jcs

What's the event? $20 to listen to $55,000 headphones isn't a bad deal.

lol @tupp, referring to bad tests done by others isn't proof of anything. If you think my tests were wrong or flawed, and that Brian Caldwell calling them valid is wrong too, you're implying that you have more knowledge and experience than one of the top lens designers in the world. Waiting for images of your own, actual work, to prove your conjecture vs. armchair quarterbacking of other people's work. No one needs to be there except you, this isn't a legal process, just a friendly debate. If the minor differences in my tests are what you consider to make a larger format superior to a smaller format, cool, enjoy those differences. You are laser focused on the fact that there are differences at all, not that they are pleasing or useful differences. Most people won't notice them, and most people couldn't tell the difference when I originally posted the results, remember? The MiniCyclops is very cool however nothing magical is happening there, and he even states it in his comments: Patrick Donnelly 3 years ago Extraordinary! Have you patented this? Too late if not! Gonzalo Ezcurra 3 years ago Thanks Patrick! The principle is the same as a 35mm DOF systems for camcorders (Letus, RedRock Micro, etc) but in giant size and with fixed ground glass (and not rotated or vibrated) -of public knowledge-. The only magic is the Grain Free & High Gain Ground Glass, handmade which I will not reveal how I did, but I do not think they can to copy or reproduce.

Wow no dice at Guitar Center or Sam Ash for mid to high end headphones in Hollywood (must be ordered). ATH-M50x had an entire end cap- clearly most popular at GC. Amazom sampling it is then

If you guys haven't been here and really want to do a deep dive into headphones for mixing, grab a comfortable beverage, get comfy in your chair and dive in! https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/508831-best-mixing-headphones.html (~3400 replies and growing and ~700,000 views. This is just one of many threads). Lots of good feedback. ATH-Mxx, HDxxx, BTxxx, AKGxxx, Grado, all popular in the budget range. Great points with pros/cons of each (ATH-M50(x) have a V-shaped response (reduced mids AKA boosted bass and highs), however that's what many consumers like). So perhaps mix on cheap/flat/dull 7506 and do sound check on ATH-M50... LCD-X gets more votes in the high end, though they are heavy (and can work on your iPhone too, unlike Stax). Gotta try 'em for yourself to see which works for you! From the gearslutz thread (I'm sure lots more if you poke around): http://onthespeakers.com/best-headphones-for-mixing/ Here's how to do it, from https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12241241-post3265.html : No reason to spend more if something lower cost does the job (for you, based on content you are familiar with on your own ears). The Audeze EL-8's are much lighter (and on your wallet- $699) than the LCD-X ($1699) and along with a USB amp (say Dragonfly Red, $199), rave review here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RJHBNE8TYE0A3/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01AIHUHUW . Got the tip from the Gearslutz thread. Also read more points for the AKG 70x's.

They are very flat, which is great for mixing, also reported to be light and comfortable. Best if you can try them along with a few others for comparison using material you know well.

Did they pull ALL ads from everything? Even our copyright-flagged content no longer has ads??

Different sensors sizes provide different pixel sizes and resolutions and abilities to use different lens sizes. Smaller sensor cameras tend to be more compact and lower cost. Nothing magical happens with DOF as sensor size increases. I got killer shallow DOF with the Voigtlander F.95 25mm on the GH4. Is the 50mm F1.4 or F1.2 shallower on the FF 5D3- sure, but these shallow DOFs aren't usable very often for video, right? And just being shallower isn't a special, magical property. The Alexa looks killer because of the ALEV III sensor design and associated image processing and color science. They used S35 as that is the standard for filmmaking and for lens compatibility. If a larger sensor size would create a magical image better than a smaller sensor size, ARRI would have made it, right? What about the Alexa 65? That's just their way of using the ALEV III sensor (3 of them rotated 90 degrees) to get higher resolution without changing the sensor, pixel size, image processing, and color science. It's about resolution, and that's it. Nothing magical about the sensor size by itself. If larger sensor sizes produce a better DOF look (vs. just shallower via available lenses), it should be easy to prove. The reason there's no proof is it's a myth.

