The (new) HD800 Impressions Thread

[Thenewguy007]

There are a lot of factors that might have contributed to that shrinking soundstage. A brighter cable, for one, can increase perceived soundstage size. But every cable is different. The end result will depend heavily on the design philosophy. Boiling it down to just copper vs. silver is a bit of an oversimplification. A copper cable can easily be better or worse than a silver one, based on the design.

Basically, it boils down to 3 factors: Capacitance (the cable's ability to store an electrical charge), Inductance (the ratio of voltage to the rate of change in current), and the Resistance/Conductivity (how difficult it is to pass an electrical current through the cable). Resistance is generally the value that varies most from cable to cable. This is determined by the conductivity of the metal and the shape of the wire itself.

The conductivity rating of a metal is measured relative to the International Annealed Copper Standard (IACS). This shows how conductive a given metal is relative to the copper standard (which is 100) in terms of percentage. So here are some common values for cable materials:

Copper = 100 IACS
OFC Copper = 101 IACS
OCC Copper = 103 IACS
Silver = 106 IACS

So, in other words, a silver wire will be 6% more conductive than a copper wire of the same shape.

The next (and perhaps most important determining factor) is the size and shape of the wire. How thick is it? How far does the signal have to go? You can figure that out using a calculator like this one: http://www.cirris.com/learning-center/calculators/133-wire-resistance-calculator-table

For a 6ft cable, look how much resistance drops as you scale up in size:

24AWG = 0.154 ohm
18AWG = 0.038 ohm
14AWG = 0.015 ohm
12AWG = 0.010 ohm
10AWG = 0.006 ohm
8 AWG = 0.004 ohm

So, you can see from the numbers above, a signal traveling through a thin 24AWG wire encounters 38.5 times more resistance than a signal passing through a thicker 8AWG wire.

These numbers also vary with length. If we double the length of the 8AWG wire from 6 feet to 12 feet, the resistance will change proportionally from 0.004 ohm to 0.008 ohm.

So you have to look at the whole picture to determine what you actually have with the cable. If we start multiplying these numbers together, we can see a 6ft 12AWG cable (0.0094 ohms) actually has 57% more resistance than a 10AWG copper cable of the same length (0.006 ohms).

Other things play a factor too, like the quality of connectors and overall craftsmanship, but there is a lot of marketing speak that convolutes the basics in differentiating one type of cable from another. It would take far too long to try and cover it all here. But hopefully, this helps clear up the picture a bit so it makes it easier to understand what you are actually getting. Perhaps with some further analysis of the differences between the cable you ordered and the stock Sennheiser cable, you can find a cable that is more to your liking.

Cheers.
 

Thanks for the lesson!

 

[icebear]

....  
For a 6ft cable, look how much resistance drops as you scale up in size:
 
24AWG = 0.154 ohm
18AWG = 0.038 ohm
14AWG = 0.015 ohm
12AWG = 0.010 ohm
10AWG = 0.006 ohm
8 AWG = 0.004 ohm
 
So, you can see from the numbers above, a signal traveling through a thin 24AWG wire encounters 38.5 times more resistance than a signal passing through a thicker 8AWG wire.
These numbers also vary with length. If we double the length of the 8AWG wire from 6 feet to 12 feet, the resistance will change proportionally from 0.004 ohm to 0.008 ohm.
 
So you have to look at the whole picture to determine what you actually have with the cable. If we start multiplying these numbers together, we can see a 6ft 12AWG cable (0.0094 ohms) actually has 57% more resistance than a 10AWG copper cable of the same length (0.006 ohms).
 
Other things play a factor too, like the quality of connectors and overall craftsmanship, but there is a lot of marketing speak that convolutes the basics in differentiating one type of cable from another. It would take far too long to try and cover it all here. But hopefully, this helps clear up the picture a bit so it makes it easier to understand what you are actually getting. Perhaps with some further analysis of the differences between the cable you ordered and the stock Sennheiser cable, you can find a cable that is more to your liking.
 
Cheers.

 

 
The numbers taken by themselves make sense and 0.008 Ohm is indeed 2x more than 0.004 Ohm but we don't listen to the cable itself,
... we listen to a headphone

. And since this is the HD800 thread we are talking about an impedance range of 300 to 600Ohm.
 
