Beats by Dre Executive Headphones

We are now several models into the Beats by Dr Dre line of headphones and speakers, and as ever, you know what you’re getting with this range – namely, an intense and heightened bass response. Therefore, audiophiles and purists are not likely to be interested in the latest Beats by Dr Dre offering, a good looking Bluetooth headphone pair that offers powerful audio, along with bass response that's extremely boosted. The headphones are aesthetically pleasing and well made, but the price is a bit on the high side at the $250 mark.

Beats does branding better than most, and you immediately know what you're looking at. The headphones boast a shiny plastic band and "b" logo, combined with either white or black frames with grey and red highlights. The black, supra-aural (on-ear) earpads for the Beats Wireless are plush and comfortable, and though they sit on the ear, they are almost (but not quite) large enough to enclose it like a circumaural pair would.

Most headphone pairs with well-cushioned earcups also have well-padded headbands, but the interior of the Beats Wireless headband employs a thin, rubbery cushion that offers very little in the way of comfort. For short listening periods, you're unlikely to notice, but wear these for an hour or so, and it can start to feel like it's pressing on your skull a little too much.

No one will accuse Beats of not including enough controls on its Bluetooth headphones. The right earcup has a Power/Pairing button, a Play/Pause control, along with Track Forward and Backward buttons, and Volume controls. Though it can take a while to memorise the position of each, they are thoughtfully covered with Braille-like bumps so you can feel where to press.

Included with the headphones is a USB charging cable, a 3.5mm audio cable with phone controls, a cleaning cloth, and a padded zip-up carrying case that the headphones fold into. Both cables (and the cloth) are the trademark Beats red. The inclusion of the audio cable is a thoughtful move – one that manufacturers often skip. This allows you to use the headphones in passive mode, without depleting the battery (or when the battery has already been depleted).

If you were to take a quick visual survey of high-street headphone fashion, you’d notice two brands appearing again and again: Apple, with its trademark white earphones; and Beats, with models such as the Beats Executive we have here.
The company, co-founded by former N.W.A. rapper Dr Dre, has a solid track-record of producing desirable, stylish and punchy-sounding headphones, but the Executives mark its first move into the high-flyer market.
We mean that literally, too, for these are noise-cancelling cans – and are hoping to turf the Bose QuietComfort 15s right out of their seat in First Class.

The Beats Executives make a cracking first impression. Open the box and you’re presented with an attractive and sturdy carry-case, two 3.5mm leads (one with a one-button remote/mic unit), batteries, an aeroplane adapter, 6.3mm plug, a cleaning cloth, and the usual manuals and marketing materials.
Plus the headphones, of course. And what a pair of headphones they are. Flawlessly constructed from stainless steel and aluminium alloy, they drew admiring glances from all in the office – and equally enthusiastic ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ when people tried them on.

The magnetic battery-compartment cover on the left earcup is a particularly nice touch. Not only does it look nice and work well, it’ll probably last a fair bit longer than the usual plastic-catch mechanism you find on these things.

On the right earcup is the on/off switch and a mute button. Push the big ‘b’ logo and the Executives are muted (and the noise-cancelling disabled) for the duration of your press – handy for hearing that last-call-for-drinks announcement before landing. It doesn’t pause whatever you’re listening to, though…
Before running in, we check out the Beats’ noise-cancelling abilities. Which brings us on to our first two gripes: like many such designs, the Executives won’t work at all without being switched on (so if your batteries run out, that’s not only the end of your noise-cancellation, it’s the end of your music too); and when they are switched on, there’s an annoyingly constant hiss.
Audiophiles and purists tend to prefer headphones with flat responses or less exaggerated bass response, and are not likely to enjoy the Wireless Beats. These headphones have serious low-end, to the extent that classical music such as John Adams' "The Chairman Dances" can occasionally sound almost comical, with the already ominous, intense presence of lower register strings, brass, and percussion boosted to the point where they sound more like massive synthesisers rather than acoustic instruments, overpowering the rest of the mix with added rumble and resonance.

If the world were only for audio purists, though, what a boring world it would be. The Beats line works best, generally, with modern mixes for pop, rock, and hip hop, where deep, sub-bass frequencies are often par for the course. Not only can the Beats Wireless reproduce intense low end, like the electronic synth beat at the opening of the Knife's "Silent Shout" without a hint of distortion at maximum volume (on both the sound source and the headphones), but it sounds good doing so.
It may not be the most accurate reproduction of sound, but it can feel as if you're in a club or at a concert when playing Jay-Z and Kanye West's "No Church in the Wild" or Lower Dens' "Brains." If the intense thump of the kick drum or rumble of a bass line is what you're looking for, who cares what audiophiles say? The Beats Wireless delivers the rest of the frequency range with a reasonable enough level of integrity so that you can enjoy being a bass fiend without sacrificing too much clarity, though some mixes can lean towards the muddy end of the spectrum.

While this Beats by Dr Dre offering looks great and offers powerful audio, it is a tad pricey, and cost-wise it pushes into the realm of headphones that are usually more devoted to accurate audio reproduction. When you pay for Beats, you are paying for powerful audio, but also for looks and Dr Dre's implicit endorsement.
However, there’s no doubting that this is an excellent wireless choice for the target audience of bass lovers, with its distortion-free, thumping sound, not to mention passive/wired functionality. But I can't help feeling it would have been nice to see these headphones pitched a bit lower than the £200 mark, as opposed to over it.

