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 6

Poll Results: Which do you prefer?

 
  • 37% (83)
    HD650
  • 62% (138)
    HD800
221 Total Votes  
post #76 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

Quote:

=]

 

No, apparently it's called "three faulted products whose defects coincidentally cancel each other out."  


biggrin.gif beerchug.gif

 

post #77 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

Quote:

=]

 

No, apparently it's called "three faulted products whose defects coincidentally cancel each other out."  


Is it not a defect if a headphone needs colored gear to sound right?  Maybe you can get around it and wind up with a headphone you love, but I still think that's a defect, or if defect is too strong a word, a fault.  Anytime a headphone has very specific amp requirements that are unrelated to voltage/current (example: HE6), I think it is likely because the headphone is colored in a way that needs fixing by colored gear.  That's why the K701 is so fussy about amps (and genres).  And in a way, a headphone being really power hungry is a fault as well, or at least a weakness, even if it is one you can buy your way out of. 

 


Edited by rhythmdevils - 4/11/11 at 8:04pm
post #78 of 178

I kinda feel like the 800 needs uncolored gear actually and really getting that costs a pretty penny.  The 650s improve with things like silver coated recable and stark gear to try to get around the dullness of sound.  That was documented for years on thread after thread.  I still have them with the Zu recable on my 650s and they sound good on the Zana Deux too, which is a very stark sounding amp but works its magic on either phone luckily.  

 

Gotta say though that seeing the poll and hearing the comments just reaffirms to me that we all need to hear headphones on our "buy" list before ever buying them, i am perplexed how there could be much of a debate about these two...... but i guess some people even prefer Dr Dre Beats being that they don't have sibilance, they are warm and bassy and many don't care about instrument placement, detail and soundstage, besides they don't need an amp, can be driven well out of an ipod, ect ect.blink.gif

post #79 of 178
Well, if it hurts my ears then it doesn't matter how good anything else is. It won't matter if I can only listen 5 minutes at a time.
post #80 of 178

Very true, that's why there are meets.

post #81 of 178
The 5-minute thing is a little exaggerated, but that treble peak bothered me on every system I heard them on at CanJam last year, and there were a lot of HD800s there. It was much less annoying with classical but that's hardly my primary genre. If it was, I think the awesome soundstage would make up for it and I would prefer them over the HD650s. As it stands though, I wouldn't buy them even If I could afford them.

The current production flagship I'd own if I had the funds for one would be the LCD-2. The soundstage isn't quite as vast, but they are smoother and darker (which I prefer) and they didn't seem to over exaggerate flaws in recording or mixing like many other high end phones do, which is very similar to how I'd describe my HD650s. The HD800s are to the K701s as the LCD-2s are to the HD650s IMO.

Since I place primary emphasis on the overall sound sig, I'll easily take a less technically advanced 'phone that matches my preferences over a more refined one that doesn't. I can see people going the other way, and that hardly make the HD800 bad. It backs up its status as a flagship model with technical refinement and excellent SQ but whether someone enjoys it will come down to simple preferences.
post #82 of 178

 

 
It's interesting that many people characterize HD800 as bright (or over-bright).
 
I have compared the sound signature of the HD800 with those of many studio monitors (JBLs, Mackie HRs (the old ones, not the MK2), Dynaudios, some old Yamahas and others) and found, that I can only define HD800 HF response as “exact”. It is simply true to the recording.
 
A friend of mine listened to some of his own works on the HD800 and said, that they translated his recordings perfectly. Everything he put not only into the mix, but to the music itself, was reproduced (including HF). 
 
I cannot comment on other people experience. Maybe the recording was mastered/remastered with a boost in the HF (which happens quite often), or the amp affected the frequency response, or, perhaps, that “studio” sound is not pleasing to one’s ears.
 
Still, I define HD800’s sound as “exact”.
 
post #83 of 178
Finnegans, I also find the HD-800 accurate to the live event. I've heard sibilance in live performances, so if a headphone accurately portrays sibilance existing on a recording, I don't fault the headphone. I want my headphones (and speakers) to reproduce what's on the recording, good or bad. Anything that masks the recording is not accurate.
post #84 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnegans View Post

I have compared the sound signature of the HD800 with those of many studio monitors (JBLs, Mackie HRs (the old ones, not the MK2), Dynaudios, some old Yamahas and others) and found, that I can only define HD800 HF response as “exact”. It is simply true to the recording.
 


I own Mackie HR624's (the old version if that matters) and the HD800 were far brighter when I heard them, and had much colder tone.

 

post #85 of 178



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnegans View Post

 

 
It's interesting that many people characterize HD800 as bright (or over-bright).
 
I have compared the sound signature of the HD800 with those of many studio monitors (JBLs, Mackie HRs (the old ones, not the MK2), Dynaudios, some old Yamahas and others) and found, that I can only define HD800 HF response as “exact”. It is simply true to the recording.
 
