Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › HD 600 vs HD 650
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD 600 vs HD 650 - Page 23

post #331 of 379

Edited by wink - 8/20/13 at 7:48am
post #332 of 379
Quote:

 

 

 

Hmmm. That or a new car? I think I'll go with the new car. 

post #333 of 379

For all you defenders of the HD600 (which I hope to soon be) why do you think the HD650 is ranked #1 on these boards and the HD600 is ranked a pitiful #7??? 

post #334 of 379
Quote:

 

That's a joke, right?

"Bandwidth <<0.000001Hz to >>MHz" - TBH honest I couldn't care less about anything below 2Hz or above 70khz rolleyes.gif

I could get a brand new tricked out BMW 431i for that price - complete with a great sound system.


Edited by blueangel2323 - 8/20/13 at 8:19am
post #335 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit View Post

For all you defenders of the HD600 (which I hope to soon be) why do you think the HD650 is ranked #1 on these boards and the HD600 is ranked a pitiful #7??? 

 

The ranking is some kind of formula that combines the average rating with the number of ratings. The HD600 actually has a higher average rating (4.75/5 stars) than the HD650 (4.56/5 stars), but it only was only rated by 18 people as opposed to 50.
post #336 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel2323 View Post

 

The ranking is some kind of formula that combines the average rating with the number of ratings. The HD600 actually has a higher average rating (4.75/5 stars) than the HD650 (4.56/5 stars), but it only was only rated by 18 people as opposed to 50.

 

 

Oh I see. I noticed the stronger rating for the 600 as well. So maybe after I get mine I can help push it up in the rankings. smily_headphones1.gif

post #337 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit View Post

For all you defenders of the HD600 (which I hope to soon be) why do you think the HD650 is ranked #1 on these boards and the HD600 is ranked a pitiful #7??? 

 

Why do most people prefer bloated bass and boosted treble?  I think a lot of people prefer it because a) they listen to bad recordings that the FLAT treble of the 600 reveals, while the 650 makes it easier to listen to.  b) the 650 has a warmer sound, which again most prefer over neutral for the ease of listening on harsher recordings and the sense of more bass in a certain way.  c)  they're crazy people. ;) hahaha

 

But seriously, I think the most likely reason is that people simply find them easier to listen to, because warmer or less treble means less sibilance.  However, being as flat as they are, they only reveal sibilance when it is in the recording.  I personally avoid bad recordings or masterings like the plague.  Sure, some great recordings will still have sibilant vocals now and then due to the performance.  But I've heard nothing "sibilant" about my 600s.  I think they represent music more accurately, and that is what I value most.

 

When I listen to a piano recording, I hear every nuance in the recording as the engineer made it to be hear (as close as possible anyway). I like that.  People call me crazy, but I actually eq DOWN some of the mid bass (a very small amount) to make them exceptionally flat.

post #338 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

Why do most people prefer bloated bass and boosted treble?  I think a lot of people prefer it because a) they listen to bad recordings that the FLAT treble of the 600 reveals, while the 650 makes it easier to listen to.  b) the 650 has a warmer sound, which again most prefer over neutral for the ease of listening on harsher recordings and the sense of more bass in a certain way.  c)  they're crazy people. wink.gif hahaha

But seriously, I think the most likely reason is that people simply find them easier to listen to, because warmer or less treble means less sibilance.  However, being as flat as they are, they only reveal sibilance when it is in the recording.  I personally avoid bad recordings or masterings like the plague.  Sure, some great recordings will still have sibilant vocals now and then due to the performance.  But I've heard nothing "sibilant" about my 600s.  I think they represent music more accurately, and that is what I value most.

When I listen to a piano recording, I hear every nuance in the recording as the engineer made it to be hear (as close as possible anyway). I like that.  People call me crazy, but I actually eq DOWN some of the mid bass (a very small amount) to make them exceptionally flat.

I definitely hear you. The whole reason I collect vinyl is because I love it's open sound. In the beginning I bought vinyl if I really loved the album, but now I buy vinyl based on pressing quality. I truly believe when vinyl is done right it has the most impressive and accurate sound. One record I love, but also dread is Simon & Garfunkel - Bookends. There's sibilance all over that recording. Funny thing I never noticed it on my digital version until I really listened to it when I compared it to my vinyl to see if there was something wrong with my LP
post #339 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteRabbit View Post


I definitely hear you. The whole reason I collect vinyl is because I love it's open sound. In the beginning I bought vinyl if I really loved the album, but now I buy vinyl based on pressing quality. I truly believe when vinyl is done right it has the most impressive and accurate sound. One record I love, but also dread is Simon & Garfunkel - Bookends. There's sibilance all over that recording. Funny thing I never noticed it on my digital version until I really listened to it when I compared it to my vinyl to see if there was something wrong with my LP

