[GirgleMirt]

The he400i seems OK with an iphone, and slightly better with a DAP like the Shanlin m2s.
I even tried with a DAC Xonar STU which sounds awesome with the it03 IEM but only okay with the HE400i.

Then I plugged them into my computer which has an older sound card, Xonar D2X and WOW! The Bass is suddenly very present, with excellent sub bass and punch. The sound separation/soundstage is just f-ing amazing.
The HE400i seems to just need the right source, even if it comes from older hardware.

Likely due to impedance? 400i are Impedance: 35 Ohms, and as a rule of thumb you want <1/8th the output impedance of your headphones for your amp (ex; headphone 80ohms, you'd want <=10ohm amp),[/edited, thx E1D1!] so;
iphone: ???
Shanling Output impedance: 4.8Ω
DAC Xonar STU Headphone out: 10 ohm
Xonar D2X : 50 or 100 ohms from what I could find..

Now the funny thing is that with audio sometimes better isn't better. I think that if your headphone isn't well matched impedance-wise, it might affect the FR, and who knows it might happen that you find even what could be worse theoretically better sounding...! Ex;

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...formance-af140-earphones&catid=263&Itemid=203
Adding 70 ohms to the V-Can’s output impedance of 5 ohms, to simulate the effects of using a typical low-quality headphone amp, has a big effect on the AF140’s performance. While the balance of bass to treble is pretty much flat with a low-impedance (i.e., high-quality) source device, the tonal balance will radically change if a high-impedance source (e.g., a cheap smartphone, tablet, or computer) is used: the sound will become much bassier and much duller in the highs. This is due to the big impedance swing you can see elsewhere in these measurements.

So who knows if ironically using a worse matched amp could result in a subjective improvement! Like it this case, if you have a somewhat bright-leaning headphone you'd prefer to be warmer, then a mismatched amp who's impedance isn't really optimal so affects the FR as above; adding some warmth, worse might just be subjectively better! But yeah, impedance is only part of the equation, might very well be that one is just plain better than the other and it offsets the impedance differences... But yeah amp matching is so important it might actually explain quite a bit of the so different comments for the same headphones!

 

[E1DA]

rule of thumb you want 1/8th the output impedance of your source

are you serious about that? I thought less output impedance is always better. Actually, in the case of planar headphone load, we can expect near perfect linear Z vs Freq., hence, the higher output impedance will mean only lower power.

 

[bagwell359]

IDK, still pretty low distortion. Better than Senn HD600 for example.

I can't agree with this - based on my experience. Can you list equipment and music used?

Due to lack of control of the membrane in the 400i, you've got lots of ringing. The HE-500 and HE-6 (ring less to begin with) can be largely cured of these problems with the fuzzor mod, and application of anti vibration materials, and removal of the rear screen. The 400i and 4xx aren't constructed like that, so much less can be done (physically).

I have the 4xx now, the 400i in the past, but, they both share the label in my mind of "fun". The bass is uneven, (but nothing really under 45 Hz), rocky frequency response elsewhere, and they intermodulate AND ring. The HD-600 is distinctly cleaner and able to reproduce piano from bottom to top with great clarity, even the HE-500 and HE-6 can't do as well w/o the mods.

Outside of the HE-6 which I had on long term loan, I own or have owned all the cans mentioned.

 

[Alexjjour]

What pair do you recomend for music and maybe some gaming?

 

[E1DA]

Due to lack of control of the membrane in the 400i, you've got lots of ringing.

To me, ringing is the high Q resonant, he400i membrane is a thin and soft mylar film i.e. low Q and in fact, aperiodic. This is the only reason to use thin film-actuators, planar or electorstatic instead of dynamic. All resonants in such type of actuator are air standing waves related but not membrane itself.

 

[E1DA]

BTW, according to https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD600.pdf vs https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANHE4002014.pdf frequency response of he400i (2014) is quite flat up to 10-20Hz but HD600 drops lower 100Hz. I measured my he400i with calibrated mic and found the same flat response down to 20Hz at least.

 

[Loneract]

I can't agree with this - based on my experience. Can you list equipment and music used?

Due to lack of control of the membrane in the 400i, you've got lots of ringing. The HE-500 and HE-6 (ring less to begin with) can be largely cured of these problems with the fuzzor mod, and application of anti vibration materials, and removal of the rear screen. The 400i and 4xx aren't constructed like that, so much less can be done (physically).

I have the 4xx now, the 400i in the past, but, they both share the label in my mind of "fun". The bass is uneven, (but nothing really under 45 Hz), rocky frequency response elsewhere, and they intermodulate AND ring. The HD-600 is distinctly cleaner and able to reproduce piano from bottom to top with great clarity, even the HE-500 and HE-6 can't do as well w/o the mods.

Outside of the HE-6 which I had on long term loan, I own or have owned all the cans mentioned.

I can't hear distortion on either pair. I was referring to distortion tests I've seen on the web.

I personally prefer the sound of the 400i, but enjoy both.

 

[bagwell359]

Tests are nice as they go, but music is the ultimate test. Listen to piano with minimal mics and mastered by someone with some elan, and I can hear it on the HD-600. I tend to overall like ortho dynamics - but - most of them can'd do a lean solo piano. Estats tend to do them well too. Have yet to hear the ribbon, but room scale speakers with ribbons tend to do piano well too.

 

[E1DA]

"Listen to piano with minimal mics" is the wrong material to talk about "nothing really under 45 Hz". I have doubt if a piano needs freq.resp. lower than 100-50Hz, and by the way >10kHz, in other words, 100-10000Hz frequency response limitation will notice about 5-10% of listeners.

