or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › HD800 vs HE500
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD800 vs HE500 - Page 48

post #706 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by koiloco View Post

and you believe in that graph ?  or your ear?  I don't.  I think that if you pull 10 people off the street and ask them to listen to the HD800 and HE500, all will say HD is bass light compared to HE500.
I am not debating bass quality/extension here or which bass one would prefer.  Graphs, especially the one in the link, is extremely misleading to me.  I do find bass on HD800 satisfying as well for certain genres but not all.  That's where the HE500 comes in.  Maybe, it's just a personal taste/preference matter.  Just my 2c.
I was preoccupied watching Lord of the Rings Return of the King with some friends tonight, and I browsed during breaks, but never had the time to respond. But never did I have doubt you would show up in my stead like Aragorn's last march to the Black Gates of Mordor. To say the HD800 has more bass impact than the HE-500 is like saying the Ring could be destroyed by mere mortal hands. To say that you can judge based on graphs, which has no mention of amps or amps that are ideal for each headphone, it's like judging the weight of carrying the Ring without actually bound to the burden of it. You must feel the impact of the HE-500 to understand it, just like you must be a ringbearer to understand the burden. Inn the biggest apologist for the HD800 believe it sounds better than HE-500 even on rock or pop, and it doesn't lack euphony. Buy one area I admit the HE-500 to be better in its bass slam and impact, not necessarily extension mind you.

Fyi I'm a bit drunk at the moment.
post #707 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonido View Post

Fyi I'm a bit drunk at the moment.
That much is clear wink.gif
post #708 of 1025

^ no shiit.  That's a lot of misspellings.   :beerchug:

post #709 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin Morrow View Post
 

Been listening to the HD800, the HE-500, and the LCD-2.2 on the LG for awhile. All I can say is, the LCD-2.2's soundstage scales a lot

 

On which LG? 

 

post #710 of 1025

^^ It seems I'm drunk too. 

post #711 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdrm360 View Post
 

^^ It seems I'm drunk too. 

Do you have your impressions of the Alpha Dogz here? Interested in going either Stax or HD800/HE500, but Alpha Dogz look neat.

post #712 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by vampire5003 View Post
 

Do you have your impressions of the Alpha Dogz here? Interested in going either Stax or HD800/HE500, but Alpha Dogz look neat.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/676095/mrspeakers-alpha-dog-revealed-the-worlds-first-production-3d-printed-headphones/3855#post_9968005

post #713 of 1025
post #714 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post

That much is clear wink.gif

Agreed. biggrin.gif
post #715 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post


It's in my profile. Plus I think you're forgetting the dac/source too. I think you might be mistaking the quickness of the HD800's bass (as per its very tight waterfall plot) as being light. Its there and its fast (and measureably closer to the recording), while the HE-500s have more "bloom" and technically slower. This can give the impression of more bass, though objectively (and based on my experiences) there certainly isn't more...and the objective measurements agree with that.

I've also owned the HE-6s and never once thought they had more bass than the HD800s (and regardless of speaker amp).

Now Peter you have gone to far.  :biggrin:   It's been a few years sense you've owned the HE-6.  I have both right here, right now.  The Bass on the HE-6 outshines the bass on both the HE-500 and the HD800 no question.  The HH-6 on some tracks will make the HD800 sound thin, switch back to the HE-6 that same track is full and has heft.  

 

From me graphs or not objective in the sense that 3 graphs of the same headphone from 3 different sources are well "different". 

post #716 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

Now Peter you have gone to far.  biggrin.gif    It's been a few years sense you've owned the HE-6.  I have both right here, right now.  The Bass on the HE-6 outshines the bass on both the HE-500 and the HD800 no question.  The HH-6 on some tracks will make the HD800 sound thin, switch back to the HE-6 that same track is full and has heft.  

From me graphs or not objective in the sense that 3 graphs of the same headphone from 3 different sources are well "different". 

Darryl...sorry dude. but that's how I hear it and how they measure. Not saying one's bass is better (though I would say the HD800s offer more texture and detail), but they do offer roughly the same amount of it. Your "Heft" comment comes out as simply slower drivers on a waterfall plot. The HD800s are very quick and their drivers hit the note and move along. Some like this and some prefer the "heft". But total quantity of bass (measured in dB) is about the same...the duration however isn't.

We're all pretty sure of where you stand with the HE-6s, but some of us don't hold them in the same regard. I'm more with Tyll on this one and think technically the HD800s are among the very best proficient dynamic headphones out there (though not perfect). I however hold the HE-6s in higher regard than Tyll, but they don't crack the top 5 for me. But I do agree that both (HE-6s and HD800s) are a good step up from the recently discontinued HE500s.

