or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sennheiser HD 600 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sennheiser HD 600 Impressions Thread - Page 373

post #5581 of 17111
Quote:
Not only does one lose a bit when combining channels in one device but as a consequence components for both channels tend to be close together which can also cause stray capacitive coupling, although that doesn't have to happen or be of any significance.

That's the good news for all the firms who use one-tube design. So Crack may not loose any soundstage (maybe a few percent), that's good to know.

Quote:
Once I'm done and clean it up I'll take pictures and even post a schematic.

Great! Hopefully not too expensive :D

Quote:
The 650 isn't a bad can, I just felt that the 600 was a better can. I don't know why the 650 would be more revealing as it has a toned down treble which might supress details but not in a drastic manner. Although the 650 is spec'd to have less distortion, I think that's detectible by test equipment and not by human senses.

Yeah, because of that diminished treble in 650, even if it's more detailed in lesser frequencies, I'am happy with 600. If, then next step would be HD700 but I don't see that yet (too expensive).

post #5582 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrtn77 View Post

You're funny ! If "musicians and studio professionals don't know good sound", who the hell does ?

You might want to look at your litsening habits there, because ALL the stuff I listen to sounds great. Yes, all. But then again, I make a point of being selective. And see no point in pointing to the "average rock, pop or jazz band". Why would you use them as a measure if they're average

How about the above average such as Dr. Dre?

They don't know good sound. Most of them cannot hear soundstage and subtle details of performances, most of them thought that CD sounded good in 1983, except for Neil Young.

How about Dre? His headphones are TERRIBLE. He is an outstanding professional producer, but the headphones reveal that he does not know good sound. If he DID those Beats would be far better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrtn77 View Post

You're funny ! If "musicians and studio professionals don't know good sound", who the hell does ?

Audiophiles with top level gear and sound systems and headphones. Most musicians have very mundane stereo systems. Most DJ's the same. Lots of bass? Loud. Yep. But that's not good. Most rock and pop musicians will never listen to their own recordings on anything above mid-fi, once it's outside the studio.

Most of the people here have a far better sound rig than almost everyone they listen to perform has at home.
Edited by marone - 12/30/13 at 7:40am
post #5583 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post


How about the above average such as Dr. Dre?

They don't know good sound. Most of them cannot hear soundstage and subtle details of performances, most of them thought that CD sounded good in 1983, except for Neil Young.

How about Dre? His headphones are TERRIBLE. He is an outstanding professional producer, but the headphones reveal that he does not know good sound. If he DID those Beats would be far better.
Audiophiles with top level gear and sound systems and headphones. Most musicians have very mundane stereo systems. Most DJ's the same. Lots of bass? Loud. Yep. But that's not good. Most rock and pop musicians will never listen to their own recordings on anything above mid-fi, once it's outside the studio.

Most of the people here have a far better sound rig than almost everyone they listen to perform has at home.

 

You keep cracking me up ! 

I won't even discuss your insider's knowledge of "most musician's home rigs", and will have to assume you have indeed been in most musicians' home (there is, after all, a very slight possibility that this might, indeed, be true). But I will stress one thing : what a musician does in his home has no bearing on his recording procedures or acoustic knowledge. I'm sure you'll find, for instance, that "most musicians" don't feel the need to listen to music all the time, and that critical listening takes place in the studio. But then again, given your obvious knowledge of most musicians' private lives, you must know this already.

But even then, if you claim Dr Dre is an outstanding producer, we really don't have the same sense of what an average musician is or does. 

As I said, look beyond MTV, Youtube and the like, expand your musical horizons and you'll find things usually sound great when they're made for love of the art, without endorsement deals, world tours, T-Shirt sales and MTV videos.

The best playback system I ever heard (not that I've ever gone beyond "mid-fi" as you have it, as my beloved pair of HD 600s can attest) was in a recording studio, as it happens. And that wasn't even a music studio, but a radio studio in the French Maison de la Radio. I doubt many audiophiles have such things at home. If only because homes aren't particularly suited to acoustic treatment.


