Superlux HD668B are they really that good or just a cheap copycat??? - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor 

@timar: add things like resonances, cup construction, impedance curve .. as factors ;)

The impedance curve is neglectable for the simple transducers used in headphones -- if you amp them properly. Resonance, cup construction etc. can all be subsumed under either frequency response or fit. How do we hear things like resonance? We can hear it only so far as it does change the frequency response. If this change is "subjectively" related to the particular shape of our ear, it's caused by the relation between the headphone and our ear, thus by the fit
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicalpig 
If the mids are more forward than on the K701, would you say the HD668b are more suited to rock than, say, jazz or classical? Or does it result in a warmer analytical sound?

They are - just like all analytical sounding headphones - very well suited to jazz and classical and a little less well suited to rock. However, they can be made perfectly suitable for rock music, if you have a good EQ at hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noobiiee 

You will be wowed by its transparency for sure 

Boom-tish, boom-tish. :-P

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor 

Boom-tish, boom-tish. :-P

Did you actually listen to them? Transparency-wise they compete well with my old DT-880...

I have a pair of Superlux HD681s. The specs seem similar to the 668bs apart from the 681s being 32ohms. They are ridiculously good cans for the money. However, there is no comparison between them and a decent pair of open headphones such as K701s or HD580s/600s.

I ignored my 681s as I loved my HD580s too much to really regard them much after purchase. However, after listening to my HD580s/600s and K701s and becoming more used to different sound signatures with different cans, I feel that I can give the 681s a fairer report.

In comparison to my K701s, the 681s sound less open (who'd have though that :p), a little splashy, and with less of an apparent soundstage. They have a 'boosted' midrange, but this has undesirable effects. Tight, small  drums (snare for example), have a real plasticy leading edge. There seems to be a weird void in the signature of these cans with their splashy highs and a pronounced midrange, but with something slightly amiss somewhere between the two. They have pretty reasonable bass, more muscular than the K701s (TBH what doesn't!?), but a little loose and recessed in the 'upper' bass frequencies giving a slightly wooly sound. We are not really comparing eggs with eggs here though, as the K701s are exponentially more expensive to buy.

Comparing the 681s with my HD580s (my favourite cans), they have far less midrange detail, less separation, and again, slightly wooly bass. Overall, the 681s sound like a mash of 580s and 701s, dropping some detail and a good deal of imaging/soundstage. Bass guitar seems to be one major area in which the 681s fall over compared to the other cans here, with a rather muffled, undefined sound plodding along in the background of the music somewhere.

There is no denying that the Superlux cans are good value for money though, just don't expect miracles and you won't be disappointed. I can't really remember how they compare to HD555s, but they're a good alternative to cans of a similar price range, no doubt. I've tried cans in the past that cost a little more/the same as the HD681s, and TBH there's no competition at all. The Superlux cans are far, far better.

/puts the 681s back in the corner to remain unloved and gather yet more dust...

danzal: This is a quite accurate description of the 681's sound. Just remember that this topic is about the 668B which are by far superior to the 681 IMO.

The 668B have different drivers and a very different frequency response. They feel much more linear than the 681 - there's no "gap" in the lower heighs compensated by a too much of shrill heighs > 6khz. The bass isn't exaggerated as much, too.

Yeah, I know this thread is about 668b, I had in my head that they'd be similar.

Thanks for pointing out that they aren't though - you've piqued my curiosity somewhat, especially seeing that the 668s are also stupidly cheap. Not that I really need more headphones right now, but still - how many is too many? :D

The HD668B is a great sounding headphone for the price (got it for $35, though they seem to go for $50 nowadays). For the sound, just imagine if you have very good semi-closed monitoring headphones. They are not adding too much coloration to the sound and might sound boring for some people. They were competitive with the AD700 I owned at the same time, and that's saying a lot. The AD700 is one of the best headphones you can get <$150.

In many ways, they are more neutral, accurate, and more transparent but much less open and airy sounding than the AD700. Their main drawback is that there is a certain closed-in coloration on top of the sound which is hard to describe and the low mids is a bit thin. 

The HD668B can't compete with a well-amped K501 or HD580.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timar 

So there's nothing to improve there. If you think the sound is too harsh, use an equalizer to suit it to your taste. I think the Superlux can be improved a bit by EQing out the spike between 7 and 10 khz. A dip of -3db at ca. 8khz should take out the harshness.

My HD668Bs should be coming in the mail very shortly.
I'm going to be using an iTunes equalizer to replace some presets on my ipod nano using this guide

Fellow HD668B owners, how would y'all adjust for a custom default setting and a custom rock setting?

The i-tunes EQ has sliders at 32, 64, 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, and 16k

I would just boost the bass a little bit. I don't think it needs any other settings.

I'd attenuate treble, a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainLorax 

Fellow HD668B owners, how would y'all adjust for a custom default setting and a custom rock setting?

The i-tunes EQ has sliders at 32, 64, 125, 250, 500, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, and 16k

My rockbox eq settings for the 668B are: 3khz, q=2.0, -2db; 5khz, q=4.0, +2db; 8khz, q=2.0, -4db.

The lowering at 3khz is to take out some FF-like coloration, the lowering at 8khz is to take out the harshness. The gain at 5khz is to compensate for the former and actually comes out at ~0db so there's no need for a pregain.

Though I divised these setting based on the frequency response graph on the Superlux website, I tuned them with the rockbox crossfeed enabled. So they may sound best when combined with crossfeed.*

There's another very efficient tweak for the Superlux: take a paper tissue, cut it in two halves and make two compact rolls out of them. Stuff the tissue-rolls behind the back half of the ear cussions, where your pinna is. This will have three effect:

1. A slight bass boost (some of the inner bass holes are covered by the tissue)

2. Improved spatiality (the driver's angle against the ear is slightly shifted to the front)

3. Improved comfort (because of the spacers they won't press as hard on your pinna**)

...don't believe me? Just invest a tissue and try

* rockbox crossfeed will attenuate treble by some degree and produce very slight comb filter effects. Maybe the 3khz attentuation isn't needed without it (because of the latter), but some more 8khz attenuation (because of the former).

**maybe that's another cause for improved spatiality: the less deformed your pinna, the more your HRTF stays intact.