or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › HiFiman HE-500 (HE as in High End) Proving to be an enjoyable experience in listening. .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HiFiman HE-500 (HE as in High End) Proving to be an enjoyable experience in listening. . - Page 533

post #7981 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by detoxguy View Post


I haven't heard the Audeze headphones at all but now that you have the HE-6 (I know it's early) but I was wondering if you think it's a better headphone for multiple genres than the LCD 2.2 (LCD 3 is simply too expensive)?

The Audezes are the only headphone at this point that I'm tempted by (other than the unreachable Stax 009) but I'd have to sell the HE-500 to get them and the thought stresses me out. Is the HE-6 sound similar to the HE-500 but more refined or a whole different beast? I really didn't like the HE-400 as I found the emphasis on bass came at the expense of the rest of the spectrum. I love bass, I just want it like the artist intended it.

If the HE-500 had the soundstage of the HD-800 I'd weep for joy. In that sense the HD-800 just crushes any other headphone I'd heard.

HE6 would sound quite different than HE500.  I call it "somewhat" ortho HD800 in term of neutral/resolution and FR curve with less soundstage and a little more felt impact (not so much more in quantity) in the bass being an ortho.  Prepare to look for a capable amp if you are buying the HE6.  And of course, people will say HE6 is a better headphone because it cost more.  You don't even have to ask.  :D 

And No, you would never know what the artist intended.  People who say that, IMO, are just purely ignorant and full of bull crap.  Please don't get offended.  I am just speaking in general.


Edited by koiloco - 9/18/13 at 9:32am
post #7982 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by koiloco View Post
 

HE6 would sound quite different than HE500.  I call it "somewhat" ortho HD800 in term of neutral/resolution and FR curve with less soundstage and a little more felt impact (not so much more in quantity) in the bass being an ortho.  Prepare to look for a capable amp if you are buying the HE6.  And of course, people will say HE6 is a better headphone because it cost more.  You don't even have to ask.  :D 

And No, you would never know what the artist intended.  People who say that, IMO, are just purely ignorant and full of bull crap.  Please don't get offended.  I am just speaking in general.

 

Word...+1

post #7983 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by detoxguy View Post


I haven't heard the Audeze headphones at all but now that you have the HE-6 (I know it's early) but I was wondering if you think it's a better headphone for multiple genres than the LCD 2.2 (LCD 3 is simply too expensive)?

The Audezes are the only headphone at this point that I'm tempted by (other than the unreachable Stax 009) but I'd have to sell the HE-500 to get them and the thought stresses me out. Is the HE-6 sound similar to the HE-500 but more refined or a whole different beast? I really didn't like the HE-400 as I found the emphasis on bass came at the expense of the rest of the spectrum. I love bass, I just want it like the artist intended it.

If the HE-500 had the soundstage of the HD-800 I'd weep for joy. In that sense the HD-800 just crushes any other headphone I'd heard.

 

I sold LCD-2 and HE-500 after owning each for a long time to get a LCD-3. I'd recommend initially having both HE-500 and LCD-2 before jumping to the flagships. Also, look for used models. This should be easy with LCD-2. Keep both for a long time and then enjoy it, get habitual for a few months. After that, pick which ever sound you like more and upgrade that. 

post #7984 of 18090
Originally Posted by detoxguy View Post


Yeah t1 and especially hd 800 are better headphones. Maybe you prefer he-500 but performance and specs, they are better. The hd 800 is far better in just about everything except bass quantity

 

 

What is better on hD800 in specs comparing to hifimans?

 

http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/build-a-graph.php?graphID%5B0%5D=4061&graphID%5B1%5D=2251&graphID%5B2%5D=2871&graphID%5B3%5D=&scale=30&graphType=0&buttonSelection=Update+Graph

 

http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/build-a-graph.php?graphID%5B0%5D=4061&graphID%5B1%5D=2251&graphID%5B2%5D=2871&graphID%5B3%5D=3241&scale=30&graphType=3&buttonSelection=Update+Graph

 

I think they are very close to each other. Same T1 even they have bigger harmonic distortion together with he6. 

IMO arguing which one is superior is nonsense as whole system plays its role into overall SQ. I would personally focus on what I prefer most in sound from headphones, grab one and try to get best possible synergy wit rest of the system. For my ears and preferences planars do more things right than all dynamic headphones including hd800 and K1000 and PROBABLY Stax ( never heard but I could describe it as too delicate sublime and not suited for heavier music, even its transparency and highs would shock me at first listen).

post #7985 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by detoxguy View Post

I haven't heard the Audeze headphones at all but now that you have the HE-6 (I know it's early) but I was wondering if you think it's a better headphone for multiple genres than the LCD 2.2 (LCD 3 is simply too expensive)?