 

Don't make me cry.  Haha.  Not to get off topic, but I love bookends, and I hate EVERY CD version.  The original pressing (I own) has noise reduction.  Everything sounds soft and not open and airy.  On the last remaster (my brother let me borrow his) the dynamically compressed the album a little (no compression is acceptable to me) and it is technically a remix as well, as there are clearly changes in instrument volumes and especially reverb effects.  They remove a lot of reverb, probably to sound more "modern" with drier vocals.  I want the original master recording with no noise reduction, no compression, no remixing.  The only way to get it is to buy the vinyl, which leads me to one other thing...

 

CDs are capable of sounding better than vinyl, however, in reality they rarely do.  With vinyl you typically get the closest thing to the studio master tapes.  With CDs, they created the technology to remaster things as well using compression (to make things louder, but worse dynamics), noise reduction, etc.  Unfortunately, all of these things reduce the sound "quality".  I realize some people can't stand tape hiss or noise, but first of all a good remaster can reduce the hiss to it's original levels, which is usually pretty low on a decent recording even from long ago.  But even if there is noise, unfortunately you cannot reduce the noise without reducing treble details and quality.  It isn't possible.  There are amazing software applications that can detect noise and create intelligent algorithms to carefully remove only the noise and not the music, but they are not perfect.  They reduce frequencies and data that affect the details and treble.  It's just the nature of things.

 

So, I love vinyl.  I wish I had a really nice vinyl player, but I don't.  My dad's died and there aren't even any record stores around here.  So, I personally seek out the best CD masters possible that are exact studio master copies (as close as possible anyway).  So far it's been a pain, but worth it.  I say keep getting vinyl if you can!  Woohoo!  If not, be aware of CD masters and remasters.  There are some resource to check loudness, such as http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ but sometimes the best way is to bring a CD player into a used CD store.  The bull moose store's around here (1hr away) let me do this and listen to the used CDs before I buy them.  Thanks goodness.  I've been pretty upset when I bought a "remaster" that clearly sounded worse than the original CD.  Oh man.  Screw the loudness war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war  Screw noise reduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_reduction  Yay for master recordings! haha

post #340 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

Don't make me cry.  Haha.  Not to get off topic, but I love bookends, and I hate EVERY CD version.  The original pressing (I own) has noise reduction.  Everything sounds soft and not open and airy.  On the last remaster (my brother let me borrow his) the dynamically compressed the album a little (no compression is acceptable to me) and it is technically a remix as well, as there are clearly changes in instrument volumes and especially reverb effects.  They remove a lot of reverb, probably to sound more "modern" with drier vocals.  I want the original master recording with no noise reduction, no compression, no remixing.  The only way to get it is to buy the vinyl, which leads me to one other thing...

 

If you have deep pockets get the Mofi gold CD.

post #341 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioking59 View Post

If you have deep pockets get the Mofi gold CD.
I have a few of these i got on ebay. Only my top favorite albums of all time...
post #342 of 379

So I'm trying to decide between the HD600s and HD650s. My amps are an O2 and Project Ember hybrid amp. I'm looking for something with fantastic mids, nice bass, and a great soundstage. Most importantly though, I'm looking for something that's different than my current collection which is

 

Grado SR80i with l cush and tape mod

AKG K702
Denon D2000
Modded Fostex T50RP
AKG K240 Sextett

 

Which of the two would you recommend? Price isn't a concern. 

post #343 of 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAZRr1275 View Post

So I'm trying to decide between the HD600s and HD650s. My amps are an O2 and Project Ember hybrid amp. I'm looking for something with fantastic mids, nice bass, and a great soundstage. Most importantly though, I'm looking for something that's different than my current collection which is

Grado SR80i with l cush and tape mod

AKG K702

Denon D2000

Modded Fostex T50RP

AKG K240 Sextett

Which of the two would you recommend? Price isn't a concern. 
650 will be more different as the akg are typically brighter with less bass... 600 is still flatter than those though...
post #344 of 379

Luisdent you should be happy to know I've added some classical compilations (unfortunately digital) to my list of genres to test out on the HD600's. Beethoven Complete Symphonies by Karajan (1997 remaster) and Beethoven The Complete Piano Sonatas & Concertos by Arrau. Good classical is without a doubt the hardest genre to find on vinyl. I decided I'll listen to all these works and the performances I love the most I'll buy on CD and start a never-ending quest to find them on vinyl. 


Edited by TheWhiteRabbit - 8/21/13 at 8:58am
post #345 of 379

:-P

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › HD 600 vs HD 650