Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Most overrated headphones?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Most overrated headphones? - Page 35

post #511 of 850

HD-600 by far. The idea that Sennheiser thinks they're worth $399 is just non-sense.

post #512 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

Audeze LCD2.  No headphone in the hifi market was as hyped or as popular after its release, yet it did not measure extremely well, required copious and dangerous levels of voltage to properly drive, had earpads that could not be removed, was unbalanced in comfort and had a poor quality stock cable, had a poor soundstage and sounded very closed in and lacking width.  Yet, people ate it up.  Its the Audiophile worlds Beats by Dre as similarly priced sets measured better and had a much larger sound with greater efficiency and comfort.  

It was favorably compared over several flagships when released and upon hearing them, i just didn't get it.  The LCD-3 sounds good though, fix from the original.  Don't think i ever heard version 2.

post #513 of 850

What about 650 for 500?

post #514 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

I thought audiophile beats was edition 10.

 

Agreed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

HD-600 by far. The idea that Sennheiser thinks they're worth $399 is just non-sense.

 

I'd say HD650 more so than the HD600. Both aren't worth their price though.

post #515 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

I can't speak for Rev 1 lc2, but the rev2 is one of the best measuring around.  I thought audiophile beats was edition 10.

 

Thankfully, I did not mention the revised versions in my post and only spoke of the original after its release.  Also, I don't consider the Edition 10 a headphone in the slightest.  The Audeze sounds fantastic and my opinion on its sound quality was reflected in that disaster of a review I posted that hit 43 pages or so of bashing me.  I rather enjoyed the LCD2 for its clarity, amazing bass and natural flavor.  The Edition 10 makes the Titanic sinking or Nagasaki look like a small disaster.  A headphone needs to actually sound good enough to actually be used.  In the case of the Eddy 10, it isn't.  So to me it fell into the Beats category and the cheap $10 headphones you see behind the counter at a gas station.  Totally unusable, painful and poorly designed with the only intent behind the model being to jack $2000 out of your wallet and nothing more, no need to provide a decent or enjoyable listening experience.  Just make a piece of crap, slap some odd and useless exotic materials and don't bother tuning the headphone in the slightest or even quality testing it before you sell it for 2 grand.

 

lol


Edited by swbf2cheater - 7/8/12 at 2:53pm
post #516 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

HD-600 by far. The idea that Sennheiser thinks they're worth $399 is just non-sense.

 

You dont want to know what the Australian distributor was asking for the 600/650 right up until our dollar strengthened .... 

 

GimmeDigi has free express delivery to Oz on the HD600 and the price is a lot more attractive than 399 USD

 

AUD$285.56

 

Per xe,com

 

286.00 AUD =

291.616 USD

 

 

post #517 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

HD-600 by far. The idea that Sennheiser thinks they're worth $399 is just non-sense.

 

No it's not, they're one of the most neutral headphones ever made.  One of the very few headphones that has a balanced and holistic approach and isn't just focused on max clarity at the expense of everything else.  They aren't perfect, both the HD600 and the Hd650 can sound kind of dull, but they have no glaring, serious problems or colorations.  Which is more than a lot of headphones that cost 3x can say. 

post #518 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

Audeze LCD2.  No headphone in the hifi market was as hyped or as popular after its release, yet it did not measure extremely well, required copious and dangerous levels of voltage to properly drive, had earpads that could not be removed, was unbalanced in comfort and had a poor quality stock cable, had a poor soundstage and sounded very closed in and lacking width.  Yet, people ate it up.  Its the Audiophile worlds Beats by Dre as similarly priced sets measured better and had a much larger sound with greater efficiency and comfort.  

 

1. It measured very well, not sure where you're getting that from.  It wasn't until Purrin's measurements that we saw their problems revealed in measurements

2. It does not require copious amounts of voltage, I'm not sure where you're getting this from, esp considering Hifiman's orthos which are at least harder to drive

3. Many headphones have earpads that use adhesive rather than the lip method.  The housing is too big for any other earpads to fit anyways so you can't pad swap.  And they are removable, you just have to use the adhesive strip which they provide when you buy new earpads.  I can see this being a small grip, but not sure why it's such a big deal. 

