What is this? This indicates the headphoneâs behavior variation across different heads and ears, providing a better indication of how they are likely to vary across human heads as well - absent other factors like leakage effects from glasses for example.
Why is this? We have a video on the channel explaining why this type of visualization is likely necessary for headphone measurements. This should ideally evolve the more heads and ears we can test these products on, but the older paradigm of showing a single line on a graph to indicate headphone performance is insufficient.
Interesting to see the slight difference in bass between the two systems, and this actually could be down to acoustic impedance differences between the GRAS and the B&K.
Here is a view of this headphone relative to FLAT Diffuse Field, since thereâs a possibility this is what they were going for.
Keep in mind, this is the BASELINE HRTF that we use because DF is the appropriate sound field for headphones. But in no way is this going to sound perceptually neutral or balanced. People think DF is held up as an alternative to something like Harman, but it really should not be thought of like that. DF is not a âtarget responseâ in any meaningful sense, itâs just the sound field that matches the condition of headphone use, as opposed to free field.
Looks like some excursion limiting going on around 110dB. This may restrict what you can do with EQ if youâre really trying to push the bass - and to be clear⌠you should probably be boosting the bass with this headphone. For normal listening and normal use case this isnât going to be an issue.
The DT 990 Pro X has a truly wild impedance curve. This would make sense if itâs really common to find ultra high output impedance interfaces for professional use⌠but even the most ubiquitous ones arenât high enough where this would make sense. Beyond that though, this would just be selecting for the worst interface devices out there at the cost of sound balance on good devices, which also doesnât make much sense.
Overall⌠itâs a bit perplexing.
Notes:
Build quality feels solid, though I prefer non-circular earpad openings
This is a very lean and bright sounding headphone. Beyerdynamic say itâs meant for studio use, but in no way should this be considered neutral or reference style sound, nor can I recommend this kind of sound signature for any type of professional application. It has meaningful colorations in the bass and treble, which will make it more challenging to make accurate adjustments/corrections to the material youâre working with.
In Grell Sound Labs video about target curves Axel mentioned how Beyer first came up with a headphone tuned to the Free Field target in the 60s and then DT770 was the first model that was tuned to the Diffuse Field target instead, and how the targets of those times resulted in this overly bright tuning that we still know as the âBeyer soundâ today. Watch it after 9:30, Axel also mentions what kind of âstudio useâ it was meant for.
So when I look at the DT990âs (original) frequency response now, I get this âa-ha, this is the tuning from the 60sâ moment.
Yes, and in a way those older Beyers made a ton of sense. I get the feeling that whatever is going on there these days is quite different from the more science and theory-based approaches from the past. The thing is⌠the DT 990 Pro X is almost kinda sorta like flat DF. So I could see it if they wanted to make something like that, and maybe they were aiming for that but just didnât quite get there. But even then, we know people donât like the way that sounds, and so it still runs afoul of the circle of confusion issue to do with most people prefering playback equipment that sounds very different.
Thanks for the review and measurements on this, Resolve. I believe the DT 770 Pro X was similarly bright in the treble. So it looks like they are maintaining the theme here. As a result, I have little interest in trying or listening to these, since my current 250-ohm DT 770âs are already too bright for my taste (sans EQ). I have a couple questions and observations though.
Iâm curious why you decided to spring for a pair to test, given the Beyer rep for brightness. Did you think the tuning would be closer to the (more neutral) 700 and 900 Pro X models? Or did it have something to do with the new 48-ohm drivers?
Also, do you think there is any difference in the distortion levels compared to the previous DT 990âs? I know itâs a bit hard to directly compare them, since theyâre all different impedances.
In addition to the new drivers, the other important feature with these (and I assume other Pro X headphones) is the detachable cable, which should allow the DT 990 Pro X to be used with the Pro X Lightning and USB-C digital cables. These cables allow the headphones to be used with some digital devices without the need for a separate amp, DAC, or analog output.
The headband also has an indentation (or divots) in the center, like the DT 1770/1990 Pro MkII.
I generally treat every brand as having the potential to do something great. Weâre all better off if Beyerdynamic can make something good given their prominence as a brand. My hope was that they had made improvements, and if that had been the case I wouldâve celebrated it.
âKinda sortaâ, in a very round about way, maybe.
It is more recessed in the sub-bass, upper-mids, and very high frequencies (above 15k) than HBKâs stock 5128 DF. And brighter around 6.3k and 8.5k. So itâs not really conforming to DF either imo, except that itâs overly bright in the treble.
If it was closer to DF, then you could just apply a -1.0 to -1.5 dB/octave tilt or slope, and get something pretty close to neutral. That wonât work perfectly in this case though, because the response is rather uneven compared to a true DF imo. EQ would need a bit more work to better approximate a neutral response.
A slope would at least get you a little closer to the neutral ballpark though, as it does with my DT 770âs.
Yeah itâs definitely not actually DF, just if Iâm being charitable to this tuning choice, thatâs the closest I could think of. Like maybe they were shooting for that and just missed.
The marketing on the DT 990 Pro X makes alot of the new âpowerful Stellar 45 driver systemâ. Do you think these drivers would have some potential with an improved tuning or different design?
mmm hard to say without taking it apart. They are excursion limited around 110dB (similar to the Focals for example). Thatâs not something I worry much about if there is enough bass by default. In this instance however⌠thereâs already a ton of front damping going on and itâs still super lean. It reminds me of some of the Ole Wolff drivers Iâve been playing around with as a potential alternative to the 50mm peerless. You just need endless amounts of damping to get it to behave well, making it not really worth it.
There are similarities between the response of this headphone, and the original Sennheiser HD800 (before the S was added).
The tuning above 500 Hz is also similar to the new Sony MDR-MV1. That is where the similarities end though, because the Sony is much better elevated in the bass, and also the very high frequencies above 15 kHz.
I apologize if some of my previous posts werenât making total sense btw. It was late the last time I posted. And I was confusing kHz with Hz, and 990 with 770 at times. Plus, Iâm old.
I think Iâve fixed most of the mistakes though.
GadgetryTechâs slightly different take on the DT 990 Pro XâŚ
