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 486

post #7276 of 17469
Neutral isn't always natural. 600's are natural
post #7277 of 17469
I've read the 800 is pretty neutral. But I find it rather strident.
post #7278 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post

I've read the 800 is pretty neutral. But I find it rather strident.
Have you heard it with the matching HDVD?
I thought it was fabulous.
post #7279 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post

If you truly heard a neutral response, you likely wouldn't like it. There's hardly a bump in the senns.

I would like to quibble with this statement here :P ;) 

 

When I think of neutral I mean gear that is uncoloured. Gear that lets me hear what was intended to be heard. Anything other than that is coloured or changed in some way and as such is not neutral. Essentially, I seek fidelity. Now, I know that no headphone is actually flat because it would sound "wrong" (ie: not the way the studio intended it) by the time you perceive it. As such, drivers are tuned so that the headphone sounds "right" (the way the studio perceived it). 

 

So, I think you and I may be referring to a different conception of 'neutral' here.

 

Now, a couple posts below you say that neutral and natural are different things. Now I am confused! :P 

 

Now, what I was wondering is this: a completely neutral response may not be conducive to fidelity because, well, it isn't actually what was intended in the studio. Okay, my claim here probably sounds erroneous, but just hear me out for a second. Take the Etymotic 4S for example. My brother has a pair, and he says that while they are super neutral and have a flat frequency response, therefore doing the very job he needs for when he's mixing (he's working on an album right now) he says that they lack that natural, "real" sound. This isn't to say they aren't accurate. They are. But he seems to suggest that they are devoid of any sub-bass and present the music in an unnatural way, almost as if he is looking at the music through a measuring instrument instead of 'experiencing' it. 

 

So, they do a great job for him to check his mixes. But still he uses his monitors, which are flat and neutral, to do the final check of his mixes because he feels that while the monitors surely exhibit fidelity they sound more "real" and not like he is listening to his music through some sort of measuring instrument (like the Etys). 

 

So, my point about the HD600 is that maybe they sound natural (like my brother's monitors - the exception being the slight emphasis in the mid-bass of the HD600) in that they produce a 'real' sound that is what was actually intended. They aren't a measuring tool like the Etys that are used to measure and analyze the music in the studio. 

 

Bear in mind I've yet to hear the HD600, but to me the Q701 sounded like a measuring tool for the studio. The bass information was there, but it had no impact and sounded fake to me. But the reviews for the HD600 really turn me on. :P

post #7280 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismusic View Post


Have you heard it with the matching HDVD?
I thought it was fabulous.

I did not, but I'd like that.  I know its an amazing headphone, I just haven't heard it at its prime I think.

post #7281 of 17469

having worked in the recording studio as well, I have an interesting nugget.  I think the truth is that there is no such thing as uncolored sound.  every link in the chain does something, on purpose or not.  Back in the day, the thought was to design a microphone that was completely neutral. Only picking up exactly what it heard, and adding no color at all.  Well, they made that microphone, and everyone hated it.  The brand leaves me, but I can find out.  maybe your brother knows.  point is, that it just sounded bad.

 

The 600's, with their sound, is one of the most natural sounding cans I've ever heard.  instruments sound like they should.  voices sound right.  yes there are cans with greater detail, wider soundstage, punchier bass, but the 600 just sounds good.  

 

In hind sight, I probably should not have made such definitive comments so quickly.  i was singing in church at the time! lol.  

 

In the audiophile world, I often find that "neutral" means very little bass.  IMHO.  

post #7282 of 17469

The brain adjusts to make anything it hears sound "natural." It's the reason why a person who has listened to Grado's for years will hate the way the HD 600 sounds (flat and boring). Likewise, a long-time HD 600 listener will find Grado's bright and piercing. Live with either one long enough and the brain will adjust and make either one sound just right.

post #7283 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post
 

having worked in the recording studio as well, I have an interesting nugget.  I think the truth is that there is no such thing as uncolored sound.  every link in the chain does something, on purpose or not.  Back in the day, the thought was to design a microphone that was completely neutral. Only picking up exactly what it heard, and adding no color at all.  Well, they made that microphone, and everyone hated it.  The brand leaves me, but I can find out.  maybe your brother knows.  point is, that it just sounded bad.

 

The 600's, with their sound, is one of the most natural sounding cans I've ever heard.  instruments sound like they should.  voices sound right.  yes there are cans with greater detail, wider soundstage, punchier bass, but the 600 just sounds good.  