4. stock cable was good quality, it was a Canare microphone cable.  It was just stiff.  Stiff =/= poor quality.  It just means stiff

5. Soundstage is only one aspect of sound reproduction, and for many people is the least important. 

 

Comfort is probably the only gripe I agree with here. 

 

There are certainly things to complain about with the LCD-2, but I don't seem to agree with many of these arguments.  There was a reason they were popular.  They were the only flagship to aim for a warm sound signature that does not have treble peaks.  That is incredibly rare, and many HD650 owners had been waiting for years for a suitable upgrade with that kind of sound sig.  It didn't have to be perfect, it just had to be better than the HD650 which it was to most people.  So if you want to fault someone for the popularity of the LCD-2, you should blame the headphone industry, which churns out nothing but bright headphones for the audiophile market.  Or even just blame Sennheiser, who abandoned their loyal HD6x0 owners to follow everyone else down the faux-detail rabbit hole. 

post #519 of 850

Biggest criticism I have seen with both Senns is the propensity for the headband to crack (I believe the HD25-x has the same issue). Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with applying reams of masking tape over the 'Sennheiser' branding from day one. but I accept that for some here that is unacceptable. Oddly, some Head-Fiers dont like A-T's wing design but for me it has been the best headband design in terms of comfort and adjustability - highly recommended, as long as your head is bigger than a rockmelon (aka cantelope).

 

AD900%E3%82%92%E7%84%A1%E7%90%86%E7%9F%A2%E7%90%86%E7%9D%80%E3%81%91%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%E5%AB%8C%E3%81%8C%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%82%8B%E7%94%9F%E5%BE%8C4%E3%83%B6%E6%9C%88%E3%81%AE%E6%81%AF%E5%AD%90.jpg

post #520 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

No it's not, they're one of the most neutral headphones ever made.  One of the very few headphones that has a balanced and holistic approach and isn't just focused on max clarity at the expense of everything else.  They aren't perfect, both the HD600 and the Hd650 can sound kind of dull, but they have no glaring, serious problems or colorations.  Which is more than a lot of headphones that cost 3x can say. 

 

So just because it's neutral means it's not overrated?

 

How is having bloated (sounding) mid-bass and lack of sub-bass neutral? It makes all music sounds like it has chopped off treble and will "fix" most any music that's crap (make it easier on the ears than it should be). I don't know about you, but I don't want my headphone to do this. To my ears the HD-600 isn't exactly uncolored. Less colored than the V6 and M50 though for sure.

 

If you listen to the HD-600 and about a dozen other somewhat flat headphones, the HD-600 is the only one IMO that makes my music (that I know inside and out) sound any different than it should be. This isn't a case of the dozen others being junk. The HD-600 (and HD-650) are good at making my collection sound good despite the bit-rate or how badly mastered they are. If I wanted to pick out flaws, I sure wouldn't use the HD-600!

 

The HD-600 is also too warm IMO. Isn't that itself a coloration? It makes some acoustic music sound very muddy and congested.

 

What's interesting about this is when you compare the HD-580 to the HD-600. You'll think i'm nuts, but the HD-580 makes my recording sound closer to how they SHOULD sound in comparison to the HD-600. Someone will think i'm hearing things, but the HD-580 feels more detailed and clearer than the HD-600. People seem to come up with this idea that the HD-580 (plastic) grill causes all sorts of resonance, but has anyone proven it? Why does the 580 sound more accurate (and clearer)? That's what I want to know.

 

BTW the 580 and HD-600 graphs are very interesting to look at. Amazing how just that grill can alter the frequency graphs so much.

post #521 of 850

We have different understandings of what recordings should sound like.  Yours seems to come from listening to other headphones (which IMO are highly colored), mine comes from listening to neutral speakers.  So we'll have to just disagree.  I'm not saying the HD600 is perfect, I'm saying it has fewer problems than most headphones.  It seems like those problems it does have are things that bother you, which is fine. 

post #522 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

Audeze LCD2.  No headphone in the hifi market was as hyped or as popular after its release, yet it did not measure extremely well, required copious and dangerous levels of voltage to properly drive, had earpads that could not be removed, was unbalanced in comfort and had a poor quality stock cable, had a poor soundstage and sounded very closed in and lacking width.  Yet, people ate it up.  Its the Audiophile worlds Beats by Dre as similarly priced sets measured better and had a much larger sound with greater efficiency and comfort.  

