[MrMateoHead]

Quote:

Can somebody describe how the HE400's mids perform, but not in comparison to the HD650 since we all know it beats the HE400 there. Like if i was to live with the HE400 as my sole headphone forever, would i notice anything particularly wrong it?
 
It's just that all the sweet talk of the HD650 and its mids has me doubting my HE400 purchase. 

Transparent, airy, energetic (satisfying with edgy music like metal and so on), and super relaxed. The HE-400s sound like they are never working hard to reproduce sound for you. Fang claims that these are the "JBL" of their headphone line. I own JBL studio series 2 bookshelfs and a center channel. Guess how those sound? In the sweet spot, they are airy, spacious, quite transparent, and have lifelike reproduction of human voices. So, probably not that far off. Except that the HE's have a much better bass reponse, and don't sound too "forward" when being pushed (like the JBLs).

 

[beaver316]

Quote:

I have trouble explaining dark mids. Well, for starters, they're not forward, which means vocals will lack a sense of immediacy and brightness, so to speak. This makes them seem a bit more distant, but I never got the impression that the HE-400's mids were recessed. Recessed mids just sound bad, the HE-400's mids do not sound bad, by any means. Don't get me wrong. They just lack a bit of energy and immediacy.

 
 
Ah i see, well put. Thanks for the clarification.
 
I have one more concern/question about these headphones which i don't recall ever being discussed. A search brought no answers either.
 
How do these perform with newer mainstream songs? It's well known that modern music isn't mastered too well, overly compressed, with exaggerated bass and highs. Loudness wars etc etc...
 
I have a lot of modern songs in my collection, with all kinds of genres of music. Rock, pop, rap, rnb, drumnbass, dubstep, epic orchestral pieces, etc. Would the HE400 expose all the flaws and make it unlistenable? My guess is yes seeing as these headphones already have peaky treble, but i'd like to hear thoughts on this.
 
Im not directing this to you in particular Biscuitz, anyone with an HE400 and some modern mainstream songs.

 

[chewy4]

I don't really have any modern mainstream stuff, but they do expose certain flaws quite a bit. Any bit of recording noise or every little pop/artifact is easily audible.

 

[finrod]

Quote:

If by "uncompressed" collection you mean that you are listening to high dynamic range recording, I am sure a decent amp will improve performance overall, mainly by providing additional volume which might not be possible right now.
 
I would consider a DAC if you felt that the one you use currently (in your computer), to be brief, sucked. Mine sounds very good to my ears, everything is realistic, and it can handle up to a blu-ray format (24-bit 192 khz). That said, the overwhelming amount of music out there is still 16-bit 44.1 khz. Unless you have a DAC which is noisy I am not sure its worth it. Your ears "can't" necesarily hear the difference between different DACs. There may be an advantage however, in removing all the sound processing from your computer. In my case, there are a few static pops and some hissing at very high volume under some conditions. But that is a 1% observation, and not really a problem to be solved.
 
I'd probably withhold from investing in a DAC until you are satisfied that you have the power and the sound you want. I wouldn't buy one that didn't spec relatively well, or better than my amp. The goal is to maximize Signal to Noise, channel separation, and so on. Also, most DACs I see so far, tailored to headphones, don't even put out much line voltage. I wouldn't settle for less than about 2Vrms, which I think could help maximize signal to noise and drive amps well. In my case, I may spring for an ODAC later which is the match to my new O2 amp. My knock against it is that it can accept USB or USB+RCA, but it lacks a digital input. This limits its applications a bit, which I don't prefer. It is also $150 bucks, which is a lot. I may instead just shop for a CD player or something which can do the same job.

Great then. It's settled. I will buy some kind of amplification. And then think about DAC.
 
Quote:

 
How do these perform with newer mainstream songs? It's well known that modern music isn't mastered too well, overly compressed, with exaggerated bass and highs. Loudness wars etc etc...
 
I have a lot of modern songs in my collection, with all kinds of genres of music. Rock, pop, rap, rnb, drumnbass, dubstep, epic orchestral pieces, etc. Would the HE400 expose all the flaws and make it unlistenable? My guess is yes seeing as these headphones already have peaky treble, but i'd like to hear thoughts on this.
 
Im not directing this to you in particular Biscuitz, anyone with an HE400 and some modern mainstream songs.

Well, I don't own modern pop/rock/rap CDs. But I have a few 320kbps mp3s of the songs that are always on the radio these days. I wouldn't really say that HE-400 makes them unlistenable. But still a high quality recording is what you want to listen and love with these. But don't trust me.... I'm a total noob here and in medium-end audiophile world.

 

[MrMateoHead]

Quote:

I have trouble explaining dark mids. Well, for starters, they're not forward, which means vocals will lack a sense of immediacy and brightness, so to speak. This makes them seem a bit more distant, but I never got the impression that the HE-400's mids were recessed. Recessed mids just sound bad, the HE-400's mids do not sound bad, by any means. Don't get me wrong. They just lack a bit of energy and immediacy.

I find it funny that my impression of these phones is almost exactly opposite of yours! I think the vocals are very immediate, and they dominated my first impression of these phones. I would call these things "bright" in comparison to my sennheisers, which are much more laid-back "veiled" or dark, if you prefer. I expected the mid-range to seem recessed, but its just not. Unless I am crazy I guess.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Yes, the HE400 is very revealing of bad sources. I was quite surprised by how much.