Does the impedance difference contributed by the cable really make a difference for the amp to drive the headphone?
The impedance of the headphone is not constant over the frequency spectrum, it's a dynamic driver.
So 300.0094 to 600.0094 Ohm or 300.004 to 600.004 Ohm seem pretty irrelevant to me

.
 
Having said that, I have a Norne Vanquish 12ft in balanced 2x 3-pin Neutrik XLR configuration, I am happy with it and not experimenting with anything else. When asking Trevor for advice on the cable and explaining that I didn't want to change the sound in any way, I just wanted a balanced cable to go with my amp, he told me that the Vanquish was neutral and would not color the sound in any direction. That's what it sounds like to me and I like it.

 

[etc6849]

Pretty much what I was about to post.  The cable resistance is in series with the driver which is much larger in impedance, so you aren't going to really hear a difference (but you may honestly believe you are).
 
That said, I just built an XLR-4 cable using nice magomi wire and swear I hear more bass, but that's more than likely due to using the full differential amp mode of my Oppo HA-1.  Still need to post measurements.

 

[MikePio]

 
There are a lot of factors that might have contributed to that shrinking soundstage. A brighter cable, for one, can increase perceived soundstage size. But every cable is different. The end result will depend heavily on the design philosophy. Boiling it down to just copper vs. silver is a bit of an oversimplification. A copper cable can easily be better or worse than a silver one, based on the design.
 
Basically, it boils down to 3 factors: Capacitance (the cable's ability to store an electrical charge), Inductance (the ratio of voltage to the rate of change in current), and the Resistance/Conductivity (how difficult it is to pass an electrical current through the cable). Resistance is generally the value that varies most from cable to cable. This is determined by the conductivity of the metal and the shape of the wire itself.
 
The conductivity rating of a metal is measured relative to the International Annealed Copper Standard (IACS). This shows how conductive a given metal is relative to the copper standard (which is 100) in terms of percentage. So here are some common values for cable materials:
 
Copper = 100 IACS
OFC Copper = 101 IACS
OCC Copper = 103 IACS
Silver = 106 IACS
 
So, in other words, a silver wire will be 6% more conductive than a copper wire of the same shape.
 
The next (and perhaps most important determining factor) is the size and shape of the wire. How thick is it? How far does the signal have to go? You can figure that out using a calculator like this one: http://www.cirris.com/learning-center/calculators/133-wire-resistance-calculator-table
 
For a 6ft cable, look how much resistance drops as you scale up in size:
 
24AWG = 0.154 ohm
18AWG = 0.038 ohm
14AWG = 0.015 ohm
12AWG = 0.010 ohm
10AWG = 0.006 ohm
8 AWG = 0.004 ohm
 
So, you can see from the numbers above, a signal traveling through a thin 24AWG wire encounters 38.5 times more resistance than a signal passing through a thicker 8AWG wire.
 
These numbers also vary with length. If we double the length of the 8AWG wire from 6 feet to 12 feet, the resistance will change proportionally from 0.004 ohm to 0.008 ohm.
 
So you have to look at the whole picture to determine what you actually have with the cable. If we start multiplying these numbers together, we can see a 6ft 12AWG cable (0.0094 ohms) actually has 57% more resistance than a 10AWG copper cable of the same length (0.006 ohms).
 
Other things play a factor too, like the quality of connectors and overall craftsmanship, but there is a lot of marketing speak that convolutes the basics in differentiating one type of cable from another. It would take far too long to try and cover it all here. But hopefully, this helps clear up the picture a bit so it makes it easier to understand what you are actually getting. Perhaps with some further analysis of the differences between the cable you ordered and the stock Sennheiser cable, you can find a cable that is more to your liking.
 
Cheers.

 

 


Thank you for the thorough and concise explanation! Never knew that so many minute and complex aspects can change the sound from one cable to another. This is really eye opening and will definitely guide me toward the cable that best suits my musical tastes. I remember the first time I changed my interconnects from a monster cable to a more expensive (but still within sane reason) silver serpent cables the difference was clearly evident, even the volume on the same position was louder on the silver cable. Now the challenge will be to find which cable length, diameter, material type, craftsmanship and connector quality will provide me with the best listening experience, I have a feeling this will drive me to insanity... Once again, big thanks for the time and effort of this post, not to mention the educational aspect! You learn something new everyday! Cheers.

