About Sennheiser HD 595 (brief)
Mar 3, 2005 at 8:11 PM Post #92 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari
I'll go on record and say that the HD-595 did an amazing job with Eric Clapton.

Also - for late night listening when you prefer the bass to be less bone jarring...it does a good job.

Good enough to get me considering one for myself.

Which one would you guys recommend ?50 ohms / 120ohms? I have an amp so impedance is not a problem...I just want to get the one with the best sound.

Best regards,

gs



What? I remember you saying the 595 sounded like robots in the dessert. Why the change of heart? Anyways, I have always thought 595 sounded great.

merlock
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 7:46 AM Post #93 of 145
Maybe the HD 595 was burned enough. Andrea, whats with the bumping?
600smile.gif



The HD 595 sounds nice with my Star Wars DVD set.
biggrin.gif
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 10:21 AM Post #94 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticaldodo
Andrea, whats with the bumping?
600smile.gif



Eh, I thought the post immediately above deserved some more showing off...

We head-fiers can be so vain.
lambda.gif
600smile.gif
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 1:37 PM Post #95 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by merlock
What? I remember you saying the 595 sounded like robots in the dessert. Why the change of heart? Anyways, I have always thought 595 sounded great.

merlock


Think of Simon Cowell when you think of me. I am VERY passionate about this hobby and follow it with acedemic interest. There have been several changes to my setup (particularly on the source, cables and amplifier end) which may have contributed to the more favorable impression of my nemesis.

I still hear things I dont like with the HD-595 but there are a few things I dont like even in the HD-650 and there are a few things that are "meh" with the SA5000...

So there is no perfect headphone and impressions/opinions will change as the facts change.

Fact is that this is a good headphone and I am going to have to replace it higher than the A900, SR-60/80/125. HD-580/600, AT W100/1000 etc.


I think it is better to admit that you are wrong rather than continue the crusade...they are definitely nowhere near being as bad as I potrayed them to be.

Still - graininess, dryness and a slightly resonant tonality can be a turn-off. But these are well balanced across the frequency spectrum with a slight bass rolloff (perceived bass)
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 1:56 PM Post #98 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari
BTW - This thread is no longer "Brief"
very_evil_smiley.gif
LOL


It's more brief than the Alessandro thread that is up to page 6 and it hasn't even been 24 hours since it was started.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 7:27 PM Post #99 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari
BTW - This thread is no longer "Brief"
very_evil_smiley.gif
LOL


You don't have a clue of my remorse for putting that "(brief)" there, so please don't be so pitiless towards it. LOL
tongue.gif


Quote:

Still - graininess, dryness and a slightly resonant tonality can be a turn-off. But these are well balanced across the frequency spectrum with a slight bass rolloff (perceived bass)


It's clear that it's your genuine thinking now.
smily_headphones1.gif



But I want to stress that it's not mine.
I'd rather say it's the HD650 to be slightly excessively smooth and liquid (at the expense of a bit of midrange detail). The HD595 in its turn doesn't have (to my ears) any 'grain' that's anywhere near being obtrusive.
It's nearly not even noticeable -- actually, not noticeable at all in the majority of my records.
Due to the HD650's (comparative) mild sense of 'thinness' in the vocals, instead, that would rather be the one I'd call 'dry', by comparison. Not that any of the two is actually dry in any way...

Then the bass. It's extremely tuneful on the HD595. If it's a little less 'technically fit' than on the HD650, it's sooo tuneful. I love it.
And when it is there in the record, I sure happen to hear it very satisfactorily, even impressively, deep and punchy.

Finally - by 'resonant', I think, you mean the sense of mildly humped midbass. Well, I'd say that here the 'positioning' is important. It seems you can eliminate it. Or my brain has got used to it and doesn't perceive it anymore. Add the influence of burn in. I can't really tell...


To me, you see, they are non-issues. It's my genuine thinking.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 10:28 PM Post #100 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea
Then the bass. It's extremely tuneful on the HD595. If it's a bit less 'technically fit' than on the HD650, it's sooo tuneful. I love it.
And when it is there on the record, I sure happen to hear it very satisfactorily, even impressively, deep and punchy.


I must fully agree with you.

It's funny to listen all the songs I've listened with my speakers and old headphones before. All the time I get this feeling "hmm.. bass wasn't so deep and punchy in this song before" and bass isn't the only thing which is better detailed. Ahh I just love these cans.

I've now owned them for almost 2 weeks and listened them about 2-4h per day. Can I still find something new due the burning in process? For now I've noticed those high tones to got better balanced and I think bass has more kick now.
 
Mar 4, 2005 at 10:42 PM Post #101 of 145
Patu --

Thank you for your kindness.

Mmm, that makes for around 40 hours on yours so far... be prepared to hear some more pleasant things on the 'improvement' subject...
tongue.gif
 
Mar 5, 2005 at 9:29 AM Post #104 of 145
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reck45
i for the life of me cannot understand how anyone could enjoy that sound signature. to each his own though.


You somehow sound like "a robot in the desert" yourself to assert this kind of unconditional position.
wink.gif


Possibly, you're even almost left alone over there by now.
Time to fly back to the populated world.
eggosmile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top