CAD MH310 / Superlux HD-662F Review

There is almost no info available about the new CAD MH310 headphones right now - but I just got three pair today.

Here's the available spiel on the CAD cans:

**********
"CAD MH310 Closed-Back Studio Headphones Details

The CAD MH310 is a closed back, circumaural, precision built monitor headphone equipped with 50mm neodymium drivers offering extended frequency response while delivering exceptional detail and clarity. Exceptionally comfortable, the MH310s are designed with a self-adjusting headband with closed-back leatherette ear cushions that allow for hours of comfortable, fatigue free listening.
CAD MH310 Closed-Back Studio Headphones Features

* Frequency response: 10Hz-30kHz
* Sensitivity: 98 +/- 3dB
* High output, Neodymium 50mm drivers
* 2.5 Meter (98”) cord with 1/4" and 1/8" plugs
* Impedence: 30 ohms
* Foam cushions for maximum comfort and sound isolation
* Carrying pouch
* One year Limited Warranty"
**********

So, with just about zero information anywhere online on these, I had to start searching for some super-similar styles with the same specs (use that line to test for sibilance the next time you set up a vocal mic).

The closest I came up with was the brand-new Superlux HD-662F. Superlux is the new up-and-comer big-bang-for-the-buck headphone brand made in Taiwan. "Close" isn't even the word for the match I got - except for the branding, the CAD and Superlux seem nearly identical. The Superlux HD-662 series are all closed-back, and they offer good isolation. There are three styles: the 662 (red trim-well balanced), the 662-F (white trim-true bass), and the 662-B (blue trim-bass punch).

The CAD MH310 has white trim, so it's probably the HD-662F. Here I have removed one of the ear cushions to get a better look inside:







Here's a shot someone took of the guts of an AKG (left) and a Superlux (right)...not sure of the exact models used, however:



So it sure looks like the CAD is a rebranded Superlux.

There are a few differences from the original description, once you have the item in front of you: The Superlux is from Taiwan, the CAD box says Made in China. The specs have changed, too - from 10Hz-30KHz to 20Hz-20KHz...darn, I lost some frequency response during shipping! That's perfectly fine with me in this case, because humans generally CAN'T HEAR down to 10Hz (that is bass you feel in your chest at a live show, not something that comes out of 50mm/2-inch drivers) or up to 30KHz.

So it also looks like CAD has put the specs into...perSPECtive. More real-world.

AND my paperwork has the one year warranty upped to a two year warranty. Nice.


***MY REVIEW***

I'm currently "burning-in" a pair right now, I'll be able to comment on those after 100+ hours of burn. My first comments will be on a fresh, unburned set:

These offer pretty good isolation, though not quite as good as some of my vintage cans. Probably thinner-walled plastic in the cups. Might be room for some modding, there (I was thinking that something like fiberglass lining the inside would do some good, I dunno). Comments/suggestions?

They clamp pretty well on my head, around the ears (circumaural), which is a must for tracking, to reduce leakage from the headphone. I am used to this style of headphones, as all of my vintage ones for tracking and my AKG K240-M's for mixing are this type. I like the solid feel of these. Those who aren't used to circumaural headphones may feel a bit claustrophobic in them.

These have a very similar design to the AKG K240's, but the curved metal rods that connect the earpieces (not sure what these are actually called - the headband/s?) are extremely resonant on the CADs...they vibrate/ring at around 80Hz, while the same parts on the AKGs are isolated and do not ring at all. Not that you're going to go around flicking these with your fingernail making them vibrate very often, but it does seem to be a negative as far as using them for a quality reference. If your source material happened to have lots of 80Hz in it, the CAD headphones would probably ring (sympathetic vibration). I will probably add some sort of damping to eliminate the resonance.

Now for the sound quality: VERY NICE. Certainly beyond the price (these list for $99 currently, generally go for about $69, and can be found for as little as $49). I am used to mostly "flat" sound...I use my AKG's for monitoring, so the sound that they output must be as close to the original source material as possible - that's why I chose the AKG's.