Edited by Mrtn77 - 12/30/13 at 9:06am
post #5584 of 17111

 

I think you are underestimating the power of Beats by Dr Dre. After all, the Beats Pros are "the headphones used to mix in every major studio" ;)


Edited by tninety - 12/30/13 at 8:58am
post #5585 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrtn77 View Post
 

 

You keep cracking me up ! 

I won't even discuss your insider's knowledge of "most musician's home rigs", and will have to assume you have indeed been in most musicians' home (there is, after all, a very slight possibility that this might, indeed, be true). But I will stress one thing : what a musician does in his home has no bearing on his recording procedures or acoustic knowledge. I'm sure you'll find, for instance, that "most musicians" don't feel the need to listen to music all the time, and that critical listening takes place in the studio. But then again, given your obvious knowledge of most musicians' private lives, you must know this already.

But even then, if you claim Dr Dre is an outstanding producer, we really don't have the same sense of what an average musician is. 

As I said, look beyond MTV, Youtube and the like, expand your musical horizons and you'll find things usually sound great when they're made for love of the art, without endorsement deals, world tours, T-Shirt sales and MTV videos.

The best playback system I ever heard (not that I've ever gone beyond "mid-fi" as you have it, as my beloved pair of HD 600s can attest) was in a recording studio, as it happens. And that wasn't even a music studio, but a radio studio in the French Maison de la Radio. I doubt many audiophiles have such things at home. If only because homes aren't particularly suited to acoustic treatment.

You are a cruel person to suggest that I admire Dr. Dre or spend my time glued to MTV and the like. So you think that musicians don't appreciate or listen to music? I don't think so, how did you think they came to appreciate music or become influenced by their favorites? Jan Hammer (Mahavisnu Orchestra, Sound Tracks - Miami Vice, etc), left his nice apartment on 11th St, in NYC,  long ago and moved to a place (farm) upstate NY to have a small personal recording studio built at his place. When not on the road some of them even live normal lives. Not all musicians fit the musical/audio stereo type that you suggest. Next time I see Dre, I'll ask him to send you one of his T-Shirts. No, I don't know him, thank God.

post #5586 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanD View Post
 

You are a cruel person to suggest that I admire Dr. Dre or spend my time glued to MTV and the like. So you think that musicians don't appreciate or listen to music? I don't think so, how did you think they came to appreciate music or become influenced by their favorites? Jan Hammer (Mahavisnu Orchestra, Sound Tracks - Miami Vice, etc), left his nice apartment on 11th St, in NYC,  long ago and moved to a place (farm) upstate NY to have a small personal recording studio built at his place. When not on the road some of them even live normal lives. Not all musicians fit the musical/audio stereo type that you suggest. Next time I see Dre, I'll ask him to send you one of his T-Shirts. No, I don't know him, thank God.

I didn't suggest anything of the sort, StanD, I was replying to Marone !

And I do hope I didn't offend Marone either, by the way. Just to poke fun at his generalizations, which seem a little hallucinatory to me.

I do think musicians appreciate music, of course. But not, as I said, that their critical listening tnecessarily akes place at home, after or before work. I know that if I had access to a sound-proofed, acoustically-treated space with studio-grade equipment, I'd probably do less listening at home.

In fact, my own musical hero, Jim O'Rourke, who can't be accused of not being an enthusiastic music lover (he's curated two different record labels devoted to rereleasing obscure and out of print stuff), stated he'd spent a couple of years without a stereo after moving to Japan.

Another fact is, if you work in sound the whole day through, you're probably keen to give your ears a rest when you get home. I work in books, passionately so, and rarely read on my free time.    

post #5587 of 17111
I dont think anyone here knows the personal habits of musicians.There are some musicians who are very involved in the mixing/mastering and others who are not. Either way, it is the engineers in the studio who determine, for the most part, what recorded music sounds like at the end user level.

The decisions made in the studio at the mixing console are based as much on "good sound" as they are on "marketable sound." The two are often not the same.