The Audezes are the only headphone at this point that I'm tempted by (other than the unreachable Stax 009) but I'd have to sell the HE-500 to get them and the thought stresses me out. Is the HE-6 sound similar to the HE-500 but more refined or a whole different beast? I really didn't like the HE-400 as I found the emphasis on bass came at the expense of the rest of the spectrum. I love bass, I just want it like the artist intended it.

If the HE-500 had the soundstage of the HD-800 I'd weep for joy. In that sense the HD-800 just crushes any other headphone I'd heard.

I prefer he-6 now to lcd-2 but i think theyre both great all rounders though the he-6 are slightly better in this regard as are the hifiman he-500.

For me on the gsx mk2, its better than he-500 but is still very similar and besides soundstage, coherency, treble, transparency, and bass quality, they are very similar, the sound of the he-500 since they are so well powered by the gsx is 90% of the he-6 performance wise. However, the he-6 is clearly a superior headphone and it sounds like im definitely still not getting the absolute best out of them. They will continue to get better and better with speaker amps and there really isnt a limit. I can see someone chooisng he-6 over hd 800 easily. The audeze lcd-3 would be a nice complement to the he-6 if you prefer a planar headphone over a dynamic
post #7986 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by koiloco View Post
 

And No, you would never know what the artist intended.  People who say that, IMO, are just purely ignorant and full of bull crap.  Please don't get offended.  I am just speaking in general.

 

More often than not with big budget stuff, the artists vision gets corrupted anyway. I think most of the time with people who engineer and mix their own work, how are you not hearing what they intended? I don't think with any music I've ever made, if I heard it in a different system, I would say, "the sound is too analytical this is corrupting my art" and no musician I have ever known has said anything along those lines. That's not even like... a thing that anyone, and I've known a LOT of musicians, including ones who are very into audiophile stuff, have ever talked about.

 

but here's something in regards to nico

 

Quote:
 

For her debut album, 1967's Chelsea Girl, she recorded songs by Bob Dylan. Nico was not satisfied with the album and had little say in production matters. In retrospect, she said in 1981:


"I still cannot listen to it, because everything I wanted for that record, they took it away. I asked for drums, they said no. I asked for more guitars, they said no. And I asked for simplicity, and they covered it in flutes! [...] They added strings, and— I didn't like them, but I could live with them. But the flute! The first time I heard the album, I cried and it was all because of the flute."

 

 

So in that sense... yes maybe we are not hearing what the artist intended, and headphones are never going to change that :D

post #7987 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llloyd View Post
 

 

More often than not with big budget stuff, the artists vision gets corrupted anyway. I think most of the time with people who engineer and mix their own work, how are you not hearing what they intended? I don't think with any music I've ever made, if I heard it in a different system, I would say, "the sound is too analytical this is corrupting my art" and no musician I have ever known has said anything along those lines. That's not even like... a thing that anyone, and I've known a LOT of musicians, including ones who are very into audiophile stuff, have ever talked about.

 

but here's something in regards to nico

 

 

So in that sense... yes maybe we are not hearing what the artist intended, and headphones are never going to change that :D

Llloyd, I totally got what you are saying here but to elaborate on my previous statement and give an example.  Currently, I am in the work of mixing an album for a friend.  It's just some choir/religious stuff.  As always, these days when I mix, I listen to my mix on everything I can get my hands on, IEM, HPs, home stereo, boom box, car...  You name it, I've tried it.  There are just too many variables and different potential systems on which your mix will be played.  The best I could do is compromising to ensure that my mix will sound decent on the majority of playback systems.  HPs are by no mean an absolute reference playback.  When people say "the way the artist intended it", to me that's a very far fetched, unrealistic statement for someone coming from the other end of the music.  I am not debating about instruments, more drum, less bass, tone down the strings... because those are much easier to realize but when you say the bass (sub-bass) is supposed to sound certain way, with certain decay rate, more reverb, less dry... It goes beyond me.  How do you know what bass was used?  what drum was used? What kick drum was used? what heads were on the drum/snare....Unless, I know exactly all the above and the studio environment in which the instruments/vocal were recorded in, I would never even venture to say "yeah, that's what I inteded".  Hope I made some senses here.  ;)

post #7988 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by koiloco View Post
 

