[MixMasterMan]

...and I take back what I said about the 598 being "no good" for music. That was a bit too absolute. It's just not my preference, subjectively.

 

[LazyListener]

It sure as hell isn't V shape. It doesn't even have enough bass to qualify it near V shape...

That is your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it, but the frequency response curves of at least a couple professional, objective tests show a slight v-shape (elevated bass, elevated treble, mids recessed against bass/treble).

The 598 is nice for watching movies/TV, and gaming, but no good for music. It doesnt go loud enough, and when you DO turn it up in the slightest, the bass craps out and distorts.

Most owners of 598 will disagree with you that it's no good for music. And I don't know how loud you listen, but when I crank it to where my ears start to hurt, I still get no distortion.

Define "music" and "loud enough"... They are perfect for my music.
Whenever I read this sort of comments I feel sorry for the poster's ears. I have a work colleague at my right hand, with closed back on-ears and I can hear his trance music blasting while I'm listening to my KSC75 (on softer passages). I feel sorry for him too.
Remember, It is impossible to fix your hearing once it's damaged.

Agree 100%. Some folks listen way too loud and don't even realize the damage that they're doing because it's not immediately obvious. That damage may not show up for many years down the road. I took a break from my 598s (and headphones in general) for a few months recently, because I noticed I started listening louder and louder and would sometimes experience buzzing or ringing in my ears. The buzzing/ringing has lessened, and when I went back to listen to my 598s, I realized that I was listening at a much lower volume than in the past, but the music still sounded plenty loud. I guess you can say I got "addicted" to more and more volume over time, went through a withdrawal and recovery phase, and now I'm back to my original dosage. I try to listen to speakers more now, as I don't get that buzzing/ringing in my ears from speakers it seems.

Yes, regardless of graphs, my ears say mid-centric, too, which is also the consensus.

Like I told Levanter, you're of course entitled to your subjective opinion. My opinion is that it's nowhere near a fact that the consensus is that open back 598s are mid-centric. Now the 598 Cs closed back are definitely mid-centric. Here's an objective frequency response graph: http://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/sennheiser/hd-598-cs You can see how much of the middle frequencies are higher than the bass and treble frequencies.

 

[MixMasterMan]

I have experience with about 20 headphones, and 5 different speaker systems. You can objectively gauge headphone/speaker performance, based on a solid reference. The open back 598's are bass lite, and upper mid/treble heavy. Mid-centric? No. If you want to talk frequncies, we can do that, but when using terms like "mid-centric", you are being vague unless you know what certain frequency ranges constitute bass/mid/treble, etc. - What may be mids to you, is treble to someone else. You have to break it down by frequency, to be clear.

The 598cs is a different story altogether. Nasty mid-mids through upper mids with a sharp resonance (I forget exactly where though. I couldnt get rid of those cans fast enough). Treble drop. Murky. Yuck.

 

[Levanter]

That is your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it, but the frequency response curves of at least a couple professional, objective tests show a slight v-shape (elevated bass, elevated treble, mids recessed against bass/treble).

http://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/sennheiser/hd-598-cs

Lol so your "professional objective tests" are from rtings? They only started reviewing headphones like what 1+ years ago? The same site that gave Beats Solo 3 the same score on imaging as HD800S lol!
They may be good at rating TVs but they are still a way off before being considered professional in the headphones category. Innerfidelity has way more credibility and experience than rtings.

What is your 2nd objective professional source?

 

[LazyListener]

I have experience with about 20 headphones, and 5 different speaker systems. You can objectively gauge headphone/speaker performance, based on a solid reference. The open back 598's are bass lite, and upper mid/treble heavy. Mid-centric? No. If you want to talk frequncies, we can do that, but when using terms like "mid-centric", you are being vague unless you know what certain frequency ranges constitute bass/mid/treble, etc. - What may be mids to you, is treble to someone else. You have to break it down by frequency, to be clear.

The 598cs is a different story altogether. Nasty mid-mids through upper mids with a sharp resonance (I forget exactly where though. I couldnt get rid of those cans fast enough). Treble drop. Murky. Yuck.

Anyone's opinion, by ear, is purely subjectve, regardless of how many headphones one has heard. Some have a better "trained" ear than others and are better at knowing which range of frequencies they're hearing, but their hearing is still purely subjective. Objectivity comes when you develop a testing methodology that is repeatable and start taking actual measurements with calibrated equipment. I'm not saying testing a headphone's frequency response on a dummy head with microphones is 100% accurate, as there will be variations based on how the headphone is placed each time and possibly other factors. But that is 1000x closer to an accurate and objective measurement than someone's hearing, which will always be 100% subjective and vary from one person to another based on what one is used to and what one "thinks" is neutral(ish).

