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

Sennheiser HD650 Impressions Thread - Page 466

post #6976 of 21440

Just use the rca jacks, it's no different than hooking them up to powered speakers or stereo amp. It will act as a dac/preamp.  Should be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proteus24 View Post


 Can i use my Tubemagic d1 as a dac and how would i connect it to the valhalla? Thanks for the info

post #6977 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMCrazy View Post

Wow, I don't pay attention for a few days, and I miss a whole heated conversation on a topic that I very often rant on :)  Thanks guys for making sure I'm not the only one that is heavily miffed by the topic especially where it approaches HD650! If actual technology moved onward, new models replaced the old models, prices moved down, etc, I could see the whole "HD650 is mid-fi" thing.  But that isn't what happened.  HD650 is the same price it was 8 years ago.  It still represents the same position in the market.  I also find the notion that "newer better headphones (at 3x the price) exist now, so it's mid-fi" to be silly as well.  "Newer better headphones" existed 8 years ago too.  The Orpheus, Stax, and so forth.  The only difference between then and now is that the price range for exotics has tamed from the $5,000-10,000 down to the $1,000-10,000 range with some new models in that category.   The notion that "tech has moved on" well outside the same price bracket is very sideways thinking indeed.  That's like saying your brand new speedboat is obsolete because the U.S.S. Lincoln exists.  Two different things at two very different price points. As above, we had better phones around back then too.   By your logic, when HD900 comes out at $2500 HD800 will be mid-fi.  When HD950 comes out at $4000, HD900 will be mid-fi.  The ever-ramping price for ever decreasing improvements is at its core for the "mid-fi" classification, otherwise we'd see new models moving down the price ladder.  Maybe that will happen, but it has not happened yet.  The old price points are holding steady.  Otherwise we're locked in a debate where to be considered the owner of a piece of "hi-fi" equipment is an ever increasing ladder into elitism. And then that puts headphones like HD700 and LCD-2 in a really weird light.  Both have a superior model above them.  Thus both are mid-fi?  So there's a grand total of a dozen or so "hi-fi" headphones? Weirder: HD650 has the honor of former flagship.  HD700 does not.  Yet costs more. Right, and there is they key.  These new "superior" headphones have such different sound signatures, how could one compare HD650 to them?  If we had a headphone with the same sound signature but improved in different areas; extension, detail, speed, that replaced the old price point.  Ok, that would be progression of tech.  But we don't have that .  We have very different sounding headphones at radically higher price points.  How could one even determine if they're "better" or more detailed since they're emphasizing different parts of the spectrum.  Of course HD800 is more overtly detailed in presentation regardless of it's driver.  Most argued that K701 and DT880 were more detailed back in the day too.  They weren't, but they emphasized the treble to accentuate detail.  We're still arguing the same argument with different phrases.  Treble emphasis or no treble emphasis.  +$1000.  We never left the ancient "DT880 vs K701 vs HD650" debate.  We're still arguing it and multiplied the price points.  Note that I'm not trying to claim that some of these  superior headphones aren't somewhat superior, my agrument is that they're not overwhelmingly superior, nor superior withing the same price range to actually be considered capable of supplanting HD650 as anything but "hi-fi."  What we have is a group of headphones at radically different prices that offer some different advantages and tradeoffs, and are truly within the same general category.  Some folks hate HD800 and like HD650.  Some like what HD800 does better. Some like what LCD-2 does better.  All balances of tradeoffs, not great leaps in superiority.  If these were all $500 (and honestly most of them should be were they not trying to rig the market to a different sense of value) everyone would be debating the tradeoffs and technical merits of presentation, not openly declaring "x is superior."  Same goes for HE-400.  Is it inferior to HE-500?  Probably.  By the reports of most who have compared both, the difference is neglegable.  Yet they get blased as "budget" "mid-fi" "entry" etc due to their low price that is entirely due to better production process.  I think you're more spot on than you realize.   The SOURCE resolution is what is key here.  If 4k became a standard, then perhaps that would become high definition and the old would be dropped to a new mid-definition category.  However the prices would also actualize and the 4k would fit the current price points of high-def and the old high-def would budget down.  In headphones we're not seeing the progression of new tech; in with the new out with the old.  We're seeing a new exotic price point added above the norm, and the knee-jerk reaction that suddenly that is the new standard.  If the 4k tvs were consistently sold for 2x, 3x, 4x the price of current high-def, it would remain nothing but an exotic plaything for people with money to spare, and the "old" high-def would continue to be the standard of high-def.  4k TVs are interesting because they function only for up-scaled video.  BD is still 1080 as a standard.  Broadcast is still 1080 as a standard.  And that is very unlikely to change soon given the immense budgets required for it.  So all one can do with their shiny 4k TV is upconvert content that's really only 180 to begin with until some new video format standardizes.  Return to headphones.  Red Book audio hasn't changed in 20 years. All this arguing about detail extraction seems a little shifty. Red Book has only so much detail.  HD650 can already surpass the resolution of Red Book audio and clearly resolve differences in higher resolution audio.  