[rthomas]

FYI it isn’t possible to make a headphone that sounds the same as the HE-1, for only $3500.

Thanks for taking the time to reply

Absolutely BUT I'm sure it's possible to have a similar frequency response to the HE-1 for $3500....

Look at the difference in frequency response between the HD800 and the HE-1.

Isn't it time that Sennheiser used its own flagship as the inspiration for the ''lower'' models?

For example for many years the Mercedes S-Class provided the inspiration for the design and equipment available in the lower priced models like the C-Class and E-Class. A C-class was appealing as it looked like a mini S-class.

If the HE-1 is the best 'cost no object' sound that Sennheiser can create shouldn't the lower priced models at least aim for this same target rather than go in a completely different direction?

I don't understand why the HD820 should sound nothing like the HD800 which sounds nothing like the HD600.

IMHO Audiophile headphones should aim for the ''truth'' i.e the closest tuning to what ''the artist intended''.

Sennheiser currently has a bunch of audiophile headphones which all add their unique strong flavour to the music and they sound nothing alike, this puzzles me.

 

[Evshrug]

@rthomas I appreciate the positive and hopeful tone of your comment and reply!

The sound of the HE-1 and the frequency response are different things... yes, it is possible to have a frequency response similar to the HE-1 in a lower cost headphone. That balance of SPL at each bass, mids, and treble frequency can be recreated reasonably closely in "even" a dynamic driver.

In fact, that was the original design goal of the 1990's HD 580 (or “HD 580 Precision”). The original Orpheus had just been created, the product managers and acoustic engineers were tasked to at least recreate the tonality and frequency response of the Electrostat, at a price that would be accessible as a utility rather than as a luxury. The dynamic driver wouldn't be capable of the same low-inertia qualities of the electrostatic driver, but the tonality would be brought to a more affordable price and not require specialized equipment. It was also a landmark in precision design, with very low modal distortion at high frequencies. The HD 580 Jubilee, a special edition that had a carbon fiber overwrap, but more crucially a tonality that was even closer to the Orpheus, was so popular and highly requested that Sennheiser decided to make it a permanent production mainstay and renamed it the HD 600. Though the HD 650 was intentionally tuned to make it a bit easier on the ears for all-day utility in a professional use, the HD 600, HD 650, and HD 660 S could all be said to be targeting the sound of the original Orpheus at a lower price.

It's true that the frequency response graphs of the HD 800S and HD 820 will look different on paper, but the acoustics and psychoacoustics of a free-field (open-backed) headphone and an occluded-ear (closed back) headphone require different frequency responses to have a similar "sound" to the listener. Though sounding exactly the same between open and closed headphones is impossible, the HD 820 went through over a dozen revisions by some of the industry's top engineers to create a closed headphone as a similar as possible to the HD 800S' psychoacoustic balance of frequency response, timbre, air and soundstage, imaging, and many other traits not expressed on one simple graph.

The "artist's intent" is variable, and the production artist's gear used in mixing is also different from studio to studio (sometimes using speakers familiar to them, outside the studio environment, such as through popular headphones or in a car so they have a sense of what the typical consumer will hear), and of course every human being has different ears. "Truth" in audio is highly subjective, and an art in itself. What sounds linear in a studio would be designed differently from something designed to sound linear in a concert hall.

Hopefully this serious and (very) informative reply helps. I wrote at length out of respect for your question and for others who may have a similar thought.

 

[ruinedx]

It's true that the frequency response graphs of the HD 800S and HD 820 will look different on paper, but the acoustics and psychoacoustics of a free-field (open-backed) headphone and an occluded-ear (closed back) headphone require different frequency responses to have a similar "sound" to the listener. Though sounding exactly the same between open and closed headphones is impossible, the HD 820 went through over a dozen revisions by some of the industry's top engineers to create a closed headphone as a similar as possible to the HD 800S' psychoacoustic balance of frequency response, timbre, air and soundstage, imaging, and many other traits not expressed on one simple graph.

