[dharma]

  So it would seem to depend on whether you like to EQ or not. If you have the HD800 and have a problem with the treble, EQ it. If you don't want to, buy an HD800S!
 
'Speaking of EQ, when I listen to the two headphones EQed, I think I tend to prefer the old HD 800, but it's close. With the HD 800 S I find myself being somewhat cautious about my bass level setting—bringing it up to where I like it does make the distortion a bit more obvious. On the other hand, I can tweak out a notch at 6kHz to try to tame the spike in the old HD 800, but the resonance is still there in the headphones, and if a signal gets hot around 6kHz then you can hear it zinging. Niether are perfect, but I think I prefer having to fiddle with the 6kHz notch a bit based on the music playing rather than not being able to dial the bass up to where I want it without lows becoming a bit too congested. However, if I wasn't using EQ, I'd easily prefer the HD 800 S.'
 

 
Just made comment about EQ-ing to another thread, seems that Tyll prefers EQ anyway

 

[Peti]

Take one of these and order up an hd800S

I have yet to audition the S model. But it's in the conclusion of the review that it's slightly more congested than its predecessor. Or you didn't mean to send those nose decongestant pills to me?

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

  I don't think they sound congested, more like the slight increased resonance in the bass frequencies gives it a better perceived bass response, which I prefer. 

My observation as well after a week with the 800S.

 

[Jodet]

  Maybe my hearing has a natural dip at 6khz, or my particular S/N HD800 doesn't have the peak, or my source is not bright, or my choice of music is just working perfectly with the original HD800? I never had any piercing high frequency issues, no needles and no bleeding ear drums

. And I also feel the bass response in my set up is just right and totally accurate. I am happy that I can enjoy the orig. version as is and don't need any added 2nd harmonic distortion to beef up the lower freq. area.
Whoever had issues with the HD800 and got a HD800S and feels it's and improvment, enjoy

 
Yeah, I've never had a 'high frequency' problem either.  

 

[YugiRider2]

I know this might be a bit stupid to ask; but would the 800S work with modern music such as Pop/EDM? I understand that the 800S is more suited to other genres being brighter than neutral but would the headphone work fine with modern genres? I already have the Hifiman Edition X and just want another headphone. The Audeze's have excellent sound but are too uncomfortable for me.
 
Also, what DAC, AMP would be good for these genres?
Thanks!

 

[ubs28]

I know this might be a bit stupid to ask; but would the 800S work with modern music such as Pop/EDM? I understand that the 800S is more suited to other genres being brighter than neutral but would the headphone work fine with modern genres? I already have the Hifiman Edition X and just want another headphone. The Audeze's have excellent sound but are too uncomfortable for me.

Also, what DAC, AMP would be good for these genres?
Thanks!

Pop and EDM have boosted brightness so the HD 800 S works better. Also it has better sub bass.

 

[fapman]

What i'm left considering after reading Tyll's review, is the only difference in high and low end of the frequency, not in the sound-stage or imaging of the cans? 
Some have said that there is slight decrease on the sound-stage and with that in the imaging, but then some had said that there is virtually no difference and some have even said that with the balanced cable the soundstage widens a bit. 

The firs thing with the HD800 in my brief test that i have had (only had 1) was the huge soundstage, that was what wow'ed me. (at least compared to my current HD598).  Some have said that it feels like sitting in the first seat of orchestra consert when listening with classic HD 800, that it feels like that the sound is streched from wall to wall.

I'm planning to use the S- with the balanced cable and with the upcoming HDVD 820. Will i miss something of the imaging or the soundstage with the S-version? 

It's not like the techinal side have changed considering that, what makes the sounstage is the small angle that the sound is reflected to our ears, from the outer ear in to the ear-canal (Axel have said this many times, including the original promo video). Is this changed in some what? 
I know that there is more this than that, but just wondering what you guys think?

 

[draytonklammer]

Tyll's review feels very accurate.
Hoping I can talk to him in person sometime if he stops by Headroom.
 
I feel as though it's not worth the upgrade from an 800, but I do prefer the 800S (stock versus stock, no EQ)

 

[dharma]

And commentaries on innerfidelity.com website...

 

[dharma]

There have been discussion around 'SE' and 'balanced' connections... quite informative post, from one manufacturer, is here

 

[Jimmy6]

My Pelican 1300 case just arrived and my wife fixed it up to fit my HD800 S!
 
It's a bit heavy, but looks pretty well protected.
 