And higher resolution audio is still relatively scarce.  HD650 was designed and marketed to coincide wth SACD for good reason: It can outresolve Red Book.  So while everyone is ranting about the "better detail resolution" of headphone B, while throwing the same Red Book recording at it, what is ignored is that much of that "resolution" is simply "more accentuated presentation of detail."   Specifically speaking of HD800, sure it has clear advantages.  Greater extension in both directions with reduced distortion in the bass side.  That can clearly be measured.  Better soundstaging due to driver position and size.  Sure.  Faster in the transients?  People underestimate HD650, but sure I can believe a new magnet setup could accomplish that.  But, then, my planars have faster transients....HD650 still feels more detailed and refined. That can be considered an improvement, but it isn't something to make or break hi-fi status. We're talking about important and obvious advantages when comaring evolutionary steps, but it's not the sort of radical shfits that people claim it to be.  Not until the RECORDING takes a serious change in direction.  Beyond those things, any improvement is highly subjective since the sound signature will create a bunch of differences.  I'm convinced the people who will argue greater detail retrieval than HD650/K701/DT880 (again, barring bass which has been improved upon since then) on a Red Book CD would also easily argue that their 4k TV shows so much more detail from their 1080p Blu-Ray discs.  Emphasis, sure.  Retrieval, no.  So a tonally imbalanced headphone with fast transients is hi-fi, but a well balanced headphone with moderately fast transients is mid-fi? That explains a lot about HD700.  Again, though, I ask, considering detail emphasis versus resolution as a factor.  Given the Red Book audio standard, which HD650 has already been outresolving for quite a while, even if the higher end headphones are physically capable of outresolving HD650, what good is the capability of outresolving a headphone that already outresolves the source?  It's like upgrading your 20" picture frame with a 30" picture frame to frame a 4x6 photo.  HD650 was already blasted as complete overkill at an insane price tag when it was released.  Now we're overkilling the overkill and patting ourselves on the back for our achievement. Certainly there are applications for such headphones, and if one prefers the sound signature of them, they're ideal.  But to agrue that HD650 is so outmoded by them as to be considred a lesser level of fidelity is pushing it. And faster transducer or not, I do not consider my "really cheap" HE series to be superior to HD650.  I love both of them, and I have different desires for the different sound signatures of both.  I consider them at worst equals and at best, HD650 still has the edge. The idea that a faster transducer automatically is sufficiently better to mark it as being in a different class is, IMO inaccurate.  Sure we do.  16/44.1 as the standard, and the beginning of the next resolution is 24/88.  Can HD650 resolve all detail from 16/44.1?  Can it resolve past it and resolve additional detail from 24/88?  Yes.  As it was designed to do.  Can HD800 resolve even greater detail from 24/88 and into 24/96?  I don't know.  I can say that my if my plenty fast planars can do so, I can not detect such difference.  There's so much talk about "extracting as much detail as you can extract" as though Red Book were some vaguely defined format.  Like video there's a very specific amount of resolution on the disc.  The headphone/amp/dac can either play all of it without slurring anything or losing minute peaks between impulses or it can't.  Beyond that all you can do is accentuate the edges of the waveform and bump the specific frequencies where most detail is contained to draw greater attention to their edges.  Detail perception, not retrieval.  I'd gleefully grant that the higher end headphones almost certainly have more ability to do so with the very high resolution recordings.  The trouble is I doubt even the most serious of audiophiles has a majority of their music in such high res formats since so few albums are even released in those formats.  And that ignores whether the human ear can parse it at all.  And completely ignores that for all but the very best DACs 127 may actually be WORSE.  But for Red Book we're very, very far beyond that hump.  We were beyond it when HD650 was released.  Thus why it was blasted as overkill and defended on the merits of SACD which was, at the time, a rising star.  If the categorization of audio performance is subject only to consensus instead of logic, then you'd better get your battery-ended cables ready before heading to the cables forum You're right, it's langauge and since this is a forum to discuss audio the langague used is very important, and the "mid-fi/hi-fi" monikers are thrown around entirely falsely, often on lines of elitism and emotionalism, not genuine debates about actual comparitve performance on a given source material.  Consnensus about outright false categorezation does little but hurt the general state of the hobby.  We depend on "new blood" streaming through all the time, and wrongly declaring headphones like HD650 as "mid fi" because it's convenient to "consensus" as though they're somehow not giving you the full resolution and that you need to get into the $1000+ range to get into actual "hi-fi" is only harmful.  Those are semi-exotic playthings, not the standard of hi-fi.  Disclaimer: While it's an important and serious discussion relating to all of hifidom and especialy HD650, I intended none of my commentary to be accusational or attacking anyone, especially you sphinxvc, since a lot of comments were responses to yours, don't feel like I was blasting you!  Your statements were very well stated and pleasant, and reasoned, unlike some who comment on such things at times.  We may or may not ever agree on the matter, but it's a debate with informed ideas on both sides.  It's always nice when it's a civil debate and not flaming arguments 