Soundstage and imaging are byproducts of reverb, delay, reflections, etc. that occur both naturally (in the studio and in your listening room/headphone ear cup) and artificially. Like it or not, artificial DSP added by recording engineers in the studio is probably 90% of the "soundstage" people generally perceive and attribute to their signal chain (amp, DAC, headphone). Most modern music is recorded "in a vacuum" with each sound recorded onto a discrete channel. The channels are mixed together, volumes are tweaked, reverb is added, and positioning is adjusted until it sounds good to the engineer. When you or I listen to music on our headphones, our brains "fill in the blanks" and adjust our perception so that what we hear sounds natural and believable.

Using a single tube for both channels has advantages and disadvantages - none of which are really audible in a well designed amp. Crosstalk might be higher in a single tube, but it will still be inaudible with a good tube, and using a single tube makes matching the channels easier. One tube per channel, like balanced SS amps is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist at the human perception level. It simply adds appeal to the marketing department and profit to the sales department.

Tubes are inefficient and imperfect devices in the context of amplification. Yes, a tube amp can sound very good, but anyone with the ability to design/build an amplifier can make a SS amplifier that sounds exactly the same as any tube amp. The primary advantage of tube amps is that they look really cool when you turn the lights down so your music sounds better. SS amps sound colder and harsher, not because they do, but because we look at them and believe they must.

All my personal opinion, or course... redface.gif
Edited by palmfish - 12/30/13 at 11:03am
post #5588 of 17111

I'm a musician :D 

 

Just a quick note on audiophilia and musicians, they really don't go hand in hand generally speaking. I have spent hundreds of hours in recording studios playing from rock to soul/funk music and I as well as my band mates always wanted to sound like our fave artists. We were never looking for a 'hifi' experience, we were wanting drums like Bonham and guitar like Hendrix etc. Not the best sound possible. We would even try to emulate The Beatles stereo sound with drums on one channel and bass on the other. Trying to get the Zeppelin first album sound is not easy in a modern studio I can tell you haha. 

 

Audiophile recordings are limited to certain music genres in my experience. Classical/acoustic/Jazz/folk for e.g. Of course you can appreciate Rock and Pop on a great hifi but it will never have the dynamics. 

 

I still record music these days as a fun weekend thing in my old singers little studio. And although I would say that I have a much better ear these days, I'm still mixing for the song (or song type) not for the hifi experience. Because that would take something away from the artistic integrity, and I'm not a trained producer.  

post #5589 of 17111

My whole point was that "musicians" (producers and engineers as well) don't form a homogenous group whose habits are shared. Purposes, practices and goals will vary extensively.

It's absurd to ascribe common wills, production methods and ways of engaging with music to a budding punk rock band from Queens, pygmy singers from the forests of Central Africa, Dr Dre, Pierre Boulez and a second violinist in the London Symphony Orchestra, for exemple, all recording musicians. And that's not a matter of personnal opinion. 

 

And while we're at it, looking at everything that's recorded and released in the wide, teeming world of today, I'd say "marketable sounds" are a concern for a small minority of people actually putting out records. The MP3-ready world of throw-away junk is far less ominpresent or inevitable than the mainstream would like to think. Americans tend to forget there's a world very unlike theirs out there and it usually shows.    

post #5590 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrtn77 View Post

You're funny ! If "musicians and studio professionals don't know good sound", who the hell does ?

You might want to look at your litsening habits there, because ALL the stuff I listen to sounds great. Yes, all. But then again, I make a point of being selective. And see no point in pointing to the "average rock, pop or jazz band". Why would you use them as a measure if they're average ?

As a musician and teacher, a LOT of professionals in the business have no idea what good sound is. This is a fact. So a title means nothing to me. Experience is what makes the best ears.
post #5591 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post


As a musician and teacher, a LOT of professionals in the business have no idea what good sound is. This is a fact. So a title means nothing to me. Experience is what makes the best ears.

Yup I'd go with that. 

