisure listeing are heard over my Ety's, which have custom molds on them).

Originally Posted by sat159p1

I feel it exactly the same. I'm just using more headphones in my mastering work than I use monitors. That's because I've been listening on headphones since maybe 10? I get used to the sounds like this! There are many people that will say that you can't master on headphones properly, which is completely untrue.

Totally, I like to think that I know enough about audio these days to respect others' perception. There's no "right or wrong" especially when whatever you use translates to what other people hear; that's part of the magic! Big respect!

[fradoca]

Originally Posted by Lehmman

Even though I feel the LCD-2 is an excellent sounding headphone, I would still rely on the HD-800 for my mastering sessions.
Much more precise and revealing.
Ref. the HPBA-2, I'm waiting for Mk II version to be released.
Tested Mk I with the 800, and was really impressed.
What was your custom cable?

i'll upgrade to mk II version too for sure.
At the moment i have MK I with the hd800.
The custom balanced cable i have has been made by a friend of mine with
a 21 awg military spec rhodium plated copper.
It's the only cable the really brings out bass and midbass on the hd800.
The high performance of the hpba2 helps too.
All the others cables have inferior perfomance.
To be honest we tried different ones before finding the right one.

[jlsgear]

I find it EXTREMELY difficult to accurately judge 'reverb' on cans .. to a lesser extent judge 'bass' .. tho imho with the right cans you can assess bass levels pretty close.

J.

Originally Posted by Franco

You know, I honestly don't know if these were meant to simulate speakers, I just remember reading that they were a standard for flat frequency response in the radio community for a very long time. It's possible that these room emulation programs work better for close-design headphones as opposed to an open-design headphone like the 240DF (don't like them on my HD650s either, and the "fake stereo" vinyl album versions I make for leisure listeing are heard over my Ety's, which have custom molds on them).




Totally, I like to think that I know enough about audio these days to respect others' perception. There's no "right or wrong" especially when whatever you use translates to what other people hear; that's part of the magic! Big respect!

[Manatee]

Originally Posted by Lunatique

I have never tried EQ'ing the HD800, but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't improve its accuracy/neutrality. If you're going to try, make sure you read Tyll's review (particularly in the context of how HD800 compares to other world-class headphones, and the measurement graphs): Comparing World-Class Headphones | InnerFidelity

I didn't have any other issues with the HD800 when I auditioned it. My main problems with it were the artificial sounding resolution and highs, and the lack of authoritative sub-bass presence. I didn't hear any other weirdness like disjointed soundstage/stereo imaging or whatever.

I personally would spend far less and get the LCD-2 and then EQ it. See, if you're going to have to EQ the HD800 anyway, then why not get something that's much cheaper, but often deemed at least as good if not better, and has one of the best bass response in the history of headphones? You could consider the LCD-3 too, but that's double the price of LCD-2, and a lot of people don't feel the improvement is worthy the extra cost. And if you're going to EQ the LCD-2 anyway, I don't think there's any real need to spend so much more on something that's going to mainly sound like a LCD-2 with slightly different frequency response.

As things currently stand, I feel that an EQ'd LCD-2 is by far the best bang for the buck on the planet in terms of high-end headphones. You get world-class performance that becomes incredibly close to ideal/perfect with just a bit of EQ'ing, and for less than $1,000. I can even post my custom LCD-2 EQ curve here if you guys are interested, and I'll teach you guys how to assess your individual LCD-2's frequency response graph (the print out that comes with each headphone, since they test them before shipping them out) and how to attain the most ideal/accurate response you could possibly have in a pair of headphones.

That would be great if you could share your EQ curve, etc. I was thinking of buying a pair of the LCD-2s. Thank you.

[Lunatique]

Originally Posted by Manatee

That would be great if you could share your EQ curve, etc. I was thinking of buying a pair of the LCD-2s. Thank you.

My EQ curves for LCD-2, HD650, M50, and 007mk2

Just follow the slanted white line I mentioned in that thread, and then use the graph that comes with your LCD-2 to achieve the ideal headphone response.

[griff71177]

Was wondering if anyone could recommend A good set of headphones. Anyone master tracks with headphones, what kind do you use?

