Headphones recommendation

[Rincewind]

It is amusing to see how price and quality are often equated. Just because something is cheap does not mean it is bad and just just because something is expensive does not mean it is good. Having said that, there comes a point where the cost is so low that the product simply cannot be good for the intended purpose of the buyer.

In this case the headphones have been designed to be a cheap VoiP headset that reproduce, with little accuracy, voice frequencies. Using them for something else, like audio recording/mixing/"mastering", make absolutely no sense at all. The only thing these headphones represent are itself and even then the likelihood of it having the same response as another one if itself is very low. Until the audio community starts to professionalise its logic it should stop calling itself "Pro audio"!

[Guest]

Equally, though, please try to understand that no one here has your amazing ability to mix accurately when using such inexpensive headphones.

I am not Supermen, I am sure that's not true.

I think the general consensus here is that we need the most accurate and revealing headphones available within our budgets, so we can actually hear the results of our mixing and processing decisions. And that mixing on the most accurate and neutral headphones is the only way to ensure the resulting material translates well to the widest possible range of end-user equipment -- be it speakers, headphones, in-ears or whatever, and across all quality levels from the cheapest and least accurate to the most expensive and most accurate!

I know it's been said already, but the danger of mixing on ultra-low-cost headphones is that you will end up (a) compensating for that specific system's inherent inadequacies /inaccuracies and (b) missing faults or balance issues in the material that may be revealed on more accurate and revealing listening conditions.

So while you might be able to make something sound great on those specific headphones, the mix may well end up sounding rough or less polished on something more accurate and revealing....

Most people use cheap headphones that I use, so I think it's not big of a deal if it doesn't sound highy accurate on precise expensive headphones. I think you'll make worse mistake if you use super high precision headphones that cheap headphones can't support , because majority of people use very cheap headphones.
Again I say, it doesn't have to be super accurate, I am not looking for high precision, just as best it can be within range of cheap headphones.

I hope this is the end of this discussion, as I don't want to prolong this, so ANYONE PLEASE EITHER NAME SPECIFIC BRAND AND MODEL or GIVE ME A GUIDE OF A SPECIFICATION.

[Guest]

It is amusing to see how price and quality are often equated. Just because something is cheap does not mean it is bad and just just because something is expensive does not mean it is good. Having said that, there comes a point where the cost is so low that the product simply cannot be good for the intended purpose of the buyer.

In this case the headphones have been designed to be a cheap VoiP headset that reproduce, with little accuracy, voice frequencies. Using them for something else, like audio recording/mixing/"mastering", make absolutely no sense at all. The only thing these headphones represent are itself and even then the likelihood of it having the same response as another one if itself is very low. Until the audio community starts to professionalise its logic it should stop calling itself "Pro audio"!

OK, then name better one in range of $12, don't tell me they are not pro, I know that.

[Rincewind]

What I was trying to say is that just because something makes a sound does not mean it is any good. There is nothing good priced at 12 USD. It will only be useful to make a sound that is not useful. This community will not condone or recommend anything like that. Just buy something and quietly be happy with it, or more likely not happy once you realise how useless this approach is. Buy cheap, buy twice!

[Hugh Robjohns]

Most people use cheap headphones that I use...

I agree. Most people do use cheap headphones. But the ones they are using aren't the same as the ones you use, or the same as the ones their friends use! There are hundreds if not thousands of different 'cheap headphones' on the market, and they all sound quite different -- the tonal and temporal strengths and weaknesses of your headphones are likely to be very different from those of others.

... and you've already identified a couple of major failings with your set. That's going to be typical of headphones in your price range.

So to cure those failings you've identified, you will need headphones that have better drivers, and better acoustic enclosures... and immediately we are talking about something more expensive, because better equality costs more.

And now you're on the road everyone has been trying to explain and encourage... The idea of 'high quality' monitors or headphones is that they are as neutral and accurate as they can be, so that the user can audition the maximum information possible from the mix presentation and thus process and balance it accurately and consistently. That's the only way to ensure that the resulting mix works consistently and reliably on any system.

As always, there are different degrees of 'high quality'. When I started in this lark my first 'quality' headphones were Sennhesier HD414s (now discontinued)... and I thought they were fantastic until I later listened on some HD600s and discovered all sorts of things in mixes that I didn't even know were there on the 414s!

There are some very expensive headphones around, but like most things, the quality improvements become smaller and smaller as the costs go up and up. You don't need to spend big bucks to get something very capable and respectable.... but I'd really recommend spending more than a few quid!

I think you'll make worse mistake if you use super high precision headphones that cheap headphones can't support...

That's just not the way it works I'm afraid. In simplistic terms, ultra-cheap headphones will mask mix errors that can be heard quite easily by anyone using higher-quality models. And different ultra-cheap headphones will mask or fail to reproduce different things, so some listeners will be surprised or disappointed by things in the mix that you may not even be aware of! That's the fundamental problem with your approach.

