[timind]

I have a pair of 400is on the way. I'll try them with my Crack but it doesn't sound promising after reading the last couple pages.

 

[DavidA]

I have a pair of 400is on the way. I'll try them with my Crack but it doesn't sound promising after reading the last couple pages.

I just hooked up my HE400i to my BH Crack, its a really bad pairing, even the headphone jack from my computer is better, don't get your hopes ups and I hope you have something a little better suited for the HE400i than the Crack.

 

[pbarach]

My usual headphones are HD-600, which I use to listen exclusively to classical music. I bought some HE-400i phones late in 2016 (so these are the current model with no backplate and plug-in connectors). Comparing these cans with a Marantz HD-DAC1 as the amplifier, I get almost no sense of "room" around the music with the Hifiman cans, but I can hear some of the room acoustic with the Senns. The difference is less audible using my other amp (Burson HA-160) but still noticeable.

 

[George Taylor]

I'm curious about something, and that is how do the 560s sound in comparison to the 400is? I haven't had a chance to listen to them, but since I bought a amp better suited for my 400i's I've been a little curious about the sound on their other cans. I have heard a couple of their high end cans, and they were a little too technical/soul less for me. But I find the 400i's, properly driven, to be pretty fantastic.

 

[GirgleMirt]

but I can hear some of the room acoustic with the Senns. The difference is less audible using my other amp (Burson HA-160) but still noticeable.

What do you mean by "room acoustic"? Do you mean like decay or reverb? The 400i is quite clear/clean, so in that sense you'll be getting less reverb but a more detailed/clean decay... I think that one of the things the 400i are is quite detailed/transparent; not sure if it's just but orthos often seem to sound 'light'; as in their sound seem lighter/smaller than more lowfi headphones; somewhat the same thing as listening to dynamic vs electrostatic speakers; electrostatic can sound almost ghost like; ethereal in comparison...

400i VS say a closed headphone, ex; akg 550, the 550s will have more 'weight' and every instrument/sound will sound 'bigger'/'more solid'/more weight... So in that sense, it's like the headphones are the antithesis of room gain... lol Like the HD650s for instance, did not sound 'ortho' at all, and had that dark sound/weight to them... Does this relate to your room acoustics in any sens?

I'm curious about something, and that is how do the 560s sound in comparison to the 400is? I haven't had a chance to listen to them, but since I bought a amp better suited for my 400i's I've been a little curious about the sound on their other cans.

I'd say that the 560s are just more of the 400i... Only listened quickly at a show, and really nothing stood out negatively, my impression I think was just like an overall improvement of 400i.

I have heard a couple of their high end cans, and they were a little too technical/soul less for me. But I find the 400i's, properly driven, to be pretty fantastic.

Which ones? FWIW, I'd also be perfectly happy with Senns Orpheus, HD800s, 800 or 700, none seemed too technical or soul-less to me!

 

[George Taylor]

What do you mean by "room acoustic"? Do you mean like decay or reverb? The 400i is quite clear/clean, so in that sense you'll be getting less reverb but a more detailed/clean decay... I think that one of the things the 400i are is quite detailed/transparent; not sure if it's just but orthos often seem to sound 'light'; as in their sound seem lighter/smaller than more lowfi headphones; somewhat the same thing as listening to dynamic vs electrostatic speakers; electrostatic can sound almost ghost like; ethereal in comparison...

400i VS say a closed headphone, ex; akg 550, the 550s will have more 'weight' and every instrument/sound will sound 'bigger'/'more solid'/more weight... So in that sense, it's like the headphones are the antithesis of room gain... lol Like the HD650s for instance, did not sound 'ortho' at all, and had that dark sound/weight to them... Does this relate to your room acoustics in any sens?


I'd say that the 560s are just more of the 400i... Only listened quickly at a show, and really nothing stood out negatively, my impression I think was just like an overall improvement of 400i.


Which ones? FWIW, I'd also be perfectly happy with Senns Orpheus, HD800s, 800 or 700, none seemed too technical or soul-less to me!

I got to hear the HE1Ks, but I am pretty sure they were not driven properly by the amp they were hooked up to at the time. The store I was in at the time was kind of amateur hour as far as the help there. They were beautiful to behold, but they just sounded lite and bright. So I don't know if they actually have bass capabilities or not after that.