This is an example where experience is no substitution for reading specs. I provided my experience with HD800S vs HD820 here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sennheiser-hd800s-vs-hd820.942979/

The bottom line is some people don't understand the concepts behind paychoacoustics or don't care to. And I will have to say, looking at some reviews of the HD820 is pretty obvious who actually compared them to the HD800S and who just wrote a review based on the FR; some I am skeptical if the reviewer even bothered to listen to the hd820 they are so far off base

The hd820 is one of Sennheisers greatest accomplishments, unjustifyably maligned for a few reasons:
1. "Purists" that can't accept or fear speaking up that a non-linear looking frequency curve can sound linear in a closed back environment due to paychoacoustics

2. "Bass heads" whose main intention of buying a closed back is unnatural exaggerated bass boost instead of isolation

3. Lazy or uninformed "reviewers" that write an entire review based on the frequency response instead of the sound; some of these may also simply be reviewers that fall into the first category

4. Followers on social media/forums that regurgitate 1-3 and "follow the herd" instead of trying for themselves and voicing their own opinion. HD820 is a radically different design for a closed back so one cannot go off past experience with HD800S or closed backs in general.

In short, the HD820 is the closest thing to a "reference" quality closed back that exists.

The "artist's intent" is variable, and the production artist's gear used in mixing is also different from studio to studio (sometimes using speakers familiar to them, outside the studio environment, such as through popular headphones or in a car so they have a sense of what the typical consumer will hear), and of course every human being has different ears. "Truth" in audio is highly subjective, and an art in itself. What sounds linear in a studio would be designed differently from something designed to sound linear in a concert hall.

Yeah "artist intent," "truth," "neutrality" is all purist mumbo jumbo people use to psychologically justify continue using whatever they are currently using instead of spending $1500+ on a new headphone that's probably better.

The reality is if a headphone reproduced sound 100% flat frequency response with zero coloration it would be the worst sounding headphone ever made. A quick trip to your local anechoic chamber with 100% flat speaker easily confirms this. Its also the reason they tune pro gear and hifi gear differently - pro gear gives you a neutral baseline to compare but isnt enjoyable to listen to; hifi gear less neutral but more enjoyable to listen to.

 

[VandyMan]

In short, the HD820 is the closest thing to a "reference" quality closed back that exists.

I have real issues with the frequency response of the HD820 when I compare them to other ToTL closed-backs such as the Focal Stellia. However, the biggest issue is the sound leakage. If you wear a closed-back so that you don't hear the outside world, then fine. If you wear them so that the outside world does not hear you, then they are a fail.

 

[ruinedx]

I have real issues with the frequency response of the HD820 when I compare them to other ToTL closed-backs such as the Focal Stellia.

Such as?

Do you mean it psychologically bothers you that one is less straight looking on paper than the the other?

 

[VandyMan]

Such as?

I did the comparison about a year ago, so I can no longer recall the specifics, just my overall impression. Wish I had taken notes; sorry! I ended up buying the Stellia over the HD820.

Edit: I see you added a snide comment. Why so defensive? I never looked at any graphs. My ears told the story.

 

[ruinedx]

I did the comparison about a year ago, so I can no longer recall the specifics, just my overall impression. Wish I had taken notes; sorry! I ended up buying the Stellia over the HD820.

Edit: I see you added a snide comment. Why so defensive? I never looked at any graphs. My ears told the story.

It was a genuine comment because "issue with the frequency response" doesn't mean anything other than what I commented. If you said "I liked the X better on the Stellia" it would be a lot more helpful. I e. Treble , bass, mids, whatever.

Also some in the hd820 thread actually have identified a psychological issue with the way the FR curve looks

 

[VandyMan]

It was a genuine comment because "issue with the frequency response" doesn't mean anything other than what I commented.

That is of course not what I said. Note the words "when I compare them." I do wish I could be more specific, but this is not an HD820 topic anyway. Let's move on please.