 

[GirgleMirt]

BTW, according to https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD600.pdf vs https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANHE4002014.pdf frequency response of he400i (2014) is quite flat up to 10-20Hz but HD600 drops lower 100Hz. I measured my he400i with calibrated mic and found the same flat response down to 20Hz at least.

Check these though: https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/hifiman/he400i/ To me the diyaudioheaven measurements is more representative of what I hear with my 400i: From the 8.5kHz peak to bass response. It is definitely not flat down to 20hz like the innerfidelity measurements would seem to indicate. I mostly agree on diy's descriptions, ex;

The bass is there and nice, ‘tight’ and ‘dry’. Sub-bass is not as pronounced.
The mids are ‘fine’ but not exactly ‘flat’. The mids are forward and present yet not ‘ super clear’. Very hard to explain but will give it a try. Drums, guitars and singers etc are a bit more ‘present’ than on a perfectly flat headphone. Smaller ‘toms’ are a bit too emphasized for instance.
Yet it doesn’t have the ‘edge’ headphones like the HD600 have. In this regard it is more like the HD800 but the HD800 is warmer and has slightly less subbass.
Then there is the treble part. The treble is ‘soft’ in general. good ‘air’ and detail. It doesn’t sound rolled-off nor accentuated nor exaggerated BUT there is a slight ‘rough edge’ to it. A passive in-line filter is available that addresses the 8kHz peak.
This not always obvious but sometimes it just takes something away from the rest of the experience.
...
The 8.5kHz peak is very narrow (pointing to a resonance) and peaks about 10dB above the rest.
Because it is very narrow and up high it doesn’t manifest itself as sibilance BUT it sometimes (when overtones are present in that narrow band) it gives the sound an unnatural ‘edge’ that, when removed’ will make the treble perfectly smooth and pleasant.
...
Stock sound signature is ‘clear’ and open, not splashy nor sibilant.
The 8.5kHz peak gives some recordings a ‘sharp-ish’ edge to them. Some people may be bothered by it, others may not. Something you may have to find out for yourself.
The slight ‘ringing’ at 8.5kHz is something that could be addressed with a very sharp notch EQ. Sub-bass could be a tad more present, can also be adjusted with tone control.

Tests are nice as they go, but music is the ultimate test. Listen to piano with minimal mics and mastered by someone with some elan, and I can hear it on the HD-600. I tend to overall like ortho dynamics - but - most of them can'd do a lean solo piano. Estats tend to do them well too. Have yet to hear the ribbon, but room scale speakers with ribbons tend to do piano well too.

I think 'distortion' or 'ringing' are somewhat blanket terms that most people can't really precisely hear and process; in the sense that the human brain and ears aren't physiologically precise enough to get a clear picture like you can with a waterfall graph. Ok if you have a graph, then you can somewhat try to correlate what you hear to what was measured (but then how to eliminate placebo?), but I truly doubt that a human could reliably draw a waterfall or CSD graph similar to what would be measured... Or maybe I'm wrong. Do you have an audio clip (youtube or anywhere else) where we can hear what you're speaking about? And go into more details into what we should be hearing?

I think that for most people, from my experience, that 8.5kHz peak is the killer. If you EQ the 400i using an inverse EQ curve, something like below, you get a much smoother sound and most of the harshness/sharpness/brightness (distortion) you can hear just goes away. It becomes much smoother and more forgiving, surprisingly without sacrificing much of anything. Well given the boosted bass (below results in a bit of boosted bass) it seems to lose a bit of 'speed' and tightness in the bottom, but, it gains a lot in having a flatter and much less lean/bright character.

But yeah, for the ringing/distortion, I think the 8.5kHz peak is the killer, as to my ears, this is what can make the 400i sound harsh/bright at times. It can add sparkle with say guitar harmonics or strings (ex; violin) 'detail'; so which could be easily construed as very resolving, yet it's something added by 400i and not really resolved; which at other times, like vocals, can and will definitely eventually pop up as 'harshness'...

Spoiler: ex

 

[E1DA]

GirgleMirt, I measured my he400i (2017 version) with calibrated mic EMM-7150 but without fake Pinna nor simulated ear canal i.e. exactly the same way like diyaudioheaven https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/ My frequency response is dramatically different, and close to innerfidelity measurement if artificial-ear compensation applied. I'm sure the difference is not about measurement but rather Hifiman policy to produce completely different models under the same model name.

 

[E1DA]

Green curve is he400i, yellow my old Sennheizer, sorry, I can not read the model # of that headphone, just too old and the name 100% erased, however, its freq.resp quite similar to hd600 with rolloff lower 100Hz.

 

[pbarach]

"Listen to piano with minimal mics" is the wrong material to talk about "nothing really under 45 Hz". I have doubt if a piano needs freq.resp. lower than 100-50Hz, and by the way >10kHz, in other words, 100-10000Hz frequency response limitation will notice about 5-10% of listeners.

The frequency range of an 88-key acoustic piano starts at 27.5 Hz when middle A = 440 Hz. The fundamental tone of the highest note is 4186.01 Hz, but the overtones go much higher, depending on the instrument.

The Boesendorfer 290 piano adds a full octave at the bottom, so its lowest note sounds at 13.75 Hz

 

[E1DA]

pbarach, viva wikipedia! Now please take a look FFT of 27.5Hz piano sample to find that fundamental tone there like a modulator for overtones without any noticeable SPL level Simple experiment: take piano music and cut off frequencies lover 50-100Hz, check the difference vs full range, can you hear that?

 

[bagwell359]

"Listen to piano with minimal mics" is the wrong material to talk about "nothing really under 45 Hz". I have doubt if a piano needs freq.resp. lower than 100-50Hz, and by the way >10kHz, in other words, 100-10000Hz frequency response limitation will notice about 5-10% of listeners.

I had no intention of tying those two statements together in any logical way, more of a listing of traits.