 

[DavidA]

I'm curious about something, and that is how do the 560s sound in comparison to the 400is? I haven't had a chance to listen to them, but since I bought a amp better suited for my 400i's I've been a little curious about the sound on their other cans. I have heard a couple of their high end cans, and they were a little too technical/soul less for me. But I find the 400i's, properly driven, to be pretty fantastic.

The HE560 is better than the HE400i in bass extending lower, better sound stage, and cleaner smoother highs that can be too forward for some. The amp used will also be a bit more important with the HE560 since its a little more picky with what it pairs well with.

 

[phthora]

The HE560 is better than the HE400i in bass extending lower, better sound stage, and cleaner smoother highs that can be too forward for some. The amp used will also be a bit more important with the HE560 since its a little more picky with what it pairs well with.

Worth the price to upgrade, in your opinion? I love my 400i and more of the same sounds great.

 

[Mad Max]

My usual headphones are HD-600, which I use to listen exclusively to classical music. I bought some HE-400i phones late in 2016 (so these are the current model with no backplate and plug-in connectors). Comparing these cans with a Marantz HD-DAC1 as the amplifier, I get almost no sense of "room" around the music with the Hifiman cans, but I can hear some of the room acoustic with the Senns. The difference is less audible using my other amp (Burson HA-160) but still noticeable.

HD6x0 does suffer from a bit of reverb added to the music by the headphone's cups. My buddy described it as "train station reverb". I figure it is due to the main driver chamber where the diaphragm is housed, another guy tells me it is at least partly due to the plastic, four-legged structure behind each driver chamber. HE400i doesn't have the reverb, so if the music doesn't have much reverb itself then the HE400i won't convey much, if that's what you meant.

 

[DavidA]

Worth the price to upgrade, in your opinion? I love my 400i and more of the same sounds great.

HE560 is worth the price over the HE400i, if going from the original prices, but with the HE400i at $250 its a harder value proposition. It also comes down to the music that you listen to and your personal preferences, for me the HE560 is worth the price over the HE400i even with the $250 price of the HE400i.

But to be honest I'd rather use my custom Ypsilon and Nhoord builds over the HD600/HD650/HE400i/HE560 these days since the FR of both the Ypsilon and Nhoord are better balanced and they can be driven by the headphone output of my computer.

 

[abm0]

the FR of both the Ypsilon and Nhoord are better balanced

With free equalizers available on every software platform these days I don't understand why people are still spending most of their review/analysis time evaluating headphones on their frequency response, i.e. the easiest part to fix, instead of just going for the fastest drivers with the least distortion (within a defined budget) and just equalizing those to a near-perfect FR afterwards.

 

[pbarach]

The HD-600 isn't adding any reverb. The feeling of air around the music is more audible through them compared to the 400i, and it is quite similar in that respect to what I hear from my speakers in a small, well-damped room.

 

[DavidA]

With free equalizers available on every software platform these days I don't understand why people are still spending most of their review/analysis time evaluating headphones on their frequency response, i.e. the easiest part to fix, instead of just going for the fastest drivers with the least distortion (within a defined budget) and just equalizing those to a near-perfect FR afterwards.

The use of EQ is not always a option, for me I have one source feeding 2-3 DACs and split to 4-5 amps, using EQ to fix one will mess up the others and since I'm usually not the only one listening the use of EQ is not logistically possible. Also, if I am listing to vinyl the only way to use EQ is to get a hardware EQ which I don't want to do since it only degrades the signal further.

 

[abm0]

I have one source feeding 2-3 DACs and split to 4-5 amps

That makes no sense to me unless you're a DAC/amp reviewer or something. The main reason I've seen people talking about getting multiple DACs or amps is precisely that they want a different FR, meaning they're going for the most expensive imaginable way of equalizing the sound when they should just have one DAC, one amp, plus EQ. (And then of course there are such things as EQ presets, for when there are different users and use cases.)

 

[drwlf]

Basically the HD6x0s engineering; tuning to the enclosure with the transient response, with the technicalities of the drivers and the distortion under 100hz make them sound "realistic" along the lines of what most people think of a "speaker-like"/realistic sound, or what could be described as a more "natural" way of decay with the instruments, vs. the 400i.
It does depend on the production/source obviously as well.