 

You're right, I disagree on a lot of these points.  For one, I think a can like the LCD-2 or HD800 checks off more boxes in terms of technical merits than something like the HD650 or K701 does, or even the HE5LE.  So for that reason, to me, they are more neutral and more versatile and thus better phones, not just different.  Assuming one understands or agrees they are better, however marginally better, and if one still has a qualm over "how much better" they are for the cost, well then you need to refresh your understanding of diminishing returns.  Or if you already understand it, you need to apply it and manage your expectations better.  

 

On khz and bits, it's taken me blind tests and an SR009 rig to tell the difference between hi-res and redbook (and I was only successful ~65-70% of the time), so I don't buy that there's much variation in resolution.  That said, an SR009 rig can show you just how much there is in Redbook..  There's a flowing forth of details on the SR009 that there isn't on something like the HD800.  And there are nuances and details to be heard with an HD800 that you simply don't on lesser phones.  Even if you want to ignore non-emphasized real details, there are spatial details.  So would that fall into the bucket of "emphasized" details too?  

 

Another thing I realized is, one can't really argue mid-fi, hi-fi, peak-fi, etcetera without bringing price into the picture.  I tried to say before that price has nothing to do with any of this, but it's clear that the other side of this argument is difficult to make without the price angle.  

post #6978 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

 

You're right, I disagree on a lot of these points.  For one, I think a can like the LCD-2 or HD800 checks off more boxes in terms of technical merits than something like the HD650 or K701 does, or even the HE5LE.  So for that reason, to me, they are more neutral and more versatile and thus better phones, not just different.  Assuming one understands or agrees they are better, however marginally better, and if one still has a qualm over "how much better" they are for the cost, well then you need to refresh your understanding of diminishing returns.  Or if you already understand it, you need to apply it and manage your expectations better.  