Llloyd, I totally got what you are saying here but to elaborate on my previous statement and give an example.  Currently, I am in the work of mixing an album for a friend.  It's just some choir/religious stuff.  As always, these days when I mix, I listen to my mix on everything I can get my hands on, IEM, HPs, home stereo, boom box, car...  You name it, I've tried it.  There are just too many variables and different potential systems on which your mix will be played.  The best I could do is compromising to ensure that my mix will sound decent on the majority of playback systems.  HPs are by no mean an absolute reference playback.  When people say "the way the artist intended it", to me that's a very far fetched, unrealistic statement for someone coming from the other end of the music.  I am not debating about instruments, more drum, less bass, tone down the strings... because those are much easier to realize but when you say the bass (sub-bass) is supposed to sound certain way, with certain decay rate, more reverb, less dry... It goes beyond me.  How do you know what bass was used?  what drum was used? What kick drum was used? what heads were on the drum/snare....Unless, I know exactly all the above and the studio environment in which the instruments/vocal were recorded in, I would never even venture to say "yeah, that's what I inteded".  Hope I made some senses here.  ;)

 

Solid answer.  If I had to venture a guess, the artist wants the listener to appreciate their work by whatever means best suited and most enjoyed by them.


Edited by modulor - 9/18/13 at 7:51pm
post #7989 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

 

listen to HD 800, HE-6 on a well powered amp, TH-900,  and i guess you can even add the LCD-2/3, the he-500 still even on a good amp seems to lack full resolution, like theres a smoothness and thickness that seems to prevent details from being full resolved and presented. the HE-6 sounds like HE-500 but without that veil and nicer treble detail and clarity. you probably didn't have a good amp for the HE-6, its anything but thin, its fuller sounding than most dynamic headphones. and even when well driven, the bass still has some aspects of it that just don't sound perfect  to me, if wooliness isn't the best word to use, i don't know what is, but i can definitely tell that the HE-500 is a fun headphone to have around, though T1, HD 800, and HE-6 are all better. and even though HE-500 has good impact, it does sound rolled off in the sub-bass.

 

Well, I auditioned HE-6 twice at a local meet out of what seemed like pretty high quality speaker amps to me. At least, they looked high quality and the owners assured me that they are very powerful and totally capable of driving HE-6 very well. Also, others seemed to be impressed with the sound of HE-6 out of the amps. I wasn't - they sounded too bright and lacking body in the midrange to my ears.

 

Also, I understand that we all have our preferences, but look at the measurements. HE-500 actually measures better overall than T1 and HE-6, and comes quite close to HD800, besting it in 30-50 Hz square wave performance and linearity from ~20Hz - 1 kHz. So objectively, based on measurements, HE-500 hangs right up there with the best.

 

EDIT: On second thought, maybe HE-500 doesn't measure better than HE-6, but is at least on par overall IMO. HE-500's 300 Hz square wave response looks cleaner and the frequency response is more balanced, without HE-6's treble emphasis. HE-6, on the other hand, does seem to have slightly better bass extension and lower distortion. T1, however, measures significantly worse than the others with its much noisier 300 Hz square wave response, a noticeably more rolled off sub bass, as well as a weird rise in distortion levels in the lower treble. Subjectively, I didn't really hear these problems when I auditioned the T1 twice, but the issues are there and may become audible with more critical listening/better equipment. HD800 measures beautifully and is perhaps the best measuring headphone out there overall, but its sub bass performance and linearity up to ~1 kHz is still a bit lacking compared to HE-500.

 

As for TH-900, it has the problems of a closed headphone design based on the measurements - an overabundance of lower frequencies, uneven mids and a noticeably distorted and rugged 300 Hz square wave response. It may sound pleasant, but measurements show that its accuracy is not in the same league as that of HD800, HE-500, HE-6 and many of the other high-end headphones IMO.


Edited by Pianist - 9/18/13 at 6:06pm
post #7990 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

 

listen to HD 800, HE-6 on a well powered amp, TH-900,  and i guess you can even add the LCD-2/3, the he-500 still even on a good amp seems to lack full resolution, like theres a smoothness and thickness that seems to prevent details from being full resolved and presented. the HE-6 sounds like HE-500 but without that veil and nicer treble detail and clarity. you probably didn't have a good amp for the HE-6, its anything but thin, its fuller sounding than most dynamic headphones. and even when well driven, the bass still has some aspects of it that just don't sound perfect  to me, if wooliness isn't the best word to use, i don't know what is, but i can definitely tell that the HE-500 is a fun headphone to have around, though T1, HD 800, and HE-6 are all better. and even though HE-500 has good impact, it does sound rolled off in the sub-bass.