Your opinion is that the 598 are bass lite, and I tend to agree, that on some songs, I wish they had more bass, but that is purely subjective (will vary from one listener to another). Like I said, I'll stick with actual measurements for a more objective picture.

To clarify "mid-centric" for you, look at the frequency response graph of the 598 Cs I linked (or and FR graph from rtings.com). They have each range defined for you. Low bass, bass, high bass, low mids, mids, high mids, low treble, treble, and high treble. By that chart, the 598 Cs are mid-centric. The mid frequencies are elevated compared to the bass and treble. By the same token, the open back 598s are not mid-centric or even treble heavy. They have a narrow treble peak around 9-10kHz. That's it. Even Tyll Hertsens at Innerfidelity who measured the FR of 598s, called the 598 too warm for him (in a reddit post). Warmth means bass and low mids heavy.

It's obvious that you really like some bass in your headphones. In one of your posts, you suggested that M40x were better cans. I had them and couldn't disagree more. The M40x are v-shaped with recessed mids. There's a relatively large difference between their high bass and low-mid mids, so the mids are recessed. Then they have a treble peak as you approach 10kHz. To me the treble sounded thin and not smooth and the bass was not well defined. The M50x are a better sounding can, IMO, that I actually enjoyed.

So ultimately, it makes no sense for us to argue subjective impressions of this or any cans' tonal balance. I respect other's opinions but in this case, those opinions do not correlate with the objective measurements. It does make sense to compare frequency response curves of different cans tested using the same test methods and equipment, if you're at all interested in a more objective comparison.

 

[LazyListener]

Lol so your "professional objective tests" are from rtings? They only started reviewing headphones like what 1+ years ago? The same site that gave Beats Solo 3 the same score on imaging as HD800S lol!
They may be good at rating TVs but they are still a way off before being considered professional in the headphones category. Innerfidelity has way more credibility and experience than rtings.

What is your 2nd objective professional source?

Yes. Their frequency response testing takes actual objective measurements. And if you look at the actual measurements under Imaging section of each, you will see that the measurements for 800S are better. The score is a subjective number, and I've seen their scoring change all the time. I'm talking about measurements here, which are objective. To dismiss an outlet's objective measurements because of how long they've been around or because they use subjective scoring in addition to objective measurements isn't very wise.

You say that rtings.com are way off before being considered professional. Tell us specifically what flaws are in their test methodologies, or how you would improve their measurements. Back up your claim.

I agree Innerfidelity has more experience, and that is the 2nd source I was referring to. Even their FR charts show that the 598 is not mid-centric, and Tyll Hertsens said in a reddit post that 598 are too warm for him.

 

[MixMasterMan]

Anyone's opinion, by ear, is purely subjectve, regardless of how many headphones one has heard. Some have a better "trained" ear than others and are better at knowing which range of frequencies they're hearing, but their hearing is still purely subjective. Objectivity comes when you develop a testing methodology that is repeatable and start taking actual measurements with calibrated equipment. I'm not saying testing a headphone's frequency response on a dummy head with microphones is 100% accurate, as there will be variations based on how the headphone is placed each time and possibly other factors. But that is 1000x closer to an accurate and objective measurement than someone's hearing, which will always be 100% subjective and vary from one person to another based on what one is used to and what one "thinks" is neutral(ish).

Your opinion is that the 598 are bass lite, and I tend to agree, that on some songs, I wish they had more bass, but that is purely subjective (will vary from one listener to another). Like I said, I'll stick with actual measurements for a more objective picture.

To clarify "mid-centric" for you, look at the frequency response graph of the 598 Cs I linked (or and FR graph from rtings.com). They have each range defined for you. Low bass, bass, high bass, low mids, mids, high mids, low treble, treble, and high treble. By that chart, the 598 Cs are mid-centric. The mid frequencies are elevated compared to the bass and treble. By the same token, the open back 598s are not mid-centric or even treble heavy. They have a narrow treble peak around 9-10kHz. That's it. Even Tyll Hertsens at Innerfidelity who measured the FR of 598s, called the 598 too warm for him (in a reddit post). Warmth means bass and low mids heavy.

It's obvious that you really like some bass in your headphones. In one of your posts, you suggested that M40x were better cans. I had them and couldn't disagree more. The M40x are v-shaped with recessed mids. There's a relatively large difference between their high bass and low-mid mids, so the mids are recessed. Then they have a treble peak as you approach 10kHz. To me the treble sounded thin and not smooth and the bass was not well defined. The M50x are a better sounding can, IMO, that I actually enjoyed.

