[drummerman1]

Now available

Sennheiser HD-490 PRO – Thomann International

 

[hcts]

When will these actually be available?

I was able to order them today in Norway (in stock).

 

[RiflemanFirst]

I really like what they did with the construction of these. That said, I enjoy the tuning/sound of the HD660S2 and not sure if these would be my cup of tea since these are clearly tuned to be more neutral. I may give them a try after they show up on Amazon.

 

[joseluishs]

Posting this here for those who are interested. Below, traces of CustomCans' measurements of the HD 600 (Blue) and HD 490 Pro (Red) done on the MiniDSP EARS.
Normalized at a 3-octave range centered at 500Hz, and the 490 Pro has the "Producer" pads on it.



No idea why CustomCans didn't directly overlay them. Keep in mind that the EARS absolutely does not model the acoustic impedance of an ear, so these results should be taken with heaping bags of salt.

I bring this up because, in addition to the use of the driver that looks reminiscent of the 5-series drivers, these differences remind me of another one of Sennheiser's recent products in how it compares to HD 600—the 660 S2.



I don't know about you all, but I have seen people all over the place saying the HD 660S2 is a downgrade from HD 600 and 650 (and I largely agree with this sentiment).
Additionally, the 660S2's sonic profile is suspiciously close to a headphone already available in Sennheiser's lineup—the HD 58x from Drop—while of course being rather similar to its predecessor HD 660S.



Sennheiser has been extremely, vocally intent on "not retreading the sound of the beloved 600/650", even though people like me won't shut up about wanting it
Instead they opt to retread the more muted, less coherent tuning profile found in the 58x, 660S/660S2, and now potentially the 490 Pro... but is anyone asking for more of this?

My questions are twofold:

1) Why is Sennheiser more than happy to retread the sonic territory of the 58x and 660S/2 while absolutely refusing to revisit the 600 and 650 in earnest?

2) In what way is something with a big hole in the upper midrange better for producing, mixing, or mastering music?

I agree with you. Great questions. I am not sure what they are thinking

 

[listenerwww]

Posting measurements from the video posted on page 2; they were originally DF-compensated, which I’ve undone to display the results raw against a DF + slope target.

These look… exceedingly bright. Like brighter than HD 800 bright.

Obviously measurements aren’t everything but I can say confidently that this is an easy skip for me. Not sure what they were thinking with this one; we know fairly well that signatures brighter than “speaker flat” (in this case, DF) aren’t preferred, so really not sure what the plan here was.

 

[joseluishs]

I agree with you. Great questions. I am not sure what they are thinking

Let's be honest with ourselves... we are in 2024 and we still don't know how to make a headphone for mixing and mastering. It is what it is, but we are trying - which is great. The marketing idea of dividing with a fat line between what "audiophiles" want and "mixing" and "mastering engineers" want - is wrong. A lot of BS to sell different products and because we love to categorize stuff. Mixing and mastering is treated like a tabu, obscure arts that some alchemists prepare for the public to enjoy. In my opinion, a mixing/mastering engineer and an audiophile are not that different one from the other, let alone a person not that involved in music. Come on! We are all humans listening to music! We usually don't like listening to music that sounds far from real life. Once we think of a headphone (system) that can be for designed for "mixing/mastering/audiophiles/humans" we might be in the right direction to achieve the "New Reference" headphone.

 

[listenerwww]

Let's be honest with ourselves... we are in 2024 and we still don't know how to make a headphone for mixing and mastering. It is what it is, but we are trying - which is great. The marketing idea of dividing with a fat line between what "audiophiles" want and "mixing" and "mastering engineers" want - is wrong. A lot of BS to sell different products and because we love to categorize stuff. Mixing and mastering is treated like a tabu, obscure arts that some alchemists prepare for the public to enjoy. In my opinion, a mixing/mastering engineer and an audiophile are not that different one from the other, let alone a person not that involved in music. Come on! We are all humans listening to music! We usually don't like listening to music that sounds far from real life. Once we think of a headphone (system) that can be for designed for "mixing/mastering/audiophiles/humans" we might be in the right direction to achieve the "New Reference" headphone.

Honestly we’ve had a pretty good idea of how to roughly approach this since 1986 thanks to Theile, it’s just no company is willing to do the work necessary to make it happen.

The basic idea is getting as many headphone text fixtures as possible (as well as real humans), having well-characterized Diffuse Field HRTFs for all of them, and designing a headphone so that it best resembles a broadly speaker-like down-sloping response (whether it be a speaker target or something like Harman) when measured on these heads and calibrated to their respective DF HRTFs.

