Where's Headroom dammit! They said there were going to have the DT880 600ohm measurement but nothing yet!
 
Honestly, I don't push the DT880 / 600 heavily on here just for kicks. I've heard all the favourites around this price range, the HD600, HD650, K701 and has a recabled DT880 '03 250ohm (which is rated better than the '05 250 ohm) and all through great equipment and amps that can push them easily and tbh, none of them, for overall balanced sound, can really match the DT880 / 600, particularly if the DT 880/600 is matched with a warm source (like a Sony JA3ES ) . If the others were better, then I would of bought those but I haven't. The others are better at certain aspects but for overall sound, both in sound signature and sound quality for a balanced sound and other aspect many people ignore like timbre, the DT880/600 beats them all in this price range.
 
I always try and get the best value for money thing, no matter what it is, just like everyone else.
 
the DT880/600 measures different and does subjectively sound different as well. Far from placebo.
ALL the doubters are always people who have not tried them. Ask 'DavidMahler' on here for a former doubter's perspective.

I'm going to post this again, as it seems that it was overlooked / ignored as nobody seems to comment on what I consider to be quite an interesting addition to this discussion.
 
Here are spectral decay graphs and impulse response graphs for 2 very different headphones. According to conventional wisdom, the high impedance Stax electrostatic driver is very light and very "fast", whereas the low impedance Denon AH-D5000 driver is very "slow" and heavy.  Let's let this objective evidence speak for itself as it throws a monkey wrench into the oversimplification of applying F=M*A formula to headphones without having all of the necessary  "other" variables. 
 
Stax 4040 (144,000ohm)
 

 
And the Denon AH-D5000 (25ohm)
 

 
The Stax actually performs slightly worse in impulse response, and about the same in decay, so the mass of the diaphragm can't be a universal ticket to claiming something has a "faster" response. Granted, we're comparing electrostatic drivers to dynamic ones, but if you'd like me to compare impulse responses / waterfall plots to dynamic drivers of low / high impedance cans to show differences in "speed and acceleration" I'd be happy to oblige. 
 
Furthermore, does the mass of the voicecoil between the 250ohm / 600ohm variations of the beyers vary significantly enough to create an audible difference?  The mass of the actual diaphragm should be the same in each case, which is quite a different story I would say.

Quote:

catharsis said:

The problem is that two headphones that measure identically, or inaudibly different will sound no different to the same person.

 

Click to expand...

"measure" what?  You measure freq response, transient response ... very rough approximation to all that is going on.  Sure -- as I said -- helpful pre-purchase, but why not just blind test them on yourself (you'll need a friend) ... taking advantage of return policies, borrowing HPs from others, etc. etc. 
 
The level match should be used as another experimental factor -- match more than once, and do it blind (again, you need that friend).   I didn't do my level match blind, and I should have.  And I should have matched multiple times thru the experiment (so that any errors in the match would randomize out).  That's a nice addition to the methodology, thanks!  Your point is correct -- if I got the level match wrong, that could explain my high (accurate) score.  Short of custom made dummy heads that match yours perfectly, I don't see any other way.  But randomization is on our side.  So several times during the testing your friend changes the level on purpose, and you re-match blind.
 
If the clamping forces are very different then this can't really be done if you know which is which, or if the headband/pads have obvious tactile differences.  Not the case here.
 

 
Quote:

wavoman said:

"measure" what?  You measure freq response, transient response ... very rough approximation to all that is going on.  Sure -- as I said -- helpful pre-purchase, but why not just blind test them on yourself (you'll need a friend) ... taking advantage of return policies, borrowing HPs from others, etc. etc. 
 
The level match should be used as another experimental factor -- match more than once, and do it blind (again, you need that friend).   I didn't do my level match blind, and I should have.  And I should have matched multiple times thru the experiment (so that any errors in the match would randomize out).  That's a nice addition to the methodology, thanks!  Your point is correct -- if I got the level match wrong, that could explain my high (accurate) score.  Short of custom made dummy heads that match yours perfectly, I don't see any other way.  But randomization is on our side.  So several times during the testing your friend changes the level on purpose, and you re-match blind.
 
If the clamping forces are very different then this can't really be done if you know which is which, or if the headband/pads have obvious tactile differences.  Not the case here.
 

Click to expand...

You can tell that you're a statistician - it's certainly refreshing to talk to somebody who understand the scientific method.  I agree with you, I can tell alot from technical measurements but I would audition an HP first before purchasing. 
 
For example, if you like the K701 and have access to a plethora of objective measurements, it would be possible to narrow your HP search if you had a plethora of technical measurements for other headphones.  I can tell by looking at a FQ graph how something will "generally" sound but things like acoustics, soundstage, comfort, clarity, sibiliance etc, aren't glaringly obvious when staring at a chart. 
 
Some "identical" headphones such as the K701/K702 and the MDR-V6 / MDR-7506 also have slight measurement deviations at headroom, showing that either there actually are variations among the same models, or (more likely) the measurement process is so delicate that 100 measurements will each yield slightly different results (requiring the use of a mean value ultimately).

Quote:

catharsis said:

... it would be possible to narrow your HP search if you had a plethora of technical measurements for other headphones.  I can tell by looking at a FQ graph how something will "generally" sound but things like acoustics, soundstage, comfort, clarity, sibiliance etc, aren't glaringly obvious when staring at a chart. 
 
Some "identical" headphones ...have slight measurement deviations at headroom...

Click to expand...

Well put, I agree totally.
 
So I would think the proper thread title might be: "DT880 600 Ohm: measurements make me question reported superiority", or, at least, add a "?" after the current title.
 