lol kinda funny but not a bad idea using a 5 pin connector so you only need one cable for stereo, and in practice for such a large camera doesn't look that rough to work with:

lol tupp, the ball is in your court to prove it at this point. You stated you need S16 against LF was it, so the difference would be clearly visible? Are the differences you pointed out in my S35 vs. FF test the same kind of magical differences you're referring to with S35 vs. MF and FF vs. MF? If not, can you show in actual examples the special look MF has over any smaller format (or any larger format over any smaller format for that matter)? This does not include folks doing equivalence tests wrong (especially those doing them wrong on purpose! ). Better yet, why not show us what you are describing with your own tests? I did the work which you critiqued, now it's your turn to do the work to prove your claims that larger formats have special properties not available in smaller formats, and what exactly are those properties. Where's the proof?

There's no DOF advantage at all- we've covered this ad nauseum! ?

Yeah I gotta get to Guitar Center and check out the Audeze's...

Beautiful music, though the camera doesn't seem to match the 3D audio all the time, and sounds more 2D stereo than spatialized 3D? I see in the comments they used a dummy head & torso. When researching the latest & greatest, including the $8000 Neumann dummy head examples, I found Ambisonics provided a means to get more 'spatiality/locality' since dummy heads are baked in filters. Guess I should try an FPV using the Ambeo and camera up to my eye and walking around...

@HockeyFan12 why not try the Audeze or similar in the high end? AKG 702 was recommended over the ATH-M50 for those who like detail, $224: https://www.amazon.com/AKG-Pro-Audio-Channel-Headphones/dp/B001RCD2DW/. Maybe you need the new DBS headphones? (they're only available from the future- Direct Brain Stimulation ) IMO you really gotta listen in person- everyone has different prefs.

It might have some cool features and advantage over Red (for example bigger pixels and color science), however MF has no intrinsic advantage over FF or Super35 or M43 via sensor size alone (which is what they tried to show in their post. I put a link in the comments how to set the cameras up for equivalence).

Yeah, I've seen the ASMR videos- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response. We started down ASMR then felt we didn't want to be in that market (basically just trying to evoke the ASMR or 'the tingles'). Instead we decided to try using 3D audio along with psychology techniques to help access the unconscious mind. Roland makes good stuff- those headphones along with first-person video could create a very immersive playback experience. However, in-ear mics will work great for you, but may not be as '3D' for other people due to the nature of the HRTF created by your specific ear/head size/shape. In any case, running around with these mics and a GoPro on your head, or just holding the camera up to your eye (and turn with your head) can be a very cool immersive experience for the viewer if watched using headphones (iPhone etc. will work great). I was going to get one of these or similar: http://binauralenthusiast.com/product/etiam-ullamcorper-dollor-5/. However once I learned about Ambisonics and the post tools I went with Ambeo (tetrahedral 4 mics). The cool thing about the Ambisonic toolkit (free) + Reaper (it's free; I paid for commercial use) is you can start experimenting and producing 3D audio with mono recordings from any source. That is, you can place sounds in 3D space as desired, including animating/moving them using Reaper. A 3D mic is faster for production though- record, load into Reaper, apply filters from Sennhesier (A-B format), filters for Ambisonic tookit (change 3D stage, distance, position), then last filter renders to stereo (binaural with HRTF for headphones) or even 5.1, 7.1 etc. I use a template project with everything already set up- just add the 4-track audio and render it out- super fast and easy.

Good description- everyone's gonna have different preferences. What's good for me won't maybe for you etc. When describing behavior, then we've got something we can compare and help guide choices. Another thing to consider is that all of our head/ear/brain systems are different audio filters. That's why some HRTFs work well for some people and not others. In the future headphones will have mics in them to 'read' our ear-filters and can then shape the frequency response of the speakers, kind of like how higher-end amps/receivers do with the included mics (e.g. Yamaha YPAO system).

