[ford2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number1sixerfan /img/forum/go_quote.gif For me, it's not that someone has come out and said that these are absolutely perfect. It is the fact that at times, when someone states something unfavorable, it is met with fierce opposition or reasons why the unfavorable issue exists. Again, just my $.02.

That's because no-one likes to admit to a $1400 lemon.
Lint/scratches/highs the list goes on and on,what is the general answer to this-spend a couple thousand more on a decent amp.
Why not just admit it and say that the more you listen,the more defects there are.

 

[John Willett]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif John, I'm not sure yet, myself. I still think its possible the HD800's have a slight excess of treble energy. But I have not concluded this even for myself, and even then, it will only be my opinion, certainly not something that will be conclusive. But there is no doubt that the HD800 is at a minimum on the edge of having too much treble energy, or I don't think we'd be seeing the kind of comments we are from some. It is possible that its just supremely neutral. But at least for me, I'm not sure yet - I'm waiting for more break in, and more listening.

Interesting........................

If we also think about the mechanical construction of headphones......

Dynamic headphones normally consist of a dome of material driven by a voice-coil at thr edge. This material can deform as the diaphragm moves which can cause a slight muddying of the sound.

Electrostatics are squeezing the air through a series of holes in the front plate.

The HD 800 has a dynamic ring radiator with a very small amount of material between the voice-coil and the edge, so you don't get the break-up that you do with normal dynamic headphones and is more free and open than 'stats.

It could be that the HD 800 is just letting through what is really there without softening or slightly obscuring it.

NB: This is *not* a hard and fast technical explanation - just me asking questions and coming up with a possible explanation of this.

 

[muz640]

I think the two Johns, John 53 and John Willets are getting close to explaining what Skylab and a few others are hearing. Rock and pop albums are mastered to be heard on unrevealing equipment, or at least equipment that has some voicing or colouration built in, where as music that is less processed such as classical (as just one example) is fairing much better on the HD800.

Lots of processed compressed music sounds awful to my ears because its meant to be heard on a home stereo, on the ipod, or in the car, not on something so revealing and neutral as the HD800, the HD800 sound like the perfect tool for the recording engineer Like John W.

Ive always enjoyed the HD650 because it holds back a little and has some warmth, it doesn't sound spectacular to start with, but its qualities grow on you.

If a piece of equipment limits your listening to a smaller selection of your music collection (because it makes some of it unpleasant to listen to) is that a good or bad thing? i cant wait to try a pair

Did you listen to this BBC session as well John W? or is it not your bag? (sound is fantastic though!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...the_Bad_Seeds/

 

[john53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muz640 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the two Johns, John 53 and John Willets are getting close to explaining what Skylab and a few others are hearing. Rock and pop albums are mastered to be heard on unrevealing equipment, or at least equipment that has some voicing or colouration built in, where as music that is less processed such as classical (as just one example) is fairing much better on the HD800. Lots of processed compressed music sounds awful to my ears because its meant to be heard on a home stereo, on the ipod, or in the car, not on something so revealing and neutral as the HD800, whether you can live with the truth is up to you i guess. If a piece of equipment limits your listening to a smaller selection of your music collection, is that a good or bad thing? i cant wait to try a pair

I agree with you,but don't forget that many pop/rock albums or any mainstream music sometimes have excellent sound quality but unfortunally it's not the rule.
Generally it's true,that most popular music is not so good mastered(with some exceptions) and they often sound a bit recessed,harsh,to bassy or to thin and not so refined as a well recorded cd's(classical,jazzetc)especially if they come for an audiophile recording company.
Maybe people should choose the audio equipment based on what they like to listen most.
for example if the 90% of your music is excellent recorded music then you should buy the best audio equipment which reveals all the details and what the sound engineer wanted to pass in the recording,otherwise you'd better find a good audio setup(it may be an expensive hi end or something more affordable)that will let you enjoy your music with high quality sound(with the details,soundstage,imaging,good prat and overall refined and balanced sound)but to be less critical in revealing the very last imperfections of your not so perfect recordings.

 

[muz640]

Yeah "some " Rock and pop i should have said, because some sounds fantastic!

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because no-one likes to admit to a $1400 lemon. Lint/scratches/highs the list goes on and on,what is the general answer to this-spend a couple thousand more on a decent amp. Why not just admit it and say that the more you listen,the more defects there are.