ANYONE PLEASE EITHER NAME SPECIFIC BRAND AND MODEL or GIVE ME A GUIDE OF A SPECIFICATION.

There's no point in trying to define a spec because ultra-cheap headphones don't come with a spec! So allow I can suggest is that you buy whatever fits your ultra-low budget and feels comfortable on your head. That's as good as it gets.

[MOF]

Why are you so determined to spend such a small amount on equipment?
When I started getting into home recording I was a teenager and did Saturday and holiday jobs to buy an electric piano, stereo reel to reel tape recorder, monophonic synthesizer, then a four track recorder, basic mixer and SM58 microphone. The recording package alone was £1000 in 1978.
I had cheap headphones then but they would have been more expensive than what you’re proposing to spend now.
Given the quality you can achieve with modern DAWs you owe it to yourself to get some quality headphones to actually hear what you are mixing.
The AKG K371 headphones reviewed in February’s SOS magazine have a very good review and can be bought for £99.
There are issues with your ‘Professionals’ mix as you said originally and that’s why you need good quality headphones.
Wait until you do vocals then you’ll really struggle, don’t use the boom mic’ on the headphones unless you’re after a lo-fi sound.

[Guest]

Most people use cheap headphones that I use...

I agree. Most people do use cheap headphones. But the ones they are using aren't the same as the ones you use, or the same as the ones their friends use! There are hundreds if not thousands of different 'cheap headphones' on the market, and they all sound quite different -- the tonal and temporal strengths and weaknesses of your headphones are likely to be very different from those of others.

... and you've already identified a couple of major failings with your set. That's going to be typical of headphones in your price range.

I don't agree, most cheap headphones are basically all the same quality and sound in terms of specs.
As are the expensive ones. And it's not only about headphones, it's also about hifi system, not all players give the same sound with or without expensive headphones.

So to cure those failings you've identified, you will need headphones that have better drivers, and better acoustic enclosures... and immediately we are talking about something more expensive, because better equality costs more.

Expensive is not always better, period.

And now you're on the road everyone has been trying to explain and encourage... The idea of 'high quality' monitors or headphones is that they are as neutral and accurate as they can be, so that the user can audition the maximum information possible from the mix presentation and thus process and balance it accurately and consistently. That's the only way to ensure that the resulting mix works consistently and reliably on any system.

As always, there are different degrees of 'high quality'. When I started in this lark my first 'quality' headphones were Sennhesier HD414s (now discontinued)... and I thought they were fantastic until I later listened on some HD600s and discovered all sorts of things in mixes that I didn't even know were there on the 414s!

There are some very expensive headphones around, but like most things, the quality improvements become smaller and smaller as the costs go up and up. You don't need to spend big bucks to get something very capable and respectable.... but I'd really recommend spending more than a few quid!

Yes, up to $12.

I think you'll make worse mistake if you use super high precision headphones that cheap headphones can't support...

That's just not the way it works I'm afraid. In simplistic terms, ultra-cheap headphones will mask mix errors that can be heard quite easily by anyone using higher-quality models. And different ultra-cheap headphones will mask or fail to reproduce different things, so some listeners will be surprised or disappointed by things in the mix that you may not even be aware of! That's the fundamental problem with your approach.

It goes both ways, low and high-end headphones will never have equal sound, but as I said, most people have low-end headphones, so I think they will be more dissapointed with the sound then those one with high-end.
I talked to some pro-producers who say that they preffer some mid-to-low-end monitors in order to produce mix that will satisfy both end of range, so I follow their logic.

ANYONE PLEASE EITHER NAME SPECIFIC BRAND AND MODEL or GIVE ME A GUIDE OF A SPECIFICATION.

There's no point in trying to define a spec because ultra-cheap headphones don't come with a spec! So allow I can suggest is that you buy whatever fits your ultra-low budget and feels comfortable on your head. That's as good as it gets.

That's really stupid what you said, beacuse everything has spec, you are just being arrogant and limited, you only value high price, not real quality.

[Rincewind]

Someone here is not listening! Let's move to another thread and offer help to those who want to listen to the expert advice given.

[Guest]

Why are you so determined to spend such a small amount on equipment?

Because it's waste of money for me to buy expensive headphones!
It's not about money, but value.
I just don't want to spend more then $12, it's not worth it for me.

When I started getting into home recording I was a teenager and did Saturday and holiday jobs to buy an electric piano, stereo reel to reel tape recorder, monophonic synthesizer, then a four track recorder, basic mixer and SM58 microphone. The recording package alone was £1000 in 1978.
I had cheap headphones then but they would have been more expensive than what you’re proposing to spend now.
Given the quality you can achieve with modern DAWs you owe it to yourself to get some quality headphones to actually hear what you are mixing.
The AKG K371 headphones reviewed in February’s SOS magazine have a very good review and can be bought for £99.
There are issues with your ‘Professionals’ mix as you said originally and that’s why you need good quality headphones.
Wait until you do vocals then you’ll really struggle, don’t use the boom mic’ on the headphones unless you’re after a lo-fi sound.

