[luukas]

Some food for thought:

I tend to prefer somewhat exaggerated dynamics with headphones, since they obviously can't provide the same impact as speakers do, well, not at healthy listening levels anyway. For example, headphones that have a severe drop below 50hz sound very anemic, whereas speakers with a similar frequence response do not. If I'd listen to, say, jazz with both, the headphones would not (excuse the horrible term) "swing".

Just my quickly conceived theory.

 

[Langrath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luukas Some food for thought: I tend to prefer somewhat exaggerated dynamics with headphones, since they obviously can't provide the same impact as speakers do, well, not at healthy listening levels anyway. For example, headphones that have a severe drop below 50hz sound very anemic, whereas speakers with a similar frequence response do not. If I'd listen to, say, jazz with both, the headphones would not (excuse the horrible term) "swing". Just my quickly conceived theory.

Headphone loudness in other word. Could it be the right word?

Georg

 

[gsferrari]

The problem with the HD-595 is not its neutrality. I grudgingly admit that it is a VERY neutral headphone that doesnt emphasize bass or treble or midrange. Does everything nicely but doesnt do anything spectacularly which robs the performance of emotion.

It is dry...like a bad wine leaves your tongue and throat parched because the alcohol content is too high...like drinking nai lpolish remover (hmm...now how would I happen to know that

).

It is neutral but not emotive. I expected more for my money. Perhaps it is a good studio reference monitor. It certainly wouldnt be my first choice for music listening. Think Grado SR-225, 325 - hey - even the SR-60 is preferable and it has a similar grittiness to the attack and decay of the notes.

I think it is fair to say I am quite close to perfection as far as discerning differences between headphones is concerned. Between the SR-60 and HD-595, putting price out of the equation, the HD-595 is definitely a better headphone overall purely from a fidelity point of view. But the SR-60 makes you tap your feet and shake your body to the music. The 595 is ho-hum

Go figure...

 

[pbirkett]

So whats the timing like on the 595's? Do they do the "PRaT" thing? The reason I ask is a lot of stuff I find lifeless is lacking in "PRaT". Stuff that doesnt time can often sound very boring even if it is otherwise very good...

 

[merlock]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari The problem with the HD-595 is not its neutrality. I grudgingly admit that it is a VERY neutral headphone that doesnt emphasize bass or treble or midrange. Does everything nicely but doesnt do anything spectacularly which robs the performance of emotion. It is dry...like a bad wine leaves your tongue and throat parched because the alcohol content is too high...like drinking nai lpolish remover (hmm...now how would I happen to know that ). It is neutral but not emotive. I expected more for my money. Perhaps it is a good studio reference monitor. It certainly wouldnt be my first choice for music listening. Think Grado SR-225, 325 - hey - even the SR-60 is preferable and it has a similar grittiness to the attack and decay of the notes. I think it is fair to say I am quite close to perfection as far as discerning differences between headphones is concerned. Between the SR-60 and HD-595, putting price out of the equation, the HD-595 is definitely a better headphone overall purely from a fidelity point of view. But the SR-60 makes you tap your feet and shake your body to the music. The 595 is ho-hum Go figure...

Comparing Senns with Grados is like comparing apples to oranges. They both have very different sound signatures. If you like the Grado sound, I don't think you'll like any of the Sennheiser phones. Or do you?

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlock Comparing Senns with Grados is like comparing apples to oranges. They both have very different sound signatures. If you like the Grado sound, I don't think you'll like any of the Sennheiser phones. Or do you?

I like both.

 

[Langrath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I like both.

But for different music, I suppose?

Georg

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlock Comparing Senns with Grados is like comparing apples to oranges. They both have very different sound signatures. If you like the Grado sound, I don't think you'll like any of the Sennheiser phones. Or do you?