 

[rthomas]

This is an example where experience is no substitution for reading specs. I provided my experience with HD800S vs HD820 here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sennheiser-hd800s-vs-hd820.942979/

The bottom line is some people don't understand the concepts behind paychoacoustics or don't care to. And I will have to say, looking at some reviews of the HD820 is pretty obvious who actually compared them to the HD800S and who just wrote a review based on the FR; some I am skeptical if the reviewer even bothered to listen to the hd820 they are so far off base

The hd820 is one of Sennheisers greatest accomplishments, unjustifyably maligned for a few reasons:
1. "Purists" that can't accept or fear speaking up that a non-linear looking frequency curve can sound linear in a closed back environment due to paychoacoustics

2. "Bass heads" whose main intention of buying a closed back is unnatural exaggerated bass boost instead of isolation

3. Lazy or uninformed "reviewers" that write an entire review based on the frequency response instead of the sound; some of these may also simply be reviewers that fall into the first category

4. Followers on social media/forums that regurgitate 1-3 and "follow the herd" instead of trying for themselves and voicing their own opinion. HD820 is a radically different design for a closed back so one cannot go off past experience with HD800S or closed backs in general.

In short, the HD820 is the closest thing to a "reference" quality closed back that exists.



Yeah "artist intent," "truth," "neutrality" is all purist mumbo jumbo people use to psychologically justify continue using whatever they are currently using instead of spending $1500+ on a new headphone that's probably better.

The reality is if a headphone reproduced sound 100% flat frequency response with zero coloration it would be the worst sounding headphone ever made. A quick trip to your local anechoic chamber with 100% flat speaker easily confirms this. Its also the reason they tune pro gear and hifi gear differently - pro gear gives you a neutral baseline to compare but isnt enjoyable to listen to; hifi gear less neutral but more enjoyable to listen to.

Please don't take anything I say too seriously as it's just headphones and audio after all:

Dude you seem to be some kind of Sennheiser super fan. Nothing wrong with that except when it comes across like they can't do anything wrong in your eyes...

Yeah "artist intent," "truth," "neutrality" is all purist mumbo jumbo


The above statement implies that there is no standard to how an audio reproduction device should sound which is simply false.

Experienced musicians and mastering engineers can listen to a headphone and tell you whether it is an accurate representation of the music or whether the sound signature is skewed ( too much bass, huge dip in the upper mids, huge treble spikes etc)

If there is no such thing as neutral in audio then every headphone is equally ''good'' and ''accurate''.

There is a reason the HD600 is highly respected for it's tonal balance....It's close to the ''truth'' and most people find the HD600 an enjoyable headphone.

The original Beats Pro for example is a sub standard headphone as it's frequency response is highly skewed in favour of boomy bass.

So HD600 = close to neutral/ the truth/ accurate
Original Beats Pro = not neutral/ overly emphasized bass
Audioquest Nighthawk = nowhere close to neutral - the market rejected this headphone which is why it has been discontinued. Some people enjoy it and that's absolutely fine but to say that the Nighthawk and the HD600 are equally close to what music should sound like is simply false.

I have spoken to people who design transducers for a living and they have both measured and listened to the HD800S and HD820.

The two headphones sound very different. The HD800S is more accurate while the HD820 adds a unique flavour to the music. You seem to love both which is fine but to claim that they're both equally accurate/reference quality is false.

 

[Arniesb]

I did the comparison about a year ago, so I can no longer recall the specifics, just my overall impression. Wish I had taken notes; sorry! I ended up buying the Stellia over the HD820.

Edit: I see you added a snide comment. Why so defensive? I never looked at any graphs. My ears told the story.

Its true. When you have mids that are even weaker than HD800S and you increase bass then i can see how weak mids that must be.

 

[ruinedx]

Please don't take anything I say too seriously as it's just headphones and audio after all:

Dude you seem to be some kind of Sennheiser super fan. Nothing wrong with that except when it comes across like they can't do anything wrong in your eyes...

Yeah "artist intent," "truth," "neutrality" is all purist mumbo jumbo


The above statement implies that there is no standard to how an audio reproduction device should sound which is simply false.

Experienced musicians and mastering engineers can listen to a headphone and tell you whether it is an accurate representation of the music or whether the sound signature is skewed ( too much bass, huge dip in the upper mids, huge treble spikes etc)

If there is no such thing as neutral in audio then every headphone is equally ''good'' and ''accurate''.