Technology in 80's and now is quite different, low-end headphones then weren't good as these days.
I don't need them for vocals, just for instruments.

[Guest]

Someone here is not listening! Let's move to another thread and offer help to those who want to listen to the expert advice given.

Yes, you are!
It's like I have gone to shop to buy a candy, and sales person are convincing me to buy whole chocolate because it's bigger and better.

I don't want chocolate!

[Hugh Robjohns]

I don't agree, most cheap headphones are basically all the same quality and sound in terms of specs.

So why do you want to change the ones you already have if they are basically all the same quality and sound in terms of specs?

Expensive is not always better, period.

True enough. Some expensive stuff certainly isn't as good as it could or should be... but better components are generally more expensive as a rule of thumb, so there is generally a reasonably good correlation between quality and cost, at least until you get to the extremes of the price range.

I follow their logic.

Fair enough. Perhaps you should ask them to suggest $12 headphones for you too. The simple fact is that you are asking for something that is outside the realm of experience and knowledge of the people on this site. Sorry. We're not trying to wind you up. It's simply that your requirements and experiences aren't aligned with those of the people contributing to these forums (which includes quite a few 'pro producers' and other audio professionals).

That's really stupid what you said, because everything has spec...

Yes, everything manufactured does have a spec of some form... but it's depressing how often the published spec is meaningless, even for high quality stuff... and for ultra low-cost products the spec is either not published at all, or even less helpful!

So show me a meaningful and useful published specification for any $12 headphone and I'll gladly change my mind!

[Rincewind]

Much as I like chocolate, let's take a different analogy. What you are doing is going to a Rolls Royce dealer and asking about bicycles. You are then annoyed that you are getting advice about what colour your Silver Ghost should be whereas your real interest is a wheel pump. Just go to a bike dealer and buy what you want because we cannot help you.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Nice analogy! I'm sure Ian G will love being compared to Rolls Royce!

[Sam Spoons]

The car analogy may be a good one, imagine driving with all but a 6" square cleared in the middle of the windscreen covered in ice*. You could probably still drive but it won't be easy (or safe in the case of the car but, to the best of my knowledge nobody has died as a direct result of using cr@p headphones).

* TBF some people actually do that.

Anyway, spider senses tingling.......

[Kwackman]

Anyway, spider senses tingling.......

+1

[Guest]

So why do you want to change the ones you already have if they are basically all the same quality and sound in terms of specs?

I broke them by accident.

Fair enough. Perhaps you should ask them to suggest $12 headphones for you too.

I remembered that , it was said earlier. I didn't talk to them now.

That's really stupid what you said, because everything has spec...

Yes, everything manufactured does have a spec of some form... but it's depressing how often the published spec is meaningless, even for high quality stuff... and for ultra low-cost products the spec is either not published at all, or even less helpful!

So show me a meaningful and useful published specification for any $12 headphone and I'll gladly change my mind!

There are manufacturers like Genius, that publish full spec.

[Guest]

Much as I like chocolate, let's take a different analogy. What you are doing is going to a Rolls Royce dealer and asking about bicycles. You are then annoyed that you are getting advice about what colour your Silver Ghost should be whereas your real interest is a wheel pump. Just go to a bike dealer and buy what you want because we cannot help you.

It's not a good analogy. Rolls Royce is a car, and not a bicycle. It's not comparable.
And also, Rolls Royce is not a car, it's a status symbol. And beside, no one here can afford Rolls Royce, so don't put yourself on piedestal, it's cynical.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Okay... so let's consider the published 'full spec' for the HS-M200C model

Specifications

Sensitivity 105 dB
Frequency response 20 Hz – 20K Hz
Cable length 1.8 m
Impedance 32 Ω
Microphone YES
Weight 57 g
Colors Black

It's great to know that it has a nominal impedance of 32 Ohms. Pretty much typical for the type, but a genuinely meaningful spec all the same. Same with the cable length, and colour and weight.

But sadly, none of these give any clue whatsoever as to the sound quality.

The sensitivity figure could have been useful, but we don't know what that figure is relative to. I presume it's supposed to be an SPL figure, but we don't know how much input power is required to achieve that output level, or whether it's a flat response measurement or a weighted figure....

Perhaps you're thinking the frequency response measurements are more helpful... but no. We don't know what the amplitude limits are for those frequency response figures. How many dB down from the nominal level is it at those extremes? -1dB, -3dB, -10dB what? It makes a massive difference to the actual performance.