So ultimately, it makes no sense for us to argue subjective impressions of this or any cans' tonal balance. I respect other's opinions but in this case, those opinions do not correlate with the objective measurements. It does make sense to compare frequency response curves of different cans tested using the same test methods and equipment, if you're at all interested in a more objective comparison.

I agree with much of what you say. However, objective comparison can be made if you have a reference, and basing your opinion on that comparison. In that sense, all comparisons are relative. That's all we can base our judgement on. The m40x's ARE as you describe them. I personally like a V shape for listening enjoyment. Interestingly enough though, they are one of top headphones I use in the studio. My mixing decisions with them translate to my speakers closer than most other cans. Again, it's all relative to whatever you are using as a baseline. So, the more sources you have available to you, the more objective you can be.

 

[MixMasterMan]

Oh...and I do generally agree with most everything Tyll at innerfidelity says. He has a good ear

 

[Levanter]

Yes. Their frequency response testing takes actual objective measurements. And if you look at the actual measurements under Imaging section of each, you will see that the measurements for 800S are better. The score is a subjective number, and I've seen their scoring change all the time. I'm talking about measurements here, which are objective. To dismiss an outlet's objective measurements because of how long they've been around or because they use subjective scoring in addition to objective measurements isn't very wise.

You say that rtings.com are way off before being considered professional. Tell us specifically what flaws are in their test methodologies, or how you would improve their measurements. Back up your claim.

I agree Innerfidelity has more experience, and that is the 2nd source I was referring to. Even their FR charts show that the 598 is not mid-centric, and Tyll Hertsens said in a reddit post that 598 are too warm for him.

If scoring is a subjective number based on their measurements, why was Solo 3 score rated the same with HD800S if their measurements was better? As they reviewed the Solo 3 "too heavy on Bass, which tends to sound muddy and overpower the Treble, and lack a bit of Mid Range that can push the lead instruments to the back of the mix a bit" This description alone contradicts their review on good imaging when it comes to separation, positioning and transparency. A review site which gives questionable rating and review which doesn't match their objective ratings is funny. Nothing subjective about that.

Charts may be objective on the paper, but it does not correlate to what the anatomy of the ears hear. It reminds me of how most kept praising on the HD800S bass response and quality when it was newly released until Tyll measured the 2nd harmonic distortion and they suddenly changed their tune and harp new sentiments on loose bass when most couldn't even hear that from the start.

That said, I do not find the 598 mid-centric. Never said that from the start. Nor do i find them V shaped either. Looking at the charts, I still do not find them V shaped either. From your rtings chart, there is a slight dip of around 2-3db from bass to mids which during real music listening session is hardly noticeable. It may be a bit more noticeable if you just listen to a single continuous note but even then I doubt anyone would describe that as V shaped. If anything I consider them more balanced sounding as the changes between mids to highs are not as significant than the 650.

 

[MixMasterMan]

I give the 598 open back a 6.4, in sound quality

The CS? 4.2

 

[MixMasterMan]

Oh.... and frequency graphs only tell part of the story, and can be very misleading. Headphones, and our interpretation of sound, don't sound like frequency graphs. I will use frequency points to reference what I hear. That's about it.

 

[LazyListener]

I agree with much of what you say. However, objective comparison can be made if you have a reference, and basing your opinion on that comparison. In that sense, all comparisons are relative. That's all we can base our judgement on. The m40x's ARE as you describe them. I personally like a V shape for listening enjoyment. Interestingly enough though, they are one of top headphones I use in the studio. My mixing decisions with them translate to my speakers closer than most other cans. Again, it's all relative to whatever you are using as a baseline. So, the more sources you have available to you, the more objective you can be.

Having a point of reference does not mean your comparisons become objective. They are still very much subjective because the "instrument" used to "measure" what you're hearing is your mind. Whenever the mind is used to make measurements, it is by definition, subjective. Objective measurements capture what actually is (reality) versus subjective "measurements" that can only capture what one perceives (perception). However, I absolutely agree that having your own personal point of reference (for example, the MDR-7506), one can make relative comparisons to it. But again, those are still subjective impressions.

I personally prefer a slightly v-shaped tonal balance as well. I believe the vast majority of people do. Some like more V than others. That is very interesting that M40x translate to good mixes for you, but then again, what you consider "good" I may not .