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

Sennheiser HD800 vs. AKG K1000 (bass light)



The system:



And the view:



Housekeeping
Before you read further, I must acknowledge my debt to those reviewers who came before me. [color=#e4af09]@DavidMahler[/color] is certainly the reviewer in chief, and his thoughts on K1000 are a must read. [color=#e4af09]@Piotr Ryka[/color] tried his own hand at the exact comparison I'm attempting, and his thoughts are an absolute must-read. I stand on his considerable shoulders, and hope to make up what I lack in his poetry in detail.

Iterations. They tell you less about a product perhaps than the company behind it. Audeze got a lot of (justified) flak when they released what felt like a dozen variants of the LCD-2, but they were a fledgling company, and it was their first and only product at the time. Sennheiser, like AKG, has produced just two iterations of their flagship headphone, bass heavy and bass light. David refers to the Sennheisers as having a "fuller tone" in the earlier versions and more air between the instruments in the revision. I have heard only the bass heavy HD800 and the bass light K1000 for any length of time, and this seems to present the greatest possible gulf between their signatures; I would love to A/B the bass light HD800 with the bass heavy K1000 at a future point.

Soundstage. To call them merely the soundstage king of headphones may in fact sell them short. I have only spent 2-3 hours listening to the SR-009 (w/ BHSE, at Headamp's SF meet booth last month), and for classical music, K1000 out of my Mjolnir 2 gives them a serious run for their money. The transparency that I hear from them is effortless and breathtaking. Natural cross-feed between channels is surely part of this, and invariably delivers a more persuasive result than the attempt to mimic it that you can find in the SPL Phonitor. Our recording engineers, after all, factor crossed into the recording itself. Something about the solidity of speakers and precision of headphones comes together in K1000 to provide a listening experience of unbelievable transparency—perhaps the best ever, though I’m getting ahead of myself. However, the ear-cups swivel from parallel with the ear to a little over 45° but not quite 60° to it, and therefore my K1000 may not be your K1000. However, fully parallel, the speaker grills touch my ears, and I avoid this.

EQ. The EQ/anti-EQ debate may be second only to the subjectivists/objectivists in vehemence. I love music, but I don't want the experience to fatigue me. Just as buying an LCD series represents a good way to get around the ugliness of some old recordings, EQ helps me tame the top end (and boost the bottom end) of my K1000 such that the result is both more pleasing and, to me, more natural sounding. NB: as you widen the soundstage, the bass response declines much faster than the volume in general.

Iterations, soundstage customizability, and the unusual appeal of EQ may make this review more than usually difficult to replicate for yourself at home. I intend to indicate EQ (see above pictures) and approximate soundstage as often as possible, but I can't guarantee scientific accuracy.

[/housekeeping]




Second Installment - Solo Piano (and Harpsichord). Note: This is the second of an ongoing series of posts I plan to write comparing the old champ (K1000) with reigning champion (HD800), presumably to be collected as a review at a future point.

The pianoforte, as it was originally called, is perhaps the most devilishly difficult instrument to reproduce acoustically. The attack and decay must be just right; the bass must give heft without bloat; the tone is often liable to become sibilant or fatiguing. Multibit DACs help us a lot, but transducers do not have a cakewalk, and many of them fall short—even the HE-6 and HD600, both of which I like a lot, have yet to give me piano I’m in love with, and part of my search is inspired by my own dissatisfaction with my HD800 (lessened considerably post-bimby).

Beethoven Piano Sonatas (Emil Gilels). This near-complete cycle (missing only 1, 9, and 32) is extremely well engineered, dating from the 1970s and '80s. Originally, I thought solo piano would be clearly a place for HD800 to shine. The massive soundstage of K1000 is, so the thinking would go, somewhat wasted on an ensemble that requires tone first and soundstage only afterwards. Listening to it on K1000 is, truly, an out-of-head experience. I continue to turn my head, thinking I will see a pianist. Wide open grills surely give the most air, but almost disorientingly so. About halfway open is about as closed as I listen, and it's perfect for this piano music. The treble is a little more to the right and the bass to the left, but K1000 envelops me well. Both the EQ settings in the prior post sound great; I go back and forth. Attack is fast, decay is supremely lifelike.

