Very brief impressions of all the headphones you've heard - Page 7

Ultrasone Edition 9: Basshead's dream
HiFiMAN HE-5: Crystal clear

You could either do it the way you did above and see what faults users have found, or read this thread in a way where you could predict some headphones performance based on a person with similar opinions to yourself by looking at what he/she says about the other cans that you've both heard at the same time.

I'll bite and add opinions about some cans. Of course I will just put their common signatures regardless of what amp Ive used with them. I'm sure some of them could have gotten better with better matching sources and amps.

Sennheiser HD600. Beautiful creamy and lush sound without any glaring peaks in the frequency spectrum. Could get a little boring with some music and/or amps. Soundstage/imaging and bass focus/detail improves with crossfeed (when parameters fine tuned by ear).

Sennheiser HD580. Slightly more aggressive and slightly less bassy version of the hd600s. A little less boring IMO. I did have a different amp during the time I owned the hd600s so it could be the main cause for the differences. The 580s with my budget system now is more musical than my hd600s using a more expensive amp before Soundstage/imaging and bass focus/detail improves with crossfeed (when parameters fine tuned by ear) just like the hd600s.

Audio Technica AD900. Aggressive and sparkly sounding with less soundstage than the senns above but a fun can overall. It used to be my favorite for a while until I needed a more full bodied balance again. Easy to drive.

Audio Technica AD700 A breath of Fresh Air. The sound is like the ad900s without the overly aggressive upper mids. I actually prefer it to the ad900s in that way because it makes them portray a better illusion of a real soundstage. Technical performance like speed/attack are not as solid as the ad900s though and may sound cheap and slightly plasticky coming from its more expensive brother. Noobs might not be able to tell this plasticky nature I speak of and because of their overall tonality and soundstage, I recommend these over the ad900s at their respective prices. They made me sell my hd600s because I got annoyed how "closed in" those sounded in comparison using the equipment i had at the time I actually miss my ad700.

Audio Technica A900 I enjoyed their pumped up nature at first but the sound gets old fast and is too midfi for my tastes.

Stax 2050 system Nice fast and organic sound for the packaged price. The 202 headphones were the first cans in a while that made me go whoah! what vocals... Big and clean when I listened to the MFSL Muddy Waters Folk Singer for example. The Venue of recording felt natural too. They lacked the grain that even the smooth hd600s still have despite their smoothness compared to other dynamics in general. Its just too bad they are a little too colored and dark sounding for all genres to accommodate. Bass was nice and clean but long term listening made me miss the visceral impact that the hd600s could give.

AKG K701 They are reminiscent of senns in that they have a soft sounding nature but the similarity stops there. The k701s didnt do anything for me at all. They were sterile, boring and inorganic. Some might say its neutral but i disagree. They have peaks and dips in places that just dont sound natural to me at all. Some say they have extended treble and I dont agree with that either. I feel the boost in the lower treble masks any extension above it. I generally dont use EQ but I tried to on this one. The results were okay but I also found that the bass bottoms out when I try to get them the way i want. I am not really a basshead, I just want a semblance of the bass you get when listening to unamplified acoustic bass for example which the k701s totally fail to deliver. The highs do sound better and more coherent when adding upper treble and lowering the 7khz area but why should eq be even mentioned when we are talking about so-called reference headphones.

Ultrasone Proline 750 I'm not even going to bother explaining the details here because they just sounded plain cheap. Stay away from them if you can unless natural sound is not one of your priorities.

Sennheiser PX100 Nice sounding portables overall with nice value but I prefer the Koss portapro for its less uneven sound.

Koss Portapro Nice value in portable cans. For those that complain about too much bass, you can adjust the headband to get the amount off bass you want. I prefer the middle setting combined with some headband bending for optimal sound. I also love the looks of these cans

Sennheiser PX200 Fuggedabawdit!

Sony SA3000 smooth and snappy sound with awesome looks! The mids are a love/hate thing though because they are hollow sounding with at least 50% of the music out there.