 

On khz and bits, it's taken me blind tests and an SR009 rig to tell the difference between hi-res and redbook (and I was only successful ~65-70% of the time), so I don't buy that there's much variation in resolution.  That said, an SR009 rig can show you just how much there is in Redbook..  There's a flowing forth of details on the SR009 that there isn't on something like the HD800.  And there are nuances and details to be heard with an HD800 that you simply don't on lesser phones.  Even if you want to ignore non-emphasized real details, there are spatial details.  So would that fall into the bucket of "emphasized" details too?  

 

Another thing I realized is, one can't really argue mid-fi, hi-fi, peak-fi, etcetera without bringing price into the picture.  I tried to say before that price has nothing to do with any of this, but it's clear that the other side of this argument is difficult to make without the price angle.  

 

I certainly wouldn't deny that some of the newer headphones have some genuine technical improvements.  I also won't deny that HD650 has some genuine technical improvements over HD600.  Did HD600 become mid-fi when HD650 was released?  Was HD650 bashed for its diminishing returns dilemma?  Now, lets restate.  If HD650 had been released at $1k, if people were insane enough back then to spend that kind of money one a headphone (back then that would have been unacceptable, and sheer marketing prowess is the only thing that has made that price point at all acceptable.)  But imagine the Head-Fi ranting if it had been so.  HD650 would CLEARLY have been so far superior to those old mid-fi HD600's.

 

So do the new headphones offer improvements?  Sure.  Are the improvements bigger than from HD600 to HD650, sure.  Are they huge improvements to even justify $300.   How about 2-3x the price?  Probably not.  My agrument there isn't purely about the price.  There's a debate to be had on that as well but a different one than this.  The point here is, once we realize just how diminishing the diminishing returns are, once we realize how marginal the leaps in performance are, the question is not "are the other headphones better", the question is "are the other headphones such a tremendous jump in performance so as to invalidate headphones like HD650 as even qualifying for Hi-Fi anymore."   To say they are superior is something no one is arguing.  The quest question is as to fi the bar has been pushed to a new level so far that it's beyond diminishing returns entirely and defines a new standard as to what hi-fi means versus what it meant when HD650 was released.  It's ok to say HD650 and HD800 are both hi-fi headphones, HD800 has some improvements.  But to say that HD800 is so dramatically different in what it plays back from HD650 that HD650 can no longer be considered hi-fi in its wake is simply preposterous.  As long as HD800 and friends are still deep into diminishing returns, as long as the improvements are still relatively small, there's simply no way that HD650 can not be considered anything but hi-fi.  When a headphone comes out that seriously raises the bar, and not in a trivial way, and does so at a price point that is not deep into diminishing returns for the upgrade, then there is a new standard of hi-fi.

 

Point being: diminishing returns is just that: something a little better for a lot more money.  Which is a very different thing than setting a new standard firm enough to declare "what formerly represented consumer hi-fi no longer does."  A march of technology into old price points would do that.  Releasing ever more expensive objects than the old standards with ever more miniscule improvements over each other is more of an arms race than setting a new standard.  Ok, we proved we CAN go to the moon for $30 billion in a rocket ship.  That means passenger airliners and fighter jets are now "primitive transportation" because rocket ships are certainly faster and go farther. Nevermind that rocket transportation is beyond expensive and it's value only really is apparent for specific needs.  It exists, therefore the old is reduced. BMW's are mid-level cars, of course, I mean Porches have it all over them.  And Porches are kind of upper-mid, almost high-end cars since Ferrarris exist.  Nevermind they cost half a mil plus.  They exist, therefore nothing else is high-end. When we raise the price tags the argument gets more overtly backward.

