[marios_mar]

Ho would the HD600s and HD580s compare to AKG1000s or something more expensive. Would the difference between them be as big as the difference between HD600s and $40 phones?

Could someone say that HD600 and HD580s are as good as it gets and have a little bit of right in that statement. Or 580s and 600s are far away from TOP CLASS high end audiophile phones?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Would the difference between them be as big as the difference between HD600s and $40 phones?

Of course not. Ever heard about diminishing returns?

Quote:

Could someone say that HD600 and HD580s are as good as it gets and have a little bit of right in that statement.

Of course not.

You *know* there are better things up there. The question of course, is *how* much better

 

[tom hankins]

Until recently the HD600/cardas have been the most enjoyable headphones of all that I have owned. However, the CD-3000 have taken over on my present system. With so very few really good headphones, I think it is safe to say they are near the top of the bunch. Also known as the high end.

 

[radrd]

The HD580 and HD600 are definitely high end phones. Some might place them higher than others, but even those who don't like them would probably still characterize them as high end. Adding the Cardas or Equinox cable probably makes them unquestionably high end.

Compared to the AKG K1000? Considering some people can't stand either headphone or like the HD600 better than the K1000, that question doesn't really have an answer beyond personal preference, but that's what makes the HD580/600 high end, as personal preference rather than real "flaws" determines whether one likes them or not. (of course, those who don't like them like to call the reasons they don't like them flaws

)

 

[NeilPeart]

The HD600 is definitely a high-end headphone (the HD580s are also high-end, but to a lesser degree). People can criticize its veil, its appearance (the faux-granite), the stock cable's quality, etc. However, its sound quality and comfort are up there with the elite. This is an undisputed fact. Let's list the top 10 headphones:

AKG K1000 ~ $550
ATH-W2002 ~ $800
DT-880 ~ $260
ER-4S ~ $270
RS-1 ~ $650
HP-1000 ~ $1,000
MDR-3000 ~ $350
MDR-R10 ~ >$2,500
HD600 ~ <$250 (I've seen it going for $150 NEW somewhere)
Omega II ~ $2,000

These are among the highest end headphones available, and all are great in many regards. Yes, some do excel above others in areas, but they require a more high-end system to really show a marked improvement. Of all the choices, the HD600 is the most affordable, one of the most comfortable and unquestionably great-sounding. I own all of the above cans (excluding the R10), and I still consider the HD600/Cardas/Max combo my favorite setup. Sure, the W2002 sound better in certain acoustic environments, the Omega II and Coltrane are heavenly, the HP-2 w/HP4 has ungodly resolution and the K1000 w/RKV II is just magical at times. However, the HD600 is an overall great can that simply sounds consistently awesome. All cans have flaws (maybe not the Orpheus, but I've read instances where some people did complain about it's inferiority to the Omega II/KGSS combo; all cans have detractors), but there has been much criticism of the HD600 as of late. I'm telling you folks: Using a great source, amplification and corresponding cabling, and you have a great system for less than half for what I paid for my HP-2/EAR HP4 rig. I apologize for the scathing reply, but questioning the HD600s hi-fi merits (especially at its price point) really angered me. HD600 = High-end at any price point. Period.

OK, time to go back to the "special room," Leeav...

"NO! I must defend its honor! Long live HD600..."

OK...I'm back now.

 

[markl]

By it's definition, "hi-end" implies very exotic, very expensive, and very *good* audio products, typically manufactured in small lots by hand by very esoteric companies that make nothing but other hi-end devices, targeted specifically at a small niche market of audiophiles, not the general listener. On that score, no, I would not consider the HD600 true "hi-end" devices, they are relatiuvely inexpensive, widely available, mass-produced products designed to appeal to the "typical" listener.

I think there are really 2 questions rolled in one:

1. Are the HD600 hi-end *headphones*, and:

2. Are the HD600 really hi-end *devices*

We have a small market with headphones, very few examples of good cans, fewer still of any serious attempt to create the "world's best", true audiophile devices. Given the limited field and limited price range of most "hi end" cans, yes, the HD600 are by default "hi-end" headphones. If we had a number of $800-$2000 headphones of appropriate quality to choose from, no way would we consider the humble HD600 "hi-end" devices.

Mark

 

[lan]

I agree with what's been said here. They have enough refinement to be high end headphones. The finer characteristics are basically preference. I don't really like HD580/600s anymore (not enough detail, nor high frequencies)

 

[Hirsch]

Put the HD-600 into a system with the right amp and cables, and under certain conditions it can outperform any other dynamic headphone I've heard. That puts it into the high end, regardless of price considerations. I agree with NeilPeart completely, except that I don't even think price point enters the consideration. Try the HD-600/Blockhead, HD-600/Supra or even HD-600/HAP-03 combinations with proper cabling, then report back.

 

[Mastergill]

Yes we can say the HD600 is absolutely a high-end phones and i really think with a Cardas cable and a very good setup they can compete with the best ( or better say, the more expensive).
Think that a company like Headroom made a +$3000 amp just for this phones ( and RS1 maybe

). Listen to it with at least a $3000 amp and a very good source and you will be surprise; they need lots of clean juice to be driven properly.

 

[Geek]

It's hard to say. It really depends on what you consider "high end." Since "audiophile" means deriving pleasure from [good] sound, individual definition plays a big role.

