Sony MDR-V6 vs MDR-7506...

I used one of these, I can't remember which at my previous high school with their portable DAT recording rig; they were an excellent set of headphones. I've read some comparisons, and it seems that the 7506 smooths out the high-end response for less fatigue.

I'm looking for cans to use in a professional setting, and given that I can get the V6 for just under US$50 versus the 7506's US$95 - opinions? Alternatives? I looked at Sennheiser; I can get their HD477 for US$43; but frankly I prefer these Sonys (if they're the ones I heard at my last school, anyway).

 

The V6 and the V7506 are the exact same headphone. The only difference is the 7506 has a gold plated headphone jack.

For under $50US the V6 would make a good choice for studio work as they're fairly flat sounding and sturdy.
They're easily better than the Sennheiser offerings in the same pricerange.

I'd never use the V6 for personal listening myself though

 

I have other phones for personal listening Philips HP550.

One reviewer did an EQ sweep with a reference condenser and saw significant differences between the two - either they altered the design or there's wide tolerances in manufacturing...

 

I'd say there's probably either wide tolerances in manufacturing, or he wanted to see a difference.

There are reports of people who have a V6 cup on one side and a V7506 cup on the other of their headphones after having them repaired by Sony.

 

to me 7506 is very neutral. some people think it's a bit too "analytical" and are better for "analysing your mix" instead of "enjoying your music"

in any case they're a very good closed headphone. sturdy too.

like Sennheiser pricing is a bit off here in Aus.

apparently the V6 and 7506 are consumer and prosumer versions of the same headphone. perhaps there are differences in manufacturing tolerances? but if not, you'll find that within a single model of transducer unit to unit variations exist, so don't be surprised that a single V6 and 7506 measured differently.

 

3 is the V6, 4 is the 7506. But, if people are getting mixed cups.... well that answers the question. V6 it is

 

care to explain the graphs? is that FR response?

 

Sorry, I should have clarified. The tester produced a sine sweep in CEP, then made recordings 2 3 and 4 with a reference condenser (flat from 20-20k within 0.5dB) of a Grado SR-80, Sony MDR-V6 and Sony MDR-7506 respectively. The amplitude on each graph shows amplitude with respect to frequency, since the input signal was a sine sweep.

So, yes, they are about as accurate a response graph as you'll get without using an anechoic room and really expensive gear.

 

All that frequency graphing is such a wank. Who cares how the sound looks, it's how it friggin' sounds that's important.

 

How it looks is how it sounds, minus your personal ear's response curve. If you know your ear's curve, you can work out how any response curve will sound to your ear.

 

Actually frequency response graphs are pretty useless when making important choices, but they can be handy sometimes for identifying specific sonic characteristics of headphones - usually negative ones.
Then again, it's pretty damn hard to get a good measurement

 

Why? Don't dumb it down, I want a reason why a correctly measured freq curve is useless when it comes to analysing the way somethign sounds. Sorry if I seem a little angry but let's not discount something before talking it through. If I'm specifying PA speakers for a system, I want to know its exact response curve - and it's not feasible for me to audition every single potential speaker I'm looking at. Similarly, if I'm looking for microphones and I want something specific, either linearity over the frequency domain or a vocal curve, or a drum curve, or something else, then I better have a frequency response graph available or else I'm going to have to find a store or stores that happen to have audition stock available of every mic I'm interested in.

The graphs are not the be-all and end-all of sonic characteristic; that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm trying to make is that there are decisions that cannot be made without looking at a response curve; so don't blow them off. Headphones are no different - they are just a set of relatively small drivers, usually 2 (Damn Zalman) that have a specific response curve, given standard conditions. Now, how can you say that response curves are meaningless for headphones? Sure, proximity effect will change the low end; fine, that's easily accounted for. What else is so differrent, audio-wise, that means response curves are useless for headphones? I realise there are physical comfort factors to be taken into account. I'm talking the way it sounds, a la Gruggy.

End Rant.

 

My comment was mainly meant as a throw-away line but I feel a little more must be said. You're comparing the response curves of a sine wave being played through the headphone (I apologise if I've got this wrong). There would be very little connection between how a headphone played such a sound and how it sounded with MUSIC, which is what you want it for anyway.

A frequency response graph won't show you whether bass is bloated or whether there is bad treble decay. It's not going to tell you how solid the bass thump is or how clear vocals are. It's certainly noy going to give you any idea of soundstage or positioning and there's no way it will give an indication of how airy a 'phone sounds. These are just some of the things I want to know about a headphone that a frequency curve won't tell me.