I listened to the HD280Pro's and as noted still have the HD580's. Guess it's a personal preference/biology thing- haven't been a fan of Sennheiser headphones (dig their wireless mics and the Ambeo 3D mic). I can hear so much more detail in the M50's- good thing we have so many options

Z Review hates the M50(x). For 'fun' music listening. He does recommend them for critical/analysis/mixing. He states the M50(x) sound best when not loud. That's a good thing when working long hours- save your hearing! My M50's sound great soft or loud, but I never listen loud for more than a few seconds (even then rarely). It appears Stax has issues with warranty repair too (Japan), so Audeze is not alone (if either is really a general problem). Audeze has an office in SoCal (factory? they state built in CA), so should be able to get repairs made if needed: https://www.audeze.com/contact-us Z review loves the M40x, however he's made it clear he doesn't use headphones for mixing- he's not a working sound editor/mixer, a hobbyist listening for enjoyment (valid viewpoint there). My 'old' ATH M50's sound amazing compared to the 7506's and HD580's (to my ear-brain system ). In any case, listening to many headphones before buying would be worthwhile. If the M40x sound better to you (for mixing or music), that's a fantastic deal! Edit: Z's rant 'review' actually praises the M50 for being super detailed and basically perfect for mixing, just not for him. Again, worth a listen vs. the 40x and similar headphones in that price range:

Never heard of Innerfidelity. I ranked the ATH-M50 by ear How did they screw up the ATH-M50X? My few years old ATH-M50's sound amazing. 4.5-ish rating with 5392 reviews for the M50: https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Professional-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B000ULAP4U/, and about the same rating for the M50X with 3784 reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50x-Professional-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B00HVLUR86/. Thought they only changed the cable and earpads + more color and design options? Have you guys listened to the ATH-M50(x)? Agree Stax the best, haven't listened to Audeze LCD-X (or -XC). The tech behind them and reviews are promising. How close would you say Audeze LCD-X is to Stax (which version)? Audeze is made in USA/CA and very high quality, would prefer to give them $$ vs. cheaply made products from China. YouTube reviews state the headband/earcups for the M560 aren't so hot (can mod to improve). While they are called 'LCD-2' etc. killers, if they don't last or break easily, they're not really a good value (M1060 has glued earpads for example). Nice, Guitar Center sells the Audeze LCD-X, might have to go have a listen. Edit Audeze might have reliability issues. At this price point Stax is probably it. This guy talks about his first Stax experience- the enthusiasm is pretty accurate:

@tomekk If someone is into audio enough to do a comprehensive review, I think it's important to at least include the high end devices just so people know 'far you can go' and also to see where one's current (or future) headphones rank in what's possible. The first time I heard Stax was in my early 20's; had never heard any high end gear in my life. The Stax were driven through a Carver Magnetic Field Amplifier. We're so used to hype these days we don't really listen anymore. However Stax/electrostatics/planar magnetic along with a great amp are truly on another level compared to dynamic headphones (including the HD800 my pro-audio mixer buddy just recommended (he mixes for games (e.g. Gears of War) and movies- very high end work)). This thread got me to dust off the old HD580s and compare them to the ATH M50 (which as mentioned a reviewer preferred over $2K Stax (probably didn't have a good amp )). The ATH M50 blew away the HD580s, which are very similar to the HD600 (same drivers). Next I tried the 7506 then put the ATH M50's back on- same thing- ATH M50 is in another class, way more detail, open space, detailed, reactive, real, whatever superlative you want, much better headphones. This test was done with a somewhat high-end audio device, a Sound Devices USBPre 2 (not sure how it stacks up to a high-end dedicated headphone amp). The ATH M50 was a bit more comfortable on the ears vs. the newly purchased 7506 (old pair disappeared on a shoot). The 7506 is fine for location monitoring (and not a big deal if someone runs off with them). From personal experience and reviews, the ATH M50 is the best bang for buck for in-studio mixing and music listening. There are also mod options to change the earpads etc.

