[Lunatique]

I have always read people saying that the HD650's bass is hyped, but now that I have it and have tested it against other headphones, and more importantly, my high-end professional reference monitors, I'm here to state that the bass on the HD650 is not hyped at all--if anything, it's still missing some--namely the really solid and punchy visceral impact, which by the way, the ATH-M50 can reproduce quite well, and quite accurately, while costing less than half of the HD650. I don't know what other headphones can do it also, but out of the ones I've heard so far, the M50 is the only one (if anyone here have headphones that match the M50's bass response, please tell us). The HD650's ability to resolve bass detail is not very good though--it failed my bass detail test (posted in a separate thread), while the M50 passed.

I think one of the reasons why some people think the bass on the HD650 is hyped is because they lack a credible source of reference to test against. My reference monitors (Klein + Hummel O 300D's) are considered one of the most accurate and neutral monitors ever made, so I know I can trust it as my credible source of reference (especially that my studio is fully acoustic treated, and I consulted the engineers at K+H when I designed/constructed my studio on monitor placement and acoustic treatment).

To ears that are not used to really accurate and neutral sound reproduction that represents all the audible frequencies accurately, it may be a surprise to them how punchy and full-bodies the bass really is in songs they think they know very well. I have plenty of CD's I've had for well over a decade that I thought I knew like the back of my hands, but when I first got my 300D's, I was surprised by how much more bass there really is in those CD's, and the past inferior devices I used simply weren't able to reproduce those frequencies with the right quantity and quality.

Really accurate and neutral bass sounds very punchy and tight and full-bodied, but never mushy, muffled, muddy, or bloated. For those who never had the pleasure of hearing really accurate and neutral sound reproduction devices, you will not really understand what that sounds like until you have heard it, and when you do, it completely changes the way you think about music and audio reproduction. For those who are only experienced with headphones, I highly suggest you take a trip down to your local pro audio store and demo some of the higher-end studio monitors they have with some of your favorite listening test CD's and hear for yourself what really good bass should sound like. But beware though--even among the so-called reference monitors, many are not anywhere near reference quality. Find out what your local pro audio store carries first and then look them up online and learn a little about them first before going.

After you have compared high quality studio monitors to headphones, you probably will never see things in the same way again, and have broadened your point of reference for future assessment of headphones. We have some pro audio guys here and they can attest to what I'm saying. The more wide-ranging your listening experience is, the better off you will be.

So anyway, I just wanted to mention this as a point of reference for others.

 

[earthpeople]

What kind of gear are you using with the HD650s?

 

[Lunatique]

TC Electronic Konnekt Live mostly, but sometimes also Samson C-Control or Line 6 Toneport UX2.

 

[kostalex]

 

[Kees]

"HD650 bass is not hyped" means "all the positive things said about the HD650 turn out to be actually true", if I'm correct. But that doesnt seem to be what you mean.
I find this thread confusing.

 

[momomo6789]

uhhh Hummel O 300Ds cost 20x more

 

[Sebhelyesfarku]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatique /img/forum/go_quote.gif My reference monitors (Klein + Hummel O 300D's) are consider one of the most accurate and neutral monitors ever made,

Considered by whom? The CEO of Klein + Hummel?

 

[DarKu]

i know some people that consider the new version of HD650 to be actually bright

But i love them as they are

 

[MrGreen]

I find the bass large in volume with moderate body and low in impact.
To me they dont sound accurate at all, theyre extremely decay oriented (with what sounds like large amounts of pre and post ring), almost blanketed highs and a midbass hump that I find irritating.
I'm using the Ety ER4P as a reference, which is what I would consider neutral (bar for a spike at about 3k or so).


I've not heard this "new version" but like all 'improved versions' I sincerely doubt that there is a large difference between them (much like the 600 ohm beyers). They are improvements or "features", rather than total overhauls of the headphone. If they were total overhauls a new headphone would be released.

 

[mr. nice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebhelyesfarku /img/forum/go_quote.gif Considered by whom? The CEO of Klein + Hummel?

he's actually on point with the 0300s. they are considered really amazing monitors and very accurate. very very nice!!!!!

 

[mr. nice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatique /img/forum/go_quote.gif After you have compared high quality studio monitors to headphones, you probably will never see things in the same way again, and have broadened your point of reference for future assessment of headphones. We have some pro audio guys here and they can attest to what I'm saying. The more wide-ranging your listening experience is, the better off you will be. So anyway, I just wanted to mention this as a point of reference for others.

im not sure i agree totally. high quality headphones in a nice system can sound quite amazing and compare very nicely to any high end PRO system. ive been in a couple of super ridiculous mastering studios and the truth is that you really need to be trained in as to what to listen for to totally appreciate the difference and at a certain point it really just becomes totally subjective.

 

[progo]

I actually agree that Hd650's bass is not hyped.

It was pretty nice even if bloatish.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. nice /img/forum/go_quote.gif im not sure i agree totally. high quality headphones in a nice system can sound quite amazing and compare very nicely to any high end PRO system. ive been in a couple of super ridiculous mastering studios and the truth is that you really need to be trained in as to what to listen for to totally appreciate the difference and at a certain point it really just becomes totally subjective.

Good point. It's true that to work at the level of pro audio, you must learn how to listen properly (I highly recommend the book "Critical Listening Skills For Audio Professionals by F.Alton Everest--it contains an audio CD). I have no doubt that some of they very expensive headphones can match the best reference monitors, but I can only go by the benefit of the doubt, since I have never heard one of those thousand+ dollar headphones (and I wish I lived closer to cities where people have these head-fi meets). Most people can't afford those very expensive headphones though, and neither have they heard high-end reference monitors, so they don't really have a credible point of reference, thus often misjudge things.

 

[Cankin]

Many members here often do comparison between headphone and audiophile speakers, and in many cases, audiophile speakers are made with neutral and transparency in mind and there are objective measurements to back up. In fact, there are studio which use audiophile speakers as their monitors

So, even if people have experience with reference monitors, audiophile speakers, high end headphones, they still have different opinions.

Just like there are diverse opinions between recording engineers and different studio use different equipment. Nobody is right or wrong.

 

[backwardsname]

I don't think Lunatique is simply saying that monitors are better than headphones.

The impression I got is that he was saying, coming from the headphone world, which always has had trouble with accurate bass reproduction, many people will consider bass to be "bloated" that is actually much closer to neutral than their own, very bright cans.

What I took from this post is that accurate, neutral, properly reproduced bass will actually have serious impact and volume to it -- a lack of bass or recessed bass is hardly neutral, though sometimes you wouldn't know that from looking at the way people talk about cans here at head-fi. While people may confuse "refined" or "airy" or "bright" for neutral, this is actually not the case.

At least, that's the way I read it. It makes sense to me, and I have to say, for instance, I find the Denon bass sound intuitively natural-feeling -- it reminds me of how bass sounds when I'm actually in the room with a kickdrum, upright bass, or bass guitar, and yet many people on head-fi call it excessively emphasized, and call cans like the K701 neutral, when looking at the graphs, I can hardly see how that would be the case (caveat: never heard them, and I want to buy them anyway, because neutrality isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of the listening experience).

Probably what it comes down to, at the end of the day, is that everyone thinks that their own preference is "neutral" or at least they want the legitimacy of claiming their preference is "neutral." I think it's to be expected.