This is tricky for a bunch of reasons—rigs are expensive, paying human subjects is expensive, getting high quality DF HRTFs from each is both expensive (and potentially uncomfortable/dangerous for the humans, at least), designing a headphone that conforms fairly well to a wide variety of individual (and likely rather different) heads is Tough As Hell.

It can be done, I don’t think any one has taken this approach in earnest yet, though… Unless that’s secretly what Audeze did for their MM-500 R&D.

HD 600 and 650 get rather close to this but I’m not sure if they followed this method or if Grell’s tuning to “a cheaper Orpheus” and then the later gradual adjustments are responsible for them being excellent in this regard. Could also be an accident.

It’s rather obvious to me though that the 490 Pro is simply too bright for the use-case they’re purportedly targeting. Even if they were targeting “speaker flat” (which they arguably shouldn’t) it seems rather brighter than that.

 

[pk4425]

Posting measurements from the video posted on page 2; they were originally DF-compensated, which I’ve undone to display the results raw against a DF + slope target.

These look… exceedingly bright. Like brighter than HD 800 bright.



Obviously measurements aren’t everything but I can say confidently that this is an easy skip for me. Not sure what they were thinking with this one; we know fairly well that signatures brighter than “speaker flat” (in this case, DF) aren’t preferred, so really not sure what the plan here was.

Jay-zus. Looks like Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic are having a Teutonic battle to see which can draw more blood from our ear canals with stabbing ice picks of treble. Maybe the Boys from Brooklyn (Grado) can pile on to decide the winner.

Hard pass based on this frequency curve. Listening always is the final arbiter, but that's one of the weirdest curves I've seen from a major company release in a while.

 

[listenerwww]

Jay-zus. Looks like Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic are having a Teutonic battle to see which can draw more blood from our ear canals with stabbing ice picks of treble. Maybe the Boys from Brooklyn (Grado) can pile on to decide the winner.

Hard pass based on this frequency curve. Listening always is the final arbiter, but that's one of the weirdest curves I've seen from a major company release in a while.

Indeed, and unfortunately even with this measurement there's a decent chance that it's *not* what I've assumed it is.

@Sennheiser's pro division hasn't properly disclosed how the measurements from their interview were taken and processed so I'm just assuming they're following the IEC specification.

 

[LoyK]

I have a pair on order am looking pretty much forward to them. The treble looks quite smooth and I think the bass should give it a good balance.
I would not overrate the measurements and such a smooth treble range is super easy to EQ if you feel the need to. If you compare them to maybe the Sony MDR-V1 I think these look a lot better.

Also the new construction, weight, washable and changeable earpads, new cable etc... I think some really cool stuff in there and a much more exciting release than the 660S2, 8XX and so on... For me as a musician and music lover these could be quite nice on my head.

 

[cel4145]

In my opinion, a mixing/mastering engineer and an audiophile are not that different one from the other, let alone a person not that involved in music.

Actually, the markets are quite different between audiophiles and people doing a lot of mixing and mastering.

Audiophiles are looking for that next new nirvana listening experience. Convince them they're going to get it, and they'll buy your new headphone.

People with a lot of experience mixing and mastering (and also electronic music production in general) usually tend to stick with the same pair of headphones for a long time. Because it takes a lot of time to get used to a new pair of headphones for doing that.

Come on! We are all humans listening to music!

People mixing and mastering are not listening to music the way that you are. Not even close.

 

[listenerwww]

Actually, the markets are quite different between audiophiles and people doing a lot of mixing and mastering.

People mixing and mastering are not listening to music the way that you are. Not even close.

As someone with feet in both camps, I profoundly disagree with these assertions.

Plenty of audiophiles are after what they believe the mix or mastering engineer was hearing when they made the song (wanting music "as the artist intended"), and part of the mixing process by any serious engineer is listening on systems that consumers—including audiophiles—are likely to listen on.

There shouldn't be different goals for audio production and audio reproduction, both should ideally trend towards a similar presentation... though of course people can choose to drink their wine out of a beer stein if it makes it more enjoyable for them (if you get my meaning)

 

[cel4145]

As someone with feet in both camps, I profoundly disagree with these assertions.

It doesn't seem like from your comments you understand much at all about mixing and mastering.

Plenty of audiophiles are after what they believe the mix or mastering engineer was hearing when they made the song (wanting music "as the artist intended"),

Well, that's a problematic goal as stated. They would have to have the same studio setup. And then they would have to train on listening with that setup. So it's not something you can state as fact.

