Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Audio Technica M50 vs Sennheiser HD650?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio Technica M50 vs Sennheiser HD650? - Page 2

post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by bar1 View Post

Have a look at this frequency chart:

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm



Thanks for the link, that was cool to look at.  I love how they place a frequency to descriptive terms like "pierce, edge, thump, honk, air, crunch, boomy, etc"  Pretty funny.  I wonder how much truth there is to that part. 

post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proglover View Post

^ seriously, you prefer your 650's with Lyr (tube) over Fun (ss) earth? Wouldn't expect that with 650's sound signature. (didn't hear my 650's with tubes though, but they pair great with NFB-3/C-2.1



The Fun's discrete amp section is more than sufficient for the HD650. It's clean and neutral with power in reserve and drives these cans with authority. It holds its own against the b22 according to Milosz's A/B comparison thread and its been pointed out by another user (sphinxvc) who has owned it in the past that he found it equal to some big ticket gear and only bested by the RSA Apache and a 3 channel b22 under meet conditions. It has the smooth neutrality and black background Audio-GD owners identify as their house sound. For the HD650, I wouldn't be surprised if it performed as well as your C-2.1.

 

I suspect the Fun's amp gives the sense of these headphones close to their best with solid state, short of a balanced topology. For these headphones, the Fun is not shamed at all by the ridiculous power reserves of the Lyr. Where it falls short is in the general difference between the "wire with gain" signature of the Audio-GD ss and the musical presentation of the Lyr tube design. The Lyr has more impact, and the imaging presented is phenomenal. I once read that a good indicator of a properly driven HD650 is the sense that sound is originating from beyond the driver's position. This can be heard through the Fun, but on the Lyr it's more apparent and even prevalent at lower levels. The tubes I have in place are also quite neutral and impart a greater sense of space between instruments, so when all these things combine it produces a perfect storm of slam, resolve, imaging and an analogue quality that makes the Fun's solid state appear flat, cold and clinical in comparison.

 

At this level, it may boil down to preference, and I can certainly appreciate how the ss signature with it's seemingly faster and snappier response would appeal to those preferring a clinical sound for their critical listening. For me, the Lyr's musicality and the synergy achieved with the right tubes have heightened what I enjoy about these headphones so much, namely its ability to engage me in the music without obsessing about glaring faults.


Edited by olor1n - 5/27/11 at 8:11pm
post #18 of 25

I think they belong to different categories. The '650 is - for all it's 'Senn Veil' characteristics and lack of bass (but don't tell the K702) - quite an analytical tool and non-fatiguing to listen to. I had the opportunity of taking the M50 for a spin yesterday and rate it highly in it's category - which is 'good for general use' and 'fun'. At the same session, I took the LCD-2 for a spin as well and - to cut a long story short - that's what I'll be saving up for now! My opinion - what do you want your next cans to do for you and what are your (domestic/financial) constraints? If it's an upgrade, save for the LCD-2 (which I intend to use with my incredible value Stepdance). My 2 cents.

post #19 of 25
Agree with everyone. The 650s will sound better all around because they are open. Pretty sure the m50s are closed but don't quote me on that.redface.gif
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post





The Fun's discrete amp section is more than sufficient for the HD650. It's clean and neutral with power in reserve and drives these cans with authority. It holds its own against the b22 according to Milosz's A/B comparison thread and its been pointed out by another user (sphinxvc) who has owned it in the past that he found it equal to some big ticket gear and only bested by the RSA Apache and a 3 channel b22 under meet conditions. It has the smooth neutrality and black background Audio-GD owners identify as their house sound. For the HD650, I wouldn't be surprised if it performed as well as your C-2.1.

 

I suspect the Fun's amp gives the sense of these headphones close to their best with solid state, short of a balanced topology. For these headphones, the Fun is not shamed at all by the ridiculous power reserves of the Lyr. Where it falls short is in the general difference between the "wire with gain" signature of the Audio-GD ss and the musical presentation of the Lyr tube design. The Lyr has more impact, and the imaging presented is phenomenal. I once read that a good indicator of a properly driven HD650 is the sense that sound is originating from beyond the driver's position. This can be heard through the Fun, but on the Lyr it's more apparent and even prevalent at lower levels. The tubes I have in place are also quite neutral and impart a greater sense of space between instruments, so when all these things combine it produces a perfect storm of slam, resolve, imaging and an analogue quality that makes the Fun's solid state appear flat, cold and clinical in comparison.

 

At this level, it may boil down to preference, and I can certainly appreciate how the ss signature with it's seemingly faster and snappier response would appeal to those preferring a clinical sound for their critical listening. For me, the Lyr's musicality and the synergy achieved with the right tubes have heightened what I enjoy about these headphones so much, namely its ability to engage me in the music without obsessing about glaring faults.



Thanks for your explanation:)

Sounds good about the Lyr. I was told by a fellow D7000 owner that it makes the Denon sound more polite, less engaging, but that it's (offcourse) a nice match for the price, with orthos like Hifiman full size cans.

I guessed 650, being already polite and smooth (yet stil pretty musical), a Lyr would not be preferable, but your experiences are clear and well explained.

 

 

 

post #21 of 25

Prog, like I pointed out, tubes make a difference with the Lyr (although the dislike for the stock JJ's is over exaggerated imo). Also, when you have an amp like the Lyr that leaves little else to be desired in the power department, the importance of the other components (dac, cables) in your chain become apparent. To me, the few who've expressed some dissatisfaction with the Lyr have had an obvious bottleneck in their setup. It's bewildering how one or two opinions about the Lyr being somehow unsuitable for dynamic cans has grown into a myth, despite the majority (in the impressions thread) stating otherwise.

post #22 of 25

^ ah, ok

I didn't read much about it, as I'm happy with the DAC/Amp I have right now, no upgrade/sidegrade-titis in that department yet. I didn't perceive that myth, because I didn't look for info specifically.

 

Could be my first tube amp in future though, since it can power orthos.

post #23 of 25
To be honest equalizing the HD650 gets very very good results. Especially the bass; it's easily equalize the bass to basshead levels without distortion on the HD650.
post #24 of 25

I think the 650's are far more versatile in regards to whether s/s or tubes are best. A good s/s will give good results, but in my journey with the 650's its been tubes that have really showed what they are capable of. My old Creek SE amp is a detail monster and I was happy with that for years, it controlled the lower end and added a sharpness to the top end. Then when I tried a Hybrid, I was blown away by the much bigger soundstage and musicality. The bass was not as controlled, but there was more of it and it sounded real and earthy. Listening to orchestral peices, It seemed like instruments were coming from different parts of my room (no exaggeration!)

I'm now enjoying using an OTL amp and the results I'm getting are on a completely different level from my old solid state amp. The soundstage is quite literally massive in comparison. There is certainly the same amount of detail, only now it sounds real, as opposed to synthetic or artificial.. like you are there in the concert hall, rather than listening to a recording that has been sharpened up digitally. I'm also surprised by the brightness of the sound signature, same as S/S but with no threat of hardness with brass for e.g.  I can only say that now after my experience with tubes.     

post #25 of 25

I have both the M-50 and HD650 and the HD600. The M-50 is a diffrent sound it is a Tin can compared to the full sound of HD650.    The M-50 is Nice vs the beats but I would say the HD650 is on a diffrent level compared to the M-50. You must have an amp for the HD650. I use an STX sound card.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Audio Technica M50 vs Sennheiser HD650?