Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Does it get much better than the HD800?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does it get much better than the HD800? - Page 22

post #316 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post


I had a 325i for a short time, and the treble presentation with that headphone was too sharp for me. I am fine with that aspect of the HD800 and PS1000.

The PS1000 and the 325i have pretty identical treble presentation. The 300hz on both are practically identical, honestly; Really sharp onset and lots of resonance. The big difference is the PS1000's bass presentation, by comparison. At least HD800 treble is square. PS1000/SR325i treble is pure peaks...

 

Kojaku

post #317 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kojaku View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post


I had a 325i for a short time, and the treble presentation with that headphone was too sharp for me. I am fine with that aspect of the HD800 and PS1000.

The PS1000 and the 325i have pretty identical treble presentation. The 300hz on both are practically identical, honestly; Really sharp onset and lots of resonance. The big difference is the PS1000's bass presentation, by comparison. At least HD800 treble is square. PS1000/SR325i treble is pure peaks...

 

Kojaku

 

Completely different for me, but I am listening to the PS1K with a much better front end than I had access to with the 325i so not really an accurate comparison on my part anyhow. I did have the HD800 on the better rig, it was great but failed to connect with me on an emotional level like the PS1000 does. It just shows we all hear different YMMV yaddayadda.


Edited by grokit - 6/12/13 at 5:49pm
post #318 of 348
Thread Starter 

Long time no talk. 

 

I finally got to listen to the Audeze LCD-2's and liked them very much. If only there was something perfectly in between the HD800's and LCD-2's. I enjoyed the lack of sibilance with the LCD-2's and enjoyed the bass a lot but the magical soundstage was missing. 

 

I also listened to Fostex TH900 but female voices sounded very artificial and thin to my ears so I didn't pay too much attention to them. 

 

Almost forgot, I listened to the Grado PS1000 and GS1000 as well and they weren't pleasing at all. They are, of course, excellent headphones, but not to my liking. Too thin with no body. 

post #319 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidgotsa View Post
 

Long time no talk. 

 

I finally got to listen to the Audeze LCD-2's and liked them very much. If only there was something perfectly in between the HD800's and LCD-2's. I enjoyed the lack of sibilance with the LCD-2's and enjoyed the bass a lot but the magical soundstage was missing. 

 

I also listened to Fostex TH900 but female voices sounded very artificial and thin to my ears so I didn't pay too much attention to them. 

 

Almost forgot, I listened to the Grado PS1000 and GS1000 as well and they weren't pleasing at all. They are, of course, excellent headphones, but not to my liking. Too thin with no body. 

 

 u need LCD-3 then, much better soundstage than LCD-2. 

 

fostex is not artificial and thin though. the treble isn't perfect, but its good.

 

i wouldn't call PS1000 and GS1000 excellent headphones, they're bright and grainy; they are overpriced and underperform. the PS1000 being a modded 325is thats heavier, has bigger earpads, and has the driver tweaked to have shrill highs and boomy bass.

post #320 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidgotsa View Post

Long time no talk. 

I finally got to listen to the Audeze LCD-2's and liked them very much. If only there was something perfectly in between the HD800's and LCD-2's. I enjoyed the lack of sibilance with the LCD-2's and enjoyed the bass a lot but the magical soundstage was missing. 

I also listened to Fostex TH900 but female voices sounded very artificial and thin to my ears so I didn't pay too much attention to them. 

Almost forgot, I listened to the Grado PS1000 and GS1000 as well and they weren't pleasing at all. They are, of course, excellent headphones, but not to my liking. Too thin with no body. 

Hifiman HE6?
post #321 of 348

I already own the LCD-3 and Sennheiser HD600 phones and I enjoy them both. I'm anticipating a january arrival of the Light Harmonic Geek DAC/amp with it's much talked about but thus far unheard 3D sound option. I don't expect anything near a Smyth Realiser experience(which, to be honest, I've never heard) but I, nonetheless, still hope to enjoy the "3D" sound processing. I am looking for a 3rd set of cans, more neutral than the LCD-3's and with a bigger soundstage. Would the Sennheiser HD800 be too over the top soundstage-wise for this type of application and, if so, what else would you recommend?