The finale to the moonlight sonata is one of the most famous and exciting movements in the piano literature—furious, passionate, sublime. I find that with the above EQ, K1000's tone is more natural than that of HD800, either with my 'HD800' EQ or flat. HD800 has a little congestion in the midrange 0:45-1:00, and frequently thereafter, and the bass seems to lack transparency. The treble is fine, though sharp; the bass, even when fuller, is not as tight as K1000, and doesn't seem as well integrated into the whole frequency spectrum. Their detail retrieval is more or less equal, but I think David had it right when he said HD800 is a very transparent window into the music. Now, he also claimed that K1000 ‘lacked naturalness’ and was ‘not transparent,’ assessments with which I could not disagree more. I hear no barrier whatsoever between me and Gilels.

The 2nd movement of Pathetique is likewise quite famous (and together with the slow movement from Moonlight, the only Beethoven I can play). The lightness of his touch is ably conveyed on K1000. The subtle shades are exquisitely rendered. The differences here are minute: smaller soundstage, more noise, hints of the Sennheiser veil and lack of naturalness at times with HD800.

Chopin Preludes (Martha Argerich). Both headphones render the preludes with gobs of detail and with a highly neutral signature. Here too, however, the K1000 pulls ahead: in transparency, in tone, in soundstage. I can see Argerich pounding out the fury of #16, swaying with the lyricism of #17. Piotr said that K1000 was poetry and HD800 was prose; this assessment does not miss the mark. It seems wrong to call K1000 a ‘euphonic’ headphone, because its signature is, to the extent it loses its neutrality, entirely on the bright side of the ledger, and perhaps the word I’m looking for is the aforesaid transparency, but I am swept up by my music in ways HD800, in all its technical excellence, does not achieve. The left-hand octaves appear from nowhere, and with good EQ (K1000 v.1) feel tactile and palpable. Each note she plays, no matter the speed or octave, seems to have an effortless clarity.

Goldberg Variations (Scott Ross, Harpsichord). I’m not sure anyone has ever held a large-scale competition for “Treble King,” but K1000 has a seemingly limitless upper register, free of grain or sibilance. It would certainly be a serious contender. I reiterate the necessity of EQ to achieve the correct proportion of bass and treble, but once having done it, I find the signature utterly transparent. Digression! Of late, the hobby seems to have been unduly enamored of bass-heavy signatures, from Abyss and Audeze down to Dr. Dre. Although K1000 sounds tinny without EQ to my ears, I think we might do well to acknowledge the impact changing tastes and trends have on the products the industry produces. 1989 is a far place indeed from 2016, and though the treble emphasis is real, it seems as though we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we refuse to compensate for a tuning with which our tastes differ. While I can listen to unequalized recordings, I must do so at lower volumes, and the experience fatigues more quickly. I am not an expert on baroque music, however, so must defer to experts about the correct sound of a harpsichord. [/digression]

K1000 handles the Goldbergs with aplomb. Complex passages are rendered effortlessly, with great air around the notes, a black background (being inefficient helps them here), and each inflection of Ross’s clearly communicated to the listener. The expressive range of the harpsichord is narrow: the strings are plucked rather than hit, making different volumes difficult, and entire pieces played within a much smaller range than the piano. The transient response here is just excellent. David likes calling his favorite TR ‘liquid-like,’ a phrase I’m sure Cavalli only encourages. I don’t know what a liquid transient response sounds like, but the harpsichord sounds effortless and natural, the attack and decay so utterly real. Each melodic voice is clearly delineated among the others.

HD800, by comparison, blurs notes together very slightly (variation 10, fughetta, is a good example—especially on trills and with denser passages). The tone is mellower, and there is less air amid the notes. The soundstage is more intimate; you feel as though you’re in a chamber with carpeting to dampen some of the treble. K1000 had a weightless spaciousness (that most certainly did NOT comport with the very real fatigue my temples felt after extended listening), though—thinking about the “HD800 has an artificially large soundstage!” complaint—makes me laugh at how tame HD800’s alleged hugeness is by comparison. K1000 has this way of pulling you out of the room in which the recording was made and letting you soar as though a boundless space with your music as though you were in Kubrick’s 2001. I should emphasize that these differences tend to disappear after the first minutes of listening. In any event, after busting out my HD600, I confirmed that, yes, it was the most easy to listen to of the three. On harpsichord, I would probably call it a draw, with a note that the LCD series might be worth looking into because of all the treble.