 

1. It measured very well, not sure where you're getting that from.  It wasn't until Purrin's measurements that we saw their problems revealed in measurements

2. It does not require copious amounts of voltage, I'm not sure where you're getting this from, esp considering Hifiman's orthos which are at least harder to drive

3. Many headphones have earpads that use adhesive rather than the lip method.  The housing is too big for any other earpads to fit anyways so you can't pad swap.  And they are removable, you just have to use the adhesive strip which they provide when you buy new earpads.  I can see this being a small grip, but not sure why it's such a big deal. 

4. stock cable was good quality, it was a Canare microphone cable.  It was just stiff.  Stiff =/= poor quality.  It just means stiff

5. Soundstage is only one aspect of sound reproduction, and for many people is the least important. 

 

Comfort is probably the only gripe I agree with here. 

 

There are certainly things to complain about with the LCD-2, but I don't seem to agree with many of these arguments.  There was a reason they were popular.  They were the only flagship to aim for a warm sound signature that does not have treble peaks.  That is incredibly rare, and many HD650 owners had been waiting for years for a suitable upgrade with that kind of sound sig.  It didn't have to be perfect, it just had to be better than the HD650 which it was to most people.  So if you want to fault someone for the popularity of the LCD-2, you should blame the headphone industry, which churns out nothing but bright headphones for the audiophile market.  Or even just blame Sennheiser, who abandoned their loyal HD6x0 owners to follow everyone else down the faux-detail rabbit hole. 

 

1.  So uhh...that makes perfect sense.  You said it measured well until someone actually measured it and revealed problems?  Okie dokie...

 

2.  It requires ridiculous amounts of voltage to drive properly, not sure where you are getting your information.  The Lyr is the most popular LCD2 amp for a reason bro.  The HE500 is easier to drive than the LCD2.  Have you actually used any of these headphones?  I respect your opinion in the highest regard but they are absolutely 100% anti-pretty-much-everything-everyone-says-about-them.  Get the LCD2 and He500 right next to one another and see which one sounds louder via the same source at the same volume.  Its the HE500 to an audible degree.  

 

3.  Nonsense, even Audeze themselves realized how stupid that was and made their revised versions with different earpads.  If a unprofessional modder can make Audeze earpads, so can Audeze.  And they did.  Where have you been lately, lol?

 

4.  The stock cable is the same cable you can buy for about $15 on ebay and is stiff, its not the wisest choice for a cable styling that will be plugged into an amplifier some distance away.  Open the stock cable up and tell me I'm wrong. It was a poor cable all around, at least Hifiman realized and cared enough to almost IMMEDIATELY change it out for a really great cable.  As we all know , we want to pay $500-900 for a headphone that comes with a garden hose for a cable, right? lol

 

5.  The reverse is also true, as a ton of people want that sound.  If they didn't, they HD800 and Sennheisers in general would not sell.  Envelopment and spaciousness is vital to a lot of users here.  Anyone who cares about soundstaging qualities  has no idea what you guys are thinking.  Are you so critical in your listening that you don't care about instrument separation, width, height or dynamics?  The $900 LCD2 was not nearly as good in any actual sound presentation qualities as some cheaper headphones were, hell, some of the audio technicas and JVC headphones half the price sounded better in regards to the sound staging qualities...

 

 

What other headphones that cost $400-500 upon the HD600 and HD650s release sounded just as good or better?  I vote almost nothing in that price range during that year sounded as good.  At the time, it was a great deal.  Today, not so much but Sennheiser is selling them out regardless of the price.  I'd still take my HD650/HD600 over the Hifiman HE400 ANYDAY, both are similarly priced.


