or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › The (new) HD800 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The (new) HD800 Impressions Thread - Page 256

post #3826 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Let's make a hd800 , d2000 comparison.

 

If I look at the ratings at golden ear,

you have :

treble relative to midrange: 5 (imply very bright)

bass relative to midrange: 0 (right amount of bass)

bass texture: 4 (punchy, but not the punchiest headphone)

http://en.goldenears.net/4326

 

Compared to the denon D2000:

treble relative to midrange: 1 (slight treble emphasis)

bass relative to midrange: 2 (a moderate bass emphasis)

treble + bass emphasis = slight V signature

bass texture: 5 (punchier than the HD800, then).

http://en.goldenears.net/4170

 

I don't see much people complaining of the d2000 bass, which according golden ear ,

have a punchier bass than the hd800, and a moderate bass emphasis.

 

Off course you could criticize the golden ear rating, but I think they provide a great tool

to compare headphone, especially if you can't try them , before you buy them.

 

 

I guess I would be a person complaining about the D2000 bass. I had all three of the Denons D2000, D5000, D7000.  The D2000 is the last one I would pick for it's Bass presentation.  

 

I'll take everything about the HD800 over the D2000s including anything regarding bass.

post #3827 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

I guess I would be a person complaining about the D2000 bass. [...] The D2000 is the last one I would pick for it's Bass presentation.  

Explain a bit, thanks.

post #3828 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

I guess I would be a person complaining about the D2000 bass. I had all three of the Denons D2000, D5000, D7000.  The D2000 is the last one I would pick for it's Bass presentation.  

 

I'll take everything about the HD800 over the D2000s including anything regarding bass.


+1

post #3829 of 19566

You said "I don't see much people complaining of the d2000 bass,"

 

I'm saying.  I'm one of those people..

post #3830 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

You said "I don't see much people complaining of the d2000 bass,"

 

I'm saying.  I'm one of those people..

 

It's fine if you don't like it, I just want you to be more specific in what you don't like.

Especially if you consider, that I was hesitating to buy the d5000 instead of the hd800, despite being overpriced.


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 7/19/13 at 8:26am
post #3831 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Let's make a hd800 , d2000 comparison.

 

If I look at the ratings at golden ear,

you have :

treble relative to midrange: 5 (imply very bright)

bass relative to midrange: 0 (right amount of bass)

bass texture: 4 (punchy, but not the punchiest headphone)

http://en.goldenears.net/4326

 

Compared to the denon D2000:

treble relative to midrange: 1 (slight treble emphasis)

bass relative to midrange: 2 (a moderate bass emphasis)

treble + bass emphasis = slight V signature

bass texture: 5 (punchier than the HD800, then).

http://en.goldenears.net/4170

 

I don't see much people complaining of the d2000 bass, which according golden ear ,

have a punchier bass than the hd800, and a moderate bass emphasis.

 

Off course you could criticize the golden ear rating, but I think they provide a great tool

to compare headphone, especially if you can't try them , before you buy them.

 

I don't think the texture rating = punch, seems more like about the bass 'feel' to me.

 

Btw, I think Cumulative Spectral Decay graph explains things better:

 

SRH940: The low frequencies drop very fast in the very first instant, but then stay at certain volume and don't go away (perhaps resonance, which result in a thin and slightly muddy bass). This combine with the relatively much slower decay at about 10khz, results in the unnaturally bright sound character which some may complain (have to admit I'm a hater..).

 

D2000: The bass drop considerably naturally, but also slowly, results in the strong bass feel which can be too much for some.

 

HD800: Also considerably natural drop in the bass region, but faster than D2000. Quite ideal bass response I'd say, though the peak between 5k-10k can be somehow problematic.

post #3832 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by kn19h7 View Post


Btw, I think Cumulative Spectral Decay graph explains things better:

 

SRH940: The low frequencies drop very fast in the very first instant, but then stay at certain volume and don't go away (perhaps resonance, which result in a thin and slightly muddy bass). This combine with the relatively much slower decay at about 10khz, results in the unnaturally bright sound character which some may complain (have to admit I'm a hater..).