Beyer dt880- 2005 250ohm Decent sound with great bass! The bass is clean and punchy unlike the somewhat slow nature of senn 580/600 bass but thats about all I really loved about these cans. The mids are so-so and the highs are cold.

Beyer DT990- 2005 32ohm the 880 on steroids. Bolder bass which I dont like as much as the 880s and the highs are fatiguing as hell! the most sibilant can ive ever heard!!! check out my sig for other cans Ive heard since I'm not listing all of them here. Mids are similar to 880s but seem even more recessed and boring because of the V shaped EQ of the presentation.

Koss ESP950 Decent cans but just like the stax, I miss the visceral sound of dynamics. These are also too dark sounding for my taste just like the stax. The stax presentation is more natural IMO but these are more lively and fun for the average user I presume.

Audio Technica ANC7 Thin sounding because of recessed mids. Bloated and crappy sounding with noise cancelling off.

Goldring DR150 Something like a ****ed up Gradoheisser. It has the creamy sound of senns with the forward nature of grados but the midrange is not as good as either a senn or a grado. The mids are actually annoyingly colored on these. To top it off, they are somewhat hard to drive.

Grado SR60 Very flexible in its sound just like all grados because of the limitless pad tweaks. In the end though, I would rather listen to my portapros when using an ipod.

Grado RS1 Highly Overrated IMO. Just a refined sr60. When using bowl pads, no grado in my experience escapes from being annoying in the lower treble. I have heard some "i" versions that seem to have tamer lower treble than the older versions but I haven't heard them long enough to comment more than that.

Denon D5000 I liked the signature quite a bit! If it werent for the bloated bass I would have got one right away after my first listen at a meet. It worked great out of my ipod too. Because I liked the d5k, I got some modded d2ks with jarrah cups/vampire wire/dynamat, Jmoney pads, the works... whoah was I disappointed.

Ultrasone 780 I liked them in the short period of time I spent with them. Nice match for the ipod. I didnt listen to enough music to get annoyed by the bloated bass everyone keeps saying about them. They actually had tighter bass than d5ks.

Shure 840 Dull and boring sounding IMO. Every note is a little too heavy because of the pronounced midbass. Deep bass cannot be appreciated because of the loose character of the midbass. The mids are so-so and have a little of that k701 annoying quality although not nearly as much as the evil white monster. the highs are lackluster and too dry sounding for my tastes.

Audio Technica AD2000 I loved them at first since it was a big price jump from my previous cans but it didnt take long for me to notice the lack of top end sparkle due to maybe the overpowering mids. The bass quality is tight and tuneful but is overshadowed by the prominent mids. The overall sound is a little congested for such expensive cans. They are technically better than the ad900s for example but not as musical IMO. From reading more about them on headfi, I have a feeling that the overly present mids were due to the very tight fit since I have a big head. Bah, If I were to pick up some AT air series again, I'll stop with the ad700s Unless they make some new badass air model.

Sennheiser HD238 Very Distorted sounding cans. A flawed design

Sennheiser HD555 Nice cans for the price. They are like hd580/600s minus detail and extension. Very pleasing cans to listen to. The pair I got that was made in Ireland was very crappy sounding before burn in though. It was very echoey and bright. There was also zero bass. These are the cans that made me a burn in believer!

Sennheiser HD595 More upfront than the 555s due to a more prominent upper midrange. Overall I actually prefer the 555 because the peaks on these make a lot of music annoying and harsh. I tried burning them in to see if it would change. No luck there! burn in changes with these were minimal at most. They are more detailed than 555s though.


I have more detailed impressions of most or all of these headphones floating around in headfi somewhere if anyone is interested. I have also heard more heaphones than these as you can see in my profile but thats all the time i have for now.