Anyway, the show must go on. We give the Executives a short listen, pre-run in, to get a measure of their character.
These cans don’t shy away from giving low-frequencies their full attention – but they don’t have quite the same attack as other models in the company’s range. The treble is pretty sweet-sounding, though, and there’s nice detail to snare drums and cymbals.
After a good 24 hours (and a battery change), the sound settles down into itself. It’s more cohesive, but still lacks that punch and zing we were hoping for. The bass is as weighty as ever, but still isn’t tight enough to really help the music move along – and that’s a shame, because the midrange is quite pleasing.

There’s decent detail to percussion, the leading edges of snares and toms, and vocals have a nice, natural sound.
Crank them up and the treble hardens quite a lot, with hi-hats and crash cymbals becoming rather harsh and brittle. Listening to mellower recordings mitigates this, but the Beats really seem built for pop - so it’s wise to keep the volume under control.

Overall, though, it’s a slightly flat, tired-sounding performance – one that’s at odds with the rest of the Beats we’ve heard. We want more agility at this price; more pep, more attack and more in the way of dynamic range. There’s a lack of light and shade here, which masks some of these cans’ real skills. There’s such a thing as too easygoing, and that’s the case here.

We can forgive the Executives’ lack of neutrality, however.. They don't have the airiest or most natural sound compared with the Bose QuietComfort 15s. And neither do they stack up to the Logitechs or PSBs in the ‘fun’ stakes - both of these will have your toes tapping away with their more assured performances.

How to Set Up a Vocal Booth at Home

The vocal booth is a common image when it comes to modern recording. To the uninitiated, a studio isn't a "real" studio until it has a vocal booth. But is a vocal booth really necessary, or even desirable, for a typical project studio?

Vocal booth

For large, commercial studios a vocal booth makes sense. A facility like this will be large enough that even the "small" booth will be the size of many average home or bedroom studios, and can be well-treated to sound good. Having a large vocal booth lets the engineer isolate the vocalist during full-band tracking, using a sensitive condenser or ribbon microphone while drastically cutting down or removing bleedthrough from the rest of the band.

But even in large facilities, engineers and producers will often have the artist track their vocals in the control room. Some producers even prefer tracking vocals without headphones at all, instead playing the backing tracks through the monitors. Proponents of this method feel it's easier to get great, passionate vocal takes this way, and there are methods you can use to control bleed (see the sidebar Getting Rid of the Bleed below).

So even in a large studio, building and using a vocal booth makes sense only if you are able to make it large enough to sound good, and you want some amount of room sound on the song you are tracking. Or if you need isolation to track vocal takes while the rest of the band plays at the same time.

In contrast, a small private, project, or home studio is often of the one-room variety, and space is usually much more limited. Many recordists use a spare bedroom or a finished basement room. In such cases the most common mode of production is to build the tracks up, overdubbing one layer at a time, and not full-band tracking.

Vocal booths in studios like these are typically closet-size 'rooms,' often installed in the back of a control room. The booth is often made dead, with a thin layer of moving blankets, foam or fiberglass covering all interior surfaces of the booth. The result is a dead sound, which is desirable. But because of the small size and lack of bass trapping, many vocal booths are also boomy, which is not desirable and is, in some ways, worse than an untreated room.

These booths are so small, with all walls in such close proximity to both the sound source and the microphone, that peaks and deep nulls from comb filtering cause a jagged room response varying as much as 30dB throughout the entire frequency range. The effect of comb filtering is why small room ambience is always bad ambience - music recorded in such rooms has that boxy, small room sound that won't be fixed by $2,000 mic preamps or microphones. Compression usually makes the problem even worse.

The best treatment for small rooms approaches 100 percent coverage to get rid of as many reflections as possible. But it's also important to remember that small rooms need proportionately more bass trapping than larger rooms. So now you not only need to cover most of the walls and ceiling to deaden the sound, but you also need at least two to four corner bass traps as well.
When an enclosed booth really is needed for more isolation, it's better to use absorbing panels rather than rigid walls.

If you have the vocalist sing with the monitors in the control room going full tilt, the sound from the monitors will bleed into the vocal microphone. The following polarity trick will help reduce this.
After recording a take, record a dry take with only the monitors playing, and the performer remaining silent, onto a spare track labeled "bleed track." It is very important that you record the monitors without moving the microphones or adjusting the volume or the preamp gain, and that people in the room not make any noise while recording the bleed track. This will produce an identical copy of only the bleed that went into the mic during the vocal take.

Reverse the phase (polarity) of the bleed track and mix it with the vocal track with the gain on both tracks set the same. This cancels out the bleed in the main vocal take. If everything sounds as expected, render the two tracks into a new single track, and archive or delete the original source tracks.

Place the mic diaphragm facing your lips (sometimes off axis, if necessary). Listen with your headphones for the subtle differences. Try close (two or three inches) or mid-distance (one foot) mic’ing, depending on which sound works best for your track. Always use a pop filter in front of the mic to tame your “P” and “T” sounds. If you don’t own a pop filter, you can make one from scratch with a sock or stocking cap stretched over a wire hanger.

The acoustic problems aren't limited to the booth, either. The presence of the booth just makes the control room smaller, which is never good. A booth in the front of the room is even worse because it disturbs left-right symmetry, which damages monitoring clarity and imaging. It simply is not worth compromising your listening room in order to install a vocal booth that will produce questionable results.