Rachmaninoff Preludes op. 23 and 32 (Sviatoslav Richter, live in Kiev, 1960). I include these because they’re in mediocre mono sound with audible hiss throughout. The sharp, sibilant sound is the fault of the technology and recording technicians. One of the problems with audiophilia is that it’s made me intolerant of bad recordings. In fact, I created a new EQ just for this piece, with an even more aggressive slant toward lower frequencies, “K1000 v.2”:



K1000 rendered the playing with all its characteristic space; HD800 was more closed-in and intimate. Both were ruthlessly unforgiving and I’m not sure I have a definitive answer. Even HD600 was not altogether pleasant, though with these older recordings, I find you need to stay within their universe for a few days for your brain to recalibrate to poor audio quality. Again I might counsel someone to seek out an LCD-X, but between K1000 and HD800 I would give the edge to K1000 on account of a more natural tone and a soundstage from which details are more effortlessly picked out.

Closing:
In the same way that going on a bicycle ride after months of avoiding the bicycle gives one an unmistakable soreness in the groin, my temples are becoming sore after half a week of nonstop K1000 listening. I hope they become stronger in the weeks ahead.

On the whole, Mjolnir 2 powered K1000 to appreciably greater transparency in piano and keyboard music, though with caveats for harpsichord and old/bad recordings.

 

[thecrow]

Fyi. I noticed this morning in australia that it appears the hdva600 is being cleared out at $999 AUD at noisy motel and addicted to audio

 

[Hansotek]

   
The numbers taken by themselves make sense and 0.008 Ohm is indeed 2x more than 0.004 Ohm but we don't listen to the cable itself,
... we listen to a headphone

. And since this is the HD800 thread we are talking about an impedance range of 300 to 600Ohm.
 
Does the impedance difference contributed by the cable really make a difference for the amp to drive the headphone?
The impedance of the headphone is not constant over the frequency spectrum, it's a dynamic driver.
So 300.0094 to 600.0094 Ohm or 300.004 to 600.004 Ohm seem pretty irrelevant to me

.
 
Having said that, I have a Norne Vanquish 12ft in balanced 2x 3-pin Neutrik XLR configuration, I am happy with it and not experimenting with anything else. When asking Trevor for advice on the cable and explaining that I didn't want to change the sound in any way, I just wanted a balanced cable to go with my amp, he told me that the Vanquish was neutral and would not color the sound in any direction. That's what it sounds like to me and I like it.

 
Well, hopefully you're listening to music and not the headphone. 

 
 
 
With respect, I would be remiss not to point out that your attempt to calculate the effect of impedance in the example above is incorrect. That is simply not how it works. If you want to get totally technical about it, the formula for insertion loss is 20*log [RLoad/(RLoad + RCable)], which will express (in decibels) the loss of load power due to resistance relative to a given frequency, which (as you pointed out) is a variable in a coiled dynamic driver. Regardless, it's more complicated than you've pointed out, in both objective mathematics and subjective sonics.
 
The concept of coloration you mentioned above is a funny one, because technically any cable is going to color the sound simply by virtue of the amount of signal loss it contributes. The perfect cable would be no cable at all - a direct connection to the amplifier. Any cabling in between is going to deliver a fraction of the signal to the driver, hence why the measure of resistance is so important. Any number above zero is generally representative of the amount of signal loss you are suffering between the amplifier and the driver.
 
(I'll note that this is a bit of a dumbed down explanation and said "signal loss" has a lot to do with the damping factor and its relative effects on decay and the time-frequency domain. An amplifier's job has as much to do with stopping the driver with precision as it does with actually moving it in the first place. Clearly this gets very complicated very quickly. Hopefully, I'm not boring you guys to death.)
 
All that being said, @icebear, Norne makes some awesome stuff. If you like what you have, mission accomplished. I'm a science nerd and I like to understand how and why everything works the way it does, but when it comes to sonics, I am a complete subjectivist. Yes, I want to understand why I like one thing better than the other, but the ears don't lie, brother. Good is good. All that matters is that you are enjoying the music with your system. The way I see it, the science should guide, not decide.
 