With regards to comparing different measurement systems, I thought it was widely known that you can't do that as their methodolgies (some use a Neumann head, some don't, etc...) can be very different....but when you compare headphones within the same measurement setup, they all pretty much tell you the same thing.

On another note altogether....this video can explain why objective scientific measurements help. Our perceptions can easily fool us with what's happening in reality. Now I realize that this is in regards to temperature, but aural perceptions can be even more tricky to wrap one's head around. Without this type of scientific thinking, there would be no HiFi as we'd still be living in caves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDbMEdLiCs

Maybe it's just the way my engineer's brain is wired (but the person asking the question in the video is an engineer as well wink.gif ), but many things in nature can fool us (as Richard Feynman so eloquently stated in my signature). I am in NO WAY stating that measurements can tell you the whole story ('cause I don't think they can), but used with first hand experiences one can gain a greater understanding of what's really going on.)
Edited by MacedonianHero - 1/11/14 at 8:35am
post #717 of 1025

I think you think "Tyll" gives your view more credit or something:blink:  Ha ha.  No matter the methodologies the result should be the same.  That's like taking different roads to get to the same place. The result is the same.  So measurements are flawed and I don't trust them when it comes to judging a headphone.  I let my ears to the walking.  So there's no need to talk about measurements with me they hold little to no weight.

 

No, you can't measure heft, you can measure decay.  I'm not talking about the decay.  Yes I like the decay better on the HE-6 = more real IMO.  The decay on the HD800 is to fast little to no reverb.  By heft I'm talking about the weight of the note, the fullness of the tone.  Again, in this department the HD800 falls short of both the HE-6 and the HD-500.  They can sound thin at times.

 

So if you want to look at technicalities yes the HD800 is the better technical headphone - no doubt.  However, the HE-6 and the HE-500 are the more enjoyable headphones by far.  What good are the technicalities if you can't enjoy the music.  Yes - I absolutely do enjoy "some" music with the HD800.  That's why I got my pair back.  However, the HD800 is not the all around headphone the HE-6 and HE-500s are as far as simply enjoying the music.  Measurements - you can have them, I'll stick with good old fashion head bobbing and toe tapping.  I'm hoping that's what the LCD-X and the HE-560 will give me.  

 

On my rig with my new DAC the HE-6 kicks the HD800s "ARS"  in the bass department.  Again. side by side..  Here today - not 3 or 4 years ago.  Sorry, no one can remember that far back.

post #718 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

I think you think "Tyll" gives your view more credit or something:blink:  Ha ha.  No matter the methodologies the result should be the same.  That's like taking different roads to get to the same place. The result is the same.  So measurements are flawed and I don't trust them when it comes to judging a headphone.  I let my ears to the walking.  So there's no need to talk about measurements with me they hold little to no weight.

 

No, you can't measure heft, you can measure decay.  I'm not talking about the decay.  Yes I like the decay better on the HE-6 = more real IMO.  The decay on the HD800 is to fast little to no reverb.  By heft I'm talking about the weight of the note, the fullness of the tone.  Again, in this department the HD800 falls short of both the HE-6 and the HD-500.  They can sound thin at times.

 

So if you want to look at technicalities yes the HD800 is the better technical headphone - no doubt.  However, the HE-6 and the HE-500 are the more enjoyable headphones by far.  What good are the technicalities if you can't enjoy the music.  Yes - I absolutely do enjoy "some" music with the HD800.  That's why I got my pair back.  However, the HD800 is not the all around headphone the HE-6 and HE-500s are as far as simply enjoying the music.  Measurements - you can have them, I'll stick with good old fashion head bobbing and toe tapping.  I'm hoping that's what the LCD-X and the HE-560 will give me.  

 

On my rig with my new DAC the HE-6 kicks the HD800s "ARS"  in the bass department.  Again. side by side..  Here today - not 3 or 4 years ago.  Sorry, no one can remember that far back.

 

I'm using Tyll as another data point of a very experienced user who's heard it all (and more than anyone on this thread); and he's the one who actually TAKES the measurements. ;) I don't always agree with him, but in this case I do. With regards to the different methodologies, I'm sorry, but it seems that you can't get why different systems can take different paths to the same destination when comparing headphones within the same system. It's quite logical actually and its done all the time.