In general, vocals are best recorded totally dry. It's easy to add reverb and ambience when mixing, and you can change your mind later about the amount and quality of ambience mix. A vocal recording with any kind of room ambience - good or bad - cannot be made dry again, if you find you don't like it (or that it doesn't fit the mix) the next day.

A PVB or also helps to a surprising degree with isolation. Careful attention to mic placement and pickup pattern along with the PVB's orientation can produce startling results. Admittedly, a PVB will not get rid of crying babies and barking dogs, but a booth has to be very well constructed, with a lot of mass and insulation in its walls and door, and be completely airtight to completely block loud noise anyway.

One potential problem with one-room recording is ambient noise, usually caused by a computer or fans in musical equipment. If you have this problem in your studio, a PVB placed properly between the musician and the noise source can reduce the noise that gets into the microphone. Top
So in nearly all cases, we recommend that most small studio owners not build a vocal booth, and instead track overdubs in the control room or the one-room studio. This is simply a better way to track vocals, that also leaves the room in better acoustic shape for mixing.

AKG 702 Headphones Review

AKG 702 Headphones Review

The K702 is a new addition to the Austrian manufacturers’ Pro line, though it is basically an improved version of the much-loved K701, the main purpose of which seems to have been to change the color so it shows less studio dirt. In the high-quality headphone market, the K702 claims uniqueness in its use of flat wire technology along with a patented Varimotion 2-layer diaphragm driven by neodymium magnets. In keeping with modern marketing practice little suggestion is made by AKG about how these things might impact the sound delivered by the K702s, other than to make a nod to accuracy, agility and spaciousness. One understandable feature is the easily removable cable, allowing upgrades or length changes as needed. The K702 also has several features aimed at ensuring comfort, an area where technology often offers more hope than reality–but which work in this case, as we shall see.

Like many other headphones, the K702 is an open back design - a feature that clearly makes them less suitable for use on airplane or in an office. Some listeners, however, insist that open-back headphones are consistently more natural sounding.

AKG 702

The K702 offers a sound that manages to seem almost faultless to the casual listener. This is an important achievement, and one that bespeaks smart design choices that may work well for many listeners. Like every headphone we’ve heard, the K702 has its limits, but first let’s catalog some of its superb performance attributes.

The core strength of the K702 is the artful frequency balance that AKG’s engineers have delivered. The K702 sounds very flat from about 150hz up to around 10khz, which means that instruments in a band or orchestra are consistently reproduced in proper relationship to each other. Not only that, but also most instruments sound natural on an individual basis.

Just as important, the K702 seems to roll off the upper treble very slightly. This characteristic might at first glance seem a drawback, but in practice it may in fact be a blessing in disguise. Let’s face it; a lot of music signals are a bit distorted or noisy in the treble region, so that it is not necessarily a bad thing for a headphone to de-emphasize those flaws. AKG’s choice fits well with the realities and quality limitations both of modern recordings and of some D/A converters. In short, the K702s reproduce treble problems in music or associated equipment, but without rubbing your face in them.
In addition to their slightly warm upper frequency balance, the K702s sound very well controlled and damped on transients. Cymbals or guitars rarely sound ragged or splashy, while vocals sound unfailingly smooth. This could be characterized as low distortion (that's certainly how it sounds), an important quality made even more important because it yields excellent instrumental separation. That sounds kind of analytical and geeky, but it means complex music doesn't get all congested and muddled.

At the same time, this smooth, well-controlled transient behavior also points, at least indirectly, toward two limitations of the K702. First, micro-dynamics, while not exactly MIA, are less vividly reproduced than they are with some competing headphones, such as the similarly priced Grado 325is or more expensive Sennheiser HD800s. The result is that the sense of the acoustic space in which the instrument or band is playing can get lost, as can the small but significant sonic details that give music its character and life-like feel. It is tough to say whether this loss, or the gain from the sense of low distortion is more important. Ideally one would like both, though over the long haul - assuming one has to choose -- the AKG approach makes sense.

Next, when we come to macro-dynamics, we’re also in an area where the K702s are good but not great. On drums, power guitar and vocal swells, the K702 sound reasonably lively judged against reproduced music we often hear, but they don’t quite capture the punch of the real thing (and there are other headphones that get closer). The 702s can sound reticent in the bass, which may be the reason for these observations.

These limitations are mainly subtractive, so without direct comparison to other headphones you might not notice them. That’s because the even tonal balance and smoothness of the K702 sounds realistic, and the K702s lack the obvious distortions that shout, “This isn’t real music.” Given that many headphones do have additive or distracting distortions, this fact alone might make the K702 a top choice for many listeners.

Another example of information loss comes on the Brandi Carlile track “Turpentine” [Brandi Carlile – The Story, Columbia], which opens with an acoustic guitar (a Collings 01SB) that is rendered clearly but with the emphasis mostly on string sound. In short, the AKGs give you less body sound than you would hear from a real guitar, meaning you miss out on some of the resonance and the ringing sound of the top of the instrument. Later in that song a cello enters and once again we hear more string, with fewer low-level body and overtone components than you’d hear with live sound (or than you can hear on this recording through some other headphones).