 

In hind sight, I probably should not have made such definitive comments so quickly.  i was singing in church at the time! lol.  

 

In the audiophile world, I often find that "neutral" means very little bass.  IMHO.  

Interesting. Very interesting. 

 

Yeah, I concur on the lack of bass claim. I find that it's not as much about a lack of bass in so far as the information and loudness of bass is there, but instead there's a lack of sub-bass. Indeed, that's a limitation of headphones, but listening to the Q701 really exemplified the phenomenon. I was even using a warm-ish amp, and they sounded terrible. Again, I can see how someone might use them as a measurement tool in the studio. They'd give you a rather sterile look at what your music sounds like. But they aren't immersive. Instruments have sub-bass and "feel" to them that isn't exhibited by the Q701. 

 

I am so very intrigued by the HD600 though. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with my KRK 8400 and clip zip until I get a job, and the economy is brutal right now. 

post #7284 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic Atrocity View Post
 

 My brother has a pair, and he says that while they are super neutral and have a flat frequency response

 

A flat frequency response would sound absolutely awful to our ears. There would be spikes, and roll-offs all over the spectrum. You would especially get problems between 6-10k.

 

This is why there is only subjective opinions on what headphone is "neutral", because the definition will vary from user to user.

 

A measured "flat" frequency response curve =/= neutral.

post #7285 of 17469

(Double post: For what it's worth, I personally believe the HD600 is very neutral.)

post #7286 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post
 

 

A flat frequency response would sound absolutely awful to our ears. There would be spikes, and roll-offs all over the spectrum. You would especially get problems between 6-10k.

 

This is why there is only subjective opinions on what headphone is "neutral", because the definition will vary from user to user.

 

A measured "flat" frequency response curve =/= neutral.

Okay, umm, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to parse this out. 

 

Doesn't neutral just mean that the gear used does not alter the sound from what was intended in the studio and/or that no particular frequency is boosted? So, perhaps the frequency response curve is not flat but it is equal across the spectrum, ie: no frequencies are emphasized. 

 

Otherwise, I could conceivably argue that the Beats are are neutral, no? 

 

Please don't let me irritate you. I'm just trying to understand.

post #7287 of 17469
post #7288 of 17469
Quote:

Thank you for your efforts at providing assistance to me here (I mean that sincerely :) ), but I don't think I'm being clear enough about my point. 

 

When I think of "neutral" gear I don't think of gear that corrects for the dips and spikes caused by the very shape of my ear. After all, how my ears are shaped has determined how I hear throughout my entire life. Indeed, how I 'hear' a song will be different from how everyone on this planet 'hears' a song because of the differences in the shape of our ears. As such, it isn't that I want to hear exactly what the studio producer was hearing when they produced the album - because I can't. I don't have their ears, and as such can only listen with mine. But what I want to hear is no different from the objective material that was produced in the studio...

 

So, let's say that my ears were conducive to different spikes and dips than what is demonstrated in the link so kindly provided by Palmfish, I wouldn't want my gear to correct for my ears' abnormalities. Even if it means I am hearing things vastly different from how others are that is fine by me if it is just a result of my weird ears. Though, all this being said, I think my ears are fairly "normal". 

 

So, when I say that I want neutral gear what I mean is this: I want gear that plays the material (the music) back to me for what it is. No more, no less. I don't want my gear to place an emphasis on any frequency for my enjoyment or for a presentation that is different from the source material. It is the objective product that came straight from the studio that I want to hear, and the only changes to that product that are okay are the changes caused by my very own ears. 

 

So, there ought to be some objective standard for what is the most neutral playback possible. This is why we almost unanimously agree the Beats are further from neutral than the HD800. If the conception of neutral was contingent upon subjective factors then there wouldn't even be a wide standard for what constitutes neutrality. It'd be entirely arbitrary.

 

Edit: I may be way off here, and maybe this belongs in the science forum - I'm sorry. 

post #7289 of 17469
I think "neutral" is a subjective term that is different for every individual based on biology, culture, experience, acclimation, and a host of other factors. In other words, neutral is in the ear of the listener.
post #7290 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

I think "neutral" is a subjective term that is different for every individual based on biology, culture, experience, acclimation, and a host of other factors. In other words, neutral is in the ear of the listener.

I thought "neutral" was a flat line frequency response.
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