 

Esau

post #322 of 348

I am of the mindset that you can never have too much soundstaging in a headphone. They are never going to replicate the full soundstage of a good HiFi system, so the more soundstage you can unlock, the better. Others disagree, but I feel that soundstage is one of the most important aspects in music reproduction. 

post #323 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by captslow View Post
 

I am of the mindset that you can never have too much soundstaging in a headphone. They are never going to replicate the full soundstage of a good HiFi system, so the more soundstage you can unlock, the better. Others disagree, but I feel that soundstage is one of the most important aspects in music reproduction. 

+1 on the above and for me I still think that the HD800's lead the way here, personally I like a touch more body to my headphone listening though, but there is no denying at the price the HD800's take some beating for soundstage, transparency and insight. I have been ruined lately though as I have just taken on Stax and the SR-009's really are in a league of one.

post #324 of 348
-1 for me... I do not get the obsession with soundstage on headphones. An extra few mm of space around the head is nothing like the 3d space a good speaker system. I have the HD800, and i love the "air" at the top end of the spectrum, but it doesn't give a realistic representation of the 3d placement of musicians like two well positioned and tuned speaker can. Even so, the speaker representation is an illusion anyway. Try listening to a acoustic band and your ears will not necessarily place them accurately with your eyes closed.

I feel strongly the most important aspect of musical reproduction is the emotional message. This is carried by tambre (how delicately or forcefully a string is struck), key changes, harmonic interrelations, and most of all intonation (the rhythmic interplay between passages and musicians). Soundstage is a fascinating phenomenon, while alludes to resolution, but I cannot count it as an important characteristic of musical reproduction.

It is wonderful the first time you sit in front of a pair of electrostatics and hear acoustics from 15m behind your rear wall, but that is just pleasant acoustic pyrotechnics, and pales when you hear the interplay between the piano and double bass when Oscar Peterson toys with the rhythm, or pink floyd teasing at what comes next.

Am I missing something? Enlighten me.
post #325 of 348

does it get much better than the hd 800 for me? nope. I have listened to my he-6 only for 50 hours. after that I have listened to my hd 800. it is in moments like this you realise how  good the hd 800 are. the way they reproduce drums, especially huge tympanis and orchestral works is amazing.

 

so much that I am selling most of my headphones. there is no point for me to keep stuff that will gather dust anyways.

 

the only things I am keeping are my ef-6 amp and hd 800. that is it. that is how good the hd 800 are.

 

the other companies are trying to surpass it but they will have to work very hard. and if they do surpass it sennheiser will outdo themselves again.

 

the germans d'ont like to be number 2 when it comes to quality.

 

I c'ant wait to see what they will come up with but I predict it will take a long time before the hd 800 have a successor.

 

the competition is still playing catch up mostly.

post #326 of 348

duplicate post


Edited by Chromako - 10/19/13 at 12:37am
post #327 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jagwap View Post
I feel strongly the most important aspect of musical reproduction is the emotional message. This is carried by tambre (how delicately or forcefully a string is struck), key changes, harmonic interrelations, and most of all intonation (the rhythmic interplay between passages and musicians). Soundstage is a fascinating phenomenon, while alludes to resolution, but I cannot count it as an important characteristic of musical reproduction.
.....


Am I missing something? Enlighten me.

Just because you don't enjoy a particular strength or weakness doesn't make the product worse. Anyone can notice strengths, even if they don't value them themselves. That's just being a bit closed minded.

 

My emotional image comes from the detail retrieval and soundstage of headphones. I want to be able to sit back and imagine that I'm actually there and sung to, hearing each breath of the singer. I'm a violin player, and when I listen to a solo performance, I want to hear Grumiaux's solo performance in intimate detail. I want to be able to how much rosin is still remaining on his bow hairs, which you can hear that it starts to get a bit low as he nears the end of the Bach Chaconne . 

 

That's all about neutrality, detail, and a precise, large soundstage. Any sort of colouring kills it. I'm an active listener, and I don't find much, perhaps any, emotional connection with a warm and liquid sound. The HD800's hugely give me an emotional image in a way that likely nothing more than the 009's can. That's my point here. I'd be left feeling alone and in the cold with an LCD3, most of the time, anyway. There's only one time I like a coloured sound, and that's when I'm on an airplane and need the music to actually stand out.

 

We aren't asking here, "do I enjoy anything much better than the HD800's. We've already murdered and buried that horse years ago (answer is, absolutely, for many- that's why people buy the LCD3's and HE6). 