There is a reason the HD600 is highly respected for it's tonal balance....It's close to the ''truth'' and most people find the HD600 an enjoyable headphone.

The original Beats Pro for example is a sub standard headphone as it's frequency response is highly skewed in favour of boomy bass.

So HD600 = close to neutral/ the truth/ accurate
Original Beats Pro = not neutral/ overly emphasized bass
Audioquest Nighthawk = nowhere close to neutral - the market rejected this headphone which is why it has been discontinued. Some people enjoy it and that's absolutely fine but to say that the Nighthawk and the HD600 are equally close to what music should sound like is simply false.

I have spoken to people who design transducers for a living and they have both measured and listened to the HD800S and HD820.

The two headphones sound very different. The HD800S is more accurate while the HD820 adds a unique flavour to the music. You seem to love both which is fine but to claim that they're both equally accurate/reference quality is false.

If you actually want a "standard" to reproduce music "as intended," then the first thing one must understand is that music is generally mixed on studio monitors, not headphones; in fact, most mixing professionals would advise *against* mixing on headphones. So right off the bat, the "as intended" standard is not something that has the typical sound of a headphone, but rather a speaker.

Therefore, to approach "as intended," you need a headphone that sounds like a speaker. Enter HD800S/HD820, headphones that have the soundstage that approaches more of a speaker than a collapsed "in your head" typical headphone. To get a soundstage like this, this does require some psychoacoustical tricks that will make the FR graph look less "neutral." But as a result, it will sound more "realistic" and in reality "as intended" since the soundstage of the HD800S/HD820 will more closely approach the speaker soundstage most professionals mix on.

The HD600/650 are popular headphones for a few reasons:
1) They approach the average curve; do not confuse average with neutral. But simply as they are average-sounding, it means more people will generally be in favor of the sound. Whereas, perhaps for some the more resolving treble of the HD800S will be too much.
2) They are forgiving on poor quality gear. Let's be honest, most people cannot afford or simply don't want to spend thousands of dollars on gear. And for those people, the HD600/650 work and sound decent with very cheap amps - the HD660S takes it a step further by halving the impedance and making it even more accessible.
3) Despite being forgiving on poor gear, they also scale well with good quality gear. So, while they can be used on poor gear, they also massively improve on great gear. Win/win.

All that being said the HD600/650 do not come as close to the sound of a speaker as the much more gear-picky HD800S/HD820. So for those seeking "as intended" sound, the most speaker-like headphone that also sounds relatively accurate will be your best bet. Pursuing pure frequency response is going to result in a collapsed and unrealistic (less as-intended) soundstage as one of the downsides of psychoacoustically achieving a speaker-like soundstage in a headphone is slightly recessed mids (both in an open-back and even moreso in a closed-back, hence the HD800S/HD820 mid dips); but that is a tradeoff you need to take for more realistic sound.

 

[rthomas]

@rthomas I appreciate the positive and hopeful tone of your comment and reply!

The sound of the HE-1 and the frequency response are different things... yes, it is possible to have a frequency response similar to the HE-1 in a lower cost headphone. That balance of SPL at each bass, mids, and treble frequency can be recreated reasonably closely in "even" a dynamic driver.

In fact, that was the original design goal of the 1990's HD 580 (or “HD 580 Precision”). The original Orpheus had just been created, the product managers and acoustic engineers were tasked to at least recreate the tonality and frequency response of the Electrostat, at a price that would be accessible as a utility rather than as a luxury. The dynamic driver wouldn't be capable of the same low-inertia qualities of the electrostatic driver, but the tonality would be brought to a more affordable price and not require specialized equipment. It was also a landmark in precision design, with very low modal distortion at high frequencies. The HD 580 Jubilee, a special edition that had a carbon fiber overwrap, but more crucially a tonality that was even closer to the Orpheus, was so popular and highly requested that Sennheiser decided to make it a permanent production mainstay and renamed it the HD 600. Though the HD 650 was intentionally tuned to make it a bit easier on the ears for all-day utility in a professional use, the HD 600, HD 650, and HD 660 S could all be said to be targeting the sound of the original Orpheus at a lower price.