Competitive Comparison

Assuming you are looking at the K702 as a reference headphone, my comments, below, may help to place the AKGs in context with respect to higher, lower, and similarly priced headphones:

• The Shure SRH840 is less expensive, and offers a similar sound (in terms of basic smoothness and level of information retreival) . The K702 is a bit more evenly balanced, but slightly less dynamic.
• The Grado 325is is similarly priced (on the street), but sounds rather different. The 325is has a mid-range emphasis that means it is less evenly balanced than the K702, but offers more micro-dynamic detail and macro-dynamic punch.
• The Sennheiser HD800 is substantially more expensive. It offers more micro-dynamic detail, deeper bass and similar smoothness. But the HD800 can sound a little uneven in the treble.
• The K702s are very comfortable. The ear cups are big and the clamping force is low. The headband adjusts the earcups automatically to fit your head - a feature that worked well in our tests.
• The K702s come with a ten foot cord and a phone plug/mini-plug.

Note: The K702s are relatively inefficient. This is a headphone that simply must be used with a high-quality amplifier to get the best results.

Bottom Line:

AKG’s K702 is a very well balanced headphone that delivers admirable smoothness and warmth without obvious artifacts.
Specs & Pricing
AKG K702 Headphones
Accessories: mini-plug to phone plug adapter (screw on)

Weight: 8.3 oz.

Sensitivity: 105dB@1V

Impedance: 62 ohms

AKG 701 Headphones Review

Was I ever excited when I heard rumors of the existence of AKG's K 701! If you're among the audiophiles who sneer at those of us who like headphones, you're probably rolling your eyes and thinking I must lack a rich inner life.

But hold on there, Skippy - some of us use those cans in our prosumer studios, in recording sessions, and even in barn-burning late-night critical listening sessions where we employ ancillary equipment that would beggar your jaded high-end sensibilities. We're not talking about the three-buck, upchuck disposable 'phones your friendly flight attendant flogs before your in-flight main feature. We're talking about serious tools that can reveal a flea fart in a cathedral.

AKG 701

Well, some of us are. Me, I'm just a headphone geek, so news that AKG was going to launch a flagship dynamic headphone had me all aquiver with anticipation. After all, the company's last major assault on the state of the headphone art was the K 1000, which AKG called an "earspeaker," mostly because they resembled speakers in many ways - they sat off to the front of the ears and beamed music back into the pinnae, rather than pumping it more or less straight into the ear canal, as most phones do. They were also brutes to drive. John Marks was a big fan, and John's got great taste in gear - but I admired the K 1000s more than I loved 'em, mostly because I found them incredibly fiddly. I was never convinced that I'd angled both earspeakers equally, so I was always trying to get them in better balance. As Bob Reina once opined about electrostatic speakers: great for a desert-island system, where you'd be desperate for something to do, but for regular listening, not so much. Besides, the K 1000s cost nearly a grand by the time AKG discontinued them last year.

Rumor had it that the K701 would come in closer to $400, which they did - $500 and frequently discounted. And by the time Head-Fi had its regional NY Meet in November 2005, word had gone around the Internet that the K 701s would be there, which they were - just barely. AKG's US distributor had sent out two pairs prior to the meet, one to HeadRoom's Tyll Hertsens and another to a hard-core headphoner. Neither pair had logged more than a few hours of music-playing, and while they sounded intriguing, they had a hardness that didn't make me ready to trade in my reference Sennheiser HD-650s. But they were extremely comfortable, and their wire frames, leather headband, and white porcelain-like rims and motor housing made a dashing retro-futuristic fashion statement. They were also quiet - not a shred of hiss or hum.

Two days later, I got an e-mail from Hertsens: "I've now logged over 100 hours of music playing on the 701s and I have a new reference. You didn't hear half of what they could do." You better believe that the five months I waited to receive a review sample seemed like a long time. Why so long? AKG had a hit on its hands. They couldn't make 'em fast enough to cover demand.

If you haven't been paying attention to high-end headphones, $500 probably sounds like a lot of dough—and it is. You could be forgiven for thinking, What are those things made of, gold? Actually, nothing in the K 701s is all that rare, unless you count as rare the kind of engineering that sweats all the small details.

Take the cabling, for example. AKG's German-to-English translation machine calls it "true bi-wiring" in some publications and "balanced" in others. What they mean by that is that the 701s use separate grounds for each motor assembly rather than a common ground (although the ¼" jack does feature a common ground, of course). That's probably one reason I was struck by how silent the 701s were the first time I heard them - and all the times after that.

AKG uses 99.99% pure OFC, which may not be "six nines" (99.9% pure) copper, but it isn't what most headphones use, either. The voice-coils use flat wire, which is common enough in high-end loudspeakers and microphones, but again is less than common in cans. Flat-wire windings are said to better concentrate the magnetic field within the voice-coil, thus exerting superior control over the diaphragm's movement.

AKG 701

The 701s also boast AKG's Varimotion transducer. The diaphragm is contoured to be thicker at the center than at the periphery. The stiffer center acts as the tweeter, while the more pliant boundaries produce the low frequencies. AKG cuts runnels into the stiffer portion in order to tweak the diaphragm's mechanical impedance - or, as AKG puts it, "the diaphragm has been optimized to prevent unwanted vibration modes." The point is to keep the center of the diaphragm acting as pistonically as possible and thus keep the voice-coil centered in the magnetic field. This, AKG says, "results in lower harmonic distortion, extended bass response, and higher maximum loudness."

As I mentioned earlier, the 701s are extremely comfortable. Their huge, ear-enveloping foam pads, clad in some kind of velveteen, sat on my head for hours without seeming warm or tight. AKG says it uses "3-D foam," which I take to mean foams of different densities. They also claim the shape of the earpads allows the drivers to be aimed at the ears "at the proper angle." I can't prove that they were, but the sonic results were hard to argue with. The leather hammock-style sling that runs under the springy-wire connecting rails to cradle the listener's head also contributes to the luxe fit. Any way you slice it, the 701s coddle your head and ears.