 

Heft = slam * decay. So the HE-6s decay slower...makes sense as they're slower headphones in comparison. But they both slam about the same as evidenced by the different measurement systems I've seen. There is no question in my mind that the HD800s offer more textured bass with better detail retrieval and location specific information. Actually they tend to do this across the FR spectrum.

 

And I had BOTH for over a year side by side and made some very detailed notes and there is no question in my mind that the HD800s are in the top 3 headphones I've ever heard and the HE-6s struggle to make the top 10. No matter how many times you say it, you cannot invalidate my first hand experiences for over a year. After all, there is a good reason why the HD800s are still here and the HE-6s are long gone with no plan on me ever going back. ;) 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 1/11/14 at 8:46am
post #719 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

 

I'm using Tyll as another data point of a very experienced user who's heard it all; and he's the one who actually TAKES the measurements. ;)  With regards to the different methodologies, I'm sorry, but it seems that you can't get why different systems can take different paths to the same destination when comparing headphones within the same system. It's quite logical actually and its done all the time.

 

Heft = slam * decay. So the HE-6s decay slower...makes sense as they're slower headphones in comparison. But they both slam about the same as evidenced by the different measurement systems I've seen. There is no question in my mind that the HD800s offer more textured bass with better detail retrieval and location specific information. Actually they tend to do this across the FR spectrum.

 

And I had BOTH for over a year side by side and made some very detailed notes and there is no question in my mind that the HD800s are in the top 3 headphones I've ever heard and the HE-6s struggle to make the top 10. No matter how many times you say it, you cannot invalidate my first hand experiences for over a year. After all, there is a good reason why the HD800s are still here and the HE-6s are long gone with no plan on me ever going back. ;) 

I didn't know it was a contest on how long we've had them.  Well I'll play.  I had 2 different HE-6s and two different HD800 for 3 years and still going.  I win..:biggrin:  ha ha ha..  

 

Still to this day.  The HE-6 and HE-500s are the more "enjoyable" headphone.  Again, you can have the measurements and the technicalities.  I like to listen to music and enjoy my headphones, not look at graphs and debate which headphone measures better.:blink:

 

I wonder why you seem to always bring the HE-6 into every discussion that does not concern them:blink:  ha ha ha...  Must mean something..  

 

To the bold:

Huh?  Thats what I'm saying, different systems should get to the same destination.  The fact of the matter is -"THEY DON"T"  They are flawed.  To say Tyll's is the right one and all others are not is ridiculous (I know you didn't say that - I'm just saying)

 

 

 

Oh I'll play the ranking game to.  Here's mine.  HE-6  Ha..  Not sure why you rank your headphones all the time.  What does that mean - I mean really?  IIRC you also rank the LCD-3 over the HD800.  Well I don't, and that's why they're gone to never return.  

post #720 of 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

I didn't know it was a contest on how long we've had them.  Well I'll play.  I had 2 different HE-6s and two different HD800 for 3 years and still going.  I win..:biggrin:  ha ha ha..  

 

Still to this day.  The HE-6 and HE-500s are the more "enjoyable" headphone.  Again, you can have the measurements and the technicalities.  I like to listen to music and enjoy my headphones, not look at graphs and debate which headphone measures better.:blink:

 

I wonder why you seem to always bring the HE-6 into every discussion that does not concern them:blink:  ha ha ha...  Must mean something..  

 

To the bold:

Huh?  Thats what I'm saying, different systems should get to the same destination.  The fact of the matter is -"THEY DON"T"  They are flawed.  To say Tyll's is the right one and all others are not is ridiculous (I know you didn't say that - I'm just saying)

 

 

 

Oh I'll play the ranking game to.  Here's mine.  HE-6  Ha..  Not sure why you rank your headphones all the time.  What does that mean - I mean really?  IIRC you also rank the LCD-3 over the HD800.  Well I don't, and that's why they're gone to never return.  

 

You know exactly in what context. And you do win for your self. But for me, you're oh so very not on target. All the measurements I've seen of the HE-6s/HE-500/HD800 show that they have the same impact in bass. Regardless of Tyll's or purrin's, or Golden Ears. That's what I meant. And subject opinion are just that...subjective. The advantage with objective measurements is that they can be translated over to others (simply because they don't bring in personal bias').

 

And my ranking of headphones does help me understand where they all compete. Isn' that what we do. Yes, I sold my LCD-3s, because I prefer the LCD-X's to them and having both open Audeze's on hand seems silly. So your final comment really doesn't make sense to me.

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 › HD800 vs HE500