It's true that the frequency response graphs of the HD 800S and HD 820 will look different on paper, but the acoustics and psychoacoustics of a free-field (open-backed) headphone and an occluded-ear (closed back) headphone require different frequency responses to have a similar "sound" to the listener. Though sounding exactly the same between open and closed headphones is impossible, the HD 820 went through over a dozen revisions by some of the industry's top engineers to create a closed headphone as a similar as possible to the HD 800S' psychoacoustic balance of frequency response, timbre, air and soundstage, imaging, and many other traits not expressed on one simple graph.

The "artist's intent" is variable, and the production artist's gear used in mixing is also different from studio to studio (sometimes using speakers familiar to them, outside the studio environment, such as through popular headphones or in a car so they have a sense of what the typical consumer will hear), and of course every human being has different ears. "Truth" in audio is highly subjective, and an art in itself. What sounds linear in a studio would be designed differently from something designed to sound linear in a concert hall.

Hopefully this serious and (very) informative reply helps. I wrote at length out of respect for your question and for others who may have a similar thought.

Thanks for the detailed reply

I learned something new, I had no idea that the HD580 was an homage to the original Orpheus! That's very interesting.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for, a new generation of Sennheiser flagships that try to imitate the HE-1.Now that would be amazing.

 

[rthomas]

If you actually want a "standard" to reproduce music "as intended," then the first thing one must understand is that music is generally mixed on studio monitors, not headphones; in fact, most mixing professionals would advise *against* mixing on headphones. So right off the bat, the "as intended" standard is not something that has the typical sound of a headphone, but rather a speaker.

Therefore, to approach "as intended," you need a headphone that sounds like a speaker. Enter HD800S/HD820, headphones that have the soundstage that approaches more of a speaker than a collapsed "in your head" typical headphone. To get a soundstage like this, this does require some psychoacoustical tricks that will make the FR graph look less "neutral." But as a result, it will sound more "realistic" and in reality "as intended" since the soundstage of the HD800S/HD820 will more closely approach the speaker soundstage most professionals mix on.

The HD600/650 are popular headphones for a few reasons:
1) They approach the average curve; do not confuse average with neutral. But simply as they are average-sounding, it means more people will generally be in favor of the sound. Whereas, perhaps for some the more resolving treble of the HD800S will be too much.
2) They are forgiving on poor quality gear. Let's be honest, most people cannot afford or simply don't want to spend thousands of dollars on gear. And for those people, the HD600/650 work and sound decent with very cheap amps - the HD660S takes it a step further by halving the impedance and making it even more accessible.
3) Despite being forgiving on poor gear, they also scale well with good quality gear. So, while they can be used on poor gear, they also massively improve on great gear. Win/win.

All that being said the HD600/650 do not come as close to the sound of a speaker as the much more gear-picky HD800S/HD820. So for those seeking "as intended" sound, the most speaker-like headphone that also sounds relatively accurate will be your best bet. Pursuing pure frequency response is going to result in a collapsed and unrealistic (less as-intended) soundstage as one of the downsides of psychoacoustically achieving a speaker-like soundstage in a headphone is slightly recessed mids (both in an open-back and even moreso in a closed-back, hence the HD800S/HD820 mid dips); but that is a tradeoff you need to take for more realistic sound.

Ok, thanks for the detailed response. A couple of questions if you don't mind so that I can understand your frame of reference.

1. A How similar are the HD820 and HD800S to your ears?

For example the I've owned the HD600 and the HD650 for many years and to me they are 95% similar in sound signature. By sound signature I mean all aspects of sound including frequency response, soundstage etc.

2. Do you believe that the HD800 has a big treble spike at around 6 Khz?

3. Do you find the treble tuning of the HD800 to be acceptable or to be too bright?

4. Do you find the bass level of the HD800S to be acceptable or to be on the low side?

Thanks!

 

[ruinedx]

Ok, thanks for the detailed response. A couple of questions if you don't mind so that I can understand your frame of reference.

1. A How similar are the HD820 and HD800S to your ears?

I'd say owning both, on the same equipment, they sound about 85%-90% similar.