Because the K 701 is aimed not at the iPod generation but at AKG's studio market, the phones are terminated with a ¼" jack plug. Still, a substantial machined-metal ¼"-to-1/8" converter is included in case you need to use 'em with a source equipped only with a mini jack. AKG also includes a 'docking cradle' - essentially a pedestal with a foam cutout that lets you perch the 701s atop your recording console or desktop. At first I thought this the dumbest gimme I'd ever seen, but I ended up using it a lot. Actually having a place to put something makes it more likely that I'll find it again in the chaos that is my office. Oh, who am I kidding - in the chaos that is my life.

So where would you use the K 701s? Monitoring recording sessions, obviously, as well as any place you need high-quality listening tools, which in my house means anywhere I have a headphone amp set up: office, living room, and laundry room (strange, I know, but my wife is devious about finding ways to get me to do chores).

Why use a headphone amp? Well, the K 701s aren't exceedingly hard to drive, but the flea wattage of the average portable (or even the ¼" jack present on most separates) tends to accentuate that initial edginess I alluded to in my first experience with the 701s in much the way listening to a pair of speakers near an amplifier's maximum output accentuates the amp's inadequacies. The 701s aren't unique in this regard; most ambitious headphone designs benefit tremendously from a well-designed headphone amp. Fortunately, I had a ton of such amps around the house: several generations of HeadRoom, Channel Island Audio's VHP-1, and Ray Samuels Audio's SR-71 and Hornet. All of them let the K 701s' tonal balance and authority blossom.

When I first received the AKG K 701s, I listened to them briefly to confirm my initial impression of an aggressive assertiveness I wouldn't cotton to. Forewarned by Tyll Hertsens' assertion that they needed to be run in, I set them up in an unused room, connected to a Channel Islands Audio VHP-1 and Musical Fidelity X-RayV3 CD player set to repeat. I didn't listen to them again for a few hundred hours, so no, I wasn't being broken in - they were.

About a week later, I checked in on the K 701s and that edginess was gone, replaced by balanced sound with a natural top-end sparkle and a ridiculously robust bottom end. What causes such a change? Some folks speculate that the diaphragm becomes more supple with play, or that the motor mechanism wears in. I don't pretend to know what goes on, only that a few hundred hours of vigorous play transformed the K 701s.

I'd intended to follow the text and home in on some of the flubs and mistakes Emerick enumerates in his saga, but that dog just plain wouldn't hunt. Oh, I heard 'em, but I was more captivated by the musical gestalt than by the details. McCartney's deliciously fat bass sound on "Here, There and Everywhere" just burbled along too delightfully for me to care about catching the lads out on any mistakes. And while I appreciated knowing that it was McCartney playing the guitar solo on "Taxman," I can't say I enjoyed the song any more for learning that.

It was the same story when I moved the K 701s into my home office and tried to get some work done while listening to some "background" music. With the 701s, there was no background music. Music was alive, compelling, demanding.

Is that too abstract? Should I break down the sound into bass, midrange, and high frequencies? Okay, the K 701s possessed some of the deepest bass I've ever heard from a pair of headphones. The bass was scary good, although it lacked some of the physical impact that speaker listening can convey on, say, a live jazz recording such as Bill Evans' Sunday at the Vanguard  (CD, Riverside 9376), where you not only hear Paul Motian's kickdrum flex the Vanguard's wooden floor, you feel it in your gut as well. On the AKGs, I heard it, but not in my gut.

Midrange? Oy! Such a midrange they have! On "Willy O'Win
bury," from Pentangle's Solomon's Seal (CD, Castle 555), the AKGs captured perfectly the slight catch in Jacqui McShee's voice as she delivers the king's line "If I were a woman as I am a man." I must have swooned over this song hundreds of times over the years, but I've almost never heard it as fully embodied as through the K 701s. They can teach old songs new tricks.

As for the K 701s' HF performance, I found myself listening to an enormous amount of acoustic string music for the very simple reason that the AKGs delivered the snap, bloom, and harmonic overtones of plucked strings with unbelievable clarity. David Russell's latest CD, Renaissance Favorites (Telarc CD-70659), spent a lot of time in the sundry listening stations around the house. Francesco Canova da Milano's Fantasia XIII, with its flurry of staccato runs and long tolling tones, was a particular favorite, especially for the way the decay of the notes sketched out the acoustic in which the piece was performed.

Of course, just 'cause I dug da Milano didn't mean I couldn't hear how great Bill Monroe's classic Decca sides were as well. Even though those recordings are almost half a century old, they still sound crisp and clear in Bluegrass: 1950–58 (4 CDs, Bear Family 15423). Although I'd listened to the Bear Family discs many times before auditioning the K 701s, I must have been listening with blinkers on (earplugs in?)—it had never penetrated my thick skull that Monroe didn't tune his mandolin the way other mortals did. Listening to "Sally Jo," I heard string sonorities that didn't match the classic octave pairings most players use, so I turned my office right-side up (it usually is upside down) looking for the CD booklet, which, sure enough, explained that "It was while at Decca that [Monroe] introduced and recorded his original and trademark mandolin tuning - where instead of four pairs of strings tuned to the same pitches as a violin, he tuned several pairs of strings to two different notes that added the otherworldly timbres to his 'high lonesome' sound."

