Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Butt-ugly Denon phones ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Butt-ugly Denon phones ... - Page 4

post #46 of 56
Originally Posted by navii View Post

They also have some nice shots of the d7100 http://magazine.munkonggadget.com/product/114/denon-ah-d7100



Those look pretty damn nice, actually.

post #47 of 56



these shots.
so sexy.
post #48 of 56
Thread Starter 

I didnt realise just how big Fostex are - they definitely have a bigger footprint in the pro audio universe (and anyone who wants to build speakers) than they do in Head-Fi, even with their outrageously expensive flagship headphone. Methinks Denon needs Fostex more than Fostex needs Denon ...... 

post #49 of 56

i need a bucket now.... ><

post #50 of 56

They're actually sexy in the physical.

Copy paste of my impressions follows.



Well. I guess I'll just toss my own point of view into this.

I don't feel like doing a review so here are my impressions.

i apologize in advance for the more than multiple incorrect punctuation. 


d600 impression vs d2k.
1. subbass is there but not as prominent. if you push the headphones closer to your ears though, it helps.
which leads to the first drawback for the d600s. it fits loosely. helps with comfort, but takes away from sound.
when i say sound, i specifically only mean subbass. the rest of the spectrum seems unaffected by pushing the headphones closer.
2. definitely has a better midbass vs d2ks. every kick is heard on it whereas with d2ks, that "oomph" from a kick is clearly underneath the subbass. again, pushing the headphones closer to your ears brings the midbass and subbass closer to the same level (with midbass still higher than subbass though).
3. d600s are faster than d2ks when it comes to bass. I'm not audiophilic enough to tell the difference in speed for mids and highs, but bass speed is definitely faster on d600s. meaning it has a shorter decay time and it's tighter.
4. treble. man. treble. i remember when I first got my d2ks (before burn in and daily use) I thought "what are all theses s's doing in my songs?". with the d600s i thought: i hear there should be s's here but they're not (or barely present)".
my point is this. the level of treble on the d600s is lower than on the d2ks. which makes it seem like there's less detail.
my point is also that sibilance is less on the d600s.
so the past 4 conclusions were based on random dubstep tracks I rarely listen to even though I have them in my library.
I then moved to a song I know and like (James Blake - Limit to Your Love). The difference between the d2ks and d600s become more apparent but they are the same conclusions as before. except this one.
1. mids are more recessed on the d600s than the d2ks.
to confirm this conclusion, I popped in Adele's 21 album and Lauryn Hill's MTV Unplugged 2.0 recording (specifically O Jerusalem and Adam lives in theory).
and the conclusion?
once again, the subbbass is more prominent on the d2ks. but back to mids. 
d600 mids are definitely more recessed than d2ks.
however. somehow the vocals sound more intimate. so if the only thing you really listen for in mids is vocals, d600s are oh so slightly better than d2ks. but if you listen to more, again, the mids are more recessed on d600s.
oh and. I know you should know that the mids SHOULD sound colored because these ARE NOT neutral phones, but the d600s mids sound more colored.
At this point, I don't plan on keeping these. 
i was hoping the d600s would be a more portable d2k with better isolation and mids.
Yes I believe in burn in but I also believe burn in doesn't change the sound much more than the initial.
Despite the much greater portability due to the removable cables, better isolation, slightly more "ruggedness", and sexy look (YES, they are sexier than pictures make them seem) I can't justify spending that much on them when I got my d2k's for much much less. 
And then it hit me. I know these are colored but, wonder what they sound like with jazz. So I did just that. Played jazz through both the d2ks and d600s.
CLEARLY, the mids and treble are more apparent on the d2ks. saxophones and trumpets sound much more beautiful and closer to realism. The sparkle on the d2ks is also clearly superior. It reflects my earlier comment that the d600s mids sound more colored. 
Lastly, It takes too much intimate listening to comment on soundstage and detail and I don't feel like putting in the time for that. The first thing I look for in headphones is the overall frequency response. 
small edit. the soundstage on the d2ks are both wider and deeper.
P.S. Just out of curiosity, I played the same songs I heard but this time had my little 13 year old sister listen to them.
The thing she immediately said was that "in all the songs, the part that's not bass sounds louder on these" with "these" referring to d2ks.
Well, it's been fun. I'll come back and make this a little neater later but I've got work to do for now.
post #51 of 56

I mean the design is fairly interesting obviously they are trying to attract the younger market and personally I believe they look OK.

I wouldn't purchase them by any means but they aren't as bad as everyone seems to think they are.

post #52 of 56

Thanks for the impressions atomikn00b. Seems like the D600 is clearly tuned with the general consumers market in mind with its strong bass, somewhat recessed/colored midrange and shelved down treble, much like the B&W P5 or M-80. That doesn't sound like the sound sig I like since I find the M-80 pretty mediocre sounding straight out of an iPhone despite all the compliments it receives. My D600 should be here next morning so I'll be doing some A/B/C tests with my D5000 and D7000, If they sound close enough to the D5000 they could make a decent portable choice at least for me.

post #53 of 56
Thread Starter 

You guys do realize that the music LIVES in the mids, dont you ? V-shaped cans are for folk with V-shaped heads. 

post #54 of 56
Originally Posted by estreeter View Post

You guys do realize that the music LIVES in the mids, dont you ? V-shaped cans are for folk with V-shaped heads.

too much mids cause honkyness and cloudyness, so A shape is not good too, but really it depends on person's taste

post #55 of 56
Thread Starter 

So the answer is a balanced headphone that lets you hear what's on the recording ? WHOA - that's a Shelbyville concept if ever I heard one !  biggrin.gif

post #56 of 56

Honestly, I'm not sure who Denon has design their headphones appearance wise, but it certainly isn't headfi... I wonder if the average consumer find these appealing? 

Sad really... Consumers used to like wood, leather, metal, heavy things etc. and now we go after glossy plastic and a gaudy look.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Butt-ugly Denon phones ...