[tom hankins]

Mucho love for the HD650! I'm listening to them, and comparing them, (with Zu cable) and like them even more than the L3000 that are here.
When used with the SDS-XLR and balanced Zu cable they are completely magical. Wont purchase another phone until Senn. comes out with the next upgrade over the HD650.

 

[BRBJackson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley 1. Regarding "Sennheisers not for rock," . They're great for anything I've thrown at them, including death metal, power metal, progressive metal, black metal, and industrial. Rock, too. They've got a wonderful sonic signature, for my ears, to listen to anything. I listened to Opeth all night last night to reacquaint myself with their full body of work in order to compare their newest album. Right now, I'm listening to Agalloch. It's awesome.

I think this is where the bulk of disagreement centers regarding the 650. Personally, I find that the midrange gets 'out of breath' too easliy for dense rock passages. But to each his own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley 2. Regarding "Use different cables!" I'm using stock. I'll always use stock. If I want to increase the resistance I'll do so with some kind of adaptor with a resistor; if I want to increase inductance, I'll buy a cable extender. Forget capitulating to $60+ lengths of copper with shrinkwrap.

Don't know what to tell you here. I still have the stock cable, and switching back and forth with the Zu, there is a significant difference in treble presentation and bass definition. This has nothing to do with measued values IMO.

 

[jimmyjames8]

After a long absence from the world of headphones (20 yrs.) I jumped back in this year with a vengence. Senn HD555, 600, 650. Rega Ear, Pimeta, Woo3, Beyer250, 880, Senn 280, Aless M2i. I always come back to the Senn650. It and the Woo3 are sympatico. Acoustic guitar music is to Die For on this rig. I prefer to rock out with the Alessandro's however. Totally different presentation. Detail/resolution are the 650's strong points. Early (50's and 60's)sides and other poorly recorded fare do better on less resolving cans in my opinion. SACD's and "audiophile" discs on the 650's superb. Highly recommended.

 

[fewtch]

I'm surprised how many have reported giving up on the Beyer DT880 for the HD650.

For those who owned DT880 awhile and came back to HD650, what is it about the HD650 you find more attractive? Is it the easy-to-listen-to characteristic? IMO the DT880 is really about as natural sounding as the high end Senns, it's simply livelier. It does require some system tweaking for best performance, but then so do Senns.

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRBJackson Don't know what to tell you here. I still have the stock cable, and switching back and forth with the Zu, there is a significant difference in treble presentation and bass definition. This has nothing to do with measued values IMO.

Just out of curiosity, where would you presume that the difference comes from, then?

If we're relying on magic and mysticism, can it please be gnomes? I like gnomes.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley Just out of curiosity, where would you presume that the difference comes from, then? If we're relying on magic and mysticism, can it please be gnomes? I like gnomes.

Is it just me who always finds it strangely depressing to read the posts of hardcore skeptics? Everything is known, everything is predictable, everything is measurable... anything/everything we don't understand (yet) constitutes overactive imagination, witchcraft or outright deception.

Somehow this attitude both depresses me and makes me feel bad for the person who holds it at the same time. It's purely anti-science as well, because science requires an open mind and the willingness to discover.

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Is it just me who always finds it strangely depressing to read the posts of hardcore skeptics? Everything is known, everything is predictable, everything is measurable... anything/everything we don't understand (yet) constitutes overactive imagination, witchcraft or outright deception. Somehow this attitude both depresses me and makes me feel bad for the person who holds it at the same time. It's purely anti-science as well, because science requires an open mind and the willingness to discover.

The science of electricity as regarding inductance and resistance related to the transmission of an audio signal is well enough understood that those claiming fantastic properites outside of said measurements become "anti-science." Please understand the nature of your argument before you put it forth.

Edit: That said, I'm willing to accept that if it makes it sound better to you then you're welcome to use it, and I won't insult or deride you based on that. Epistemologically speaking, a perceived improvement might as well be an improvement if it improves your listening experience. And there likely is some sonic difference, exactly according to the properties aforementioned differentiating enough to change the transmission characteristics.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch It's purely anti-science as well, because science requires an open mind and the willingness to discover.

I agree wholeheartedly. Interestingly many scientists and people who predominantly rely on science and data advocate a world view where more or less everything is explained and explainable by the current state of science, so everything seemingly contradicting the latter doesn't have to be taken seriously.


Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley The science of electricity as regarding inductance and resistance related to the transmission of an audio signal is well enough understood that those claiming fantastic properties outside of said measurements become "anti-science." Please understand the nature of your argument before you put it forth.

So have you heard the cables in question? I suppose rather not. Because that's the usual form of a «serious» and «scientific» approach by ultra-skeptics. Yes, the electricial properties are well understood -- but what do they tell about the sound? Obviously there's a lot that's not understood in the context of audio phenomena.

Quote:

Edit: That said, I'm willing to accept that if it makes it sound better to you then you're welcome to use it, and I won't insult or deride you based on that. Epistemologically speaking, a perceived improvement might as well be an improvement if it improves your listening experience. And there likely is some sonic difference, exactly according to the properties aforementioned differentiating enough to change the transmission characteristics.

As said and measured, there are no significant measuring differences. It's typical for your kind of ideology to generously overlook such a statement, as well as to think the stock cable represents the pure and proper signal transfer and aftermarket cables are -- of course -- designed to color the sound in a pleasing way (if not just by the placebo effect).

.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley The science of electricity as regarding inductance and resistance related to the transmission of an audio signal is well enough understood that those claiming fantastic properites outside of said measurements become "anti-science." Please understand the nature of your argument before you put it forth.

The original poster referred to "treble presentation" and "bass definition" -- both subjective qualities that no one particular measurement refers to. In other words, no known measurement. One could postulate a series of measurements, but it's a postulate only... there's no proof that such a series would correspond exactly to what the person says he/she heard.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I agree wholeheartedly. Interestingly many scientists and people who predominantly rely on science and data advocate a world view where more or less everything is explained and explainable by the current state of science, so everything seemingly contradicting the latter doesn't have to be taken seriously.

Such a world view is basically a religion.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch I'm surprised how many have reported giving up on the Beyer DT880 for the HD650. For those who owned DT880 awhile and came back to HD650, what is it about the HD650 you find more attractive? Is it the easy-to-listen-to characteristic? IMO the DT880 is really about as natural sounding as the high end Senns, it's simply livelier. It does require some system tweaking for best performance, but then so do Senns.

I think that this unfatiguing sound and "easiness" are 650s strongest qualities making them so popular among all the Head-Fi'ers. That's why they're so easy to approach. There's just simply nothing annoying in the sound. It's enjoyable all the way.

And shortly said, what's clearly better in 650s compared to DT880s is the bass (imo).

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patu And shortly said, what's clearly better in 650s compared to DT880s is the bass (imo).

I don't want to get too far off-topic, but it's arguable that anything can better DT880's bass... particularly if you believe the graphs of its frequency response. Basically flat as a pancake down to 20 Hz. To me anyway, more accurate=better, but of course I understand why many find DT880's bass to be subjectively less than desirable.

Apologies for putting in a plug for my current favorite headphone... now back to the HD650 love

...

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch For those who owned DT880 awhile and came back to HD650, what is it about the HD650 you find more attractive? Is it the easy-to-listen-to characteristic? IMO the DT880 is really about as natural sounding as the high end Senns, it's simply livelier. It does require some system tweaking for best performance, but then so do Senns.

It's a while back when I sold the DT 880. I remember that to me it had a midrange and bass characteristic reminding rather of a closed headphone, whereas with the HD 650 there was more «air» to breathe and less compression, also implying higher clarity and cleanness in bass and lower midrange -- and of course more fullness and colorfulness, more punch, but not the spectacular, resonant kind, just an organic, breathing quality which the DT 880 lacked to some degree. I also liked the HD 650's milder treble a bit better; the DT 880 had just a bit too much of it (around 10 kHz?), making it border on sharpness. On the other hand I liked the greater airiness that came with it, something the HD 650 could absolutely use. However, I'd like to audition the DT 880 once again in my now setup. Maybe I would change my mind again.
.

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Such a world view is basically a religion. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

Haha. Familiarize yourself with the strawman fallacy. I'm none of the people you're effortlessly dismissing.

I'm done derailing this thread, though - let's get it back on topic. The HD650 are fantastic headphones and I love mine.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please feel free to PM me and we'll talk.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley Haha. Familiarize yourself with the strawman fallacy. I'm none of the people you're effortlessly dismissing.

Back atcha... I stopped referring to you specifically when I started discussing the general subject with JaZZ. Anyway, back to HD650.