Edited by swbf2cheater - 7/8/12 at 3:26pm
post #523 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

 

1.  So uhh...that makes perfect sense.  You said it measured well until someone actually measured it and revealed problems?  Okie dokie...

 

2.  It requires ridiculous amounts of voltage to drive properly, not sure where you are getting your information.  The Lyr is the most popular LCD2 amp for a reason bro.  The HE500 is easier to drive than the LCD2.  Have you actually used any of these headphones?  I respect your opinion in the highest regard but they are absolutely 100% anti-pretty-much-everything-everyone-says-about-them.  Get the LCD2 and He500 right next to one another and see which one sounds louder via the same source at the same volume.  Its the HE500 to an audible degree.  

 

3.  Nonsense, even Audeze themselves realized how stupid that was and made their revised versions with different earpads.  If a unprofessional modder can make Audeze earpads, so can Audeze.  And they did.  Where have you been lately, lol?

 

4.  The stock cable is the same cable you can buy for about $15 on ebay and is stiff, its not the wisest choice for a cable styling that will be plugged into an amplifier some distance away.  Open the stock cable up and tell me I'm wrong. It was a poor cable all around, at least Hifiman realized and cared enough to almost IMMEDIATELY change it out for a really great cable.  As we all know , we want to pay $500-900 for a headphone that comes with a garden hose for a cable, right? lol

 

5.  The reverse is also true, as a ton of people want that sound.  If they didn't, they HD800 and Sennheisers in general would not sell.  Envelopment and spaciousness is vital to a lot of users here.  Anyone who cares about soundstaging qualities  has no idea what you guys are thinking.  Are you so critical in your listening that you don't care about instrument separation, width, height or dynamics?  The $900 LCD2 was not nearly as good in any actual sound presentation qualities as some cheaper headphones were, hell, some of the audio technicas and JVC headphones half the price sounded better in regards to the sound staging qualities...

 

 

What other headphones that cost $400-500 upon the HD600 and HD650s release sounded just as good or better?  I vote almost nothing in that price range during that year sounded as good.  At the time, it was a great deal.  Today, not so much but Sennheiser is selling them out regardless of the price.  I'd still take my HD650/HD600 over the Hifiman HE400 ANYDAY, both are similarly priced.

 

I disagree with everything here too.  Cheers beerchug.gif 

 

ok, I'll play

 

1.  You were talking about why they were so popular.  Purrin didn't measure them until much later, and his measurements were still pretty darn good.  Much better than most.  It was just the first time we saw any problems, but again, it was later.  The biggest problem Purrin found was QC, but that's not the same as just "measuring poorly"

 

2.  Just because people like it with the Lyr doesn't mean it requires a "ridiculous amount of voltage".  It doesn't.  It can take a ridiculous amount of voltage, those drivers were made to handle a lot of power, but they were also designed to be efficient. 

 

3.  Not sure what you're talking about here. 

 

4.  All headphones come with cables that could be bought for 15 dollars on ebay.  that's plenty of money for a quality cable.  Most come with cables that could be bought for 2 dollars on ebay.  I agree with you that it is was too thick and stiff to be comfortable, but that is not "bad quality". 

 

5.  yes of course the reverse is true.  And the reverse of that reverse is also true.  Which brings us back to what I said in my earlier post, where I explained to you why lack of huge soundstage didn't prevent the LCD-2 from being popular.  It's not a top priority for many (not all) people.

 

Yes, but that is unrelated to what I said.  People who like bright headphones have many to chose from.  People who don't like bright headphones had basically the HD650 and LCD2.  Now they have the HE500 and HE400 but those weren't around at the time. 


Edited by rhythmdevils - 7/8/12 at 4:02pm
post #524 of 850

According to Tyll's numbers, your LCD revision 1 takes .106Vrms and .24mw to get to 90db compared to the .310Vrms and 2.04mw of the HE-500.  I thought planars were notorious for needing current, not voltage swing.  They're not 600Ω headphones.

