or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sennheiser HD650 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sennheiser HD650 Impressions Thread - Page 177

post #2641 of 37370

I agree, and so do HeadRoom's FR graphs.

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=853&graphID[]=573

 

Note the difference from 3khz to 5khz, where the ear is particularly sensitive.

post #2642 of 37370

Just asking because I really am wondering, but isn't the HD650's downplayed upper mids/low treble the reason why people often said it the HD650's presentation is more "laid back"?

post #2643 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikenike View Post

Just asking because I really am wondering, but isn't the HD650's downplayed upper mids/low treble the reason why people often said it the HD650's presentation is more "laid back"?



Yes.

post #2644 of 37370

After I posted my message I also checked that graph too. It's really a bit strange since female vocals just sound so much better on the HD-650 AND more forward.

I guess it really doesn't have anything to do with the upper mids after all. I guess with some headphones they sound much better than their graphs make them appear.

My old HD-600 (early 2010 version, not sure if it's an updated version) is actually far, far more laid back then my HD-650 overall. When I say that, I'm not really referring to just the upper mids/lower treble, but it's whole sound signature.

I think for several years I expected the total opposite and went with the HD-600. I prefer the bass of the HD-600, but as a whole I now prefer the HD-650. For me it actually seems easier to drive.

I tried it with my Airhead just for fun and it almost never gave me the over voltage red blinking light. Of course it still doesn't sound as good as when I use a full amp.

 

I don't want to open a whole can of worms, but perhaps the newer HD-650 would appear different on graphs. I'm guessing the graph they have up is for the older version, but maybe not.

Doesn't matter since I love the way my HD-650 sounds as it is. Mine is one that's even kind of bright, which I like. I like it so much I've been watching movies with it, which I don't usually do.

It just stinks that it's so bad for games when the HD-600 was quite good, but I have my HD-598 and AD700 for that.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

I agree, and so do HeadRoom's FR graphs.

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=853&graphID[]=573

 

Note the difference from 3khz to 5khz, where the ear is particularly sensitive.



 

post #2645 of 37370

Never confuse a frequency response graph with reality.  wink_face.gif

 

Other than gross aberrations, general trends, or the odd major spike or notch, FR graphics tell you very little about how a device will sound.  "Dark space," for example, is a function of decay and resonances, and only occasionally creates a large dip or spike, though if you know what you're looking at, sometimes resonances are visible.  And FR tells nada about distortions, which have a huge effect on grain and other noxious artifacts.

 

However,if you filter out the lumps and bumps the general "slope" of the 650 both below and above 200Hz does indicate it will have a warmer tone with richer bass (OK, that's a bit of a DUH)...  Also, the majority of energy in the voice is below 5K, but while there is some energy up to 7K in the upper harmonics, it wouldn't change the core "tone" of a vocalist as much as the region below 5K...

 

My $.02.  

 

 

post #2646 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

Never confuse a frequency response graph with reality.  wink_face.gif

 

Other than gross aberrations, general trends, or the odd major spike or notch, FR graphics tell you very little about how a device will sound.   



 And yet I've found that I tend to "hear" the FR graphs with surprising accuracy. I've owned both 600 and 650 and had I been asked to draw their graphs in that region (around 3khz) that's exactly what I'd have drawn. I bought a Beyer 880 (32 ohm), and once I'd recovered from the laser-like brightness it occured to me that it sounded uncannily like the Senn 650 with a treble control full up. As I was listening on an integrated amp I turned the treble control fully down and was astonished at how 650-like it sounded. Later I compared Headroom's graphs and was astonished to see that the 32 ohm 880 is like a 650 with treble boost.

 

People keep saying take graphs with a grain of salt, but I keep finding those grains of salt extremely instructive.

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=853&graphID[]=953

 

  

post #2647 of 37370

Sure, you can hear some of what the FR chart indicates.  My point was simply that it doesn't tell you WHAT you hear, as it's only part of the story, by eliminating most of my copy you are misdirecting my intent.

 

You can have awesome frequency response and horrible time response (piston overshoot, resonances etc.) and another with an identical frequency response but excellent time response, and the latter will sound distinctly less veiled, revealing, and possibly brighter (depends on resonance profile). 

post #2648 of 37370
I can easily say that my 650 has a much better midrange than my former DT880 and I equalized the hell out of the midrange on the DT880. Just shows how frequency range graphs isn't everything.
Edited by bisayaboi - 3/9/11 at 5:11am
post #2649 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

Sure, you can hear some of what the FR chart indicates.  My point was simply that it doesn't tell you WHAT you hear, as it's only part of the story, by eliminating most of my copy you are misdirecting my intent.

