[Currawong]

It would be interesting to read your opinion on the Stax 009s with a genuinely high-end source.  I understand your feelings in many ways, even if I don't entirely agree. Also think you don't understand headphone efficiency if you think impedance is a measure of efficiency.
 
I did have a similar experience to yours where, when comparing Stax O2s with HD-600s, I preferred, in many ways, the Sennheisers, but this was due to a difference in frequency response and a less than ideal for the Stax. I haven't been through the entire thread so sorry if this has been asked before, but can I asked for more thoughts on different rigs you used the LCD-2s with? I've had very mixed results with them, from lack-luster to great.

 

[swbf2cheater]

Quote:

Also think you don't understand headphone efficiency if you think impedance is a measure of efficiency.
 

 
 
Feel free to send me a demo or buy me an early Xmas gift  

 

 

[n-phect]

Quote:

Then you're doing the right thing by leaving this hobby, which should be (but usually isn't) focused on accurate reproduction.
 
I'm surprised you don't find the LCD-2 warm, though.

i think he meant to say bright.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I agree swbf though I do think it's a lot to ask given the current state of headphone-dom.  I actually think a lot of the debate on this site comes from the fact that headphones are so flawed in general.  Every headphone has so many problems that we wind up debating which problems and strengths are more important and there's a constant need to upgrade because we're trying to find purity or perfection in something that is so far from that ideal.  I would have been off the site and done with headphones a long time ago if there were more good headphones out there, but it doesn't seem that the phone I want exists.  You could call me fussy or whatever, but I have only bought one speaker system in my life, and they would probably be scoffed at by audiophiles, the Mackie HR624's I mentioned earlier in the thread.  They are exactly what I've always wanted in a pair of headphones.  Not terribly expensive (for an entire speaker rig), no exotic materials, function over form, easy to drive (built in amplifier designed for the speakers), and they have no real sonic flaws or colorations.  They're not the last word in resolution or dynamics, but they deliver music in an uncolored, pure way and I've had no desire to upgrade or try something else even after 5 years with them.  Music sounds like music and the equipment isn't getting in the way.  I don't need anything more than that.
 
I'm always comparing my headphones to these speakers, and they always win in every way (not just soundstage/imaging and except for absolute resolution, but that's just because headphone drivers are so close to the ear with less air between).  It's kind of pathetic that even when you spend the same amount as those powered monitors (850 or so brand new at the time) on headphones alone, you still have something that is pretty fundamentally flawed and colored.  And look at the difference in materials delivered.  Two huge speakers with amplifiers built in vs 1 pair of headphones that still require an amp. 
 
Maybe good speakers are easier to design than good headphones because of all the enclosed acoustic spaces to deal with in headphones.  But somehow I think there's more to it than that.  People say speakers need a treated room and headphones have the advantage because they have a set acoustic space.  But I've heard these speakers in countless untreated rooms and they always sound great, and the set enclosure of headphones doesn't seem to give them any advantage- they still exhibit tons of ringing, peaky response and glaring colorations that my speakers do not have in any room.  I am suspicious that headphone makers have different goals than speaker makers and set out to "wow listeners" with a colored sound rather than the balance and accuracy that (most?) speaker makers may or may not strive for. 

 

[sphinxvc]

Great post!  It's especially true that it isn't just soundstage that's better with speakers, the FQ response just seems so much more natural, accurate, and "right".  

 

[bisayaboi]

Reminds me of when I downgraded from the SM3 ($350) to the Xears TD-III ($50)... and I couldn't be any happier. Done with IEM's forever.

Interesting read... makes me less enthusiastic about trying to get an HE-500 from my HD650 now. Maybe I should just stick with my HD650.

 

[swbf2cheater]

You have no idea how much I also miss my HD650 :[
 
 
 
*salutes it 
 

 

[bisayaboi]

You have no idea how much I also miss my HD650 :[
 
 
 
*salutes it 
 

How does the HD650 scale with the "big boys" such as the LCD-2, HE-500, and/or Stax models and do you find the price for those "hi-fi" headphones worth it over the HD-650?

 

[Wapiti]

. . . before I lost all my gear about a year ago . . .

Curiosity: What happened?

 

[MorbidToaster]

Quote:

Quote:

You have no idea how much I also miss my HD650 :[
 
 
 
*salutes it 
 

How does the HD650 scale with the "big boys" such as the LCD-2, HE-500, and/or Stax models and do you find the price for those "hi-fi" headphones worth it over the HD-650?
 

 Did you read the thread...? Or even the first post...?

 
 
 

 

[bisayaboi]

 Did you read the thread...? Or even the first post...?

 
 
 

I read two pages. There is no HD650 talk from swbf2cheater in the first two pages

 

[MorbidToaster]

 Did you read the thread...? Or even the first post...?

 
 
 

I read two pages. There is no HD650 talk from swbf2cheater in the first two pages

But the whole thread is about how NOT worth it the high end of this hobby is...

 

[aFo]

Great topic. Most of the high end stuff I've tried did not impress me at first glance. I had to listen for awhile to appreciate the nuances, and having to do that makes spending hundreds of dollars on audio gear questionable to me. But I just don't agree with what you said about mid-fi being enough. It's advocating the mainstream/good enough solutions and making everyone who is passionate about going as far as they can in a hobby look foolish(wearing satellites etc). There are car forums, cooking forums, and all sorts of outside interests where people spend lots of time and money for diminishing returns. But it's a source of pleasure for us, and I think it's a shame to knock it. 

 

[MorbidToaster]

Great topic. Most of the high end stuff I've tried did not impress me at first glance. I had to listen for awhile to appreciate the nuances, and having to do that makes spending hundreds of dollars on audio gear questionable to me. But I just don't what you said about mid-fi being enough. It's advocating the mainstream/good enough solutions and making everyone who is passionate about going as far as they can in a hobby look foolish(wearing satellites etc). There are car forums, cooking forums, and all sorts of outside interests where people spend lots of time and money for diminishing returns. But it's a source of pleasure for us, and I think it's a shame to knock it. 

I really like your view on this topic. Very level headed and 'live and let live'.

 

[olor1n]

Quote:

Quote:

You have no idea how much I also miss my HD650 :[
 
 
 
*salutes it 
 

How does the HD650 scale with the "big boys" such as the LCD-2, HE-500, and/or Stax models and do you find the price for those "hi-fi" headphones worth it over the HD-650?
 

Disclaimer - I love the LCD-2, and don't have the same issue with it as the OP.
 
However, if I lost all my gear and had to rebuild, I'd go the HD650 and a carefully considered rig for best synergy. I don't think my enjoyment of the music would be lessened for missing the LCD-2's capabilities, and this could be achieved for the cost of replacing the LCD-2.
 
The HD650 are wonderful headphones that get more things right than wrong imo, and just don't get in the way of the music. Anyone who disagrees is a crackhead whose criticisms are not to be trusted.