Good Studio Headphones & DACs, which should I buy?

The 650 is quite comfortable, especially on the headband.
As a can it's praised for its macro-detail resolving abilities, can really translate well across different nuances.
I wouldn't consider it a reference monitor can tho, because it's pretty colored as a headphone. Most would describe it as "bassy and smooth", not exactly what i would look for in a reference can.

Beyerdynamic makes some very good cans, but i don't really like their dt series, mostly because of their heaviness on the head. They are extremely uncolored tho, especially the 990, and they come in different impedence versions , which will be good if you won't be using them with no external sound card (32ohm version)
The T series is phenomenal tho.

As i said something like 300 times on this community already i LOVE the akg k701 for their resolving abilities, and they are also very very comfy, and darn cheap for what they offer.

Good to know! Thanks! And about the headphones, this Sennheiser HD 650 looks so confortable, thats what I'm talking about! hahaha I spend hours and hours listening to music, I believe this is my category of headphone, any other choices in that category?

There have been many studies on this exact comparison which have been properly conducted (ABX testing). I have yet to come across any that conclude anything other than that there is no audible difference between CD audio and above.

http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/Gal...007_Report.pdf
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/articl...r-than-than-cd

There have been many studies on this exact comparison which have been properly conducted (ABX testing). I have yet to come across any that conclude anything other than that there is no audible difference between CD audio and above.

http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/Gal...007_Report.pdf
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/articl...r-than-than-cd

Care to link a study or any evidence at all that shows that "most people are able to tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit material"?

16bit gives you up to 120dB of dynamic range, which is far more than enough to cover the hearing range.

The 650 is quite comfortable, especially on the headband.
As a can it's praised for its macro-detail resolving abilities, can really translate well across different nuances.
I wouldn't consider it a reference monitor can tho, because it's pretty colored as a headphone. Most would describe it as "bassy and smooth", not exactly what i would look for in a reference can.

Beyerdynamic makes some very good cans, but i don't really like their dt series, mostly because of their heaviness on the head. They are extremely uncolored tho, especially the 990, and they come in different impedence versions , which will be good if you won't be using them with no external sound card (32ohm version)
The T series is phenomenal tho.

As i said something like 300 times on this community already i LOVE the akg k701 for their resolving abilities, and they are also very very comfy, and darn cheap for what they offer.

Good to know! Thanks! And about the headphones, this Sennheiser HD 650 looks so confortable, thats what I'm talking about! hahaha I spend hours and hours listening to music, I believe this is my category of headphone, any other choices in that category?

There have been many studies on this exact comparison which have been properly conducted (ABX testing). I have yet to come across any that conclude anything other than that there is no audible difference between CD audio and above.

http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/Gal...007_Report.pdf
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/articl...r-than-than-cd

There have been many studies on this exact comparison which have been properly conducted (ABX testing). I have yet to come across any that conclude anything other than that there is no audible difference between CD audio and above.

http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/Gal...007_Report.pdf
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/articl...r-than-than-cd

Care to link a study or any evidence at all that shows that "most people are able to tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit material"?

44.1kHz already covers the human hearing range with some room to spare. 24bit (or even 32) is useful as headroom for recording/producing, but it really doesn't seem necessary or beneficial for listening to the finished product.

I can't believe we're discussing this. Unless everyone understands Nyquest theory and how sample rates and bit rates work then there's no point talking about this. You do realize there is a high-cut filter in place during sampling to rid the audio stream from frequencies above 20kHz right? That's called ANTI-ALIASING. Over-sampling (like at 192kHz) is done to make it so the high-cut filter isn't cutting so close to 20kHz, where we could hear some changes happening because of the filter. This is why people claim higher sample rates sound better. In theory 44.1kHz (according to the Nyquest theory/frequency) can perfectly capture all frequencies between 0-20kHz. Obviously at higher sample rates there is more sampling happening, which adds to the fire by suggesting that it would produce a more accurate waveform. In any case, 44.1kHz 16bit was chosen as a standard for a reason.

I have no problems talking about this (though it seems to be a never ending debate), but let's do it somewhere else guys. I doubt Daniboy is worried about 192kHz/24bit (or do I dare even bring up 32bit?).

Are you planning to use these studio headphones for mixing or producing? DJ/production sound cards often include a decent enough DAC+headphone amp as well as additional IO for other gear .