Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Did HD800 fail? Poll: HD650 or HD800(vote only if you have listened to both)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did HD800 fail? Poll: HD650 or HD800(vote only if you have listened to both) - Page 10

Poll Results: Which do you prefer?

 
  • 37% (83)
    HD650
  • 62% (138)
    HD800
221 Total Votes  
post #136 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by immtbiker View Post

I know it's my wife's favorite headphones, next to my R-10's. 

 

I still can't get over the "sterile and anemic" comment.



I'm still not sure why you took such offence at someone expressing their honest opinion.

 

What do you take those words to mean?

 

I had always thought "anemic" was used to describe headphones with little bass. "Sterile" would normally simply mean they failed to produce an emotional response. What is the issue with either of those things?

 

You can't attack someone for saying a set of headphones didn't personally move him, or for rightly pointing out those headphones have little bass.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post

IME amps don't change the sound of a headphone THAT drastically to give a headphone a completely different sound signature.  The only times I've heard amps that change the sound a lot they're either crappy amps or underpowered.  I've heard dozens of tubes amps btw and it's usually the worse cheap tube amps that give that typical "tube sound" description.  I find that the better a tube amp or vinyl rig gets, the more similar it starts to sound to great solid state/digital.


Absolutely. 

 

post #137 of 178

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=853&graphID[]=573

 

 

I just had time with both HD650 and HD600 for a week side-by-side.  Bought the HD600 even though I wasn't looking to buy <either pair> but wanted to settle the classic debate for myself.  I was just missing something in the HD650 "more" than in the HD600.  HD650 were just a bit too dark for my current taste.  Before, I didn't find the HD600 very "exciting."  And wanted more bass impact.  Now they seem pretty solid to me...detailed and smooth but lacking some low bass/bass impact.

 

When I had a chance to listen to the HD800 I really liked them but it was a short audition to just get to know them.  I like to try to listen to headphones on several different occasions if possible, plus at home casually next to my other headphones to see what I want to reach for naturally.  

 

The HD800 have the bass the HD600 does not have, plus the treble the HD650 does not have...and the price of more than both!  Used, you might be able to have both HD600/HD650 for about $450, no?

 

First time I am looking at graphs and the treble peak or "spike" on the HD800 is higher in the range than on the HD600 and comes after a more pronounced "scoop".  

 

Would like to compare the HD600 to the HD800 to see if I can hear that difference...still listening/learning!!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post

 

That's actually a pretty common critique of the HD800 :p  Actually most bright headphones seem to get that comment from people who don't like them.

 

I think the HD800 does pretty much everything better than the HD6x0 except for tonality.  It is faster, more detailed, is better extended on both ends, has a larger soundstage, etc but the tonality is not as accurate to my ears.  It is simply too bright, whereas the HD650 is a little dark but not terribly so.  I think tonality is one of two major reasons that some might prefer the HD650 to the HD800 despite much of the HD800's technical superiority.  The other reason is likely the treble spike.  Many people are sensitive to a harsh treble spike like the one in the HD800 so it sticks out as offensive.  The HD650 on the other hand might not have tons of strengths, but it also has no major offenses either. 

 

 


Edited by CEE TEE - 4/14/11 at 12:07am
Reply
post #138 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEE TEE View Post

 


I find the HD600 neutral albeit a bit laid back and uninvolving (boring) however find the DT880 neutral and alive... look how close this is before the "scoop" whatever that is?

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2751&graphID[]=863

post #139 of 178

Could it be the "scoop" itself which makes that spike seem so pronounced and harsh?

 

We normally adjust volume for treble as that's what is hardest too take if too loud so if anything before 6k is a bit diminished so we have the volume right for that and then when something hits that spike it's all the more pronounced.

post #140 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by immtbiker View Post



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.
 

 



These headphones were purchased to listen through my home set-up, consisting entirely of vinyl records, Anemic = fatique easily, sterile = incapable of reproduction, I was expecting superb imaging and they failed , I was expecting a wide dynamic range and they failed,I was expecting a huge soundstage, this was achieved.

When I played a Stevie Wonder track (pastime paradise) depth and bass was almost non-existent, Cat Stevens sounded shrill and tubular bells came across as cold and non-involving, whether you value my imput or posts holds no relevance to me, this is my honest opinion on these headphones.    

I did give them four months of burn-in before they were re-sold.

  

 

post #141 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0wl1ng View Post

Anemic = fatique easily, sterile = incapable of reproduction,

 


???????????? Maybe you should reconsider which words to use and their meaning to expres your opinion.

 

post #142 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post




???????????? Maybe you should reconsider which words to use and their meaning to expres your opinion.

 


Eh ???
 

 

post #143 of 178
That is a pretty unique definition. Usually, in the context of audio, its taken to mean lacking bass and/or not imparting "weight" to individual notes.