 

Analogy:

 

It's like a Ferrari. If you want luxurious pampering, the Ferrari 458 will not be enjoyable to you. The fastest ones don't even have air conditioning. Instead, you'd love a Rolls Royce. I'd hate to be the driver of a Rolls Royce Phantom, which pretty much everyone knows is one of the nicest cars out there. Even me. But, they are huge and have mushy suspensions, and I hate that, at least as a driver. Blech. 

 

I think that, for me, the most important thing in a car I would drive, besides reliability, is the connection with the road, the feedback. If I'm driving the car, I really don't care much about the luxury. But it would be ridiculous for me to make the statement that a Rolls Royce is a bad car.

 

 

 

 

Side note: Intonation, key changes, and PRaT is always correct in a headphone. A headphone can never be out of tune, or change the timing or tempo. Okay... not more than perhaps a millisecond or fraction of a Hz if it's terribly designed like, giant capacitors inside the cups which are made of stale cheese, or something. I always get frustrated with this.You won't have it be out of tune, nor will you have the rhythm in a different time domain, ever, even on $2 headphones.Mushified, yes, perhaps. Recessed frequencies, yes. Un-reproducable frequencies, yes. But they won't be out of tune. Ever. At least not even by a hertz or two. And that's only in cases, maybe in $2 headphones. Again, I'm being generous. That's physics. Harmonics, that's a different story, as it might add some (it can't subtract), but it doesn't change the primary intonation.

 

People mistake PRaT for what is really impact. Intonation and incorrect key changes are mistaken for recessed/missing frequencies and/or wonky harmonics. There may be a few other things, but I think you get the picture.


Edited by Chromako - 10/19/13 at 1:43am
post #328 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jagwap View Post

-1 for me... I do not get the obsession with soundstage on headphones. An extra few mm of space around the head is nothing like the 3d space a good speaker system. I have the HD800, and i love the "air" at the top end of the spectrum, but it doesn't give a realistic representation of the 3d placement of musicians like two well positioned and tuned speaker can. Even so, the speaker representation is an illusion anyway. Try listening to a acoustic band and your ears will not necessarily place them accurately with your eyes closed.

I feel strongly the most important aspect of musical reproduction is the emotional message. This is carried by tambre (how delicately or forcefully a string is struck), key changes, harmonic interrelations, and most of all intonation (the rhythmic interplay between passages and musicians). Soundstage is a fascinating phenomenon, while alludes to resolution, but I cannot count it as an important characteristic of musical reproduction.

It is wonderful the first time you sit in front of a pair of electrostatics and hear acoustics from 15m behind your rear wall, but that is just pleasant acoustic pyrotechnics, and pales when you hear the interplay between the piano and double bass when Oscar Peterson toys with the rhythm, or pink floyd teasing at what comes next.

Am I missing something? Enlighten me.

 

I agree that chains soundstage for it's own sake is completely worthless - I believe there is such a thing as false soundstage achieved by blurring of edges, dislocation of sound images which can make a soundfield feel larger than it should be.  Some DAC's for example make the soundstage large with every recording, while others change between recordings and reproduce the acoustic cues and imaging accurately.  Soundstage is one of the qualities I listen for secondarily - I believe that true soundstage is a product of time domain accuracy including harmonic integrity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromako View Post
 

Just because you don't enjoy a particular strength or weakness doesn't make the product worse. Anyone can notice strengths, even if they don't value them themselves. That's just being a bit closed minded.

 

My emotional image comes from the detail retrieval and soundstage of headphones. I want to be able to sit back and imagine that I'm actually there and sung to, hearing each breath of the singer. I'm a violin player, and when I listen to a solo performance, I want to hear Grumiaux's solo performance in intimate detail. I want to be able to how much rosin is still remaining on his bow hairs, which you can hear that it starts to get a bit low as he nears the end of the Bach Chaconne . 

 

That's all about neutrality, detail, and a precise, large soundstage. Any sort of colouring kills it. I'm an active listener, and I don't find much, perhaps any, emotional connection with a warm and liquid sound. The HD800's hugely give me an emotional image in a way that likely nothing more than the 009's can. That's my point here. I'd be left feeling alone and in the cold with an LCD3, most of the time, anyway. There's only one time I like a coloured sound, and that's when I'm on an airplane and need the music to actually stand out.

 

We aren't asking here, "do I enjoy anything much better than the HD800's. We've already murdered and buried that horse years ago (answer is, absolutely, for many- that's why people buy the LCD3's and HE6). 

