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 23

post #331 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?

Here's my advice, if you're not going to get a really high end amp, get the LCD3. If you do plan on spending a lot of money, the HD800 will scale higher than the LCD3, and it's only a matter of getting the proper match.

 

The LCD2 is quite a bit lower level than the HD800 and LCD3.

post #332 of 348
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.

 

I didn't say I don't enjoy soundstage, I said the opposite.  It's just I do not think it is as important to the reproduction of the actual music as other aspects.  The poster I was replying to state dthat they thought it to be the Most important, and I felt that not to be true.

 

 

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.

 

 

That is fundamentally untrue.  The rhythmic qualities of playback can and usually are affected by the equipment.  I am not saying the beats arrive at a different time.  The equipment is not playing with the forth diminution.  However the perception of when the notes arrive can be squeezed, by hundreds of milliseconds, by the phase response of the system.  Technical bit: This is best illustrated by putting and exponentially decaying frequency (something like a bass tom on a drum kit,) through a high pass system,.  Take a look at it and define when the brain hears that note?  It is a tough call.  Phase response is directly related to group delay, and the group delay will affect different instruments differently depending on the frequency.

 

Less techy: all equipment bends the waveform.  How it bends it can affect how we perceive the tightness of a band in their timing.  The equipment's frequency response, impulse response, dynamics, all affect timing.

 

Luckily the HD-800 is excellent in this regard.  Better than all the headphones I have heard to date, including the LCD-3 (not bad), AKG K550 (still very good), Kef-M500 (good enough), B&W P5 (poor), Beats Studio (terrible), Sony EX1000 (very good), Sennheiser Momentum (not good), Sennheiser 598 (average).

 

I know this sounds like voodoo to some,but it easy to forget to listen to the performance of the musicians, when you are too busy listening to the performance of the equipment.  Like enjoying the Ferrari instead of taking in the views of the Alpine road you are driving through.  A Ferrari is impressive, but not more impressive than nature.

post #333 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post
 

Here's my advice, if you're not going to get a really high end amp, get the LCD3. If you do plan on spending a lot of money, the HD800 will scale higher than the LCD3, and it's only a matter of getting the proper match.

 

The LCD2 is quite a bit lower level than the HD800 and LCD3.

While the HD800s are certainly harder to get "right" with an amp/DAC, I've found the LCD-3s are next on that list of "proper synergy". With the LCD-3s, look for at least 2W per channel as well into 50 ohms.

post #334 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post


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.

By intonation I mean the interplay between the rhythm of the musicians or rhythmic thread. What is often missed is that the equipment can affect yhat through group delay caused by frequency response tailoring.
post #335 of 348
"My advice is: don't eliminate the HD800 without hearing it..."

Unfortunately, far easier said than done. In reality, i could name at least a half dozen cans I'd like to hear before I shell out a couple grand, but how and where does one do that?

"Here's my advice, if you're not going to get a really high end amp, get the LCD3. If you do plan on spending a lot of money, the HD800 will scale higher than the LCD3, and it's only a matter of getting the proper match."

I plan on running a Decware Taboo tube amp, which works exceptionally well with higher impedances but is about 2wpc.
post #336 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Guy View Post

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

Unfortunately, far easier said than done. In reality, i could name at least a half dozen cans I'd like to hear before I shell out a couple grand, but how and where does one do that?

"Here's my advice, if you're not going to get a really high end amp, get the LCD3. If you do plan on spending a lot of money, the HD800 will scale higher than the LCD3, and it's only a matter of getting the proper match."

I plan on running a Decware Taboo tube amp, which works exceptionally well with higher impedances but is about 2wpc.

With the Taboo, you should be good to go with both the HD800s and LCD-3s. :evil:

post #337 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

With the Taboo, you should be good to go with both the HD800s and LCD-3s. :evil:


So far, I am really enjoying the Decware Taboo amp. It was during the audition of it that I heard the LCD-2 and decided I needed to improve from my current AKG K550 and Sennheiser HD555..

post #338 of 348

I have done the Anax mod to my HD-800s (inserting a couple of carefully shaped pieces of non-slip matting in them to reduce in-cup reflections) and with the ALO Studio Six and NOS tubes, the result has been fantastic. It will be a serious battle between that, the new Audeze cans and 'stats shortly. It is still very much dependant on what music you listen to and how loud you listen, but I reckon it is fairly possible to get awesome results focussing on one pair of headphones.

post #339 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?

 

Stock HD800's are bright and thin sounding.  If you match gear you can increase the sense of body or reduce the incisiveness of the treble, or even roll off the treble.

 

Anax mod both reduces the incisiveness of the treble peak as well as reducing the overall volume of the treble, and increasing the midbass.  This makes the HD800 sound less bright and sibilant, and increases the sense of warmth making them sound less "thin".  It makes the HD800 a lot more neutral, only adding a very slight veil to the sound relative to stock.  It still wont turn the HD800 into an LCD-2 though - the Anax HD800 are still very revealing headphones and still very fast.

 

@jagwap Thanks for explaining intonation - I can't say I have come across the term much.  

post #340 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post
 

 

Stock HD800's are bright and thin sounding.  

 

Maybe for some.  Maybe not for others.  The only thing I did to my HD800s was get it hardwired with the Stefan AudioArt Endorphin cable, put them on the GS-X mk2 paired with the Master 7 or the PWD2 and "Bingo"  No Bright thin sounds at all.  

post #341 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

Maybe for some.  Maybe not for others.  The only thing I did to my HD800s was get it hardwired with the Stefan AudioArt Endorphin cable, put them on the GS-X mk2 paired with the Master 7 or the PWD2 and "Bingo"  No Bright thin sounds at all.  

+1. What you put into the HD800, you get out of the HD800. Plain and simple. No bright thin sounds at all here either.  

post #342 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

Maybe for some.  Maybe not for others.  The only thing I did to my HD800s was get it hardwired with the Stefan AudioArt Endorphin cable, put them on the GS-X mk2 paired with the Master 7 or the PWD2 and "Bingo"  No Bright thin sounds at all.  

 

If you use components that don't sound thin or bright of course this helps, but would you not say that compared to other headphones, when using the same equipment and cabling, that the HD800 would sound brighter or thinner than most headphones?

 

I would say that the brightness is an unarguable inherent quality - the driver has elevated treble.  The thinness is a relative quality.


Edited by drez - 10/20/13 at 7:01pm
post #343 of 348

I guess that's why "most" say the HD800s work best with tube amps.

post #344 of 348

My HD800 is stock and I don't find them thin and bright sounding even with ss gear.

post #345 of 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post
 

My HD800 is stock and I don't find them thin and bright sounding even with ss gear.

Compared to what :biggrin: 

 

BTW I'm really interested in 007 mki and how it compare to HD800? (btw if this is off topic pm?)  

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?