If scoring is a subjective number based on their measurements, why was Solo 3 score rated the same with HD800S if their measurements was better? As they reviewed the Solo 3 "too heavy on Bass, which tends to sound muddy and overpower the Treble, and lack a bit of Mid Range that can push the lead instruments to the back of the mix a bit" This description alone contradicts their review on good imaging when it comes to separation, positioning and transparency. A review site which gives questionable rating and review which doesn't match their objective ratings is funny. Nothing subjective about that.

Charts may be objective on the paper, but it does not correlate to what the anatomy of the ears hear. It reminds me of how most kept praising on the HD800S bass response and quality when it was newly released until Tyll measured the 2nd harmonic distortion and they suddenly changed their tune and harp new sentiments on loose bass when most couldn't even hear that from the start.

That said, I do not find the 598 mid-centric. Never said that from the start. Nor do i find them V shaped either. Looking at the charts, I still do not find them V shaped either. From your rtings chart, there is a slight dip of around 2-3db from bass to mids which during real music listening session is hardly noticeable. It may be a bit more noticeable if you just listen to a single continuous note but even then I doubt anyone would describe that as V shaped. If anything I consider them more balanced sounding as the changes between mids to highs are not as significant than the 650.

I do not know why rtings.com subjective score for imaging between the Solo 3 and 800S is identical. That would be a question for them, which their website easily allows you to do. Maybe their subjective scoring factors in price. Maybe something else. I don't know. I didn't investigate why they're subjective scores seem inconsistent and change from time to time because subjective scores are less valuable to me than objective measurements. I do value subjective opinions when it comes to relative comparisons and with proper descriptors, but not so much a subjective score. But that highlights some of the inherent problems with subjective scoring. In the end, it's only an opinion. Whereas the objective measurements they take are not opinion based. We were discussing frequency response curves which are objective measurements, not subjective opinions. Just because they decide to provide a subjective score, does in no way invalidate what they do when it comes to taking objective measurements.

Partially agree. Objective measurements may or may not correlate to what one actually hears, but that is because of the subjective nature of hearing. The objective measurements are what they are (reality). Whether one thinks they agree with them based on what they hear (perception) will vary from person to person. You bring up an excellent example with the HD800S bass distortion measurements. The measurements we see (or hear/read about) can influence our opinions of what we think we hear. That still does not change the fact that objective measurements can be used to relatively compare the sonic characteristics of headphones, but only when the same testing methodology and equipment is used. It doesn't make sense, for example, to compare FR curves from rtings.com and innerfidelity.com as the test methods, equipment, environment used are likely not identical.

Yes, you can make a case that the 598s have a balanced sound, because that dip in the mids relative to bass is, like you said, not that huge. Still, by definition, a dip in the mids, relative to bass and treble, is a v-shaped sound, and I always said they were "slightly v-shaped," not simply "v-shaped." Also, 2-3 decibels difference can be quite noticeable depending on the frequencies. Try making EQ adjustments by those 2-3 decibles at those specific frequencies you see on that chart to get it to be more flat and you will hear a very noticeably different sounding headphone. Regarding the 650, it's more flat, bass to mids, but has a rather early treble roll off that 598 doesn't. My subjective hearing impression agrees with this. When I first heard the 650, I immediately noticed how much more neutral it sounded compared to my 598, and I believe the rtings.com FR curves show this. The measurements are objective, but my opinion of whether or not I agree with them in terms of what I hear, is purely subjective.

To each their own.

I give the 598 open back a 6.4, in sound quality

The CS? 4.2

Wow! You're a tough grader. Which headphone(s) that you have or heard would you give an 8.0 or above?

Oh.... and frequency graphs only tell part of the story, and can be very misleading. Headphones, and our interpretation of sound, don't sound like frequency graphs. I will use frequency points to reference what I hear. That's about it.

Frequency response graphs tell the objective side of the story. Our hearing, brains, biases is what "misleads" us. Funny how it's only "misleading" when we don't agree with it. lol

For the record, I'm not a objectivist or subjectivist. I just like to think I have a fairly decent understanding on the difference between the two.

 

[GoodBoy]

For someone who is accustomed to bass-heavy phones there is an obvious but wrong impression phones with less bass will sound less engaging. I had the same thing when my ears were trained to 598CS then I put 598SE and immediately disliked them. Same thing happens to people who use HD650 and then switch to HD600, however if they solely use HD600 for a long time they start to enjoy bass even if the headphone is more on a neutral side. The "problem" with v-shaped is bass overflowing other frequencies so if you put more balanced HD, but still with bass present you have an impression as if there's no bass

 

[Levanter]

I do not know why rtings.com subjective score for imaging between the Solo 3 and 800S is identical. That would be a question for them, which their website easily allows you to do. Maybe their subjective scoring factors in price. Maybe something else. I don't know. I didn't investigate why they're subjective scores seem inconsistent and change from time to time because subjective scores are less valuable to me than objective measurements. I do value subjective opinions when it comes to relative comparisons and with proper descriptors, but not so much a subjective score. But that highlights some of the inherent problems with subjective scoring. In the end, it's only an opinion. Whereas the objective measurements they take are not opinion based. We were discussing frequency response curves which are objective measurements, not subjective opinions. Just because they decide to provide a subjective score, does in no way invalidate what they do when it comes to taking objective measurements.