Hmmm... $1400 lemon. The only sour thing I detect here is sour grapes.

 

[Currawong]

I decided that, out of interest, I'd plug mine into my old Luxman amp's headphone out, as well as into the speaker terminals using a hand-made adaptor. Same problem (though I did indeed discover that they sound nicer with tubes). I've now contacted HeadRoom about getting an exchange.

On Friday I've arranged to try them with a Luxman P-200, so I'll know for absolutely certain.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't hear sibilance in the HD800, but I do have all kinds of trouble with its treble and with its hyper-detailed qualities. I'm afraid it loses a sense of continuousness in the music - the music doesn't flow - because of its detailed nature.

I have not found this to be true at all, but OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif I ordered the HD800 hoping that it would be, with a suitable amp, a good replacement for the O2Mk.2, which I'm finding, eh, a bit sleepy. (A Blue Hawaii to wake it up is way too expensive for me.) So I'm disappointed and a bit shocked, and may have to go sideways - by getting a wide array of mid-level cans instead.

This may be fun to do, but in the end you just end up with a variety of mid-level phones...

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif My fear is that a lot of folks may look upon the HD800 as a "perfect" headphone, and it's not. It's far from it. It's just another flavor, one perhaps geared toward the deep-hobbyist..

Nothing is perfect, of course. I don't think there is even a universal "perfect" to attain. It seems people vary wildly in terms of what we expect, how we evaluate and what specific balance we prefer. But, from my auditioning so far, the HD-800 is certainly not "just another flavor".

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I suggest that many people will spend money that they can not afford to spend looking at the HD800 as a holy grail that it clearly is not. The way it sounds is oddly attractive and oddly repulsive in equal measure.

Maybe Monty Python will make a movie about the HD-800, a sequel to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Perhaps "Monty Python and the Holy Headphones of Wennebostel"...

 

[number1sixerfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I Nothing is perfect, of course. I don't think there is even a universal "perfect" to attain. It seems people vary wildly in terms of what we expect, how we evaluate and what specific balance we prefer. But, from my auditioning so far, the HD-800 is certainly not "just another flavor".

I thought he was saying another flavor of top-tier cans. The HD800 is certainly miles above any mid-fi can I've heard. I can say that without doubt. I do believe they are another "flavor" amongst the top tier cans, albeit a flavor I'd say I overall prefer over the others I've heard.

 

[greggf]

Which is better, seeing a beautiful naked woman or man from 6 feet away, or seeing their pores from under a microscope?

The HD650 or O2 is 6 feet away, the Stax 4070 or HD800 is the microscope.

Just over 3 minutes into "Everybody's Jumpin'" on Brubeck's TIME OUT, saxophonist Paul Desmond coughs.

On loudspeakers and the O2, I can barely hear the cough.

On the HD650, the cough is clearer, but it doesn't distract me.

On the HD800, I not only hear the cough, but it is wet and rattling and disturbing, and I remember that Desmond died 17 years later of lung cancer.

Now, pick a headphone to enjoy.

I posit that at best the HD800 is an engineer's listening tool, at worst a freak show for freaks.

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Willett /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting........................ If we also think about the mechanical construction of headphones...... Dynamic headphones normally consist of a dome of material driven by a voice-coil at thr edge. This material can deform as the diaphragm moves which can cause a slight muddying of the sound. Electrostatics are squeezing the air through a series of holes in the front plate. The HD 800 has a dynamic ring radiator with a very small amount of material between the voice-coil and the edge, so you don't get the break-up that you do with normal dynamic headphones and is more free and open than 'stats. It could be that the HD 800 is just letting through what is really there without softening or slightly obscuring it. NB: This is *not* a hard and fast technical explanation - just me asking questions and coming up with a possible explanation of this.

Thanks for all your responses John, you’re a real credit to Sennheiser. And the HD800 is a truly amazing product and I’m enjoying them immensely. But I do challenge the status quo and general assumptions regarding perfection.

A response such as it’s your amp, source, recording microphone, cable etc might very well be true. The problem is this leaves the the HD800 an angelic state of perfection in which I for one know is not true and cannot be.

This is the honeymoon, those who have purchased the HD800 are on a high. As they should be, it’s a very special headphone - the best dynamic headphone that I’ve ever heard. People will vehemently defend their purchase, that is human nature.