Cheers!

 

[FLTWS]

@ bosiemoncrieff  
 
Brilliant, thanks for the effort, looking forward to more installments.

 

[icebear]

   
Well, hopefully you're listening to music and not the headphone. 

 
 
 
With respect, I would be remiss not to point out that your attempt to calculate the effect of impedance in the example above is incorrect. That is simply not how it works. If you want to get totally technical about it, the formula for insertion loss is 20*log [RLoad/(RLoad + RCable)], which will express (in decibels) the loss of load power due to resistance relative to a given frequency, which (as you pointed out) is a variable in a coiled dynamic driver. Regardless, it's more complicated than you've pointed out, in both objective mathematics and subjective sonics.
.... Cheers!

 
Listening to music via my headphone

.
 
If that formula is correct (I didn't do any research on that)
20*log [RLoad/(RLoad + RCable)]
R load: 600 Ohm
R cable : 0.008
 
Then in our example we get a loss of :
20* log [600/600 + 0.008] = 20*log [600/600.008] = 20*log 0.99998666 = - 1.158... 10^-04 = -0.0000158....
 
Doesn't really look as it would make a difference to me

... you ever so slightly touch the volume dial and you more than compensate for it

But hey, it's fun to play with the numbers!
 
Cheers as well

 

[blacknile]

 

Beethoven Piano Sonatas (Emil Gilels). This near-complete cycle (missing only 1, 9, and 32) is extremely well engineered, dating from the 1970s and '80s. Originally, I thought solo piano would be clearly a place for HD800 to shine. The massive soundstage of K1000 is, so the thinking would go, somewhat wasted on an ensemble that requires tone first and soundstage only afterwards. Listening to it on K1000 is, truly, an out-of-head experience. I continue to turn my head, thinking I will see a pianist. Wide open grills surely give the most air, but almost disorientingly so. About halfway open is about as closed as I listen, and it's perfect for this piano music. The treble is a little more to the right and the bass to the left, but K1000 envelops me well. Both the EQ settings in the prior post sound great; I go back and forth. Attack is fast, decay is supremely lifelike.
 
The finale to the moonlight sonata is one of the most famous and exciting movements in the piano literature—furious, passionate, sublime. I find that with the above EQ, K1000's tone is more natural than that of HD800, either with my 'HD800' EQ or flat. HD800 has a little congestion in the midrange 0:45-1:00, and frequently thereafter, and the bass seems to lack transparency. The treble is fine, though sharp; the bass, even when fuller, is not as tight as K1000, and doesn't seem as well integrated into the whole frequency spectrum. Their detail retrieval is more or less equal, but I think David had it right when he said HD800 is a very transparent window into the music. Now, he also claimed that K1000 ‘lacked naturalness’ and was ‘not transparent,’ assessments with which I could not disagree more. I hear no barrier whatsoever between me and Gilels.
 
The 2nd movement of Pathetique is likewise quite famous (and together with the slow movement from Moonlight, the only Beethoven I can play). The lightness of his touch is ably conveyed on K1000. The subtle shades are exquisitely rendered. The differences here are minute: smaller soundstage, more noise, hints of the Sennheiser veil and lack of naturalness at times with HD800.

 
Interesting personal opinion, thanks. I do not own the K1000 however I own a late SN HD800 (40K+) and about 20 recordings of Beethoven's piano sonatas, including the DG Gilels box set the reviewer above has selected. I, too, am intimately familiar with the sound of a pianoforte as two members of my family are classically trained pianists working on Fazioli and Bösendorfer.
 
I disagree with the impressions presented above because I would argue the reviewer is conflating characteristics of the source material with characteristics of the headphones. DG, while having recorded some of the greatest musicians in history, has never been famous for superlative sound quality. The above collection (notwithstanding Gilels' absolute mastery of the material) is not known for offering a good reproduction of the piano instrument. The piano output of DG has indeed been quite varied in terms of sound quality. While there are very good sounding recordings, there are also some complete lemons (Pollini's Schubert sonata recordings, while absolute masterpieces musically, are extremely poorly recorded).
 