The CAD's add a bit of "smile" eq to the source (similar to what a listener might add on their own with a separate equalizer): a bass bump, and some high-end peaks around 6KHz, as shown in this Superlux frequency response chart:



Though I might like to hear a little bit more midrange definition, I must say I really enjoy listening on these headphones! The bass is very full and present, while not being overdone or flabby. The treble is natural and clear, not harsh.

I was able to hear ALL of the test tones 20Hz-20KHz from the Alan Parsons "Sound Check" cd through these headphones, and although the highest and lowest tones were much quieter than the rest, they were most certainly audible.

Please keep in mind that I am only making an assumption that these are rebranded Superlux headphones. I do not have any Superlux HD662-F's yet to make a "for-certain" call. But from the photos and specs online, it seems a safe assumption they are the same...who knows? CAD may have had some alterations done to the Superlux design, to make these their own. Time will tell.

But I must say that I approve of these headphones! Comfortable fit, quality build, nice isolation, and a great listening experience. A GREAT bang-for-the-buck, in my opinion.

2351

The Orchestra As Sardines

I spent the first weekend of 2011 recording a small orchestra in a small hall. Or rather, HALLWAY. 8^)#

The performance space measured about ten feet wide by fifteen feet high by thirty feet long. The performers numbered eleven: flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, french horn, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, drums/percussion, piano. Plus the composer/conducter Mike Przygoda, and the recordist, yours truly.

There were a few six by eight foot practice rooms attached to the main area, and a baby grand piano in an alcove by the entrance.

With a bit of discussion about the (generally poor) room acoustics, and musician-to-conducter sight lines, and what multiple microphones would be likely to introduce in the way of phase cancellation, we decided on the following:

Still shoot for a stereo recording - mono would solve the phase problems, but finding a sweet spot for it would take too long, and anyway, stereo is almost always better...

Percussion items and drumset in a practice room with a single overhead mic (CAD M179 set to cardioid pattern). Piano lid on half-stick with a few winter coats placed over the opening, mic'ed inside with two AT4040's. Maestro Przygoda in the center of the room, conducting directly under the ten-foot tall mic stand (almost against the wall, holding two more CAD M179's, cardioid pattern, two or three feet apart, angled slightly outward). The rest of the musicians spread out across the room in a big arc, all facing the conducter, strings toward the left, woodwinds toward the right.

Recordist in the other practice room.

So here is a quick mix of one of the twenty-four pieces we recorded that weekend.




This is the primary stereo pair with some added reverb, and the unprocessed percussion track added in to the center. No stereo piano tracks added, as there is no piano in this piece.

After listening, I think I could add just a bit more volume on the percussion...what do you think?

Sometimes Getting Good Sound Is Simply Knowing What To Avoid

Now, first off, nothing against Tad Donley - he's been through a lot and seems like a genuinely good fellow...

But it may be in your best interests to look somewhere else for your recording project if the guy running the studio sounds like this:





Of course, that's "NOY-mon" U-87...which IS a top-notch mic.





C'mon - the dude missed becoming one of Spinal Tap's drummers by some fluke (mainly because he was a guitarist), so they let him be their live sound guy...he's GOT to have some killer skills...in there...somewhere...right? Pretty sure he mixed "Jazz Odyssey", anyway...

Great Free Tool!

There is a great new FREE tool available from a German website: Pleasurize Music Foundation. It is a Dynamic Range measurement tool, which works regardless of the volume of the music.

As many of you may know, there has been a "Loudness War" going on in the music industry this last decade-and-a-half...resulting in many, many albums that have been "maximized" (compressed and limited) to the point where they have almost no dynamic range (and are ugly and fatiguing to listen to).

There is a "live" version available as a plugin, designed to be used while mixing and mastering in your own software, and an "offline" standalone version for measuring tracks after mixing and mastering.

