Battle Of The Flagships (57 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: Ultimate Ears UERM added (4/14/13) - Page 41

Kind of a dumb question. But if I have the Lyr>Bifrost and I want to try the HD-800's again, how do I EQ the treble (since it was the treble on the HD-800 that bugged my ears)?

Is there a program you guys use? Can you do it in iTunes? I used to own the Fiio E17 which allowed you to tweak that stuff. But obviously I don't use that anymore.

 

I would call them considerably less neutral than the LCD-2s and so would most measurements and reviewers. I would also define them as a downgrade, as I really don't want to take my LCD-2s, drop the power/extension of the bass, make the mids more grainy and increasingly recessed all for the sake of a bright and occasionally artificial sounding treble. YMMV of course.

 

The intimate presentation of the LCD-2s isn't to it's detriment either.

 

EDIT: Glad we can agree when it comes to the HE-500s though.

Edited by Darkbeat - 11/5/12 at 11:01pm

I don't see the lack of bass power/extension

 

LCD-2

 

HE-400

 

 

 

From this, I can't really see either losing in quantity or extension. Distortion measurements seem to show that the HE-400s are fairly clean in the bass as well, even more so than the HE-500. From subjective listening, I hear a leaner note presentation on the HiFiMANs, but certainly not a lesser impact or speed. Yes, mids are grainier and less detailed (pretty much non-debatable), but I would say that the thicker, lusher sound blends a bit too much, therefore sounding less transparent at times compared to the HE-400.The upper-mid recession is somewhat remediable through velours/grill mods/+2-3dB worth of EQ. The treble is bright, but the darkness from the rest of the treble balances it out somewhat. I would even say that the LCD-2s lack some well needed air (the broadband treble recession can sound stifling and not "transparent" at times). They can seem to lack some natural space compared to the HE-400s as well, but as you said, people might prefer that. The artificial treble issue can be a bit troublesome, I agree. In the end, both make some sacrifices to achieve what they're good at. 

 

In the end, this isn't even a HE-400 thread (the review doesn't even have it), so I have no idea why I'm talking so much about it . As you said, YMMV. Would still take either over the HE-500, but that's just personal preference, there's nothing wrong with them.

 

It isn't? What graph am I looking at then?

 

In any case I owned the Denon and sold it almost immediately. Ugh.

Reading that I'd say sell them both and go for a new Rev2 LCD2. I've read before that the rev1 does have more of a peak in the upper mids and this may be what annoys you on certain recordings. I find the HE500's (as I've mentioned before) to be more "hot" in the treble department which is why I prefer it over the LCD2 for certain music. There's not even a hint of "heat" with the LCD2.2's and I really like their treble. It's sooo smooth yet doesn't miss any detail. It just doesn't pronounce the detail as much as the hifimans. The sound as a whole on the LCD2's is just more cohesive and natural, and because of this I find them more enjoyable. However, anyone looking at either headphone for pop music can't go wrong with the he500's because they add that sparkle and "baboom" (just made that word up:) at the bottom and that's why I prefer them for electronic music. I love the LCD2's for Jazz and small ensemble classical. The HE500's for bigger orchestral.

"The HE500's for bigger orchestral."

 

Well, that's what I mostly listen to. And I've yet to hear the HE-500s with the velour pads.

 

But enough about me. Back to David's all-conquering review.

I agree that although the he400s have some laidback mids, they don't sound recessed or hollow like the denons. I think it may be due to the cups/closed design of the denon making them sound that way which makes it more of an annoying coloration. The he400s just sound like accurate speakers positioned a certain way far from the listener so to speak.

By the way the rev2 of the he400s are supposedly more accurate and filled in midrangewise too.

There's a Rev2 of the HE-400? Wow, it's hard to know what you're buying these days. Any different revs of the HE-500?

 

I'm thinking the same thing about the HE-500, is there any rev for the HE-500 or it's only batches (with different cable and pads)?, perhaps i should ask this at HE-500 thread

The Rev2 of the he400 came out about the time when they fixed the issue with the drivers having no more sound because of some loose screws inside. I'm not sure if it was officially called a rev2 though.

I will not be original - David, thank you, it was epic!

BTW, LFF,s Paradox definitely deserved to be on your radar - insane price/performance, maybe even better than HE-500 (I have both)

Thank you for the response, sir. I own the T1 and am pretty happy with them for classical (and other well recorded music). I was just trying to see if, short of the top-tier Stax, Sennheiser, and Sony, I should switch to the likes of an HD800 or HE6. That would be more or less a lateral move I guess?

 

Exactly. You're looking at the same graph you posted earlier.  Which is precisely why you can't trust frequency response.  Decay time, transient speed, distortion etc all have something to do with the sound signature that just the FR can't represent.  I'm not trying to say you should go HE-400, but merely pointing out the flaw in relying on FR graphs so heavily.  I'd totally keep the LCD-2 if I had it.

Also the element that cause the bad FR is important too. If the driver itself produces that FR without any annoyances caused by the enclosure then that would be a great headphone vs something that created the same response due to enclosure reverb and anomalies.

David, in honor of this excellent review, I will pull out some Mahler and listen to some great classical music today. Since I'm at work I'll be using the T5p's, not quite flagship, but close enough. 

Thanks for all the work on this.