For me, "high end" means representing a real live performance when the listener is at the "sweet spot" of a concert hall.

There are very few products in the audiophile world which do this correctly.

The HD600s do an incredible job at natural sound reproduction when powered by ideal associated equipment. Therefore they are, to me, high end.

The AKG K-1000s are not a conventional headphone. When directly compared to HD600s, they have much better imaging and soundstage, plus they have what is called "soundstage/imaging flexibility," meaning you can adjust the soundstage depth/width by swiveling the earcups at different angles. However, I find the top end to be less refined than HD600s by just a hair, and the bottom end to be lacking.

If you get incredible kicks out of hearing incredible imaging and separation, you'd say that K-1000s were much more high-end than HD600s.

If you have never heard a real live concert in a sonically sound environment (i.e., not a rock band playing in a field house, but rather a professional symphony playing one of your favorite pieces), you may be looking for a "high end" sound that's different by definition than my "high end" sound. That is perfectly fine. I personally believe that this hobby is about representing what is actually there in real life, no more or less, and in order to get a sense for what is "real life" you must know what "real life" is. Other people have different philosophies, which explains perhaps why I dislike certain headphones which are otherwise very popular on this board.

Back to the point: if your criteria is "natural sound" and you are primarily referring to classical and jazz, the HD600s are without a doubt high-end headphones given a top-notch front end, amp, interconnects, and above all CABLE UPGRADE.

And addressing one more point: When considering a device's sound quality, you must NEVER EVER EVER KEEP ITS COST IN MIND WHEN AUDITIONING. Just because something is one thousand dollars doesn't make it better than a two-hundred-dollar alternative. Basing your definition of high-end on cost is simply stupid. Just because IN GENERAL as you climb the price ladder you will be reaching a higher level of fidelity does not automatically mean you'll get that fidelity by blindly purchasing that product.

Knowing that one product is more expensive than the other will usually bias reviews; the bias only gets worse when the individual owns one but not the other. Everyone is a victim of this; it is important to precisely define what we call "high end": for me, at least, it means a product which is in the top echelon of natural sound reproduction. This, to me, is audiophile.

Cheers,
Geek

 

[markl]

Quote:

And addressing one more point: When considering a device's sound quality, you must NEVER EVER EVER KEEP ITS COST IN MIND WHEN AUDITIONING. Just because something is one thousand dollars doesn't make it better than a two-hundred-dollar alternative. Basing your definition of high-end on cost is simply stupid. Just because IN GENERAL as you climb the price ladder you will be reaching a higher level of fidelity does not automatically mean you'll get that fidelity by blindly purchasing that product.

Well, of course!

I assume you are replying to me, Geek. I think if you read my post, you'll see you are rebutting an argument I am not making. BTW: my definition of "high-end", does not include CD3000, DT880, or Grado RS-1 either, so I'm not just picking on your beloved HD600.

I think we have no real idea yet of what can be achieved with headphones, where we have a much better idea of what can be achieved with speakers, amps, etc., simply due to number of choices/brands/price points available.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that the $350 price point represented by the HD600 is the absolute apex of what can be achieved in a headphone, that spending more will never get you "better" only "different". No point developing new cans, we've reached the mountain top! However, the (admittedly limited) evidence we have disputes that assertion, if one compares the Orpheus, the R10 and the Omega 2 to the HD600-level cans. Most people discern a difference.

As I said, assuming we have a number of $800-$2000 cans to choose from *of appropriate quality* (that is commensurate with price/materials/performance) as I said originally, one would have every reason to believe we can do better than the HD600/CD3000/RS1 group. Obviously, if Bose comes out with a $1200 set of cans, there's a good chance that it could suck, so no, spending more won't *always* get you better, I think everyone can recognize that.

I still think that we should have $100 cans by now that can mop the floor with the R10s.

Mark

 

[tortie]

Quote:

Could someone say that HD600 and HD580s are as good as it gets and have a little bit of right in that statement. Or 580s and 600s are far away from TOP CLASS high end audiophile phones?

This is a highly flamable thread starter

HIGH OCTANE stuff

There's a whole colony of HD600 worshippers in this community.

 

[screwdriver]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar Ho would the HD600s and HD580s compare to AKG1000s or something more expensive. Would the difference between them be as big as the difference between HD600s and $40 phones? Could someone say that HD600 and HD580s are as good as it gets and have a little bit of right in that statement. Or 580s and 600s are far away from TOP CLASS high end audiophile phones?

Tough one to answer really - you need to get us a description for the general members on what high end means to you. it can be price wise or performance wise or both - and there is preference too of the listener when it comes to performance .

 

[SuperGiraffe]

Tough to define "top class" headphones because, like what others have said, there aren't that many 'phones that are actually more expensive than the HD600. And so much of it is taste, too. For example, Tom Hankins notes that he prefers the CD3000 to his Cardas'd 600s, while I prefer my stock HD600 to my CD3000. Personally, I think that the HD600 are definitely "top class" 'phones, though they are not the most expensive and not the prettiest either. They do make Stereophile "Class A" (for whatever that's worth), and most other Stereophile "Class A" components would be considered "top class" by the audiophile elite particularly when based on price.

 

[D-EJ915]

The simple answer is, of course, YES, they are high-end 'phones, they are far superior to $30 clip-ons, they are high-end...but there is a high-er-end, like the W2002...