I resonably believe I can hear the difference between my 880/600 and my 880/250, since I passed a good, although not perfect, blind test.  There is the possibility that my level match was not as good as I thought, and/or that "psychological perference bias" biased the level setting in favor of the 600 ohm model, but I doubt it.  I will do better next time, randomizing and blinding the level set.
 
I also believe that the QC behind beyer's customized MANUFAKTUR supply process is superior to beyer's off-the-shelf" standard goods.  I have only anectodal evidence for this, but it passes the economic/marketing red-face test as a reasonable premise.
 
So I have another possible explanation: there is not much differnece in general between these models, but I have a great 880/600 and an inferior 880/250.  If this is the case, then I have to grant you this: local measurements on my actual units might be enlightening.
 
We're not fighting, but if we were, I would have to admit that your points won a couple of rounds.

Those are some very respectable points.  I chose the title of this thread in hopes that it would spark passion (either anger or support) and it seems to have struck a chord with some people.  A little uncouth perhaps, but I find it's easy to rile up head-fiers with a simple usage of words to get them talking. 
 
I'm going to summarize the posts in this thread in a short while so we can see what kinds of evidence we've gathered.  I have a feeling that the issue will remain unresolved until someone puts the Beyer's to the test with some measurements or some proper ABX testing (unlikely to ever happen). 
 
Because this thread is a comparison between the 250ohm and the 600ohm DT880, I would expect that if frequency response / square wave / impulse / spectral decay measurements reveal that there is little difference, I would conclude that there is in fact little to no difference - no need for ABX testing.  We have to remember that we're dealing with the same model#, same enclosure, same drivers (albeit with thinner wire in the voice coil / more turns which is how impedance is determined in the first place), and we should expect there to be little difference in the sound anyway.  It's not like we're comparing a K701 to a DT880.
 
Maybe someday you'll grace us with an official controlled ABX test!  I really appreciate your thoughtful contributions to this thread.
 

I love my 880/600 -- am listening to it now.
 
I will try to do a better A/B blind test (not ABX, I find flaws in that protocol, I prefer others, like simple difference or preference, replicated with swindle choices thrown in to measure response bias).  This is hard to do -- don't wait up.
 
(Of course ABX has the huge advantage that you can do it without a partner; but if you have a helpful partner, there are better ways IMO).

I'd have to say it's mostly marketing and used to differentiate markets mostly.  Both have extremely low distortion (below 1%), fast decay, and are easily "fast" enough to produce a 20khz signal.
 
There's no use trying to convince believers of this though - you have a whole segment of head-fi that believes their Stax are "faster" than dynamics (when we're already talking dinky mylar drivers of all things).

Quote:

shike said:

I'd have to say it's mostly marketing and used to differentiate markets mostly.  Both have extremely low distortion (below 1%), fast decay, and are easily "fast" enough to produce a 20khz signal.
 
There's no use trying to convince believers of this though - you have a whole segment of head-fi that believes their Stax are "faster" than dynamics (when we're already talking dinky mylar drivers of all things).

Click to expand...

Electrostats aren't faster than dynamics?  Tesla=marketing huh.  Hmmm......

Quote:

anaxilus said:

Electrostats aren't faster than dynamics?  Tesla=marketing huh.  Hmmm......

Click to expand...

Stats are faster when you consider extremely heavy cones in dynamic speakers, headphones are a different matter entirely.  Here's two Stax offerings followed by two dynamics.
 


 

 

 
 
 
Even a cheap dynamic headphone can be fast if it's designed right.  As for the Tesla, a lot of things are marketing.  If you like the sound of it that's one thing, but being "faster" at some point is a case in law of diminishing returns.  Since we don't have any measurements we don't know how "fast" it is (decay especially).  I would say it's probably not worse than the above though, but I doubt you can get that much better to notice a significant increase in speed.
 
Don't get me wrong though, I like the sound of electrostatic headphones at times too, but they are hardly the peak of perfection.  We could easily show their merits is speakers though, just as we could other planar designs such as psuedo-ribbon and true ribbon.  Then we can talk about decay speed, transient speed, and distortion levels that may actually make a real difference in those designs.
 
But we're talking headphones.

Shike - thank you.  I'm glad somebody is seeing things from my point of view (I'm seeing it from yours).
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
the DT880/600 measures different and does subjectively sound different as well. Far from placebo.
ALL the doubters are always people who have not tried them. Ask 'DavidMahler' on here for a former doubter's perspective.

Click to expand...

 
I owned both the 250 and 600 ohm version of the DT880.  I had the 250 ohm for a long while and listened to them extensively before I purchased the 600 ohm version.  I concluded both sounded the same or were close enough to be basically identical.
 

Quote:

odigg said:

 
I owned both the 250 and 600 ohm version of the DT880.  I had the 250 ohm for a long while and listened to them extensively before I purchased the 600 ohm version.  I concluded both sounded the same or were close enough to be basically identical.
 

Click to expand...

 
Thanks for your input odigg - I appreciate your viewpoint.
 
Chinesekiwi - do you have evidence that the 600ohm / 250ohm DT880s sound different (objective measurements).  From your posts, it looks like you do.
 

Quote:

shike said:

I'd have to say it's mostly marketing and used to differentiate markets mostly.  Both have extremely low distortion (below 1%), fast decay, and are easily "fast" enough to produce a 20khz signal.

Click to expand...

I concur.

Yep, I'm on board with the latest posts.  A 20khz signal requires a lightweight diaphragm.  That's why you don't see 12" woofers producing high frequencies, and instead little tiny tweeters get the job done (when talking about speakers).  Headphones have tiny dynamic drivers that can (usually) reproduce the full frequency range quite easily.