This freebie is brand spanking new, and I haven't yet used it to it's fullest extent, but it is an EXCITING tool! Since the recording industry gave us the cd format with its' wonderful huge dynamic range, then the same industry gives us music with less and less range in it...what are we to do? WE TAKE OUR MUSIC BACK, that's what! We produce music that is once again musical, pleasant to hear, using accessible technology to improve the audio to what it CAN BE...

Go to the site. Check out their info. Sign up if you agree with their goals. Download the Dynamic Range meter HERE.

Good stuff.

Paddy Leitsch Shills For MOONROOM

Check it out! The Paddyman has posted a neat little vid on YouTube featuring the Moonroom Recording Studio. We've done quite a bit of work here...he was even good enough to continue to work with me while it was being built! This pretty much shows the general attitude here: relaxed and fun. Gotta love that giant prehistoric iPod - how many songs on THAT hard disk?



And of course I meant "spiels" for Moonroom, not "shills"!

;^)#

"Baking" Reel-To-Reel Tapes

Recently, I accepted a job to transfer some 30-year-old reels - Polish radio dramas, stored and never heard since their original broadcast. It is important, of course, to preserve this type of obscure stuff.

Opening the package, I first noticed the brand of tape: "Shamrock". This rang a bell for some reason, so I did a quick search for some information on Shamrock tape. Evidently, this is about the very worst tape that one could record on, being super-susceptible to what is called "sticky-shed syndrome". They weren't trying to confuse customers that this was Scotch brand recording tape, were they?

In the late 1970's, most tape manufacturers changed the binders in their tape formulations (the binder being the glue that holds the rust on the plastic tape) due to health concerns. Unknown to them, this hygroscopic compound would, over the course of years, pull moisture directly out of the air, and get somewhat gooey, allowing the recorded layer to separate from the plastic tape. This is not only bad for the recorded media, but also for the equipment that it gets played back on.

So after a bit more research, I purchased a wonderful device which would remove the water, and render the tapes playable. It is compact, and holds the exact temperature needed for "baking". It can also make banana chips - it's a food dehydrator! This is one of those times that the DIY mentality has given us the absolute perfect solution to our problem.

The tapes played back perfectly, with great fidelity. The only problem was that they were all in Polish, which is all Greek to me! It seemed to me that since I could hear the actors moving around the recording space, interacting with each other, yet heard no pages turning, this show was memorized and blocked out the way a stage play would be. Very impressive - it lent a sense of realism to the entire production! I hope to get a bit of a translation soon.

HERE is a little snippet, some of the opening. The couple seems to be doing some pillow talk...not really discussing the barking dogs that introduce the scene. Well, that's what I hear, anyway. Let's hope it's not too off-color!

The Newest Oldest Recording

This beautiful archaic device is a PHONAUTOGRAPH. Invented in 1857 by Frenchman Leon Scott deMartinville, a printer and writer, it was created to show how sound waves looked: possibly as as an "oral shorthand". The idea being that one could LOOK at the squiggly lines and tell what had been said (!).




The original design (1857) used a barrel-shaped wood-and-plaster horn (the auricle) and scratched the sound waves into a lampblacked glass cylinder. A later design (1859) changed the horn to a more tapered metal horn, and transferred the scratches to a blackened piece of paper wrapped around a cylinder. Notice how there is even decorative scrollwork shown on the original diagram of the machine!




SO - my point being, they've just discovered phonautograms from 1860 that are able to be "played" and are recognizable - predating the other "earliest" recordings (from 1888)! There are a few other, older phonautograms, but they only sound like squawks and warbles...nothing recognizable.