 

The notion that something must be overpriced and exotic in order to be hi-fi is fairly new, specific to headphones, and is kind of disturbing.  Yes, you say that you're referring to performance, not to price.  Good, you get it more than some do.  But you also allude to an understanding of the relatively small incremental improvements as well.  So you acknowledge that the differences are well into diminishing returns, but at the same time suggest that it's so monumental as to not be just an incremental improvement over the old bot to redefine the category as a whole.  And the only way to get into this redefined category, is not at the same price as before the redefinition of it, but, now, it's to pay double, triple, quadruple, quintuple to achieve the same category the HD650 used to represent?  No, that isn't a march of progress.  It's a demand that because someone decided to release more exotic items that only the exotics can count as high-fidelity.   Which is very opposite of saying "it's performance, not price!"  By that standard, only Orpheus and Stax owners are hi-fi.  Everyone else is just lowly midfi  up to $2000 or so.  They haven't experienced real hi-fidelity playback.  rolleyes.gif

 

It's a simple truth that emphasized treble is perceived a certain way in terms of detail emphasis.  Try a test, plug in HD800, HD650 with a good EQ.  Shelve the high and low ends on HD800.  Listen to just the mids.  Also drop the upper mids a bit and bump the midbass on the HD800 if you want to match it even more.  Are you hearing that much more detail?  Or any more? That doesn't invalidate the genuine strengths of the HD800 at all.  It simply reduces the false impression of detail that is being psychoacoustically made prominent.  There are absolutely improvements in the machine, but I grow tired of the "more detail" argument as quickly as the "deep bass" argument that was always thrown at HD650.  HD650 has no deep bass, despite doing a very good job of psychoacoustically making sure you don't miss it.  Good engineering.  For all its real strengths that's false praise.  Same goes for HD800 and friends regarding detail retrieval.  They have real strengths, and those are the strengths no one talks about. If the argument of "more detail!" could be banned, we could actually gain great insight as to what advantages the newer headphones really offer.  And also why they aren't setting standards high enough to replace everything formerly called hi-fi yet.

 

Back to "mid-fi"  Are you aware that plenty of folks are calling LCD-2 mid-fi now?  Of course it's mid-fi, LCD-3 exists! For double the price of course.  But it's better! Marginally, but diminishing returns and all that.  And what of HD700.  It was born mid-fi!  At $1k.  "Hi-fi" is not a stand-in term for "highest end", it's a performance classification which you yourself said.  But what is happening is a swap of those terms.  If it's not the top of the line it's mid-fi.  If something more expensive exists, it's mid-fi.   So is hi-fi a classification of performance or a label applied only to the newest, latest, greatest, and nothing else?  The hi-fi store is really a mid-fi store with one or two hi-fi items in the back, right? See that argument doesn't work outside headphones.  Because in headphones "I can buy the $2000 headphone, so everything below it isn't in the same league!" but in speakers "I can buy the $75,000 speakers so everything blow it isn't in the same league!" is a much less common thing to hear.  So the hi-fi bracket is far larger a price category in that side of audio.  It all comes back to price, not performance.  It's a measure of how many people can afford the ever more exclusive product.  Coming from the STEREO side of the audiophile hobby I'm used to the more serious price swing and view of ever more exotic gear in a broader scope than the headphile community is used to, so perhaps the absurdity of this new mid-fi fettish is more apparent to me. And it renders the word hi-fi utterly useless. If the floating TOTL is the only thing that is hi-fi, then virtually all headphones that aren't garbage are mid-fi.  There's a dozen hi-fi cans (that will be mid-fi in a year or two), dozens upon dozens of mid-fi cans, and then the mass of low-fi consumer garbage.  By that gauge sound quality is improving like crazy every single year.  Except that it isn't.  It isn't even that different from 10 years ago.  Tweaks, but not major shifts.  Exactly what we all expected....except without the price points remaining the same. 