A friend of mine listened to some of his own works on the HD800 and said, that they translated his recordings perfectly. Everything he put not only into the mix, but to the music itself, was reproduced (including HF). 
 
I cannot comment on other people experience. Maybe the recording was mastered/remastered with a boost in the HF (which happens quite often), or the amp affected the frequency response, or, perhaps, that “studio” sound is not pleasing to one’s ears.
 
Still, I define HD800’s sound as “exact”.
 


Hard to comment on that. I've stated several times that I find the balance of the 650 very true to what I hear in the concert hall. But as has been pointed out, that depends where one sits in the concert hall. Bass will travel miles, but high frequencies dissipate markedly with distance, so where one sits is critical in terms of the sound one associates with "live" and "accurate". Probably if I sat in the first few rows I'd be hearing more detail and certainly more high frequencies and my idea of "live" might well be more like the 800, but that doesn't mean I'd like it. The 650's great strength is balance, not just in terms of FR but in skirting the line between resolution and smoothness, between providing enough insight into the sound to satisfy most audiophile aspirations without laying bare the recording's shortcomings--and most recordings have shortcomings. I'm quite happy to concede, even without having heard it, that the 800 trounces the 650 in terms of resolution, soundstage and HF extension--and still I have no desire to own it. Why? Because user comments, both for and against, have convinced me that this is a phone designed to sound absolutely brilliant on top grade material and to mercilessly dissect everything else, and unfortunately much of my library consists of  "everything else". So I don't really care if the 800 is "studio accurate". My only question is, will it make my music library sound better as a whole, or will it have me gasping at the best of it and groaning at the rest? 
 

 

post #86 of 178

One of my house mates is a drummer, I hear cymbals every day and brushes on snare drums many days - there is essentially not a chance in hell that you will convince me the HD800 represents them anything like reality. There would never be cymbals on drum kits if they really sounded like that, and the person who invented them would have been blindfolded and shot.

post #87 of 178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post

Finnegans, I also find the HD-800 accurate to the live event. I've heard sibilance in live performances, so if a headphone accurately portrays sibilance existing on a recording, I don't fault the headphone. I want my headphones (and speakers) to reproduce what's on the recording, good or bad. Anything that masks the recording is not accurate.


Completely agree! I'm thinking the same way.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post




I own Mackie HR624's (the old version if that matters) and the HD800 were far brighter when I heard them, and had much colder tone.

 


Don’t know what to say – when we were making this test at the local studio, we didn’t find any coloration in HD800 (of course, there is *always* some coloration, but its extent differs). All people (musicians, engineers) agreed that these headphones are neutral and they translate mixes in that way. As for the sound signature of the Mackies, it differs from Senns, but not in the way we could think they are “bright” (by the way, Mackies, though being great monitors indeed, are not very neutral, and I’m not the only person who thinks so – they have quite peculiar sound signature themselves!). 

post #88 of 178

What is in your opinion, the peculiar sound signature of the Mackies?  I find them to be quite neutral, more so then any headphone I have ever heard.  In fact the entire motivation and sole purpose of my headphone journey for the past 6 years has been to find the same balanced sound signature in a pair of headphones.  I can say with quite a bit of confidence that it does not yet exist.  Though I hope to someday mod my orthos to sound close.


Edited by rhythmdevils - 4/12/11 at 1:17am
post #89 of 178


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

What is in your opinion, the peculiar sound signature of the Mackies?  I find them to be quite neutral, more so then any headphone I have ever heard.  In fact the entire motivation and sole purpose of my headphone journey for the past 6 years has been to find the same balanced sound signature in a pair of headphones.  I can say with quite a bit of confidence that it does not yet exist.  Though I hope to someday mod my orthos to sound close.

 

 

As for me, I find Macke’s mids very detailed and transparent, but mmm… “hollow”. Due to this, (when I close my eyes) I cannot get away the feeling that I’m listening to speakers - there is something between me and music. I don’t get the same feeling while listening to JBLs or Dynaudios. Please, excuse me for giving so uncertain explanation – I can’t elaborate it (at least for now). It’s just how I feel. And I also think that we should not argue on this, as it’s a matter of personal preferences after all. The HR are truly exceptional monitors, praised by many pros all over the world, and I do not question their neutrality. They ARE neutral indeed, but the neutrality also sounds different (as I have said, there is always some coloration, and even studio monitors all sound different).

post #90 of 178
I have listened at home for long extended periods with my own equipment the following phones,

HD600
HD650
K701
DT880
K1000 light and bass heavy
HE-6

With the exception of the HE-6, the HD800 is clearly a higher fidelity headphone. Some people may prefer a phone like the HD650 because they like it's character and sound signature and there's nothing wrong with that. My opinion the HD800 is a BETTER phone sonically, with a clearer window to the live event.
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)