This debate proves just how wonderful the HD800’s are. But lets not turn a blind eye to cold hearted reality. Unless of course they are perfection

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muz640 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the two Johns, John 53 and John Willets are getting close to explaining what Skylab and a few others are hearing. Rock and pop albums are mastered to be heard on unrevealing equipment, or at least equipment that has some voicing or colouration built in, where as music that is less processed such as classical (as just one example) is fairing much better on the HD800.

Again, speaking only for myself and no one else, this is not the case. I've listened to my audiophile standards, which include a lot of jazz, some folk and bluegrass, and some extremely well recorded pop/rock records. I have developed a list of such recordings for evaluation use over the years, as many of you have.

I find Patricia Barber records, for example, excellent evaluation tools, as they are extremely well recorded, have both female vocals and piano, and have both quiet and explosive (for jazz) parts, and wide dynamics. Some of my initial concern about the HD800's treble was a result of listening to Patricia Barber's new record.

So far there have been a lot of posts from people suggesting that what I am hearing is either my amps, my source, or my recordings. In my case, however, this is unlikely. I have 6 different sources, 10 different amps, and lots and lots of the world's finest recordings to use. 3 of my sources are one-time Stereophile Class-A rated - two digital, one analog. I have amps from $400 - $1200 to try them on, both tube and solid state. I believe this is more than sufficient to eliminate the other variables, and to decide what characteristics belong solely to the headphones themselves.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which is better, seeing a beautiful naked woman or man from 6 feet away, or seeing their pores from under a microscope? The HD650 or O2 is 6 feet away, the Stax 4070 or HD800 is the microscope.

Or, which is better, seeing a beautiful naked woman across the street through the London fog (HD650) or standing next to you on a sunny morning (HD800). Perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just over 3 minutes into "Everybody's Jumpin'" on Brubeck's TIME OUT, saxophonist Paul Desmond coughs. On loudspeakers and the O2, I can barely hear the cough. On the HD650, the cough is clearer, but it doesn't distract me. On the HD800, I not only hear the cough, but it is wet and rattling and disturbing, and I remember that Desmond died 17 years later of lung cancer..

As Freud said, sometimes a cough is only a cough...

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now, pick a headphone to enjoy. I posit that at best the HD800 is an engineer's listening tool, at worst a freak show for freaks.

Wait a minute, you don't like the HD-800 (duh) and think they are for freaks, but you're the guy who hears Paul Desmond cough and thinks of him dead 17 years later of lung cancer! Nothing personal, but that seems a bit freaky to me. If I heard him cough and thought anything of it, I would think that he probably felt it was important to have a clear throat when playing the saxophone. But then again, I like HD-800's...

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Willett /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dynamic headphones normally consist of a dome of material driven by a voice-coil at thr edge. This material can deform as the diaphragm moves which can cause a slight muddying of the sound.

Why/how would it deform from normal use, unless it was garbage material to begin with? And wouldn't any material deform somewhat just from aging?
Quote:

The HD 800 has a dynamic ring radiator with a very small amount of material between the voice-coil and the edge, so you don't get the break-up that you do with normal dynamic headphones and is more free and open than 'stats.

Will this small amount of material deform also?

And are the HD600/650 "normal dynamic headphones" that are subject to same breakup?

I'm not an engineer but I don't think any reasonable headphone user would come close to having diaphragm breakup unless they were trying to deafen themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muz640 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rock and pop albums are mastered to be heard on unrevealing equipment, or at least equipment that has some voicing or colouration built in, where as music that is less processed such as classical (as just one example) is fairing much better on the HD800.

How interesting. Many people said exactly the same thing about same types of music through the GS1000 and K701, yet those are "piercingly bright" but the HD800 is not.

Yes, very interesting..

 

[greggf]

skylab says,

"So far there have been a lot of posts from people suggesting that what I am hearing is either my amps, my source, or my recordings."

This is exactly the approach that was taken in 2004 - do a search - when people complained that the HD650 was veiled or slow or thick or too bassy/bloated.

The early adopters of the HD650 rushed in to question the amps, sources, and recordings of those who found problems with the 650.

Is this some perverse trait of Senn fans?

Can a Grado enthusiast step in here, and explain how it feels to be the butt of these weird Senn defenses, whether of a bloated boofy 650 or a painfully anal 800?