That would be okay if they were found to have something like the same faults. Not exactly, but where a pattern was seen to be developing. Fact is, many of the stated faults are total opposites: bright, slightly bright, muddy, muffled; recessed mids, great mids, forward sounding. The only thing I could safely assume from those impressions is that the bass is not overpowering; everything else would be up-in-the-air. My own take on the Senns is that they easily lead in their price range and well above, are very uncoloured, slightly bright unless used with a suitable intregrated (something with a warm bass like a NAD), and very comfortable and easy to drive. The mids? Well, they're certainly not recessed, and I can't imagine how anyone could hear that as my objection to most other phones--and yes, I have heard most other phones--is that they're mid-recessed in comparison to the 595 and 650. I also find most other phones way too bright. I currently have a Denon D2000 which I cannot listen to due to its brightness, yet the most anyone here comments about that is "slight sibilance"--a gross understatement to my ears. And before anyone asks, I listen to classical music exclusively, which probably gives me different priorities in a phone to many here. At least it would seem so, if this thread is any guide.

These are interesting impression because, as you probably know, the 555 and 595 use the same drivers, the only real difference between them being a square rubber "thingy" behind the driver of the 555. I'd lived for years with the 595 and ignored the 555 as I thought it was just an inferior version of its dearer brother, so when I got one I was struck by how similar they sounded, the only difference being a slight lower treble/upper midrange prominence in the 555 undoubtedly caused by rear reflection from the "thingy" (which Sennheiser choose to call a "sound reflector"), a similar effect to half covering the rear of an open phone with your hand. You'll note that my impression is the exact opposite of yours, unless you've got your numbers confused: for me it was the 555 that had the prominent upper midrange, and was more harsh. So what are we hearing? And how can the absence of a rear reflector make a phone sound harsh and prominent in the upper mids? Surely it would have to be the opposite.

I'm not trying to "disprove" or mock your impressions, merely demonstrate how very subjective and contradictory impressions are generally. It's no wonder the courts tend to be skeptical of eye-witness testimony; we can't even agree on what we see, let alone hear! That's why, for all their surface interest, and I've read the whole thread, one or two line impressions don't help much when it comes to communicating the sound quality of individual phones. I'm not even sure full-page reviews do.

But hey, as I say, very entertaining!

The senns in general are muffled compared to most other brands at first listen due to their diffuse field equalized curves. The problem with the 595s compared with the 580/600s for example are that they have more aggressive upper mids and the highs are not boosted making some of those upper mids sound peaky. If the highs were boosted along with the upper mids, it might actually be less of a problem IMO.

Like I said in my 555 impressions... before burn in they were veeery bright. So what you said is true. The 595s are more mellow out of the box but the 555s substantially change with burn in. Take note my 555s were made in Ireland and my 595s China if that matters at all.

There are also different impedance versions of the 555s and 595s... 120 ohm and 55 ohm

if you look at my first impressions back sometime in 2004, I actually hated the 555s for that peak that you speak of.... After more than a few years, those same 555s are still with my cousin next door and I just actually listened to them recently. That upper mid problem is totally gone. As in hd580/600 smooth. It never went away on my old 595s which are also with a friend. The 595s didnt have a peak as bad as the 555s though pre burn in.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/son...-555-a-129423/
At this time, the 555s were still a little thin even though they have probably passed 100 hours.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/hd5...-lover-219917/
Over here, I'm already having problems with the 555s having slightly bloated bass compared to 595s because they have already become quite dark sounding. It looks like I really loved the 595s here. I dont know where they went wrong that now the mids get annoying. It must be the old pads or something because my friend didn't really take care of them that well.

pp312,
I noticed you agreed that the 580s were a little hollow sounding on one of those old threads above. I felt that way with my old 580s too until I heard these silver driver cover versions of the 580s and hd600s which sound better than the old ones.

I am not going to rely on memory, so below are my impressions of my main 3 current headphones.

DT880-Comfortable, airy, spacious, detailed, neutral, fairly balanced but with mid/high accent, good ting and tish, rather than imprecise tssssh, easy listening, polite, conceivably a bit distant sounding. A can for relaxing.

