Talk:Sony MDR-V6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deletion tag[edit]

With all due respect to the contributors to this page, Wikipedia is not an online marketplace. The article claims that Sony MDR-7506 is one of the "most popular stereo headphones in the domain of mixing, mastering and stage-monitoring." Well, what's "most popular"? MDR-7506 may be popular studio headphones, but so are dozens of others. Unless evidence can be provided (not coming from Sony) that this particular product is of very high notability by itself, this article serves no other purpose but advertising. Hence the tag.Yavrey (est vrai) 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think to delete the whole article is too far, they are extremely widespread studio monitors and part of recording history, if you dont like the comment about them being "most popular" or popular at all then edit that, but i think deleting the whole article would be ashame as they are alot more well known then most headphones.

See, if they are "extremely widespread studio monitors," then a mentioning of them (given some consensus) belongs to, say, Sound recording and reproduction or Professional audio (btw, why are then these listed in High end audio?). Same applies for their alleged historical role in the recording industry. As for "alot more well known then most headphones" — well, depends on whom you ask. To sum up: I believe that the existence of this article singles out MDR-7506 to an extent that it becomes a product promotion vehicle for Sony. Also, if you believe that the article has good enough raison d'etre, may I ask you to consider providing a link to one or more well-established and authoritative source/s with no commercial interest in this product, which would justify your claim that MDR-7506 are a lot more well known than most headphones. My regards.Yavrey (est vrai) 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh fuck off already with your 'this is an ad, this ain't an ad" whatever crap. I wanted to recall the facts of these headphones real quick. This page is EXACTLY what I needed, so please don't change it. Thank you. I still can never get over the 5-30 range these headphones have, it's just AMAZING and I hope I'll have a pair or three forever. (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have brought a handful of good references in to answer the notability question. The headphones are often listed as industry favorites or "almost-industry-standard". There are competitors, of course, but that does not stop this model line from having a big footprint and a good reputation in the industry. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the mention of Bose?[edit]

Bose isn't a studio monitor manufacturer as far as I know, why are these being compared to them? Am I missing something or was someone being kinda lazy writing that part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I find this to be very much written like an ad[edit]

Wikipedia is not a headphone forum. Articles should not be written to "recommend" a product to readers. -- (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it using reliable sources. The article's style reflects the sources available. I found no sources saying bad things about this model line. Dave Rat comes closest to negativity, yet he acknowledges the popularity of the MDR-V6.
If you have specific suggestions for improvement, bring them up here. Until then, I contest your tagging of the article. Sony's competitor Sennheiser has a regional headquarters in Quebec where your IP address is located, so your advert tag might be a conflict of interest. If you are not associated with Sennheiser, describe specific article problems you want fixed. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that's new, considering how hard it is to actually find decent Sennheisers (well, there's the HD598...) in Quebec City.
Also since when did Sennheiser become Sony's competitor? Does Sennheiser make TVs? NXCAMs? dSLRs? -- (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Oh, I see. You're a Platinum Star user. I have absolutely nothing else to say. -- (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


It does sound like an advert. But maybe that's because Sony is paying writers to edit Wikipedia articles. Not that there's anything wrong with that... Anyway, it's a useful blob of information, why delete it? (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite ready for Sony to pony up and pay me to write, but nothing like that has happened. Instead, I was able to take quotes from various books about sound work, ones which discuss this line of headphones, usually admiringly. The tone of the article comes from the sources.
Me, I work as a sound engineer and I like the MDR-V6 for its usefulness. Since 1987 when I bought my first pair I have blown up one pair and had two stolen, but I always buy another one to keep two around: one for home use and one for road gigs. There is nothing going on here in this article except interest from a satisfied customer. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Still reads like advertisement[edit]

I'm sorry, but this article has been lacking in quality since it's creation. Other than the specs table, it's almost completely void of facts and simply lists subjective quotes from various sources. This is not how you write an wikipedia article. Perhaps this could be revised to a stub which simply includes the top section and the specs section. However, I vote for deletion. ( (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

I dispute the idea that this article should be deleted. You wrote as your reason: "This article violates guidelines listed under WP:SOAP. Specifically WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Unless this article can be revised to list simply facts instead of selective and subjective quotes from various publications, I move for deletion."
At WP:SOAP, the guideline warns against having a promotional tone and against not using third party sources. The article takes its tone from the many third party sources that are used. It is not based on Sony's own sources; not at all. The rest of SOAP talks about external links used for advertising, but this article only has one external link, the "official" link pointing to the product page of the topic.
All I'm hearing is that you do not like the article, that you object to it having such a positive tone from the near-total positive reviews. How about this? Find a reviewer who hates the MDR-V6 and bring that opinion into the article. Good luck with that. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Just because it uses third party sources does not mean that it doesn't have a promotional tone. This article does not have a neutral tone. I will research the correction action to move this forward. (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet, are you ok with leaving the \{\{advert\}\} tag here? I would like to give a chance for the article to get cleaned up. Otherwise, I'll nominate for deletion. ( (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC))
No, I don't like the advert tag. The article does not violate WP:SOAP; it's not written to sell Sony headphones, it's not based on primary sources, it is clearly based on third party sources such as guides for audio and video production. The advert tag should only stay up if there is an actionable complaint rather than a general I-don't-like-it complaint. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you suggest a better tag? It is an actionable complaint. This article is not written from a WP:NPOV. It is littered with selectively grabbed quotes that advocate it's use (Sort of like what you seen on advertisements.) ( (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC))
I suggest you go try and find negative quotes about the MDR-V6: you'll come up empty. After that exercise you will realize that the article fairly represents the literature. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnet types in the MDR-V6 and MDR-7506[edit]