On the other hand, how many anemic people run marathons? Etymologically, his definition makes a lot more sense. Even though I'm not sure about the label, I find the concept that it points to is likely to be true of the HD800s. I haven't listened to a pair long enough in one sitting to be sure, but open headphones with treble peaks usually fatigue me rather quickly.

Of course, I think its true by the other definition as well.
post #144 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0wl1ng View Post




Eh ???
 

 

That's what I mean...
 

 

post #145 of 178

That's the point - both terms are metaphorical when relating to headphones - the reaction against that poster using them was not accompanied by any explanation of what was wrong with those words, or attempt to gain clarity as to what he meant. I thought it was a bit harsh tbh...

 

post #146 of 178

I didn't vote, despite owning both at the same time. I love both to be honest. They are quite different in their presentation so it's difficult to compare, though I think the 650s can be just as enjoyable, if not more, from a synergistic setup. The 800s are technically superior, but that doesn't always translate to more enjoyment or involvement because of their more distant/detached presentation (which is needed to produce their awesome headstage). The 800s I think are much pickier when it comes to ancillaries, but very rewarding when you find the right combination. The 650s can be made to sound good on a larger range of setups IME. Anyhoo...I like both and will re-purchase a pair of 800s down the road.


 

 

 


Edited by Shahrose - 4/14/11 at 5:12am
post #147 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

Could it be the "scoop" itself which makes that spike seem so pronounced and harsh?

 

We normally adjust volume for treble as that's what is hardest too take if too loud so if anything before 6k is a bit diminished so we have the volume right for that and then when something hits that spike it's all the more pronounced.


IMO, yes.  It is the scoop that makes the peak more pronounced.  This scoop also gives the HD800 the same midrange warmth as the HD650, warmer than the HD650 in the mids to my ears...which is a good thing, except that treble spike is what ruins it for me.  IME an EQ'd HD800 to match the HD650 in tonality, will not just blow the HD650 out of the water, but out of this galaxy.  In all fairness, I found the HD650 tonality spot on, criticisms of the HD650 not being able to reproduce cymbals accurately have nothing to do with its treble amplitudes, but everything to do with treble definition...a lot of data is missing from the cymbals, hence a grain is heard in the trebles by many.

 

post #148 of 178

You're right, it was a bit harsh, and I apologize for that (I am not feeling well the last 3 days). Thank you for not taking my words too harshly. Like I said, anybody could dislike a headphone for any reason, but to me, the word "anemic", has always meant "lifeless" and regardless of whatever inadequacies that the 800's might have, lifeless is not one of them, nor is sterile.

 

Dictionary meaning.  Anemic: lacking force, vitality, or spirit <an anemic rendition of the song> <anemic efforts at enforcement, lacking interest or savor. Lacking in substance or quantity.

 

I don't feel that the HD800's fall under either of these definitions.

 

Yes, they have their flaws, but anemic and sterile aren't good adjectives to use to describe these phones. And I do feel that they best the HD6XX family.

 

Are they overpriced? Aren't most consumer products? However, given the choices that we are given, I feel it is a damn good phone, and comes close to a true representation of the original production.

 

Thank you for being level headed, and proving your point in the most sensible way possible. You could have turned this into a pissing contest,

Look, if nature made us all like the same things, then we would only need one pair of headphones, wouldn't we?

 

I find the HD800's comfortable, having a huge soundstage that I feel accurately presents the music the way that the engineers wanted it to be portrayed, and yes, it has flaws. But anemic and sterile are not 2 of them.

IMHO, of course.

 

I also feel that the PS1000's are even more overpriced, was rushed out to be able to compete with the Sennheisers, have many more flaws and do not accurately provide a good presentation of the original recordings, and is based to much on it's predecessors. A lot of members say that the T-1's were based on the DT-880 and I feel that it couldn't be farther from the truth. I think that it's a much better phone than the 800's. But only the engineers will really know what previous component they were bassed on, And aside from the lack of treble sparkle, they are a contender for one of the top tier headphones, especially when they were $1299.

                                    

 

 

 

 

 

post #149 of 178

Agree on the PS1000, and for me the Ultrasone ones too. Still the same basic drivers, they've pretty much just added small tweaks and abundant lavish cosmetic finishing to justify the price they wanted to charge.

 

£1k is too much for dynamic phones - that's my opinion - but Sennheiser and beyerdynamic at least put in solid R&D and added completely new ideas to the dynamic headphone genre. For my tastes beyer's effort was a huge success and one of the best headphones I've ever heard, and for my tastes the HD800 does not sound good. But taste is subjective, and objectively I can at least applaud Sennheisers attempts at innovation.

post #150 of 178

When is the HD850 going to be announced?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Did HD800 fail? Poll: HD650 or HD800(vote only if you have listened to both)