The main differences are:
* HD800S has slightly more brilliant/sparkly treble, while HD820 treble is more conservative - it will depend on the listener treble sensitivity which they prefer, personally I prefer the HD800S.
* HD800S has a bit more emotive/expressive midrange, which is the primary sonic advantage of the HD800S over the HD820
* HD820 has more impressive deep bass response, which is the primary sonic advantage of the HD820 over the HD800S
* HD800S soundstage sounds maybe 20% more open than HD820, but HD820 still sounds much more open/large than most open-backed headphones despite being closed
* HD820 has much better isolation than HD800S
* HD800S has slightly better fit than HD820

2. Do you believe that the HD800 has a big treble spike at around 6 Khz?

Yes, though this was adjusted in the HD800S to be less intrusive. The reason it was there was likely again to make the soundstage larger; the HD800 soundstage sounds even larger than the HD800S. But I would say the 6khz spike was not worth the tradeoff for the larger soundstage on the HD800 on most music. The HD800S amplitude from 1khz-6khz is a good compromise.

3. Do you find the treble tuning of the HD800 to be acceptable or to be too bright?

HD800 too bright; HD800S not too bright unless you use with the wrong amp; HD820 not too bright period.

4. Do you find the bass level of the HD800S to be acceptable or to be on the low side?

It depends on the music. For something like broadway, vocalists, jazz, rock, etc, it is excellent. On the other hand with something like synthwave the HD820 is more satisfying. They complement each other well this way - use HD800S for more mid-heavy music, HD820 for more bass-heavy music or when you need isolation.

There is no perfect headphone but if you want that realistic "speaker-like" sound, the way sound is mixed by professionals, the HD800S and HD820 together cover all genres, plus give you enhanced versatility for different background noise levels. At the end of the day they sound more similar then different though.

 

[headblid]

This is an interesting take, I ran an HD820 + HDV820 for a while and ended up having to get rid of the HD820 purely for ergonomic reasons.
Somehow it was extremely time consuming to get a proper seal for the headphones to sound like they were intended to. When a proper seal is achieved, it sounds great but when you have to spend half of your listening time trying to get a seal that may never happen, it sours the experience. I also wear glasses so this may not apply to everybody.

I still have my HD800S though, not ever getting rid of that one . If Sennheiser finds a way to build the 820 in a way that makes it an easy and consistent seal, I'll revisit.


Cheers,

This is an example where experience is no substitution for reading specs. I provided my experience with HD800S vs HD820 here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sennheiser-hd800s-vs-hd820.942979/

The bottom line is some people don't understand the concepts behind paychoacoustics or don't care to. And I will have to say, looking at some reviews of the HD820 is pretty obvious who actually compared them to the HD800S and who just wrote a review based on the FR; some I am skeptical if the reviewer even bothered to listen to the hd820 they are so far off base

The hd820 is one of Sennheisers greatest accomplishments, unjustifyably maligned for a few reasons:
1. "Purists" that can't accept or fear speaking up that a non-linear looking frequency curve can sound linear in a closed back environment due to paychoacoustics

2. "Bass heads" whose main intention of buying a closed back is unnatural exaggerated bass boost instead of isolation

3. Lazy or uninformed "reviewers" that write an entire review based on the frequency response instead of the sound; some of these may also simply be reviewers that fall into the first category

4. Followers on social media/forums that regurgitate 1-3 and "follow the herd" instead of trying for themselves and voicing their own opinion. HD820 is a radically different design for a closed back so one cannot go off past experience with HD800S or closed backs in general.

In short, the HD820 is the closest thing to a "reference" quality closed back that exists.



Yeah "artist intent," "truth," "neutrality" is all purist mumbo jumbo people use to psychologically justify continue using whatever they are currently using instead of spending $1500+ on a new headphone that's probably better.

The reality is if a headphone reproduced sound 100% flat frequency response with zero coloration it would be the worst sounding headphone ever made. A quick trip to your local anechoic chamber with 100% flat speaker easily confirms this. Its also the reason they tune pro gear and hifi gear differently - pro gear gives you a neutral baseline to compare but isnt enjoyable to listen to; hifi gear less neutral but more enjoyable to listen to.