Partially agree. Objective measurements may or may not correlate to what one actually hears, but that is because of the subjective nature of hearing. The objective measurements are what they are (reality). Whether one thinks they agree with them based on what they hear (perception) will vary from person to person. You bring up an excellent example with the HD800S bass distortion measurements. The measurements we see (or hear/read about) can influence our opinions of what we think we hear. That still does not change the fact that objective measurements can be used to relatively compare the sonic characteristics of headphones, but only when the same testing methodology and equipment is used. It doesn't make sense, for example, to compare FR curves from rtings.com and innerfidelity.com as the test methods, equipment, environment used are likely not identical.

Yes, you can make a case that the 598s have a balanced sound, because that dip in the mids relative to bass is, like you said, not that huge. Still, by definition, a dip in the mids, relative to bass and treble, is a v-shaped sound, and I always said they were "slightly v-shaped," not simply "v-shaped." Also, 2-3 decibels difference can be quite noticeable depending on the frequencies. Try making EQ adjustments by those 2-3 decibles at those specific frequencies you see on that chart to get it to be more flat and you will hear a very noticeably different sounding headphone. Regarding the 650, it's more flat, bass to mids, but has a rather early treble roll off that 598 doesn't. My subjective hearing impression agrees with this. When I first heard the 650, I immediately noticed how much more neutral it sounded compared to my 598, and I believe the rtings.com FR curves show this. The measurements are objective, but my opinion of whether or not I agree with them in terms of what I hear, is purely subjective.

To each their own.

It is not just their subjective rating. Their review was compromised the moment they contradicted their own findings based on their measurements.
Graphs/charts are alright for giving a general view on certain characteristic of the headphone. Even with different methods are used, in general you can still roughly see a similar curve trend e.g. treble roll off, etc. However i wouldn't classify a whole FR as slightly v-shaped based on a 2-3db dip in the mids. Most FR have at least a slight dip somewhere in their mids. By your definition, your balanced HD650 is also slightly V-shaped since they have a 2db drop. Even the so called neutral HD600 has a 2db dip in the mids.
The only flat FR (relatively flat) I've seen so far is UERM.

 

[LazyListener]

It is not just their subjective rating. Their review was compromised the moment they contradicted their own findings based on their measurements.
Graphs/charts are alright for giving a general view on certain characteristic of the headphone. Even with different methods are used, in general you can still roughly see a similar curve trend e.g. treble roll off, etc. However i wouldn't classify a whole FR as slightly v-shaped based on a 2-3db dip in the mids. Most FR have at least a slight dip somewhere in their mids. By your definition, your balanced HD650 is also slightly V-shaped since they have a 2db drop. Even the so called neutral HD600 has a 2db dip in the mids.
The only flat FR (relatively flat) I've seen so far is UERM.

Okay, so I actually now read the Sound section and Imaging section of the Beats Solo 3 Wireless review, and I don't see any contradictions. You said in an earlier post:

As they reviewed the Solo 3 "too heavy on Bass, which tends to sound muddy and overpower the Treble, and lack a bit of Mid Range that can push the lead instruments to the back of the mix a bit" This description alone contradicts their review on good imaging when it comes to separation, positioning and transparency.

The Sound section is describing the frequency response in terms of tonal balance. The Imaging section is describing imaging characteristics, not frequency response, and the phase relationships between the 2 drivers. They are 2 different things, and I really don't see how their description in the Sound section contradicts what they say in the Imaging section. I don't see the contradiction, and you really haven't pointed one out in that statement.

The graph for the 650 is virtually flat from high bass to low treble and then starts to roll off after that. Like I said in earlier post, high treble information is not that important. Again, to my ear, they sounded relatively neutral, more neutral than 598, except for that early treble roll off.

The rtings FR graph for 600 actually shows a slight rise in the high mids and low treble (not a dip). I would characterize them as generally flat, but slightly mid-centric. Based on the graph, haven't heard them.

We can argue subjective definitions of v-shaped, mid-centric, flat, etc. all day, every day. I think we've beat this horse to death. Time to move on.