And what is the amplitude variation between those limits? +/-0.25dB, +/-1dB, +/-3dB, +/-10dB? what? Again, massive differences!

So, as I said, not meaningful or useful specifications, and of no help whatsoever in judging sound quality or even in comparing the performance of different headphone models.

I know this relates to speakers rather than headphones, but the principles still apply:

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/understanding-speaker-specifications

H

[Guest]

Let me just add one point.

I have some old speakers, they are not very good, they have very poor sound, bass isn't good, and they don't have fat, rich sound.
I used to check my mix on them, and when mix sounds good on them, then the mix sounds good on all speakers and headphones.

Same analogy I am using for headphones.

[Hugh Robjohns]

That's really great.

Still can't offer any recommendations for $12 headphones though.

[Guest]

Okay... so let's consider the published 'full spec' for the HS-M200C model

Specifications

Sensitivity 105 dB
Frequency response 20 Hz – 20K Hz
Cable length 1.8 m
Impedance 32 Ω
Microphone YES
Weight 57 g
Colors Black

It's great to know that it has a nominal impedance of 32 Ohms. Pretty much typical for the type, but a genuinely meaningful spec all the same. Same with the cable length, and colour and weight.

But sadly, none of these give any clue whatsoever as to the sound quality.

The sensitivity figure could have been useful, but we don't know what that figure is relative to. I presume it's supposed to be an SPL figure, but we don't know how much input power is required to achieve that output level, or whether it's a flat response measurement or a weighted figure....

Perhaps you're thinking the frequency response measurements are more helpful... but no. We don't know what the amplitude limits are for those frequency response figures. How many dB down from the nominal level is it at those extremes? -1dB, -3dB, -10dB what? It makes a massive difference to the actual performance.

And what is the amplitude variation between those limits? +/-0.25dB, +/-1dB, +/-3dB, +/-10dB? what? Again, massive differences!

So, as I said, not meaningful or useful specifications, and of no help whatsoever in judging sound quality or even in comparing the performance of different headphone models.

I know this relates to speakers rather than headphones, but the principles still apply:

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/understanding-speaker-specifications

H

Evaluate based on what you have, not on what you don't have.
You say impedance of 32 Ohms is good, thats good to know, becacuse there are also some with 24 Ohms.
I guess frequency should be wide as much as possible.
Sensitivity I don't quite understand.

[n o i s e f l e ur]

MOF, have you tried Waves Nx or a similar system? Give it a go, it will allow you to judge panning and levels better than phones alone. Obviously you'll probably want to sanity-check decisions on speakers, at least until you feel you can trust the system (if ever).

No I haven’t, I might buy Waves’ Abbey Road Studio 3 plugin some time but I think the combination of headphones and speakers is sufficient for now.
If I was constantly travelling with a laptop and had deadlines to fulfil then yes I’d buy it now.

I have the ARS3 plug as well as the NxVMR for comparison and TBF the NxVMR would be my preference to work on, leaving the ARS3 for occasional checking.

Be aware that you can get either plugin for a pittance bundled with the tracker device depending on the flavour of sale Waves run at the time (though currently the Abbey Road bundle isn't the best option, maybe next month!).

As you say, laptop-on-the-go or iPad - great use-case. But also for anyone in a situation where noise is an issue . . . obviously, and for the many (likely most) without effective or even any acoustic treatment.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Evaluate based on what you have, not on what you don't have.

If you don't have the information, you can't make an evaluation.

You say impedance of 32 Ohms is good, thats good to know, becacuse there are also some with 24 Ohms.

The impedance won't make any difference to the perceived quality. If all other parameters are exactly the same, a 24 Ohms model might seem fractionally louder than a 32 Ohms model... But different models also have different sensitivities so it's entirely possible that a 32 Ohms model could be louder than a different make with a 24 Ohms impedance!

That's why it's necessary to have full meaningful specs... With only a partial picture, you can't make an evaluation.

I guess frequency should be wide as much as possible.

Yes, I guess it should. So if one model is specified as 20Hz to 20kHz (+/-1dB) and another as15Hz to 22kHz (+/-10dB), which has the widest frequency response?

Sadly, If the spec doesn't provide those kinds of amplitude limits, you just dont know what are you comparing. A spec that just says something like 20Hz to 20kHz is utterly meaningless and worthless... But it looks good to someone who doesn't appreciate what's missing! They might just as well have said "it makes boom and tiz noises..." that would be just as imformative!

Sensitivity I don't quite understand.

That makes it hard to comprehend the relevance and importance of the specs then...

[IAA]

Hugh, your commitment to education knows no bounds. If this guy had to pay for this advice he’s not taking........

[Hugh Robjohns]

He may or may not appreciate it, but over 650 other people have read this thread and I work on the basis that some of them will have learned something and will appreciate the efforts of all the contributors.