 

Analogy:

 

It's like a Ferrari. If you want luxurious pampering, the Ferrari 458 will not be enjoyable to you. The fastest ones don't even have air conditioning. Instead, you'd love a Rolls Royce. I'd hate to be the driver of a Rolls Royce Phantom, which pretty much everyone knows is one of the nicest cars out there. Even me. But, they are huge and have mushy suspensions, and I hate that, at least as a driver. Blech. 

 

I think that, for me, the most important thing in a car I would drive, besides reliability, is the connection with the road, the feedback. If I'm driving the car, I really don't care much about the luxury. But it would be ridiculous for me to make the statement that a Rolls Royce is a bad car.

 

 

 

 

Side note: Intonation, key changes, and PRaT is always correct in a headphone. A headphone can never be out of tune, or change the timing or tempo. Okay... not more than perhaps a millisecond or fraction of a Hz if it's terribly designed like, giant capacitors inside the cups which are made of stale cheese, or something. I always get frustrated with this.You won't have it be out of tune, nor will you have the rhythm in a different time domain, ever, even on $2 headphones.Mushified, yes, perhaps. Recessed frequencies, yes. Un-reproducable frequencies, yes. But they won't be out of tune. Ever. At least not even by a hertz or two. And that's only in cases, maybe in $2 headphones. Again, I'm being generous. That's physics. Harmonics, that's a different story, as it might add some (it can't subtract), but it doesn't change the primary intonation.

 

People mistake PRaT for what is really impact. Intonation and incorrect key changes are mistaken for recessed/missing frequencies and/or wonky harmonics. There may be a few other things, but I think you get the picture.

 

Hate to disappoint (or probably the exact opposite) but if the soundstage performance and imaging of the HD800 are of critical importance to your listening, the 009 will probably not match the HD800 in these areas.

 

I believe a good way to look at timing is that it is not a simple matter for speed - there is both the attack and recovery of the driver, maybe some other aspects I am missing.  My understanding of PRaT is that it requires the driver to keep up with the music, which require both accurate attack and decay with minimal ringing.  IMO Impact may be something else and doesn't derive from the recovery aspect.

 

Different headphones will have different attack and decay characteristics, an LCD-2 may have theoretically have fast transient response, but in fast music it will sound muddled up because of the decay characteristics, which will affect how well you can make out the pace rhythm and timing of the music.  It is undeniably obvious to hear, no need to get bogged down with technical aspects of driver performance and associated terminology.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by intonation - but if this means tone then I'm pretty sure that FR can affect perception of tone - the different harmonics are perceived together to form the tone.

post #329 of 348

I spent a good amount of time reading this thread and there appears some negative comments are often expressed about the HD-800.. those being bright, having a treble peak and even sibilance.. I don't mind slightly bright, I am good with that and might actually prefer it. Further, I am not against using a tone control or EQ. However, severe high peaks and sibilance are another matter and unacceptable to me in any headphone (or speaker) of any price, especially an expensive one. Sibilance is just plain annoying at best.

 

I listened to the Audeze LCD2 for the first time at DECfest a few weekends ago and determined I needed to move to a top tier headphone from my current selection.. I thought the HD800 and LCD2 or LCD3 to be likely candidates, but hearing these comments seem to eliminate the HD-800.

 

Are these legitimate concerns or overblown complaints?

post #330 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Guy View Post
 

I spent a good amount of time reading this thread and there appears some negative comments are often expressed about the HD-800.. those being bright, having a treble peak and even sibilance.. I don't mind slightly bright, I am good with that and might actually prefer it. Further, I am not against using a tone control or EQ. However, severe high peaks and sibilance are another matter and unacceptable to me in any headphone (or speaker) of any price, especially an expensive one. Sibilance is just plain annoying at best.

 

I listened to the Audeze LCD2 for the first time at DECfest a few weekends ago and determined I needed to move to a top tier headphone from my current selection.. I thought the HD800 and LCD2 or LCD3 to be likely candidates, but hearing these comments seem to eliminate the HD-800.

 

Are these legitimate concerns or overblown complaints?


IMO, the quality will depend on the amp you pair the HD800 with.

I'm using a M^3 with my HD800 and there is no sibilance or "treble peak" or any other problem , providing the recording is good. There are some recordings that are simply not good enough for a 100% enjoyable result. The HD800 is a very revealing headphone, and with such recordings, you will always notice something annoying or unpleasant.

My advice is: don't eliminate the HD800 without hearing it...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Does it get much better than the HD800?