VR has come back again and 3D audio has new and improved tools for content creation: http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ along with http://reaper.tv/ you can create 3D audio from normal recordings. Additionally, if using a 3D mic such as the Ambeo https://en-us.sennheiser.com/microphone-3d-audio-ambeo-vr-mic, you can process and deliver 3D audio for speakers (any number of channels or configurations) or headphones (via an HRTF which you can choose). The audio will appear in 3D space with headphones- ATH M50 pictured, however iPhone headphones work great too. I used the Ambeo + Zoom F4 to record and the Ambisonic toolkit + Reaper + Audition to process:

Great recommendations in this thread! @Andrew Reid - hopefully your review will include electrostatic and planar magnetic headphones- they are in a class by themselves above dynamic headphones. If you're into audio, these kinds of headphones are so much better they are literally mind blowing! Beg, borrow, do what you can to get some for review, they are amazing. The second time I heard Stax was in a NASA hanger at Moffett field, Hangar One: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/home/2008/hangar_index.html. There we listening to Scott Foster's Convolvotron which for the first time in the world accurately placed sounds in 3D in real-time (http://www.o-art.org/history/08_Computer/Virtual.html). The head position was tracked with a Polhemus magnetic tracker. Today's 3D trackers, displays, and graphics quality is an order of magnitude better since then. However 3D audio listening hasn't really changed since then! What has changed and improved is 3D audio recording through Ambisonics. You don't even need a fancy 3D mic, you can use these free tools to convert sounds into 3D: http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ (also need Reaper, which is very low cost / free): http://reaper.tv/. I'll start a separate thread to discuss these tools. @Andrew Reid also hopefully also compare the 'standards', the 7506 and ATH M50. The best of the best for studio mixing could be the Audeze LCD-XC: https://www.amazon.com/Audeze-LCD-XC-Bubinga-Magnetic-Headphones/dp/B01M2321TU/ref=pd_sbs_23_15 . Cheaper than Stax electrostatics and more importantly closed backs. Headphones are very personal- it's really important to be able to try them on and listen to known material and A/B test etc. Online reviews are helpful, however going to a Guitar Center or similar is really, really helpful. Buying, trying, and returning online could work but will take a lot of time and effort.

The K702 was suggested for use in the studio or office, in the same space monitor speakers would be used for critical listening. For example, when I'm creating a 3D Ambisonic recording using this mic: https://en-us.sennheiser.com/microphone-3d-audio-ambeo-vr-mic , I need excellent detail, and thus I use the ATH M50 over the 7506s. When done mixing I also test on iPhone headphones to make sure the other end of the quality spectrum is covered (probably where most people will listen). Example Ambisonic 3D recording with a headphone HRTF. Jacqui's voice should move around your head in 3D space when wearing headphones:

I agree regarding the 7506's (was the second link in the first reply on this thread). The ATH M50's are quite a bit better acoustically, however they don't fold as compactly and aren't quite as comfortable. The 7506 are $80 vs. $150 for the ATH M50; over time the 7506's have dropped in price and the ATH M50's have gone up. Have a pair of HD580's- very nice sound and comfortable, however the Kevlar cables which 'don't break' (and they haven't) connection is dodgy- gotta jiggle 'em to keep the sound goin'. The AKG K702's ($219) are reported better sounding and more comfortable than the ATH M50: https://www.amazon.com/AKG-Pro-Audio-Channel-Headphones/dp/B001RCD2DW/

Here's a test I did 3 years ago with ML and the 5D3 w/ 24-105 F4L (1080p). Handheld using a simple rig and Kamerar QV-1 viewfinder. Wanted to see how well I could crash zoom and manual focus while walking around. Processed in AE and ACR (some color shifts, but looked OK to me overall). There's something special about the 5D3. I might do a test comparing to 1DX II to see if there's something with the color.