Trying to analyse a headphone through it's repsonse curve is like trying to analyse how a car drives through it's power output curve. Sure it will give you a rough idea of where it's strengths lie on paper but there are a hundred other factors that effect how it actually drives - suspension, chasis, transmission. This analogy probably sucks but I hope you understand my point.

In this case, it's actually providing some extremely misleading information.

To finish off, perhaps you are better at interpreting graphs than I am, but I find it incomprehensible to think that you can tell how something is going to sound to your ear by looking at a picture of it's response.

Yes, in science fiction land where we all know our ear's personal response curve, frequency curves might be somewhat helpful. But in the real world they amount to little (in this case I'm referring to headphones only, I know nothing about PA systems). They are purely academic and serve no real purpose.

 

i think CailYoung was trying to point out that the V6 and 7506 are appreciably different. measurements are an excellent way to show this (if done right). sure FR is not going to give the whole picture on how they "sound", and without a doubt the complicating factor is that everybody's ears are different.

so whether you think it sounds better or worse is up to your ears. but not everyone owns a headphone shop like snufkin so we don't always get the chance to compare. yes it's hard to get a good measurement, which is not to say it can't be done, it's just that not everyone has the facilities (or education) for doing them.

You'll find that most reviewers/users prefer to explain how it sounds through their own ears. This is a common trait in the world of hi-fi, where reviewers use flowery language that reads like poetry.

but whether it's better or worse on different parameters (FR, IR, CSD, LD, NLD, L/R matching etc) can only be determined by measurement. and it's these parameters that can paint a better picture of how they might sound compared to other headphones. the picture isn't complete, but it's a more complete picture than trusting joe bloggs who reckons his headphones have "wikkid bass and crispy treble man!" or john reviewer who writes about "deep bass with that lovely texture married to extended and very airy highs"

Without scientific measurements (which Gruggy claims "serve no real purpose") we'd be stuck in the stone ages and todays' headphone would sound no better than one made in eg. the 1950s.

it's because we have scientists, empirical measurements, audiophiles with golden ears AND joe bloggs that headphones have slowly but steadily improved over the years.

I've heard both these headphones before seeing their FR graphs.

http://www.headphone.com/graphCompa...0020130035&buttonSelection=Compare+Headphones

Even if you've never heard these phones, anyone want to take a stab at how they'd compare when listening to "real music"?

With a bit of research in frequency response VS pitch perception I found that measurements are invaluable.

 

Ok, for production or studio purposes it's probably fair to say that looking at a headphone response graph may help get an idea of how suitable it will be for said application. For example, you want a nice flat response for studio work.

However - what about the equipment that you're testing it on? CD players and amplifiers also have response charts. What about the position of the testing equipment? Placing the mic 1cm off will give you a slightly different result.
What about your hearing? Have you had it tested lately? You'll find that if you have a dip at certain frequencies you may get the impression that your equipment has that dip.

To get an accurate response graph you'd have to test the equipment from multiple setups a few times and them work out an average - even then it's not going to tell you how the equipment sounds, all it will tell you is where specific noticable dips or peaks might be.

I generally look at response graphs AFTER listening to products to see if what I'm hearing is me, my source equipment, possibly my amp or the headphones. For example, the AKG K501 has a distinct bass rolloff, just about everyone hears it and the response graphs reinforce it - however some people have equipment that makes up for the bass rolloff and hear the headphones completely differently to others.


Anyway, in short - response graphs are good to get a vague idea of how something might sound, but honestly - look at graphs 3 and 4 - tell me how those 2 headphones are going to sound compared to each other. Which will be the "better" ? Better for my needs? Better for rock, dance, trance, classical, hiphop, metal?

If you're working on technical merits, theoretically the "best" headphones (or speakers) would have a perfectly flat response, right? Sure.. pity they'll most likely sound like crap for music

 

Thanks Snufkin, totally forgot to say something about sources.

Anyway, back to the topic, 7506 and V6 are the same, no matter what a frequency response tells you .

 

Hey, but that's not the fault of your gear.

It's because of the recording, or the recording engineer has tailored the sound in a particular way. (eg. to compensate for typical boombox or minisystem lack of low bass and upper treble)

For instance, a rock type music tends to get mixed on speakers with a heavy emphasis on the mid bass and upper treble region - the so-called "American" sound. It's no wonder this music sounds "crap" on a natural or neutral speaker.

