Thanks Robin,
Yes I saw the wind noise issue. That is big for me as well. I need to reco=
rd frogs in an open bog area, wind noise is a problem. I was also worried=
about enough power in the weak onboard Tascam amp to drive them. Budget m=
inded issues as well.
I tried the Sennheiser HD 25-1 II at a sales event, they were very good sou=
nding phones. I was VERY impressed with what I heard from the demo. It wa=
s, however, a music track that was mixed for auditioning phones. I did not=
have a sample of my audio with me. I would spend the coin ($249.00 plus t=
ax in Canadian Funds) for those if I knew they would give me good flat list=
ening. I have no problem with that, I just want to make a good decision he=
re, and not waste time and money. BUT, are they flat enough, without bass/t=
reble cuts/boosts that illustrate improper reference readings?
I have other Sennheiser phones (HD-433 open air), and Sony, and Fostex as w=
ell. I really like the honest full range of the 433's. I sold headphones =
years ago in a retail establishment, and the Sennheiser, AKG, and Beyer lin=
es were my fav.
On a construction quality note -- the HD 25-1 II's are VERY durable. The s=
alesman twisted the headband and bent the earpiece back to illustrate the d=
urability as he was showing them. I guess DJ's and roadies are really hard=
on their gear. Sennheiser recognizes that.
I may bite the bullet and go that route. Thanks very much for all the inpu=
t.
Scott
--- In "Robin" wrote:
>
> Scott wrote:
>
> > I am considering the MDR-7506 phones, and from what
> > I read, these are industry standard for live
> > recording application.
>
> I did a double-take on this message, since in a parallel thread a problem=
with using the Sony MDR-7506 for field recordings is being discussed. Name=
ly: wind noise.
>
> Their second, more significant, problem is that they are not accurate. So=
if you want to actually know *what* you are recording they are not a great=
option. You will however know that you *are* recording, which is all many =
ENG folk care about. They are cheap, relatively durable, and efficient, so =
people on TV shoots like them. They are the least bad solution. Which is a =
good place to be, sometimes.
>
> If you want isolation and honesty without spending a bomb, get the Sennhe=
iser HD 25-1 II. They are durable and relatively compact. You'll be able to=
hear a lot more detail in your recording.
>
> > I have a budget around $100.00 for the new phones.
>
> To be blunt: that's not enough. Though I scored my HD 25 for 85 pounds st=
erling, I doubt that is going to happen in dollar land. And the other optio=
ns cost two or three times as much. Don't go cheap. Headphones are importan=
t and last (almost) forever. Save for something decent.
>
> Of course eventually you'll have three or four pairs and wonder how you e=
ver though just one would do!
>
> > I notice the impedance of those phones
> > and recorder are unmatched, but is that really an issue??
>
> No, forget that. The sensitivity of the phones gives some idea of how lou=
d they can be driven, but there are so many other factors (frequency respon=
se and isolation being but two). Though you can aim for high sensitivity, t=
here is no one measurement that is going to tell how loud the phones will a=
ppear.
>
> > hope the amp in the Tascam is sufficient
> > to drive the Sony phones to full fidelity
>
> All headphones that are worth listening to in the first place are improve=
d with a good source. Don't expect "full fidelity" from a headphone amp in =
a portable recorder -- it probably cost a few pennies. But it might well be=
"good enough" for the purpose.
>
> P.S. I have never found Sony cans I thought were optimal. There always se=
ems to be a better pair from another brand for the same money. I currently =
own Grado, AKG, Sennheiser (x2), and Koss. I would also recommend checking =
out Beyerdynamic. But be warned: There are as many opinions on headphones a=
s there are pairs of ears.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
|