Yeah, I'm probably an idiot not to have ever noticed that before, but dang, it had never been so baldly in my face -er , ears - before.

Over the last decade, my go-to headphones have been the Sennheiser HD-600s and the Sennheiser HD-650s. In my review of the HD-650s, I said, "When I listened to the Fab Four, for example, all I could hear were the punch-ins (the mid-strum appearance of a distorted guitar five seconds into 'Money'), dropouts (the lead guitar disappears from the right channel almost two minutes into 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'), and jokes ('Ahhhh, Paul,' sings John under Paul's lead 20 seconds into 'Lovely Rita')."

This actually proves two things: 1) I apparently don't have many original ideas, and 2) while I could hear all that stuff with the AKG 701s, it didn't really seem like that big a deal. Maybe I just don't like playing "gotcha!" as much as I used to, but I think it has more to do with my chief niggle regarding the HD-650s, which was that they could be, shall we say, overly analytical - that I could all too easily focus on the musical trees (or even branches) rather than the forest.

Comparing the AKG K 701s to the Sennheiser HD-650s with, oh, let's take David Russell's da Milano track (any of the others would do just as well), it was easy to hear why that was. Russell's guitar sounded rounder and warmer through the Sennheisers. Too warm and round, in fact. The AKGs matched the HD-650s for a full bottom end and pleasing tonality through the midrange, but the 701s had sparkle and life in the high frequencies and harmonics that the '650s simply didn't match.
Mind you, one of the glories of the HD-600s and HD-650s - to my ears, at least - had always been how unetched and natural their top ends sounded. Contrasted with cheap headphones, or even fairly pricey headphones with a reputation for "exciting" sound, what I love about the Sennheiser sound was the evidence that the designers had apparently taken an oath to first do no harm. However, with track after track, it became apparent to me that with the K 701s, AKG has developed headphones that not only did no harm to the top end, but also told the truth about what was going on up there.
The AKG K 701s have raised the bar for natural-sounding headphones.

Throughout the High End, the level of the good has gotten so darn good that honesty usually compels me to waffle a bit in the conclusion of a review. You pay a hefty price to go from pretty good to a wop bop a loobop a lop bam boom!  As a result, we reviewers have to qualify everything. At $450, AKG's K 701 isn't cheap, although it's far from the most expensive set of headphones available. It's not for you if you want to jog or commute with your iPod. You should use it with a headphone amp. And it's even possible that neutrality isn't what you want from a headphone - after all, you're the boss of you.

Still: the AKG K 701s are the best-sounding headphones I've heard - and not for the money, and not for picking apart a recording or playing gotcha! with recording engineers. The K 701s just flat-out sound more like music as I hear it than any other headphones I've ever heard. I love 'em and I won't be sending 'em back.

Behringer HPX6000 Phones Review

Behringer HPX6000

Introduction

 

Behringer has been a name that didn’t always instill deep feelings of confidence. But that’s all changing with their recent NAMM announcement of a full 3 year’s warranty on everything – even on normally abused headphones. But having played with these new Behringer HPX6000 cans for a while, I’d say they have a fair chance of seeing off that warranty.

In The Box: Pretty standard stuff – cans, a soft case, a coiled rubberised cable and the regulation gold adaptor. You get what you need and nothing more.

 

Looks: Behringer has clearly employed some rather more image conscious designers. Gone are the jarring splashes of cheap plastic chrome, and in are the rubberised matt special ops stylings of AIAIAI’s TMA-1 offerings. There is a silvery flash of the new Behringer logo on the earpiece, but that can be covered up with Styleflip custom covers if you want that extra level of personalisation. Or a Sharpie will do it too.

 

Build Quality: I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised in this respect. Despite the complete plastic construction, and more traditional hinged/screwed design, they’ve held up rather well. I always worry when I do my somewhat excessive stress tests, but these have remained totally creak-free. The top headband part is actually a separate and more flexible piece, which flexes and takes the strain away from the cups and hinges a little.

 

Replaceable ear pads are very welcome, as is the equally replaceable and locking coiled cable. This cable, due to its harder rubbery material is particularly tangle resistant.

 

Sound Quality: We’re talking DJ rather than studio headphones, so linear responses and focussing on numbers is less important. To me, these 50mm drivers sound bright enough at the top and especially bassy – just how we DJs like them. Compared to my Sennheisers and Pioneers, these are a good 10-15% louder too, which is always welcome, and even when pushed, they don’t distort.

Isolation: The closed backs help, but the pads aren’t the deepest in the world. Thus the seal around your ear isn’t as great as it could be. If there was one blot on the copybook, it’s in this section. It’s good, but not great.

 

Comfort and Stability: These aren’t the lightest of headphones, thus if you’re an energetic DJ, despite the tight grip on your head, these will move around a little. But they are very comfortable on your ear, especially with the smooth padded earpiece cover. The cups hinge and rotate 30° forward and 90° back – enough to find a comfortable fit anyone’s head. Speaking of which, the headband has a wide adjustment that should fit the smallest or biggest heads.

Compactness: Behringer wouldn’t supply a pouch it the HPX6000 cans didn’t fit in it, which thanks to the hinges and headbands, they do, very neatly.

 

Value for money: Retailing at $79.99, and given the overall across board thumbs up, the value for money is high. Back this up with the 3 year warranty, and that’s a cent shy of 70 bucks very well spent.