 

D2000: The bass drop considerably naturally, but also slowly, results in the strong bass feel which can be too much for some.

 

HD800: Also considerably natural drop in the bass region, but faster than D2000. Quite ideal bass response I'd say, though the peak between 5k-10k can be somehow problematic.

Nice explanation attempt, but I don't know if we can rely in the CSD displayed at golden ear. The csd of srh940  looks overall better.

So you think that the csd indicate that the bass of srh940 is a bit muddy , but then it should sound cleaner than the hd800, when you play bass light music (such like piano). I'm unsure, so I'll test later.

post #3833 of 19566

I used to own the D2000 and its a great fun can to own along with say the 650/600's. But it really can't be compared to the HD800 under any circumstances, if we are to be serious. 

post #3834 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post

Just a quick note on this thread. Lately I've been seriously veering more towards the LCD-3s than the HD800s. What an impact the recent arrival of my Taboo MK3 had for me - the HD800s are back. The Burson Conductor is good, but this is a fantastic HD800s amp. This amp is a few classes above the Burson Soloist in SQ.  It also pulls the feat of being simultaneously fantastic with the HD800s and the LCD-3s. And this is with an incomplete burn-in and stock tubes. I won't go into details yet as it's still too early, but I am very pleased. Some serious sleep was lost these days in this house.

 

Listening is so much more enjoyable when your wiped out too. Just IMHO. I think the brain is less capable of resisting and much more impressionable/suggestible.

post #3835 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mambosenior View Post

Some of us can't have only one system, period. I've got so much schiit that I am too lazy to sell (spouse is now applying pressure) that I wind up "inventing" systems. (So far, the toilet is the only room music-free.)

 

Sacrilege! Complete the mission.

post #3836 of 19566

I am pleased to say that HD800 can do bass. I adjusted the gain on the Lehmann from 10dB to 20dB and that seemed to have done the trick. Much more fuller sound and  as close to a speaker setup one can get. 

post #3837 of 19566
From csd 940 bass lingering much longer than 800, therefore sounds a bit boomy, but also lesser in quantity than 800. Bass texture also not as good as 800, but 940 midrange looks cleaner.

Step response scale look very different tough. Are they testing using different volume level? 800 peak max at 1.7 mV and 940 peak ard 47 mV. How to read that?
Edited by RedBull - 7/19/13 at 6:06pm
post #3838 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigy626 View Post

 I adjusted the gain on the Lehmann from 10dB to 20dB and that seemed to have done the trick.

Lol.

You know that louder sounds often better ?

post #3839 of 19566

By the way , I got a hard lesson from kvr audio , they told me they  avoid linear phase eq like plague, and that it sounds terrible for the bass. So re-adjusting again eq redface.gif,  and I just avoid to touch anything in the bass region (since in way, or in an other, the result is not great).

post #3840 of 19566
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Nice explanation attempt, but I don't know if we can rely in the CSD displayed at golden ear. The csd of srh940  looks overall better.

So you think that the csd indicate that the bass of srh940 is a bit muddy , but then it should sound cleaner than the hd800, when you play bass light music (such like piano). I'm unsure, so I'll test later.

I actually much prefer looking at CSD than FR graph, it tells a much more complete story. And also coherent with my experience with the three headphones.

 

But as the CSD graph is smoothed over (i.e. ringing effects hidden), it may not be a good reference for properties like resolving ability of micro details.

 

The csd of srh940 actually can be also read as high treble presence (high peak, slower decay) without being covered by mids/bass (which the hd800 has, in contrast). I wouldn't say its better, some may like, some may not. Btw the bass response of hd800 definitely looks and sounds better to me. (But mind you, I just don't like how the srh940 sounds...)


Edited by kn19h7 - 7/19/13 at 6:30pm
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 › The (new) HD800 Impressions Thread