[MASSIVE Master]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that would suggest any sort of critical listening with tonal accuracy is involved with headphones... Listening for clicks and pops, reverb trails, gaps - sure. Mixing with headphones? No. Mastering with headphones? Never even heard of it.

[Doughboy]

I hate that word "Mastering".....Eskimos have like 27 words for snow.....why can't we have at least 3 or 4 words for mastering.

Per your question of headphones for Mastering. Are you referring to mastering a CD for Alison Krauss or for John Mayer? Well....if that's what you mean then you need 5 million dollars worth of equipment, headphones won't work. Do you mean you want to make a better finished version of your songs. T Racks, Ozone type of stuff. This is where we need the word that is not "mastering"....finalizing, spit and polish, self-mastering, home-mastering.

I just bought a set of AKG 701 Quincy Jones headphones Amazon.com: AKG Quincy Jones Signature Series Q701 Premium Class Reference Headphones Green (Green): Musical Instruments and there are freakin' great. My spit and polish shine masters are much superior then they were without them.

By the way, I didn't pay this much. I think I paid about $260, but this is the first link I came to.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

If you look at the pictures of the HPBA-2 and the dual version of the same unit the single unit has a toroidal transformer while the dual version has a standard open frame transformer. I personally find that somewhat odd. FWIW

[fradoca]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

If you look at the pictures of the HPBA-2 and the dual version of the same unit the single unit has a toroidal transformer while the dual version has a standard open frame transformer. I personally find that somewhat odd. FWIW

because you can customize the unit to your needs.that's simple.

[fradoca]

Originally Posted by Manatee

That would be great if you could share your EQ curve, etc. I was thinking of buying a pair of the LCD-2s. Thank you.

Lcd-2 are very good headphones but Audeze the manufacturer is having
a lot of quality issues because many owners have reported driver failures
after some hours or weeks of use.This is happening with both Lcd-2 and Lcd-3.
I would not spend 2000 bucks for an lcd-3 with the fear that after a week or a month one of the 2 drivers could stop working.
Let's say that Sennheiser is much more "anal" about quality control
before delivering their own products.For me that matters a lot.

[Jim Williams]

The cans do eliminate any enviromental effects on the playback, it also maintains a consistant image which will change with your head movment using speakers. I use both as that works well for me. Each have their attributes, despite what naysayers claim.

Pick cans to taste, headphone amps are critical. Commercial offerings didn't cut it for me, I rolled my own using CFA's, class A biasing and Harris HA5002 buffers, direct coupled, 40 mhz to DC bandwidth, .0005% THD.

[dan98]

FWIW, incase its useful to someone - after much trial and error, this is my EQ curve + Isone for Senn HD800, translates pretty well to PMC IB1 / TB2 setup in treated room.
DG

[lame pseudonym]

I know that mixing and mastering in headphones is wrong, but isn't that (earbuds) what people listen to music on nowadays?

LP



.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by lame pseudonym

I know that mixing and mastering in headphones is wrong, but isn't that (earbuds) what people listen to music on nowadays?
LP
.

There you go again, making trouble for all these esteemed mastering engineers. We shouldn't let the fact that 80% now listen on earbuds effect what the ME's say what we need to listen on.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by lame pseudonym

I know that mixing and mastering in headphones is wrong,

Right, because there's an "industry standard" when it comes to speakers+room setups and everyone's room response is perfectly accurate (this is what would need to be in place for people to be so adamant about Speakers and a room being the benchmark when it comes to "critical listening").

EDIT: To help you begin *your* journey into what "critical listening" is, understand that there is no such thing as "perfect" when it comes to audio perception. Experience with one system over many years and working with various types of material with such a system is what counts. If whatever you use for critical listening, be it speakers, speakers AND headphones, or headphones AND speakers, etc. translates well to others' playback systems, this is what counts (especially if they're paying you to work on their music and it sounds great everywhere they play it) - not what anyone else says.

[DanDan]

I refer to Headphones for all critical decisions, Mixing and Mastering.
Wrong is not a useful term in the creative arts or crafts IMHO.
DD

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by Franco

Experience with one system over many years and working with various types of material with such a system is what counts. If whatever you use for critical listening, be it speakers, speakers AND headphones, or headphones AND speakers, etc. translates well to others' playback systems, this is what counts

Bingo!

[Lehmman]

^
absolutely agree.

[polybonk]

^
Plus 1