Summary

 

On the face of it, these Behringer HPX6000 headphones aren’t especially different to a lot of the standard fodder on the DJ headphone market. They bear much of the same features, construction and overall specification. But for me, Behringer has gone that step further to make a budget pair of headphones on a par with some costing twice as much. They look, feel and sound really good, leave money in your wallet and are backed up by a 3 year warranty. If this an indication of new Behringer, I cannot wait to see what else is coming. Good work.

Hype: Just about everything, especially the warranty
Gripe: The isolation could be a little better.


Shure SM57 Microphone Review

The legendary, yet inexpensive Studio Mic of all time.

If you ask nearly anyone who runs a professional recording studio, "Do you have a Shure SM57?"  they might look at you and ask, "are you are serious?" Of course they do. Every studio needs at least one, and possibly a half dozen. The reason is they not only sound good, but they can record practically anything. The SM57 is one of the most universal mics in the world.  It will record vocals, drums (particularly!), guitar cabs, bass cabs, acoustic guitars, brass, and stuff that is really loud.   While no one will claim it is the "best" mic for vocals or for delicate acoustic instruments, it will work, and with great predictability as to the sonic outcome. For people starting their home studios that don't have a lot of cash, this one is the mic to get.

The SM57 is a dynamic microphone with a cardioid, directional pattern.  Dynamic mics sound different than condenser mics, which are better for capturing hi and low frequencies. A dynamic mic like the SM57 does not need phantom power, which makes it more adaptable to mixers and recorders that don't have this feature. It records what it points to and rejects stuff from the side and from behind it. That makes it great for drums and good for the stage. It can also take very loud sounds without breaking up. Many drummers use it on the kick and snare drum because the sm57 can handle it, without a pad, where a condenser mic's sound would break up with distortion. Because of the tight directional pattern, it rejects bleed from other drums better than other mics.

You can scream into the sm57 and the mic will not shatter (unless you are practically jamming it down your throat). If you have a screamer in the studio and hear that awful distortion coming from your premium condenser, its time to pack it up and break out the good 'ol 57. For vocals the SM57 has a rich proximity effect. If you get within a few inches you'll get a bass boost, which is quite predictable, so it is often used as an effect by spoken word, comedians and in rap. Shure claims the SM57 has been used by thirty US Presidents as their mic of choice for speeches. It's easy to see why. The Mic has the classic presence boost in the vocal range which provides for intelligibility, yet it resists feedback.

The SM57 was introduced way back in 1965. That it is still a popular mic says a lot right there. It is impervious to going out of style despite it's funky, vintage appearance. Go look at the big pic below. The longer you look at it the more alien the mic looks. Its a workhorse - tough, durable, made to last a long time, with care a lifetime. It's heavy and feels cool and good in the hand, unlike cheap plastic mics. You might wonder that the "LC" stands for when you read about the SM57LC. It simply means "less cable". They used to sell them with an XLR cabled bundled (SM57CN), which is now discontinued. That is the difference.

Shure SM57 Mic

Difference between the SM57 and 58

People sometimes wonder about the difference between the SM57 and the SM58. Internally, they are identical mics, yet the SM58 has the "round ball" on top and an internal windscreen. Because the ball forces one to be a greater distance from the mic's diaphragm, the proximity effect is lessened and the windscreen can also dampen the hi frequency response as it cuts wind noise. The SM57, with its shorter grille design, allows you to get closer to the source and therefore has a greater proximity effect and will be more susceptible to wind noise. Hence vocalists on stage tend to prefer the sm58 while those in the studio might prefer an sm57 with a pop filter in front of it. The SM series is getting a little more popularity among hip hop artists these days. Both the '57 and '58 take well to spoken word. Shure recommends that the SM58 is their ideal mic for hip hop (much to my disbelief, I thought the SM7B was better). 

The SM57 is great for guitar amp cabinets. You stick it right up to the speaker cone, about an inch or two away, and should experiment with moving towards the edge of the cone. You can also angle it away slightly to bring in more of the room ambience. Many people like this sound better than the current run of amp modelers. Sometimes we want the real thing. I use it that way with great results.

The Bad and the Good

There are some drawbacks to consider about the SM57. While it does not need phantom power, it does need a lot of gain at the preamp when recording softer sounds. That can bring in more noise from the preamp (the Mic itself is generally quiet). The SM57, as mentioned before, does not capture the very low or very high frequencies as well as condensers. You can use EQ to bring up these frequencies if you need to and for vocals and guitar I recommend that if its the only mic you own. If you use it outdoors on gigs make sure to bring along a windscreen.

A big positive about the SM57 is that it will continue to be useful even after you upgrade to high end preamps. The amazing thing about the SM57 is that it sounds different through a high end preamp.  When I first plugged the SM57 into a Great River ME1-NV I could not believe it was my SM57. The sound was open, clean, and had much more transparency. No wonder professionals like it. The under $100 SM57 hold up just as well as any professional mic, including those that cost ten times as much.  Its just a matter of finding the mic that is most appropriate to the sound being recorded, and if there are snares, kicks, brass and amps around, chances are good the SM57 will be deployed.

The Bottom Line for 1st timers

Should you get an SM57 or an inexpensive condenser mic?  This is a tough question as there are condenser mics at attractive prices now. And of course it depends what you are recording. If you are doing strictly vocals and acoustic guitar for example, and can only get one mic, I would suggest a large condenser, assuming you have phantom power, like the Rode NT1a which will cost twice as much.