 

I agree with DSG as I said something similar in my previous posts comparing it to the Q701s. DSG, in your opinion, do you think this smoothness or thickness can be lifted by any amp? Maybe I should enjoy them for a while and upgrade to the HE6s in the future. I wish we could combine the fullness of the HE500s sound with the clarity and resolution of the HD800s. 

post #7991 of 18090
Edited as life is too short and there is a block button
Edited by detoxguy - 9/18/13 at 11:29pm
post #7992 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by barretp View Post
 

 

I agree with DSG as I said something similar in my previous posts comparing it to the Q701s. DSG, in your opinion, do you think this smoothness or thickness can be lifted by any amp? Maybe I should enjoy them for a while and upgrade to the HE6s in the future. I wish we could combine the fullness of the HE500s sound with the clarity and resolution of the HD800s. 

 

well its always still gonna be there, more with pleathers than with velours, it does improve SIGNIFICANTLY though as your rig improves.

 

when i upgraded my DAC, the different was most noticeable on HE-500. out of all my headphones, the HE-500 improved the most, they no longer felt mid-fi, i was convinced with this upgrade that they where definitely worthy of high end status. with my GSX MK2, the changes where even bigger, now i don't really see the smoothness or thickness as a coloration, a veil, or a lack of resolution. the transparency went way up, the only smoothness now is from the headphones own sound signature and it increases if you add pleathers. 

 

the HE-500 still will always lack the ultimate detail and resolving ability of the HD 800s and T1s, but the transparency is there, as well as the clarity. some might still want a little more from the HE-500, but some might be very happy since they feel that they prefer the HE-500s musicality to the extra nuances and details.

 

overall, the HE-500 scale very well and improve greatly with better amping and by having a better source.

post #7993 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by barretp View Post
 

 

I agree with DSG as I said something similar in my previous posts comparing it to the Q701s. DSG, in your opinion, do you think this smoothness or thickness can be lifted by any amp? Maybe I should enjoy them for a while and upgrade to the HE6s in the future. I wish we could combine the fullness of the HE500s sound with the clarity and resolution of the HD800s. 

 

I don't think this can be lifted either. I really enjoy my HE-500 but it's something that's an attribute of the headphone.  After, IDK how long anymore, almost 2 years of owning the HE-500 with various amps, I've come to the conclusion it's not something that can be remedied. In otherwords, it's not something that comes from inadequate amplification. In my opinion, it seems like a compromise that comes with the warmish, smooth sound that makes the HE-500 so easy to listen to. I don't really find it a negative thing, it's a small trade off for a headphone that I can listen to for as many hours a day as I please.

 
Furthermore if it's not something that the GSX MK2 can do well it's probably not an amplification problem :P. The taboo is very good with the HE-500, as well as my bakoon amp. I felt the taboo was slightly better at bringing a certain non fatiguing sharpness (possibly due to a certain synergy with my dac and havana output tube selection). Really though it's a small difference and the hda-5210mk3 is a significantly better amp to my ears.
post #7994 of 18090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

 

well its always still gonna be there, more with pleathers than with velours, it does improve SIGNIFICANTLY though as your rig improves.

 

when i upgraded my DAC, the different was most noticeable on HE-500. out of all my headphones, the HE-500 improved the most, they no longer felt mid-fi, i was convinced with this upgrade that they where definitely worthy of high end status. with my GSX MK2, the changes where even bigger, now i don't really see the smoothness or thickness as a coloration, a veil, or a lack of resolution. the transparency went way up, the only smoothness now is from the headphones own sound signature and it increases if you add pleathers.

 

the HE-500 still will always lack the ultimate detail and resolving ability of the HD 800s and T1s, but the transparency is there, as well as the clarity. some might still want a little more from the HE-500, but some might be very happy since they feel that they prefer the HE-500s musicality to the extra nuances and details.

 

overall, the HE-500 scale very well and improve greatly with better amping and by having a better source.

 

you confirm my opinion.

post #7995 of 18090

Topic of the day for the HE500, what are the differences between the 2 terms "clarity" and "resolution" when used to describe audio quality?  :confused:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › HiFiman HE-500 (HE as in High End) Proving to be an enjoyable experience in listening. .