Regardless, if you understand the mixing and mastering processes, audiophiles are not experiencing what was experienced during mixing and mastering. They only hear the final result.

and part of the mixing process by any serious engineer is listening on systems that consumers—including audiophiles—are likely to listen on.

That's at the end. The final, "Let's see if it works well on other devices." That's not the primary work that goes on with mixing and mastering. Even for those audiophiles who say they are into critical listening. It is not at all the same type of listening that goes on during mixing and mastering.

There shouldn't be different goals for audio production and audio reproduction, both should ideally trend towards a similar presentation... though of course people can choose to drink their wine out of a beer stein if it makes it more enjoyable for them (if you get my meaning)

Yes. Audiofool snoobery. There's only one right way to listen.

 

[listenerwww]

It doesn't seem like from your comments you understand much at all about mixing and mastering.

I understand plenty, having been part of all parts of the process from songwriting to arranging to tracking/mic placement to editing to mixing to mastering to printing.

I don't think there is any meaningful basis to say that the audiophile and pro markets are vastly different, if only because there's no coherent characteristic that binds the products in either market: Both markets are similarly chaotic and free of any real coherence or unifying principle between products.

There is also a lot of overlap between the products in these markets. HD 600 and 650 are an excellent example, to my mind. Audeze's recent headphones are another.

Well, that's a problematic goal as stated. They would have to have the same studio setup. And then they would have to train on listening with that setup. So it's not something you can state as fact.
Regardless, if you understand the mixing and mastering processes, audiophiles are not experiencing what was experienced during mixing and mastering. They only hear the final result.

Indeed, this is one of the core complaints about audio reproduction put forth by audio researchers called the "circle of confusion" and it's a goal I've wrestled with myself personally.

The basic idea is: Recordings made with microphones, equalization, other processing are evaluated with speakers and headphones, which are evaluated with recordings made with microphones, equalization, other processing which are evaluated with speakers and headphones etc. etc.

I personally don't fight super hard for this idea, even if there's parts of it that I really like. I think it's a bit unrealistic to standardize the listening conditions of studios when making music is a deeply personal and artistic process, and even less realistic to ask everyone at the consumption stage to listen the same way.

But I think it's a common desire, even if its an erroneous one (and it is an erroneous one), for listeners to desire to hear "what the artist heard when they created the music."

Of course, they are not hearing this and never will. But this gets deeper into the problem of "What is sound reproduction, if there is no original event and what they're hearing is an entirely manufactured event?"

That's at the end. The final, "Let's see if it works well on other devices." That's not the primary work that goes on with mixing and mastering. Even for those audiophiles who say they are into critical listening. It is not at all the same type of listening that goes on during mixing and mastering.

We don't disagree as much as you think we do, though I would say I've historically checked on other references at basically every part of the process.

I am simply saying that the listening systems—headphones and speakers—people are using in pro audio and audiophile are generally similar, not that they are listening for similar things. When a mix engineer and an audiophile talk about dynamics, unfortunately they are both most likely talking about different things

This I'll chalk up to a semantics misunderstanding between us; I only meant "listening the same" as in "listening to similarly performing or the same products."

Yes. Audiofool snoobery. There's only one right way to listen.

I'm literally saying the opposite.

Like, as much as I think headphones, IEMs, and speakers should trend to sound pretty similar, as it just makes sense that a good speaker would be good for mixing music as well as listening to that same music, I leave plenty of room for people "drinking their wine from a beer stein," or in other words, "doing whatever the hell they want."

 

[joseluishs]

Let's be honest with ourselves... we are in 2024 and we still don't know how to make a headphone for mixing and mastering. It is what it is, but we are trying - which is great. The marketing idea of dividing with a fat line between what "audiophiles" want and "mixing" and "mastering engineers" want - is wrong. A lot of BS to sell different products and because we love to categorize stuff. Mixing and mastering is treated like a tabu, obscure arts that some alchemists prepare for the public to enjoy. In my opinion, a mixing/mastering engineer and an audiophile are not that different one from the other, let alone a person not that involved in music. Come on! We are all humans listening to music! We usually don't like listening to music that sounds far from real life. Once we think of a headphone (system) that can be for designed for "mixing/mastering/audiophiles/humans" we might be in the right direction to achieve the "New Reference" headphone.

I am glad that my comment started some fire here… kidding… it’s just an opinion, you are allowed to agree or disagree and have fun entertaining the idea that the marketing is killing us all in one form or another

As a music lover, composer, pianist, doing a masters in film scoring at Berklee, having taken mixing classes and attended some mastering classes… it is just my opinion