I would argue that the Giles collection above does not represent good source material to judge what the HD800 are capable of. To test what these headphones are really capable of using readily available classical piano recordings, I would recommend Backhaus' set on Decca, or even better Gulda again on Decca (Gulda Spielt Beethoven, 12CDs). Whilst I cannot exclude the reviewer above will still prefer the AKG model to the HD800, I would suggest that in no way my copy of the HD800 lack naturalness when reproducing well recorded piano.

 

[Peti]

Post of the week as far as I'm concerned! Hansotek for President!

I just bou and balanced cable for my hd800, so the timing is perfect, too.

 

[thefitz]

Have we read this?
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-cable-measurements-part-one-page-2
 
Has anyone explained this away, beyond "well, the differences aren't measurable"?
 
This cable discussion sounds like saying "0.00008% tax is one third as much tax as 0.00024% tax on a $300 item" with regards to resistance.

 

[Hansotek]

  Have we read this?
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-cable-measurements-part-one-page-2
 
Has anyone explained this away, beyond "well, the differences aren't measurable"?
 
This cable discussion sounds like saying "0.00008% tax is one third as much tax as 0.00024% tax on a $300 item" with regards to resistance.

 
I feel like this video offers a pretty good explanation and actually shows a controlled test that allows you to clearly see the differences between two cables with different damping factors.
 
 

 
(I apologize if this video starts in a random place. I don't know how to get it to start at a specific timecode when you link it. But it's worth watching.)
 
I've met this dude at shows and his A/B tests are extremely compelling. I'm actually reviewing his line of headphone cables right now for Enjoy the Music, hence why I had so much research on the ready yesterday about cables. I'm trying to figure out the same questions you guys are!

 

[thefitz]

I've come to this hobby directly from being really into playing music, and it's funny how many principles carry over. Cables were a big thing, and it was common knowledge that cables (or anything passive) can only attenuate. They cannot add. Cables only really start impacting your sound as they become exceedingly long (30+ feet!), unless they're deliberately attenuated to give a certain sound (i.e. "bass cables" that simply mute the hell out of the top end). Don't forget, guitars' sound is powered by magnetism, or perhaps a 9-18V battery.
 
Then, there was this: https://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/ (and we're talking in reference to 4 and 8 ohm loads, not 300 freaking ohms!)
 
Finally, there's the conceptual nightmare that is the fact that companies knowingly put out "flagships" that are being held back considerably by cables. If you're putting out audiophile stuff and every stock cable every made sucks, why bother selling a flagship with a cable?
 
But hey, I got in mad **** being skeptical about a freaking 3-foot USB cable improving sound.
 
On topic? I've ordered a SuperDupont mod from eBay and can't wait to try it. I'm a little freaked out about pulling back the plastic screen, but every video I've seen has the end result look just fine.

 

[MikePio]

   
Listening to music via my headphone

.
 
If that formula is correct (I didn't do any research on that)
20*log [RLoad/(RLoad + RCable)]
R load: 600 Ohm
R cable : 0.008
 
Then in our example we get a loss of :
20* log [600/600 + 0.008] = 20*log [600/600.008] = 20*log 0.99998666 = - 1.158... 10^-04 = -0.0000158....
 
Doesn't really look as it would make a difference to me

... you ever so slightly touch the volume dial and you more than compensate for it

But hey, it's fun to play with the numbers!
 
Cheers as well

By the numbers you would think the difference would be negligible but practically that is not the case (at least in my experience). The difference between both the stock cable and the all copper wire is immediate with the HD800's. We can argue and debate one way or another, by using measurements, doing calculations or purely speculating on the subjective differences we are hearing. The bottom line is, both cables sound different. I know that matching volume is very important and crucial when comparing audio equipment, but the soundstage on the copper cable is closed (intimate?) regardless of normal listening volume levels, basically the difference is evident immediately. Some amplifiers/dacs I have tested in the past (blind tests) were much more difficult to differentiate. I used to think cables were a total waste of money and never invested in them, that is until I purchased silver interconnects because my previous ones started to degrade. Now the difference might have been just volume, but at the same volume levels, the silver serpent wire was louder. That alone made me very happy, since I feel my amplifier could benefit from some marginal volume increase. Either way I hope this thread does not turn into a cable debate, I think majority of users are tired of that subject, which has repeatedly been discussed over and over again. 

 In the end it is simple, if you buy a aftermarket cable and you can hear a difference, that is all that matters and if you don't, well your wallet will be that much happier!