 

No, HD6xx, HD7xx, HD8xx are Sennheiser's various lines of hi-fi audiophile headphones at different levels of hi-fi performance.   HD5xx, HD4xx, HD3xx, HD2xx, are/were (some lines discontinued) Sennheiser's mid-fi lines.  Non-"HD" lines represent Sennheiser's low-fi lines. 

 

But why take my word for it?  Lets go to sennheiser.com.  Lets see how we go about finding our headphones.  We go to "Headphones & Headsets", then go to the "Private Audio" box and click "High End".   And what appears?  HD800, HD600, HD650, HD700 (in that order.)  I click on HD600 and I'm greeted with a flowery paragraph: "The HD 600 Avantgarde are audiophile-quality, open dynamic hi-fi/professionalstereo headphones.".   I open HD650 and see: "The audiophile HD 650 is the ultimate in open, dynamic headphone design. Developed from the award-winning HD 600, the HD 650s feature improved materials for even better sound reproduction."  So HD600 isn't just hi-fi, it's also high end!  More, HD650 is improved materials and better sound, than the already confirmed high end high-fi HD600. 

 

You can say "well those are old paragraphs", but that didn't stop them from putting those paragraphs on the new updated website design.  And it didn't stop them from subsectioning HD600 and HD650 under the High End category to sit next to HD700 and HD800, while they, along with HD700 and HD800 are already represented under "Home Audio" which includes RS-x & HD5xx clearly sectioned as mid-fi by not being in the "High End" classification.  Indeed the existence of mighty HD800 has not raised the bar in such a a way as to render HD600 & HD650 mid-fi.  They share the hi-fi pedistal within the sub-tiers that pedistal offers.

 

No, sorry, manufacturer agrees with me wink.gif  HD6xx, HD7xx, HD8xx are seperate lines representing their offerings at different levels of hi-fi.  None of those represent their offerings of levels of mid-fi.  Head-fiers may like to categorize things by levels of elitism based on their own extreme participation in a hobby that includes some very expensive exotic options, but the reality outside head-fi doesn't always match it. It's not an attempt to knock down the very well designed HD800.  It's an attempt to prevent the also well designed HD650 from not being unjustly or at least prematurely knocked out of a pedigree it well deserves. 

 

And that everyone is the true meaning of HD650 appreciation! beerchug.gif

post #6979 of 21440
My eyes are bleeding from the sheer amount of words in that post.
post #6980 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post

My eyes are bleeding from the sheer amount of words in that post.


biggrin.gif  Thankfully you don't need your eyes for this hobby! wink.gif

post #6981 of 21440
I just wrote a review comparing the Stax SR-202 with the HD650. These babies are similarly priced, so I'm sure you're interested.

I'd love to hear some feedback on this review, since it's my very first. It took much longer than expected to write this, but in the end I think the length is good, although slightly on the long side.

What do you think, IEMCrazy, aka Longwindeus Supremus?
post #6982 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMCrazy View Post

 

No, sorry, manufacturer agrees with me wink.gif  HD6xx, HD7xx, HD8xx are seperate lines representing their offerings at different levels of hi-fi.  None of those represent their offerings of levels of mid-fi.  Head-fiers may like to categorize things by levels of elitism based on their own extreme participation in a hobby that includes some very expensive exotic options, but the reality outside head-fi doesn't always match it. It's not an attempt to knock down the very well designed HD800.  It's an attempt to prevent the also well designed HD650 from not being unjustly or at least prematurely knocked out of a pedigree it well deserves. 

And that everyone is the true meaning of HD650 appreciation! beerchug.gif

 

This in a nutshell. There's no disparaging the fact that each of these HD offerings are voiced, built and suitable for different folks & genres. But you cannot say that one is really better than the other by a definition alone. It's all subjective. I had the HD800 and Beyer T1s in for over a month to listen against the HD650s. I MUCH prefer the sound signature of the HD650s. Why? It just sounds more "pleasing" to my ears and allows me to enjoy the music I listen to more so than the others. 