Here are some pics to give you an idea if you need an extra rugged travel case
 

 

 

[Whazzzup]

There have been discussion around 'SE' and 'balanced' connections... quite informative post, from one manufacturer, is here

Sorry if this extends the debate on se or balanced but for those with tech interests and why chord follows se output only. This pertains to making the dac amp as quiet as possible reduce distortion and increase accuracy. This has no reflection on good dacs that provide balanced just the intricacies and challenges involved. Remember and to quote maybe a harsh metaphore in this instance, garbage in garbage out, here is rob watts quote pertaining to Hugo architecture.

Yes single ended is best, but it exposes other problems. I am talking here about the DAC itself. Conventional hi-end chip DAC's are fully differential which means that the DAC supplies a negative signal current OP and a positive signal current OP. This means that the analogue OP stage needs 3 op-amps - two single ended (SE) current to voltage converters (I to V) plus a differential to SE output op-amp. Then if you want headphone drive, then another stage is added. So you can see the analogue section is quite complex, with lots of active and passive components involved, all reducing transparency. Whereas Hugo is entirely SE, which means that it is one beefy OP stage, with one global feedback path - so we only have a single active stage and 2 resistors and 2 capacitors in the direct signal path. The OP stage handles both analogue filtering and I to V conversion. To make the analogue filtering easier, then the problem is transferred to the digital domain, which is why the noise shapers run at at 2048FS and it is digitally filtered up to 2048FS. Thus the raw DAC OP has very low out of band noise, which means that simple analogue filtering is needed.

Now the reason chips are always differential is that it cancels substrate noise, and other chip common mode noise, and of course with discrete DAC's we don't have this problem. But the other reason is that it hides the effect of the reference supply - the noise of the reference is cancelled at small signal levels (but not at high signals so this is a source of noise floor modulation which dramatically upsets SQ) and it also hides the OP impedance behaviour of the reference. So going SE means that you have to take great care with the reference supply, but you have to do this anyway if you want to eliminate noise floor modulation which is something that conventional chips are not very good at doing.

So Hugo's success is in part down to it's very simple and direct OP stage - but to do this I have had to be very careful with the references, and digitally filter to much higher levels than normal. Going balanced just adds to complexity, thus reducing transparency.

 

[dharma]

  My Pelican 1300 case just arrived and my wife fixed it up to fit my HD800 S!
 
It's a bit heavy, but looks pretty well protected.
 
Here are some pics to give you an idea if you need an extra rugged travel case
[...]

 
Used similar 'aluminum-case' protective solutions for audio stuff already for 30 years, but Your case is much more nicely 'finished'...

 

[dharma]

Sorry if this extends the debate on se or balanced but for those with tech interests and why chord follows se output only. This pertains to making the dac amp as quiet as possible reduce distortion and increase accuracy. This has no reflection on good dacs that provide balanced just the intricacies and challenges involved. Remember and to quote maybe a harsh metaphore in this instance, garbage in garbage out, here is rob watts quote pertaining to Hugo architecture.

Yes single ended is best, but it exposes other problems. I am talking here about the DAC itself. Conventional hi-end chip DAC's are fully differential which means that the DAC supplies a negative signal current OP and a positive signal current OP. This means that the analogue OP stage needs 3 op-amps - two single ended (SE) current to voltage converters (I to V) plus a differential to SE output op-amp. Then if you want headphone drive, then another stage is added. So you can see the analogue section is quite complex, with lots of active and passive components involved, all reducing transparency. Whereas Hugo is entirely SE, which means that it is one beefy OP stage, with one global feedback path - so we only have a single active stage and 2 resistors and 2 capacitors in the direct signal path. The OP stage handles both analogue filtering and I to V conversion. To make the analogue filtering easier, then the problem is transferred to the digital domain, which is why the noise shapers run at at 2048FS and it is digitally filtered up to 2048FS. Thus the raw DAC OP has very low out of band noise, which means that simple analogue filtering is needed.

Now the reason chips are always differential is that it cancels substrate noise, and other chip common mode noise, and of course with discrete DAC's we don't have this problem. But the other reason is that it hides the effect of the reference supply - the noise of the reference is cancelled at small signal levels (but not at high signals so this is a source of noise floor modulation which dramatically upsets SQ) and it also hides the OP impedance behaviour of the reference. So going SE means that you have to take great care with the reference supply, but you have to do this anyway if you want to eliminate noise floor modulation which is something that conventional chips are not very good at doing.

So Hugo's success is in part down to it's very simple and direct OP stage - but to do this I have had to be very careful with the references, and digitally filter to much higher levels than normal. Going balanced just adds to complexity, thus reducing transparency.

 
That would be interesting, how some manufacturers, not me, would comment on that...

 

[Mike F]

That would be interesting, how some manufacturers, not me, would comment on that...

Sennheiser, for one!