Did HD800 fail? Poll: HD650 or HD800(vote only if you have listened to both) - Page 8

I don't understand how you could like the HD800 and Omega.  They have such different tone.  It reinforces my theory that we don't actually hear much differently from one another, we just have different priorities.  It seems that for you, it is clarity and detail that is most important (2 things the Omega and HD800 both have in common) and you can adjust or get used to different tonal balances.  But for me, or someone who prefers the HD650 over the HD800, tonality is more important than clarity/detail.  All the phones I like have similar tone, but they very pretty greatly in soundstage, detail, speed, and clarity. 

The treble roll-off of the HD650 makes it impossible to properly play back orchestral cymbals. While being in a concert hall sitting in the fifth row in the center, I head impression hearing the cymbals that it's not only impossible for headphones like HD650 to resemble their sound but it's an overall difficult task for any electroacoustic equipment including expensive speaker setups. The sparkle and texture of the sound is in fact very complex and it's audible despite cymbals being positioned in the back row of the orchestra. The HD800's are a bit of the lean and metallic kind of presentation due to narrow dip in the middle of the treble range but unlike the HD650 they reproduce the highest audible frequencies which the HD600 also do and the HD650's frequency cut-out is much broader.

Edited by majkel - 4/13/11 at 4:42am

Per OP's original post, I don't understand the logic of how rising prices of HD650s mean that the HD800 has "failed." Also, the title of this thread "Did HD800 fail" may bias the poll results. Personally, I own the HD650s (one of my favorites) and compared them to the 800s at meets, on the same gear, and I thought the resolution, detail, and overall quality was noticeably better on the 800s.

Beats market is different from hd650 market. They don't pursue ultimate sq, they pursue a certain lifestyle; in a way the same majority iPod crowd. For them style and portability is more important than pure sq. In that regard, how good hd800 would sound if you stick it directly to iPod and walk around the street? Only similarity is they are both headphones.

I own the HD650 , and love them  however the HD800 is the most overated and anemic sounding headphone I have heard within that pricepoint (and a lot lower), sterile and cold.  

I knew my HD650s were done for when I literally fell asleep to watching "It Might Get Loud" using them. I am a HUGE Led Zeppelin fan and the chance to watch Jimmy Page (and The Edge + Jack White...both of whom I respect a whole lot), but the HD650s presented the music in such a boring way I couldn't stay awake.

Their fatal flaws for me were the significant mid-bass hump and non-existent treble (not rolled back, but off a cliff). I really appreciate the pushed back, though very extended treble of the LCD-2s, but the "missing" treble on the HD650s really bothered me. About 45 minutes into it (I can't say for sure as I did fall asleep ), I switched to my RS1s and had a very enjoyable evening.

Since picking up the HD800s, I can easily say that they best my HD650s in every way (including the often neglected comfort factor). Can the HD800s sound cold and sterile...sure when not properly amped and with non-ideal sources...are they for everyone...certainly not. There are no "one size fits all" headphones to date.

As well, the argument saying that since the HD650's price increased is evidence that Sennheiser feels that the HD800s have some how missed the mark really holds no water as the price of the HD800s HAS also increased.

The other argument that well, the HD650s haven't been discontinued, also holds no water...were the DT880s discontinued when the T1s were released or the HE-5LEs when the HE-6s were released?
Edited by MacedonianHero - 4/13/11 at 7:32am

Quote:Originally Posted by MacedonianHero 

"I knew my HD650s were done for when I literally fell asleep to watching "It Might Get Loud" using them. I am a HUGE Led Zeppelin fan and the chance to watch Jimmy Page (and The Edge + Jack White...both of whom I respect a whole lot), but the HD650s presented the music in such a boring way I couldn't stay awake.

Their fatal flaws for me were the significant mid-bass hump and non-existent treble (not rolled back, but off a cliff). I really appreciate the pushed back, though very extended treble of the LCD-2s, but the "missing" treble on the HD650s really bothered me. About 45 minutes into it (I can't say for sure as I did fall asleep ), I switched to my RS1s and had a very enjoyable evening.

Since picking up the HD800s, I can easily say that they best my HD650s in every way (including the often neglected comfort factor). Can the HD800s sound cold and sterile...sure when not properly amped and with non-ideal sources...are they for everyone...certainly not. There are no "one size fits all" headphones to date.