 

So, an appreciation for the things that the HD650 is what this thread really is about, regardless of folks bashing the HD650s. Doesn't matter what you say about them. *I* personally find the HD650s to be the standards by which to judge my cans against right now. Now maybe something else much more expensive will allow me to readjust this perception but, for now, I love my HD650s. smily_headphones1.gif


post #6983 of 21440

Hi

 

Checking in to report I posted a write up comparing the Woo WA2 and WA22 using the HD650

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/615810/the-beauty-and-the-beast-wa2-vs-wa22

 

DSC_0421.JPG

post #6984 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post

I just wrote a review comparing the Stax SR-202 with the HD650. These babies are similarly priced, so I'm sure you're interested.
I'd love to hear some feedback on this review, since it's my very first. It took much longer than expected to write this, but in the end I think the length is good, although slightly on the long side.

 

I think you did a great job.

post #6985 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMCrazy View Post

 

I certainly wouldn't deny that some of the newer headphones...  Head-fi.org automated quoter: HELL NO!  ERROR!   ERROR!   ERROR!

 

 

That head-fi quote button sure does have an attitude sometimes.  Jeez

post #6986 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by twizzleraddict View Post

 

This in a nutshell. There's no disparaging the fact that each of these HD offerings are voiced, built and suitable for different folks & genres. But you cannot say that one is really better than the other by a definition alone. It's all subjective. I had the HD800 and Beyer T1s in for over a month to listen against the HD650s. I MUCH prefer the sound signature of the HD650s. Why? It just sounds more "pleasing" to my ears and allows me to enjoy the music I listen to more so than the others. 

 

So, an appreciation for the things that the HD650 is what this thread really is about, regardless of folks bashing the HD650s. Doesn't matter what you say about them. *I* personally find the HD650s to be the standards by which to judge my cans against right now. Now maybe something else much more expensive will allow me to readjust this perception but, for now, I love my HD650s. smily_headphones1.gif


 

Yep... the "new version" is about as good as it gets!

post #6987 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMCrazy View Post

[text tsunami]

 

Agree to disagree.

 

fp.gif

post #6988 of 21440
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardilla View Post

Hi

 

Checking in to report I posted a write up comparing the Woo WA2 and WA22 using the HD650

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/615810/the-beauty-and-the-beast-wa2-vs-wa22

 

DSC_0421.JPG

 

Great writeup, though since I'm pretty settled on my chain perhaps the most pleasant part of it for me was the photography.  Very appealing work on that! tongue_smile.gif  I was down to a debate between Woo and Schiit gear when I chose my Schiit setup, and my Woo interest wasn't quite up at the WA22 price point, but it was an interesting read on "the other side", and surprisingly echoes some of my own observations between various tubes rather than amps as well.  At times I can't tell if I prefer the warmer tubes or the more sparkly tubes.  Most of the time I do like the silky warmth, but "more bite" is sometimes a nice change of pace.  I'm sure it's much more pronounced in the WA2 vs WA22 differences.  Like you I prefer natural over neutral (then again, that probably goes for anyone in an HD650 appreciation thread biggrin.gif)

 

The one really interesting point was dynamics.  I wonder just how dynamic the WA22 is compared to say the Lyr (which is also known to be pretty dynamic, though for the price difference, something's got to give.)  For HD650, tube pending, the dynamics are good, but it's not the most dynamic headphone.  When I put the HE-400's in, though, some recordings can be painfully dynamic wink.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenthumb View Post

 

 

That head-fi quote button sure does have an attitude sometimes.  Jeez

 

LOL! bigsmile_face.gif

post #6989 of 21440

;) You are on to something there. There can be too much dynamics. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMCrazy View Post
..... painfully dynamic wink.gif
post #6990 of 21440

And it was a great read...........thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardilla View Post

Hi

 

Checking in to report I posted a write up comparing the Woo WA2 and WA22 using the HD650

 

 

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