RS1- Fun, aggressive, intense, has significant impact, forward, mid focussed, powerful bass, retro beauty. A headphone for occasions, ah but what great occasions they can be. A can for rocking out.


Edition 8-The complete package. Refined, detailed, clear, precise, excellent instrument separation, and yet with a presentation that is not analytical, but very musical, involving, emotional, with deep powerful resonating bass, fast decay, outstanding comprehensive mids, and extended sublime crisp highs. Being closed, they also have great isolation. A fanastic all-rounder. IMO, perfect.

My impressions on every can I've ever heard: surprisingly pretty good if not shockingly quite bad or somewhere in between.

I don't have any full-size cans, but I'll weigh in on the few IEMs I own. It's a relative comparison and I'm pretty new to this thing, so take it with a grain of salt.

Sennheiser CX300 - muddy, horribly bloated, one-tone bass - almost unbearable. Great comfort and isolation though. Haven't noticed many changes after burn-in. J-cable. Bad microphonics, but you kinda stop noticing after a while.

Creative EP630 - can't tell the difference between these and the CX300s. Y-cable. Housing fell apart after a year (need to glue em back...)

JVC Marshmallows (HAFX33) - Much better bass detail, but there's a little too much of it and it overwhelms the highs. Removing the paper filter makes them slightly harsh; stuffing some foam in there achieves a nice balance. Still not very detailed overall after modding, but I prefer them slightly over the CX300 because of the bass. Thick cable with cinch gets tangled much less easily than the CX300/EP630 and doesn't produce as much microphonics.

I understand what you are saying and maybe this thread is better for those who have some experience and knowledge as opposed to a beginners guide. If you look at the 'big picture' the Senns are not hated, many like them and no one can agree on how they sound, which suggests they are a bit of a jack of all trades. That is another way I could have described them.

There are many reasons why people report conflicting or even totally contradictory descriptions of headphone characteristics, below are a few rationales. And I believe variation of opinion is due to several factors contributing at any one time.

The variation in the music we listen to.
The system/equipment that we use.
The reference that we use -headphone sound characteristics are relative to other headphones. That is to say that Headphone A may be bass centric in comparrison to Headphone B, but Headphone C is far bassier than Headphone A. Therefore A could be reported as having a lot of bass (in comparrison to Headphone B) or reported as being bass light (in comparrison to Headphone C).
The experience and ability of the listener to describe what they are hearing.
People who post other peoples opinion. The fact that some post opinions when they haven't even heard the headphone, but believe because they have read it, it must be so.
People report from memory and memory isn't very reliable when it comes to how things sound.
People report after hearing something for 5 minutes or from brief encounters in noisy distracting environments.
Hearing aclimatization- we become used to the sound, so the headphone no longer has that dominate trait, or lacks that aspect to such a degree
Fanboyism
Trolls
Shills

Here are some of my opinions on your points

Good point which is why listening to all genres is the best way to evaluate how good one pair of cans are
Very True but if the characteristics on a headphone are so strong, they usually are always present no matter what the equipment used.
Thats why live sound is the best reference. Taking time off when switching headphones is good so that one doesnt review based on the differences of cans... unless of course that was the original intent of the review.
True
Now this is the thing that I really don't like. People should state it on their post if this is the case.
Reporting from memory is fine if you took notes back when you listened to whatever equipment/cans they were. This is especially still useful when you have a comparison reference and if they were both run off the same source/amp at the time.
Again, I think its ok if you report it to be the case. Ex my impressions of the hfi 580s above are based on less than 5 minutes of listening. But then again, 5 minutes is big enough time to get the gist of the sound. Finding all the minor flaws is a different story. It would take more time listening to all your music before you can find all the flaws of a particular headphone.
This is especially true if a person only has one headphone and doesnt shift from signature to signature.
The last three are self explanatory