As well, the argument saying that since the HD650's price increased is evidence that Sennheiser feels that the HD800s have some how missed the mark really holds no water as the price of the HD800s HAS also increased.

The other argument that well, the HD650s haven't been discontinued, also holds no water...were the DT880s discontinued when the T1s were released or the HE-5LEs when the HE-6s were released?"


I agree totally and will add that no manufacturer would discontinue a profitable headphone at an important price point. One that has many competitors.

 

 

yes, the sleepy Senn HD650.

Saying that the HD800'd are cold, sterile, and anemic *even at that pricepoint" tells me that I cannot take your opinions seriously. The HD800's are anything but anemic....c'mon. sterile....c'mon. Overrated...maybe, but then again aren't many high priced headphones considered "overrated"?

Obviously, you have not heard any headphones that are considered "anemic". They are the antithesis of anemic.

You might not like them, but your descriptive words couldn't be father from the truth. I'm not sure if you don't have a plethora of headphones that you have listened to over the years, but your descriptions couldn't be farther from the truth.

Choose your words wisely, because on a forum, that is all that people have to judge you by. The HD800's aren't even close to being anemic.

 

I can no longer value your input or posts.

There are many headphones that I like better than the 800's, but they are far from anemic. Is there anyone else in this thread that consider the 800's anemic?

They are musical, offer a large soundstage, and the sound is pretty true to the recording. It may not be your cup lf tea, and that's fine, but "sterile, cold and anemic" they are far from.

How many hours and what equipment have you used to form this opinion?

IMHO.
 

 

A few tweaks to my 650's added more than enough sparkle and more detail to the upper end. Simply removing the foam out the driver and replacing it with a small peice of tissue paper(I've tried lots of different materials) and the clarity and detail is remarkable as opposed to stock. Without anything on the driver there is congestion so the complete foam mod is not for me. Also recabled. Different cables change the sound so much, I have a very thick copper homemade job, and this has added much more attack and sharpness in regards to timing. The soundstage was improved by both mods.      

 

My 650's have been changed from stock mode (which I enjoyed for a lot of years) to a better headphone (for me) with the same none fatuiging nuetral characteristics that they are loved for... only much more!. I would really love to hear the HD800's to compare them because I really can't imagine (and I have a huuuge imagination ha ha) them being THAT... much better for the price!

 

 

Well let's get our terminology down right - 

 

What do we mean by "anemic", what do we mean by "musical", what do we mean by "cold" and "sterile". Who gets to decide what is true to the recording?

 

Quote:Originally Posted by immtbiker 



"Saying that the HD800'd are cold, sterile, and anemic *even at that pricepoint" tells me that I cannot take your opinions seriously. The HD800's are anything but anemic....c'mon. sterile....c'mon. Overrated...maybe, but then again aren't many high priced headphones considered "overrated"?Obviously, you have not heard any headphones that are considered "anemic". They are the antithesis of anemic.You might not like them, but your descriptive words couldn't be father from the truth. I'm not sure if you don't have a plethora of headphones that you have listened to over the years, but your descriptions couldn't be farther from the truth.Choose your words wisely, because on a forum, that is all that people have to judge you by. The HD800's aren't even close to being anemic.
I can no longer value your input or posts.There are many headphones that I like better than the 800's, but they are far from anemic. Is there anyone else in this thread that consider the 800's anemic?They are musical, offer a large soundstage, and the sound is pretty true to the recording. It may not be your cup lf tea, and that's fine, but "sterile, cold and anemic" they are far from.How many hours and what equipment have you used to form this opinion?IMHO."


I totally agree. I think the HD800 is hearty and robust with proper amping. IMHO, the HD650 is too sweet in the mids with too much bloom at the bottom. Also, as mentioned, the mid bass hump and the suppressed highs can make the HD650 come off as dark.

Very insightful observation.

Except, I find the HD650s tonality more off than many headphones...the overly emphasized mid-bass hump and rolled off (to non-existent) treble does not make the HD650s "more tonally accurate". YMMV.

I used to own the HD650 in the past and now own the HD800. I have absolutely no urge to go back to the HD650, although I also did enjoy HD650 very much.  And I find the HD800 just as musical as my LCD-2, just in a different way.