 

You can have awesome frequency response and horrible time response (piston overshoot, resonances etc.) and another with an identical frequency response but excellent time response, and the latter will sound distinctly less veiled, revealing, and possibly brighter (depends on resonance profile). 



I agree with both of your previous posts. Well said.

 

Frequency response graphs tell a part of the story (a valuable part I might add), but far from everything that describes the actual sound of the headphones. As you said, transient response, damping, overshoots etc. are good examples of important data that's missing. Even subjective measures like the soundstage, imaging, layering, liquidity and all cannot be discerned from FR charts.

post #2650 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post






Frequency response graphs tell a part of the story (a valuable part I might add), but far from everything that describes the actual sound of the headphones. As you said, transient response, damping, overshoots etc. are good examples of important data that's missing. Even subjective measures like the soundstage, imaging, layering, liquidity and all cannot be discerned from FR charts.


Very well stated Shahrose! beerchug.gif

 

I think sometimes we get hung up on those damn FR graphs that we forget all the other good stuff.

 

post #2651 of 37370

BTW, I am noticing something VERY odd in the graphs that have been posted.  The dips and peaks in frequency are extremely close.  If you "tilted" the Beyer and Senn lines to overlay, they'd be very similar in shape.  This looks suspiciously like a measurement resonance in the test-head ear canals or between the head model and the drivers/bezels of the phones.  

 

I have noted that in their tests, their seem to be a lot of measurements with either a large peak at 4 or 9KHz, with associated troughs, and these seemed to be grouped by test run.   It's not universal, so I'd hesitate to make a blanket statement, but it looks like they have used two different sets of test heads and/or mics, so be cautious about anything above 3K on these charts.  

 

Another grain of salt:  these charts are probably making the HF response more ragged for every phone than they actually are.  Because of the test-head materials being very different from flesh, and ear canal geometry being some "general" shape that may not match your ear structure, at all, the ragged high frequencies above 7-8K are probably totally meaningless variations due to test setup/phone interactions.  

 

Above 3K, if you draw a "smooth line" that represents the average amplitude, you'd probably get a good sense of how "bright" a phone will sound.  In general, to my ears, a gentle slope down to the right usually sounds most natural.  

 

The tilt of the 650 shown here is why, at least to me, these sound way more lifelike than the 880, which sounds unbearably bright to my ears.  I've never liked "clinical" devices, like Etymotics.  I want them off my head immediately...  

post #2652 of 37370

I just ordered a brand new pair of HD 650s. I have been listening to the AKG K701 for some months and like some of what it does, but I just find the bass and lower midrange anemic, even using a potent desktop amp. Also, the upper midrange/lower treble grated on me a bit,  sounding unforgiving. I bought the 650 after reading many of your posts. My only fear, seeing the graphs, is that it might sound dull or airless in the same region. Encourage me? 

post #2653 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreyfranz View Post

I just ordered a brand new pair of HD 650s. I have been listening to the AKG K701 for some months and like some of what it does, but I just find the bass and lower midrange anemic, even using a potent desktop amp. Also, the upper midrange/lower treble grated on me a bit,  sounding unforgiving. I bought the 650 after reading many of your posts. My only fear, seeing the graphs, is that it might sound dull or airless in the same region. Encourage me? 



i think youre going to find that both the k70x and the hd6x0 do things well and other things not so well.  i wanted to kinda merge the good points of both those to make one so i bought a t1 :)

 

post #2654 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreyfranz View Post

I just ordered a brand new pair of HD 650s. I have been listening to the AKG K701 for some months and like some of what it does, but I just find the bass and lower midrange anemic, even using a potent desktop amp. Also, the upper midrange/lower treble grated on me a bit,  sounding unforgiving. I bought the 650 after reading many of your posts. My only fear, seeing the graphs, is that it might sound dull or airless in the same region. Encourage me? 


Judging by what you've just said, you won't be disappointed by the HD650s. If your upstream gear is capable of it, you'll get all the air you want.

post #2655 of 37370
Quote:
Originally Posted by debitsohn View Post

i think youre going to find that both the k70x and the hd6x0 do things well and other things not so well.  i wanted to kinda merge the good points of both those to make one so i bought a t1 :)

 

 

Little out of my range for now, but thanks.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

Judging by what you've just said, you won't be disappointed by the HD650s. If your upstream gear is capable of it, you'll get all the air you want.


Thanks, Shahrose, I'm looking forward to it. And yes, I have some pretty good equipment with which to support and drive the 650. 

 


Edited by jeffreyfranz - 3/9/11 at 11:42pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sennheiser HD650 Impressions Thread