 

Soundstage seems to be a mixed bag for headphones.  On one hand the total lack of it was one of the one reasons I was driven away from the M50 in favor of other headphones, but I've never really had any other moment where I thought to myself that having a 'larger' soundstage really mattered that much for a headphone.  For one, unless all you listen to is binaural recordings, you're not getting an accurate soundstage with a headphone in the first place-- not to mention that anything that's mixed and mastered in the studio isn't a natural soundstage anyways.  People have commented about the lack of soundstage  spaciousness of planars, but I never found a lack going from DT990/650 to HE-400.  Nor can I understand how people can overwhelmingly praise something like the AD700's soundstage, which is just a blurry mess and really not all that big compared to the Beyer's soundstage.

 

Purrin's waterfall plots revealed some resonance problems in the rev.1 lcd2.  Rev.2 lcd2 was rather decent looking.  Besides that, their frequency response, square waves, distortions and impulses are all rather good.  LCD-2's measurements was one of the leading motivational factors for me wanting it as well.  I've never heard the LCD-2s, although I'd like to, but if HE-400 is any indication of what a planar magnetic can do, then LCD-2s are just more of it.  Their comfort issues sound really terrible though, although a lot of people don't like HE-400's comfort and I find them very comfy, so oh well.  I think LCD-2 just might be another case of confusing overrated with overhyped-- just like M50.

 

I can agree with Tdockweiler's assessment of the 600/650's bass rollloff.  Regardless, that is a coloration from neutral, and is the main reason why I'm still not an owner of the 650.


Edited by TMRaven - 7/8/12 at 3:48pm
post #525 of 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

We have different understandings of what recordings should sound like.  Yours seems to come from listening to other headphones (which IMO are highly colored), mine comes from listening to neutral speakers.  So we'll have to just disagree.  I'm not saying the HD600 is perfect, I'm saying it has fewer problems than most headphones.  It seems like those problems it does have are things that bother you, which is fine. 

 

I think I would have an idea of what a favorite song should sound like if I'd have listened to it thousands of times. It's not a case of me putting on a song for the first time or listening to it on a colored headphone. This is stuff that i've heard over and over since 1932. Probably on dozens of speakers and headphones.

 

When I listen to a favorite CD I don't want it to change dramatically. I usually know it inside and out. Some minor variation is OK. For fun I often do prefer slightly forward sounding vocals.

 

I think you mentioned that crappy recordings should never have any fatiguing or harsh treble peaks on a truly flat headphone or speaker. I don't agree with this at all really. There's maybe dozens of poorly recorded/bad tracks in my collection and they sound like crap on 95% of speakers and headphones. I just have a hard time believing it's really the headphones fault like you say.

 

When I want to enjoy all my garbage tracks, the HD-600 or HD-650 is what I would pick and it's not because they're flat. I think it's pretty well know that the HD-600/650 are fairly good at making poor recordings sound decent. I wish I knew why. I think it's just that they're not very revealing. Somewhat, but not like my KRK or Sextett.

 

It's not big deal and sure we can agree to disagree. I just don't think the HD-600 is as neutral as everyone says. To me, it's actually just as colored as the HD-598! You don't see anyone using an HD-598 as a neutral studio headphone! On graphs it appears that the 598 is flatter than the HD-600. What's funny is that the 598 sounds more balanced sounding than the HD-600 to my ears.

 

BTW FYI none of my headphones are any more colored than the HD-600 to my ears. I would say the KNS-8400, DJ100 and my Sextett are the ones that are slightly colored, but only due to their forward mids. I would say the DJ100 is about as colored as the Sextett I have..which isn't very much. The DJ100 is my only "fun" headphone, but still quite balanced sounding.

 

I've yet to hear a completely flat headphone. K501 was pretty close, but that goofy soundstage kind of ruined it for me. It seems even the K601 is supposedly ruler flat, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

 

None of this is a big deal or anything and I'm just very bored. I think the HD-600 is flatter than many others labeled as Studio monitors. More so than the SRH-940, M50 etc.

 

BTW do you consider the DT-880 neutral? People seem to think it emphasizes treble and bass, but I don't know about that..it's probably one of the most revealing headphones i've heard. Haven't heard the DT-48e yet though.

 

I'm going to guess you hate the DT-880. I have a love/hate thing for it, same as the HD-600.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Most overrated headphones?