Should I sell my Adam A7s for a pair of sennheiser hd650s?

[minormal]

Thanks people, some really good feedback here.

I think I will probably go with the 600s as I really dont want to spend as much as the 650s cost and from what I can tell the 600s seem more natural. I think the main improvement with the 650s is the cable which can be upgraded on the 600s.

That said I might try and test the two this weekend if I can find anywhere that sells them. I dont think you can fully take any ones word with such audible equipment until you have done so yourself.

many thanks

[tone-def]

the 650's need 80 hours to break them in so i wouldn't bother listening in a shop.

[tone-def]

but you will get a fairly good idea.

[Casanova808]

i don't get this mixing quietly thing. how can you mix if you can't hear the music?

Because a mix that sounds full and balanced at a low volume will sound WONDERFUL when you turn it up loud.

When you play music loudly, your ear naturally compresses the incoming sound and it makes it harder to perceive the relative levels of the different parts of your mix.

Also, the human ear loves the sound of loud things. Your ear will deceive you into thinking a loud sound is good when it really isn't.

[regler]

I'm uncertain what's the best, I'm still learning.

But I totally agree with mixing at low volume, anyway I think it's only a technique to balance things out.

You will not hear all details or even artefacts at low volume, I often had the case that it's sounds good at low level but when you hear it loud or over headphones you notice that it's not what you want it to be. A good example is mp3, it's hard to tell at low volume if there are artefact, hear it loud and you will notice them (at low bit rates at least...).

[oblioblioblio]

i think you need to mix at both levels.

i've done loads of music at low volumes, and made quite a lot of errors from doing that.

the way you feel sound, and listen to it, is very different at low versus high volumes.

If you make a piece of music that sounds good at low volumes it doesn't always translate.

Quite hard to say how exactly, but there are differences. I usually focus a lot on detailed mids, and don't pay enough attention to bass frequencies. That's one obvious difference, for me anyway.

[NoAffiliation]

i don't get this mixing quietly thing. how can you mix if you can't hear the music?

Because a mix that sounds full and balanced at a low volume will sound WONDERFUL when you turn it up loud.

When you play music loudly, your ear naturally compresses the incoming sound and it makes it harder to perceive the relative levels of the different parts of your mix.

i agree about not mixing loudly, however the logic here is a bit flawed...

yes, the frequency response of the ear changes at higher SPL's and the fletcher-munson curve evens out along the spectrum. relative levels are perceived to be more uniform at a higher SPL as you said

the issue is that if you're mixing too quiet, your ear will always tell you to naturally mix the bass hotter since your ear needs that extra amplitude in the low end to feel the balance of the mix. however, if you turn the whole mix up, the bass and other elements will sound unbalanced. The ear doesnt compress sounds, the compression happens because of the amount of air pressure that can physically travel through the ear canal. so if bass moves more air, bass that's mixed to hot will make everything sound compressed because it's stealing all the air/vibrations from other sounds.

for this reason there is a standardized calibration SPL for monitoring and mixing for optimal balance.

[::BLM::]

for this reason there is a standardized calibration SPL for monitoring and mixing for optimal balance.

I have read about this somewhere before. What's it called?