Strictly speaking, studio monitors should be as flat as possible in their frequency response hence the hordes of high end studio's that use speakers with the FR profile of the BBC/Rogers LS3's etc. In practice, many smaller or more specialised studios use speakers that more closely approximate the speakers that those who will be playing the music back on have.

So what can the end user do?

If you listen to a wide variety of music then you can be sure that headphones or speakers with funny response profiles need a lot of tinkering and partnering (ie. compensation) with cd players, amps, cables to sound right.

It may be fun (and your dealer will love you it) to partner that headphone with bass rolloff with an amp with "ripe bass", then add an airy extended CD player with a natural non-fatiguing speaker cable, but it isn't cheap and certainly limits your upgrade choices.

Or you could just sell it all and start from scratch...

 

The perfect headphones would have the inverse to the Fletcher-Munson curves, providing a nearly flat response at the ear; perhaps with some proximity correction.

This is impossible though. Fletcher-Munson does not scale linearly with intensity. The best you can hope for is an inverse B-weighting, which is "medium loud" - 70dB-SPL at 1kHz.

CD Players have response charts? Please. Perhaps differences between DACs will cause minute differences in frequency response, but any decent player is going to have a variance of less than 3dB over the audible frequencies; which is not discernable to most ears.

Amps, yes, will produce different voltage gain at different frequencies, even Crown's spanking new Class I can't produce completely linear gain over 20-20k. But their response curve and damping factor etc are all easily measurable, meaning you can get an incredibly good idea of how a particular amp is going to affect your sound.

Which brings us back to the reproduction section. Clarity of sound could be covered by a damping factor measurement, or by inspection of the frequency response. "Bloated bass" will come from weak damping, or excessive bass response, depending on the design of the cups etc. Similarly clarity of vocals will come from high DF and a well shaped mid-to-high response. "Airiness" is again an EQ question. Positioning and soundstaging is a stereophonic specification and relies entirely on the position of the drivers relative to the ear. That's obviously not something any kind of EQ curve is going to show.

The biggest deal between 3 and 4 is the high frequency spikes. It's characteristic of single-driver systems to have harmonic-spaced jumps in response at the higher frequencies, this is just a fact of having One Cone To Rule Them All. The Grado design as you can see has a large spike then rolloff as you go up; probably due to the open design. The 7506 has almost level harmonic spikes all the way up to 20k. The V6 has more HF than the Grado, but there's a massive difference in gain at the high end - which leads to ear fatigue.

Finally, it's very simple to find out your ear's response curve. You find audiometric headphones with a +/- 0.5dB linearity over a certain range (I have access to a pair that's 800-8k, fairly handy) and use a sine generator. First you need to find your discernable intensity difference - usually 3dB - by playing the same tone and raising the volume until you can discern between reference and raised, usually at 1kHz. Then you step up and down the frequency range, gaining up or down the sine in intervals of your discernable difference and marking the gain or cut required to make each frequency the same to your ear. Flipping the sign on each measurement give you your ear's response curve, +/- 0.5dB.

Unfortunately for me, my tinnitus gives me a ~10500Hz peak to the order of 6dB or so which I'm thankfully aware of and do not over-correct for when mixing live, but very much correct for when EQing personal gear.

 

You forgot the Linear Crystal Actually-Negative-Oxygen Copper/Silver interconnects, which vastly improve Sonic Imaging.

EDIT: And reduce jitter on digital links!

 

after hearing his Aphelion loudspeaker in my living room, Equinox Audio designer Rick Stadelmaier told me it'd be best if I spent money first on capet and thicker furnishings before buying any more stereo gear. "The most important factor is the room, followed by speakers, followed by amplifier... the difference in a $300 cd player and $3000 is quite small")

but when i told my local hifi dealer about my living room with the porcelain tiles, he told me i could tame the excessive brightness and reverberation by using Kimber Kable. If I wanted some he happened to sell these in custom lengths, so no problems there he could hook me up! also if try copying audio CDs with "super powerful computers, 2 giga minimum" using black CDRs will sound better than the original.

scientific rationale was because the "laser was stronger" and "less diffraction and noise from the CDR"

i've never tried it. but apparently it works. any of you guys got these "super powerful computers" and black CDRs want to give it a try? (mine's only 1.75 ghz)

i'm still saving up for one, along with these awesome cryogenically deep frozen speaker cables

sure to give me that "really low, such as a big bass drum" sound that i was missing. i'll use these to bi-wire the bass drivers, and it should balance out the bright treble quite nicely.