 

Getting back to the HD600.. They were originally designed for classical producers. So with that in mind, I'd say that anyone who prefers them over the HD650's has a more critical ear for 'sound quality' over easy listening :D

post #5592 of 17111

I consider myself a musician of sorts (well, vocalist) and I used to have no idea what good sound quality was. Everything above 128k sounded the same to me, and headphones didn't matter as long as there was plenty of bass ;)

 

My focus was on the music itself - the notes, the instruments, the chords. As long as the instruments were identifiable, it was good enough. Of course, that has all changed in the past couple years. But the point is that sound reproduction and the music itself are separate and independent. I still believe that great music sounds great even when played through crappy equipment, whereas music that needs expensive gear to sound good is crappy music.

post #5593 of 17111
Being a musician means nothing in and of itself, all it takes is playing an instrument. I'm a musician, you're a musician, we're all musicians, hurrah ! Are we all authorities ? I don't think so.
But those musicians I do dig, yes, to me, they're authorities, validated by my joy and interest. I trust them to know and understand the work better than I do, I trust them to teach me something with the music, something I hadn't foreseen or thought possible. And that extends to the other people the musician is working with.
If you don't show that trust, why bother with the work in the first place ?
If it sounds bad, either you've misplaced your trust (it happens), either there's something you don't get yet (it happens as well).
post #5594 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

I dont think anyone here knows the personal habits of musicians.There are some musicians who are very involved in the mixing/mastering and others who are not. Either way, it is the engineers in the studio who determine, for the most part, what recorded music sounds like at the end user level.

The decisions made in the studio at the mixing console are based as much on "good sound" as they are on "marketable sound." The two are often not the same.

Soundstage and imaging are byproducts of reverb, delay, reflections, etc. that occur both naturally (in the studio and in your listening room/headphone ear cup) and artificially. Like it or not, artificial DSP added by recording engineers in the studio is probably 90% of the "soundstage" people generally perceive and attribute to their signal chain (amp, DAC, headphone). Most modern music is recorded "in a vacuum" with each sound recorded onto a discrete channel. The channels are mixed together, volumes are tweaked, reverb is added, and positioning is adjusted until it sounds good to the engineer. When you or I listen to music on our headphones, our brains "fill in the blanks" and adjust our perception so that what we hear sounds natural and believable.

Using a single tube for both channels has advantages and disadvantages - none of which are really audible in a well designed amp. Crosstalk might be higher in a single tube, but it will still be inaudible with a good tube, and using a single tube makes matching the channels easier. One tube per channel, like balanced SS amps is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist at the human perception level. It simply adds appeal to the marketing department and profit to the sales department.

Tubes are inefficient and imperfect devices in the context of amplification. Yes, a tube amp can sound very good, but anyone with the ability to design/build an amplifier can make a SS amplifier that sounds exactly the same as any tube amp. The primary advantage of tube amps is that they look really cool when you turn the lights down so your music sounds better. SS amps sound colder and harsher, not because they do, but because we look at them and believe they must.

All my personal opinion, or course... redface.gif

Sounds about right to me, if you are willing to believe it just might sound so. +1


Edited by StanD - 12/30/13 at 6:03pm
post #5595 of 17111
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post
 

I'm a musician :D 

 

Just a quick note on audiophilia and musicians, they really don't go hand in hand generally speaking. I have spent hundreds of hours in recording studios playing from rock to soul/funk music and I as well as my band mates always wanted to sound like our fave artists. We were never looking for a 'hifi' experience, we were wanting drums like Bonham and guitar like Hendrix etc. Not the best sound possible. We would even try to emulate The Beatles stereo sound with drums on one channel and bass on the other. Trying to get the Zeppelin first album sound is not easy in a modern studio I can tell you haha. 

 

Audiophile recordings are limited to certain music genres in my experience. Classical/acoustic/Jazz/folk for e.g. Of course you can appreciate Rock and Pop on a great hifi but it will never have the dynamics. 

 

I still record music these days as a fun weekend thing in my old singers little studio. And although I would say that I have a much better ear these days, I'm still mixing for the song (or song type) not for the hifi experience. Because that would take something away from the artistic integrity, and I'm not a trained producer.  

Hendrix created a distorted sound that was specific, I'd like to hear it as intended, not messed with by crappy kit. Although a full DR may not be part of the elecric music (fusion jazz, roock, pop, etc) experience, that doesn't mean there are no dynamics, ever. So why do you think that one cannot achieve sounds in a modern recording studio that one could have in the past (60's & 70's)? I think there are sounds that one can achieve today that were not possible in the past.

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