There's a lot of folklore out there about the magnets being different in the V6 than the MDR-7506. It is true that there different magnets exist, but it is not true that each model has always had just one type of magnet. What is currently in each model is not necessarily what has always been. In the article, we must avoid making generalizations and assumptions on this point.

For example, I have the packaging for old (purchased mid-'90s) and new (purchased Nov. 2012) MDR-7506 headphones and am happy to provide scans thereof. The magnet type is stated on the packaging, and there's also an exploded view and parts list. They changed the magnet type, but did not change the driver part number! The old pair uses samarium cobalt, and the new pair has neodymium. The frequency response is still listed as 10-20000 Hz.

I don't have MDR-V6s for comparison, but since the driver part number is the same as for the MDR-7506, I think it's safe to assume the situation is the same; the part number is unreliable as evidence that the magnets are the same across all models, or even within the same model.

I have adjusted the MDR-7506 section accordingly. It now does not try to claim that every MDR-V6 uses samarium cobalt, and that every MDR-7506 uses neodymium. Clearly, the MDR-7506 switched magnets at least once, and I wouldn't be surprised if the MDR-V6 did, also. And on top of that, we have to consider the possibility that they don't always update the packaging and marketing literature to reflect these manufacturing decisions. There's even a disclaimer to that effect on the packaging! —mjb (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable if there was not such a high degree of original research involved in figuring out the driver situation. It would be best to find a reliable source discussing the products. However, I am even more hesitant to give the reader the wrong impression. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability Burden[edit]

Is this page truly notable per Wiki guidelines? I know advert and deletion tags have been applied and removed a number of times over the years, but there seems to be some historical merit (either in the history of headphones, the history of Sony, or the history of studio production equipment - this is unclear from the article). The current page seems like ad-copy for a product though; I think overall the page as-is has some peacock/weaseling going on, seems to violate NPOV and that the page is serving more as an echo-chamber than providing general topical information. If that can't be resolved through re-write, deletion seems reasonable. Obobskivich (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If any headphone was ever notable, it is these. This family of headphones is totally ubiquitous in the music and recording industry. The MDR-V6’s in particular have probably colored the perceptions of more sound engineers than any other headphones, amounting to a noteworthy cumulative effect on music production since the 80s when they were first released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

→ Again, not arguing that - they do have historical merit, but the article still reads like an advertisement (I also see a trend of any challenge to this NPOV/advertisement/etc argument being mowed over and all edits/tags/etc deleted without explanation; that isn't the point of tags). If they are historically significant and important to the history of audio engineering, that information needs to be included and cited; not overly-specific excerpts from reviews that praise them as a "must have" product. Furthermore, the "specifications table" should probably be removed (or at least pruned); as per consensous on other similar articles ("No, frequency response data released without magnitude figures is just marketing jaws flapping in the wind"). Obobskivich (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the frequency response portion of the table because I agree with you (I'm the person you quoted in a reply at the Grado talk page.) Regarding notability and promotional writing style, these are two separate things. The notability is supplied by the sources I found. The facts that are in the article are also supplied by the sources I found, which is probably why you think this text is promotional. Personally, I do not get a cent from Sony for writing about them, so I have no reason to write an overly promotional article about this line of headphones. It's just that the sources so often describe the headphones as "must have" or industry standard. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it should not appear that Wikipedia is saying they're a "must have" - Wikipedia should be telling the world that they are critically acclaimed by reviewers/industry professionals/etc. My primary issue with the tone is in the intro, there are uncited claims that they are "one of the most popular model lines among professional audio engineers" and that they "continue to be popular for audio editing, live sound and broadcast applications" - and to that I respond with: says who? And when? That's where it looks like advertising (at least to me). I feel that those lines could be removed without any loss to the article's content. The follow-up paragraphs that cite Consumer Reports and other publications are much better at addressing that - the claims are attributed to reliable sources and lay the burden of proof on the external sources. Frequency response figures still exist throughout the article (I removed them and re-worded it to still make sense), and finally citation #15 ("a 2001 web audio book") seems somewhat awkward (can't we just say that O'Reilly regarded them well? O'Reilly isn't an unknown organization, and is generally fairly credible). And as a final final note - should the 7509HD even be mentioned in this article? They aren't derived from the same base product (at least if memory serves), and seem somewhat extraneous within the context of this article (on that note, is there a broader "Notable Sony Products" page or category that this could be merged/included into?). Obobskivich (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)