I love my HD-650...no problems with the Senn sound...595 is nothing like the senn sound...it is nothing like the grado sound either. Some kind of undesirable crossbreed

to me and the divine salvation to others

LOL

 

[3lusiv3]

I really don't understand why some people dislike the HD 595's. I have been listening to the DT 531 or AT A900 for the last two weeks and am now trying my HD 595 again after a two week break. They are definitely all in the same league, but I think I prefer the HD 595 to the other two. I particularly like the bass on the HD 595. The low and mid bass are strong when they need to be without being overpowering and only with very, very slight colouration of the mids. The highs are a little bit recessed but I like it that way. There is absolutely no way that these have weak bass like some people are saying. If they had weak bass I wouldn't keep them because I love powerful bass.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I really don't understand why some people dislike the HD 595's. I have been listening to the DT 531 or AT A900 for the last two weeks and am now trying my HD 595 again after a two week break. They are definitely all in the same league, but I think I prefer the HD 595 to the other two. I particularly like the bass on the HD 595. The low and mid bass are strong when they need to be without being overpowering and only with very, very slight colouration of the mids. The highs are a little bit recessed but I like it that way.

Of course they're all in the same league. I've listened to enough headphones by now to know that there's nothing wrong with the 595 other than that some people prefer something more exciting. The 595 does NOT lack refinement. It certainly doesn't lack balance. It may lack timing on rock but that interests me not at all. Maybe in the end it'll turn out that despite their slight brightness over the 580/600 the 595 is a classical/orchestral phone.
Here's a thought though. I mentioned in another post that I disliked all previous Senns because of an upper midrange/lower treble prominence which caused a kind of hollow colouration leading to schreechy strings etc. I found the cheaper Grados had this too. The 595s however were completely free of it, much to my surprise. Now the upper midrange/lower treble area is highly sensitive when it comes to detail. Those with equalisers just try dropping the 4khz slider a few db and see what it does to the sound. This kind of change will lead to a more "open" sound but obscure detail particularly with rock and jazz. I wonder if this could be something like the effect some are experiencing here. Though it doesn't seem to show up on graphs could it be that the 595 has a little less output in the upper midrange that causes some listeners to feel they lack excitement? Something to think about maybe.

 

[johto]

I like my 595 very much. Its almost crazy to see people here complaining about cans that are "too neutral" ...if you want the opposite, get hd570

I think 3lusiv3 and pp312 described these cans very nicely. I cant believe some people has the nerves to say these cans dont have bass ? I always use my amp with EQ on neutral, and it surely has bass. Its the music what needs to be good quality and not some compressed **** like nowadays the majority is.

I dont know how quality my amp is, all i know its old and has good output for headpones. I know my source is "bad" but still, these cans are awesome !

btw, I remember i had to use these cans quite a bit before the lower end came fully alive. Now its very smooth indeed.

 

[Langrath]

Have any headphones been so controversial as HD595 before? It seems to me as people either love them or hate them. Why it is so? Any suggestions?

Georg

 

[enemigo]

There is a perfectly reasonable explaination to why people experience the 595's differently. Asside from taste, it's source I believe. My DT231's are almost two different cans when used with my JOS MP300 compared to the Creative Muvo, amped or no.

I guess a bright source would not be a great match for the 595's? I have briefly listened to the 595's and found no immediate errors, don't know what source were used though.

Knut

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I particularly like the bass on the HD 595. The low and mid bass are strong when they need to be without being overpowering and only with very, very slight colouration of the mids.

I think 595's bass is even more neutral than slightly overpowering but niiice bass on 650. But that may be their only advantage over 650 (oh, and easier to drive).

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langrath Have any headphones been so controversial as HD595 before? It seems to me as people either love them or hate them. Why it is so? Any suggestions? Georg

Oh, yes, they have - and even more so. The PX200, for example, or the K501. And at least I couldn't say that I either love or hate the HD 595 - I'm rather indifferent, actually. My problem with the HD 595 is that it doesn't sound extended enough for the price - and in fact I'd also exspect total absence of midrange grain from a headphone for ~ 200 Euro. Thus it's only an ok sounding phone for the money. Whereas I'd rate it good, if it was playing in the ~ 100 Euro league.

Greetings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

P.S.: Just for the record, to me adding some coloration to an audio chain seems perfectly ok. At least for transducers like speakers or phones - and maybe also for phono pickups. Whereas I like my electronics on the neutral side.