 

[Biscuitz]

Quote:

I find it funny that my impression of these phones is almost exactly opposite of yours! I think the vocals are very immediate, and they dominated my first impression of these phones. I would call these things "bright" in comparison to my sennheisers, which are much more laid-back "veiled" or dark, if you prefer. I expected the mid-range to seem recessed, but its just not. Unless I am crazy I guess.

Well, my opinion is probably skewed because I like Grados and really like the vocal presentation on Grados. Anyone coming from something pretty neutral or mid-recessed will really like the mids of the HE-400, I think.

The one thing I really liked about the HE-400 mids compared to Grados was the smoothness of the mids. They were not harsh, and never jumped out at you like Grados do at high volumes. Grados are not easy to listen to at high volumes...

 

[MrMateoHead]

No here probably cares about Consumer Reports, but I thought you would be pleased that the HE-400s were their #2 top rated "home headphones" in the current issue. I wish I could read their test report.
 
The Grado SR80is were their "top" choice. Even so, I was quite surprised to see Hifiman in there!

 

[MattTCG]

Quote:

No here probably cares about Consumer Reports, but I thought you would be pleased that the HE-400s were their #2 top rated "home headphones" in the current issue. I wish I could read their test report.
 
The Grado SR80is were their "top" choice. Even so, I was quite surprised to see Hifiman in there!

 
Nice!! Good to see this hp getting it's props. 

 

[RushNerd]

Quote:

Don't have the HE400 to compare, but I can tell the HD650 has better mids, and the treble doesn't get peaky like it did on the HE400.
That being said, if I could only own one headphone between the two, I prefer the HE400 overall. It has that planar goodness that the HD650 can't capture.

Hey at least we agree on something here! I don't know if you saw my vid review, but I pretty much said the same thing.
 
 

I have trouble explaining dark mids. Well, for starters, they're not forward, which means vocals will lack a sense of immediacy and brightness, so to speak. This makes them seem a bit more distant, but I never got the impression that the HE-400's mids were recessed. Recessed mids just sound bad, the HE-400's mids do not sound bad, by any means. Don't get me wrong. They just lack a bit of energy and immediacy.

They are laid back mids done right in everyway possible. They don't come forward to play like on the 650's, but they balance with the rest of the sound better (the 650 had to scoop some of it's low end out to have those honey laced mids I think).
 
No if you want laid back mids that aren't quite right, try Denon x000. They have a similar sound sig, but the mids are a little sucked out.
 
 

No here probably cares about Consumer Reports, but I thought you would be pleased that the HE-400s were their #2 top rated "home headphones" in the current issue. I wish I could read their test report.
 
The Grado SR80is were their "top" choice. Even so, I was quite surprised to see Hifiman in there!

I'm quite shocked, I didn't think hifiman was anywhere remotely near the public eye, this is really good news, they will be a lot more popular now. With that said, SR80i, oh CMON!

 

[RUMAY408]

Quote:

Yes, the HE400 is very revealing of bad sources. I was quite surprised by how much.

This is my biggest issue at present with my main audio source.  I am having to go back and burn CD's to my MBAir as the 256/320kbps just don't cut it with the HE400's.  Garbage in and garbage out.  I can get a CD to burn on at 1411kbps.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

This is my biggest issue at present with my main audio source.  I am having to go back and burn CD's to my MBAir as the 256/320kbps just don't cut it with the HE400's.  Garbage in and garbage out.  I can get a CD to burn on at 1411kbps.

256/320 is just as good as lossless for most people. And no need to rip at 1411kbps... FLAC or ALAC has the exact same output in the end.
 
What's really important is the actual recording quality. A well recorded and mastered 128kbps MP3>>>>>>>>>Poorly recorded lossless/uncompressed file.

 

[Valiar]

Guys,somebody were yet compared Hifiman HE-400 vs Fischer Audio FA-002W High Edition?

For the same price i want to know what will be the best to order ]

 

[RUMAY408]

Quote:

256/320 is just as good as lossless for most people. And no need to rip at 1411kbps... FLAC or ALAC has the exact same output in the end.
 
What's really important is the actual recording quality. A well recorded and mastered 128kbps MP3>>>>>>>>>Poorly recorded lossless/uncompressed file.

I have 256 ripped from the same album at 1411kbps and I upgraded for a reason.  

 

[RushNerd]

Quote:

256/320 is just as good as lossless for most people. And no need to rip at 1411kbps... FLAC or ALAC has the exact same output in the end.
 
What's really important is the actual recording quality. A well recorded and mastered 128kbps MP3>>>>>>>>>Poorly recorded lossless/uncompressed file.

Encoding process. I have two Offspring albums I "downloaded" that were 320kps mp3 and had terrible high pitched artifacts and I had to delete them. Most of the time 320kps mp3 should be very good.
 
Then again I had two Juno Reactor albums for years @192kps I "downloaded" I recently bought them on CD for a lossless copy, so maybe i'm anal about that. Either way, it's nice to not have a shadow of doubt in your mind about source quality.