Also, if you are using a gain-compromised preamp as is found on the budget audio interfaces, it makes sense to get a condenser. Why? The condenser does not need as much gain. However, it will pick up more of the room and is not good with amps and bad if you get too close to snares. So remember the advantages of dynamic mics are that they only pick up stuff at close range and you can subject them to a lot of loudness. There are some condensers in the same $100 price range as the SM57 like an AKG Perception 120 or a Studio Projects B1.

If you are tempted to go for a $50 mic I recommend holding off and getting the sm57. Eventually you will tire of the $50 mic and replace it with a better one, but you will always keep your SM57 and you'll always have a use for it. And there is something to be said for having a truly legendary mic in your studio. If this mic cost $250 Shure could still sell them and studios would still buy them. That you can buy these for under $100 makes it a no-brainer.

Sony MDR-V150 Series Headphones

Bandwidth response-20Hz to 20,000Hz
Impedance-32ohms
The technical specs for MDR-V150s:
Bandwidth response-18Hz to 22000Hz
Impedance-24ohms

SONY MDR-V150

For those of you who don't understand the numbers, it means that the MDR-V150s have a broader range of sound, but the iPod earbuds pack a bigger sound. This is precisely why you think something is missing.

If you listen to iPod earbuds over a long time, your ears become accustomed to really loud, albeit a small range, sound. This is also why iPod earbuds are known for causing serious harm to your ears over prolonged periods of use. For it to sound right, you have to use the full amount of power, which the earbuds provide. Your close-range hearing becomes damaged over time and you can't hear subtle sounds or details, but you can still detect low volume. The earbuds won't sound deafening because you can still hear outside noise.
The MDR-V150s have a larger range of sound and lower impedance. That means there is a much richer sound. You don't need to jack up the volume to get a good listen (but you do need your hearing intact). You also may not be used to the larger range of sound so the range of sound you're used to will sound drowned out at close range. Many of the comments complaining about this transition from earbuds are noting that staples of their music listening sound strangely undetailed on the MDR-V150s.

High levels of bass have a way of "drowning" out treble sounds if you're not used to listening to music with ample bass at close range.
Another major difference is that since these are "on-ear" headphones instead of "in-ear" buds, you have much less outside noise interfering with listening. It's like the difference between listening to a car stereo with the windows up or the windows down. You have to listen to things louder if there's more outside noise and you can't notice as many details either. There is a reason cellphone handsets for the car use earbuds instead of headphones, and that's so you can still hear the road. Why would you want to use earbuds that are intentionally designed so you can still hear your surroundings but compensate for it by deafening you?
I work a lot with sound whether it's production, music, or art and I use these as portable stereo phones because of their quality and sound range. I use them with my iPod with the long cord tucked into my case's belt clip. They are incredibly affordable for their quality. Most comparable headphones cost at least $30. I have been using these headphones since freshman year of college when I was first exposed to them in my school's sound lab.
My opinion aside, the manufacturer specs speak for themselves and it's hard to imagine that iPod earbud fans really believe that these provide less sound when physically they have a much broader range of sound and do not permanently damage your ears.
As for the tightness, it's good. It'll keep the phones pressed against your ears. The padding coupled with the tightness is what keeps as much outside noise sealed out. The more noise cancellation you can get, the better the sound.
And for the hair complaint: you could always tie up your hair or give up on headphones with plastic size adjusters. The plastic size adjusters were just designed to snag hair, so it seems.

But then, what else do you expect from Sony? I don't claim to be an audiophile, but I have nothing but love for these headphones after using them for perhaps a year now. I used to go through headphones every couple of months; something or other would break and I would have to go back and look for another pair. The MDR-V150 stopped that revolving door. The sound is excellent, and the headphones feel light on the head even after hours of use. The best feature here is the way the earphones plug into the headband; if you ever jerk on the cord too hard (like I always accidentally do when I put a foot on it while I stand up) the earphone pieces detach from the headband, rather than snapping the plastic bits like many other headphones in this price range will. You snap the earphones back into the headband and you're back in business.
I use these headphones every day, and while I'm sure most true audiogeeks would be better suited by a pair of Seinnheisers or another high-end brand, this pair is perfect for me. Heck, I'm on my fourth different CD player since buying them; how's that for longevity? Highly recommended if you're in the market for headphones near the 20 dollar price point.

I work in an office job where I'm allowed to wear headphones while I work. For the past two years, I've been searching for the right pair - I had no idea it would be this difficult!
Every pair that I've purchased have had some problem or another. The ear bud ones are always too big and hurt my ears (and besides, they get pretty gross). The standard walkman-type headphones are comfortable but the music is pretty audible to people nearby when you play it even at a normal level.
Basically, I was searching for a pair of headphones for $35 or less that would hold sound in reasonably well (everyone always advertises noise-cancelling - I wanted noise-containing!), but didn't look like they should be worn by an air traffic controller!

I've been exceedingly pleased with these headphones for the week that I've had them. Yes, they are a bit bulkier than some of the more trendy headphones that are out there but they are much better quality. I can't blast my music but I can listen to it somewhat loudly without being audible to anyone around me. The ears are really soft and comfortable, although I will say that I've encountered the same issue with the headset getting a bit uncomfortably tight after wearing it for several hours - especially when I'm wearing my glasses. I expect that will get better as I wear them in. I haven't had any problems with my hair getting stuck in them, as another reviewer mentioned (my hair is several inches past my shoulders).

If you're looking for the same things that I was, I would strongly recommend these headphones! I would have paid double and still been very happy with them.