Here is a phonautogram, showing the white scratch in the lampblack (soot) on paper. The sort of sad thing about the phonautograph is that is was NOT for reproducing sound, just for creating a representation of sound on paper. The phonautograms that were recently discovered had to be digitally scanned and "played" in a virtual environment. Leon Scott died in 1879, penniless and for the most part, forgotten. At least Thomas Edison knew that people would want to HEAR their recordings of sounds, and not just LOOK at them! What the heck would people ever use a GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION of sound for, anyway?!?




Listen to the earliest known recorded sound that we can recognize HERE.



"Au clair de la lune, Pierrot répondit" - it has an otherworldly, sort of ethereal quality to it...and what more would one expect from sound salvaged from SMOKE?!? Time travel, indeed...

My Qlist (Mic List)

Before I post some audio examples (soon!), I thought I might show a quick list of the microphones I'm currently using (LDC is Large Diaphragm Condenser, and SDC is Small Diaphragm Condenser, of course):

2 Apex 140 Miniature Cardiod Condenser Mics
1 Apex 215 Dual-Ribbon Mic
1 Astatic 930VP Variable-Pattern Boundary Mic
2 AT4040 LDC Mics
2 AT803 Miniature Omni Condenser Mics
2 AT803b Miniature Omni Condenser Mics
1 AT875R Short Shotgun Condenser Mic
2 ATM63HE Dynamic Mics
2 ATM25 Dynamic Mics
1 AT Pro-1 Dynamic Mic
2 AT Pro 8HEx Headset Hypercardioid Dynamic Mic
3 AT ST90 Mark II Dynamic Mics
3 CAD E300-2 Multi-Pattern LDC Mics
2 CAD equitek e70 SDC Mics (omni & cardioid capsules)
4 CAD M179 Multi-Pattern LDC Mics
1 CAD M9 Tube/Valve Mic
1 CAD Trion 6000 Multi-Pattern LDC Mic
1 Heil PR 40 Extra-Large Diaphragm Dynamic Mic
1 "Lamont" Binaural Dummy Head
2 Naiant MSH-1c Miniature Condenser Mics
4 Realistic PZM Pressure Zone Mics (Modified)
2 Shinybox 23 Ribbon Mics (Modified)
2 Shure SM57 Dynamic Mics
1 Shure BG-4 SDC Mic
1 Superlux S502 ORTF Stereo SDC Pair
1 Superlux WB-383 Miniature Condenser Clip-on Mic
1 DiMarzio Clip-In Acoustic Guitar Pickup

Plus a few mighty elderly clunkers that barely deserve to be classified as microphones, but I do occasionally use them for their unique..."clunkiness".

Some Equipment...And A SECRET!

Here's a list of some equipment used at "the Moonroom":

2 VF-160 Digital Multitracks, Linked For 32 tracks
2 VF-160 EX Digital Multitracks
Behringer ADA8000 Mic Pre / ADAT
2 Rane DC-24 Compressor / Limiter / Noise Gates
2 Rane VP-12 Voice Processors
Antares ATR-1a Auto-Tune Intonation Processor
Peavey 213 FX Equalizer
Fostex D-8 Pro DAT Recorder
Pioneer PDR-509 CD Recorder
Sony MD Recorder
Sony Portable MD Recorder
Zoom H4 Flash Stereo / 4 Track Recorder
Fostex R-8 8 Track Reel To Reel Recorder
Fostex 12 X 8 X 2 Mixer
Soundcraft 8 X 2 Mixer
Boss SE-50 Stereo Effects Unit
Alesis Microverb II Reverb
Kenwood Turntable
2 Akai 1/4" Reel To Reel Recorders


That's just a start. Sure, some of that equipment seems old - it is! Been doing this since 1988. Hold on to your old stuff long enough, and it becomes VINTAGE.

Now for the SECRET. Make sure that you don't tell anyone...

It doesn't really matter what equipment you have, what really matters is that you know how to use it well. Seriously. No kidding. Ask anyone who's been recording for at least ten years. "Equipment" is much further down on the list than the guys selling the magazines would have you believe. Important, just further down the list than skill, familiarity, and experience.