Out of the 3 I personally lean towards the 1990.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
I play a lot of siege and have tried the 660 and the 1990 for the game and found the 1990’s detail and imaging to be the best of the 3.660 has great imaging but the 1990s sounds more immersive
Also just out of curiosity you all went straight for the dynamic driver headphones instead of the planar ones uhm is there anything i should be aware of in comparison since none of you chose them? 
These were your prerequisites…
Gaming (singleplayers mostly but multiplayers aswell).
Listening to music.
Communicating on discord.
Watching movies.
Lastly maybe delving into the world of creating music.
Dynamics fit most of those requirements best.
Ahh okay just wanted you know yeah well to know if they are inferior to dynamic or what the case was
Well, the added on want of music production makes something like the sendy which is v shaped and has lacking mids, the LCD 2 c with lacking treble and boosted low end, and the phantom (haven’t personally heard this one), from what I hear might have the wrong signature, not exactly what you would want for more then occasional music production
There are planars good for music production like the LCD x, but you did not mention those
The planars mentioned also aren’t the greatest for competitive gaming, but fine for casual
LCD X i’ve just heard you pay so much more for little to no difference in most cases though 
That’s really not the case, there is a difference in quality between the audeze line. The LCD x is a fair bit more detailed and the frequency response and sound is decently different from the classic
Well okay i think i’m going to choose the 1990s for the bang for buck of the 1770s, 1990s and 660s for the use case
Just for hypothetical purposes if for example 1990s cost 455 dollar and i had double of that to spend on headphones is there any not aforementioned headphone that has godlike bang for buck for the use case in the range of 455 - 900 dollars?
Just for the heck of it 
I would say the focal elex for sure, as its a really good headphone (actually would even say for light studio work too), but might not be as exciting as the 1990
Hmm can’t seem to find that one not on amazon nor on google shopping
The only thing that comes up is videos with it and also massdrop out of stock
Anyhow now to next point should i use my pc’s built-in dac& (ESS® Sabre Hi-Fi ES9023P dac & Texas Instruments® RC4580 op-amp) or should i go for a external dac& comb or maybe even a tubeamp to power the 1990s?
It’s a massdrop exclusive that I don’t think the drop is currently going, but you can find some on ebay or other selling sites
Something like a jds labs atom and a topping d10 is a great amp and dac combo
If you wanted to step up to a better amp that’s an all in one, the jds labs element is a great all in one amp/dac thats very clean in both look and sound.
I would say so. Topping d10 or a khadas tone board paired with a JD’s labs atom is a great combo
Or the Monolith by Monoprice THX Dac/Amp in case you want to spend some of the $ you saved on the headphones. I really like the sound and could work with the DT 1990’s very well.
Also true, it’s a nice option for an all in one with features, but personally I would wait for the monolith thx 887 to come out in November and get a dac like the enog 2 pro or smsl su-8, or even the grace sdac balanced as it would be above the monoprice desktop imo even though its a bit above. But thx tech will be very transparent and revealing, and if you are worried about harshness it might sound harsher then some more colored and smooth amps
Is there any specific “know to be good” brands?
Cause holy damn theres alot of different amp brands
Also is there any good to have / need to have ports?
Regarding the ports, it depends on what you want. You could want to connect using optical or spdif or usb (really no sound quality difference), or want line outs to send to another amp or speakers, or a pre out for powered monitors
For brands, monolith, jds labs, questyle, fiio, smsl, topping, schiit, ifi, chord, more expensive brands, just to name a few.
Going back to headphones for a sec.
The basic concept here is that audio reproduction consists of reproducing several sound variables.
1. Frequency response (FR). This refers to the bass-tenor-alto-soprano sort of thing. Tuba, tenor sax, piccolo for another set of examples. The common vocabulary in audio reproduction is bass-mids-treble = for low frequencies, middle frequencies and high frequencies. (Upper-mids is a the narrow but important range of high frequencies between the mids and treble.)
No headphone exists which matches any known standard of FR accuracy. Some reproduce all or part of the bass too loudly or not enough, some all or part of the middle frequencies too loudly or not enough, etc. If you have any sort of EQ available to you, play with raising and lowering the various adjustment points to get a feel what this means (but be aware that your existing headphone has its own imbalance interfering with what you are hearing).
FR vocab: Bright or occasionally cool/cold = an over-balanced emphasis on the high frequencies. Warm and dark = an over-balance of lower frequencies. Mid-focused = an over-balance emphasizing the middle ground between bass and treble. V-shaped = bass and treble both emphasized with reduced mids. A relaxed tuning (frequency balance) = something like warm/dark in that the high frequencies are toned down (but often the bass and mids are fairly neutral).
For music production M0N is saying that the closer to FR accuracy/neutrality the better.
2. Another audio reproduction variable is dynamics. This is how responsive the headphone is to changes in loudness of a given frequency. Most headphones do a very good job with dynamics.
3. Another variable is detail reproduction. Expensive headphones often excel at allowing the listener to hear the faintest details in a recording.
4. Another variable is sound stage and imaging. Sound stage is an illusion created by the proper recording and playback of stereo/2-channel sound. Sound stage gives you the sense of being able to locate where each sound source is coming from in all three dimensions of space — left-right, back-front, up-down. Imaging is how precisely or pinpoint the spatial accuracy is.
A very important but confusing point is that headphone enthusiasts aren’t usually looking for accuracy, especially in the area of frequency response. People tend to treat FR like a menu of flavours at a restaurant. They buy one headphone that does bass-emphasis really well for that flavour, and buy another headphone that does V-shape really well, etc. With the other variables the attitude is generally the more the better — the more dynamics, detail retrieval, sound stage size, and imaging accuracy — the better.
But since you gave a list of uses you want the headphone to excel at, responders on this thread are trying to find the best match for those requirements, rather than trying to figure out which flavour(s) of FR you would prefer.
Finally, to me at least, sound signature is the combination of FR flavour, dynamics, detail, sound stage, etc. for a given headphone. IOW, how it handles sound reproduction as opposed to build quality, comfort, etc.
4 Likes
Well that would depend on the person 
, but for the most part I agree
Yes, soundstage and imaging both contribute to the overall spatial accuracy that a headphone can recreate