[Jodet]

  The HD800 needs a 6K amp now....

 
Nonsense.    My HD80's sound great with my V200 and spectacular with my one kilobuck tube amp, the Sound Quest SQ84-V2. 

 

[SP Wild]

By nothing, that's what. Tha HD800 is the best headphone...in the world....

 

[Ferbose]

  @Claritas: I think you're right.
 
Usually when I review a Headphone ( I try to write reviews for a french Web site ) I trust in two things : My really first impressions ( first seconds/minutes) and  my impressions after weeks/monthes of listening.  I found so often that these impressions are close. For the HD800 I did a copy/paste of my very first impressions I shared with a friend on our IRC Chan. Those impressions didn't change after one year of listenig. When I discover a headphone for the first time, I don't try ton analyze it, I try to pick up what strikes me . Analysis  begins a bit after this first moments.
 
That been said, I've many counter-examples. Currently I own a Beyerdynamic T1 I bought it in order to compare it to my HD800. If I tried this T1 in a store or at a meeting during even one completehour , my conclusion would be "piece of crap with 8Khz peak of the death , sibilant and dry overall sound" . but after a bit more head time , My brain & ears got habituated to the T1 sound and I discovered some good points and my opinion is much more balanced now.
 
I'm convinced our brain is adjusted to our favorite headphone. Then, when we try something new, our brain need to be "washed" of its habits. Maybe it's different when someone use equally many different headphones.
 

 
I don't doubt that a very experienced person may be able to make a decent, quick judgment based on one hour of listening. It's like a wine expert or a painting expert who have been exposed to this stuff for years. Of course all that experience is built upon countless hours of careful evaluation. Some people say they don't trust A/B comparison, only one's own taste. But I say everything which is good or bad must be put into perspective. A/B comparison of audio gear provides that perspective. There must be some common ground between people before we can communicate.  

 

[Hedonism]

Thanks for the impressions. Can you elaborate on the differences between the HE560 and HD800, and what makes the HE560 better for classical music?

 

[nephilim32]

Perhaps ultimate linearity, transparency and audiophile soundstage isn't what everyone is looking for, if you believe the HD800 delivers these goods better than non Sennheisser headphones, then I am happy for you.

Many others absolutely believe the HD800 is not the most transparent and detailed headphone out there.  Many other believe that a frequency balance as described by the latest research is far more neutral than the treble tilted sound of an unmodified HD800.

I'm not saying there not full HD headphones (orthodynamic) that can't match the HD 800's sense of realism. I'm simply saying that there are not many. I believe there is a plethora to choose from. I feel the 800's are a pretty special set of cans.

 

[nephilim32]

I can understand why, the HD800's openness and clarity is nice (with proper amplification). However, that Cavalli amp costs in the range of 6K anyway, which is more than an SR-009 from pricejapan plus a KGSSHV. I doubt the successor of the HD800 will be easier to drive. Another option is the Abyss with a cheaper amp. From this respect the K812 can give much of the music the flagships do at a much cheaper price point. Another great potential is in the bio-cellulose membranes a la Sony and Fostex, I believe there is a yet unexplored quality jump compared to mylar films or the aluminium ring diaphragm of the HD800.

You make some wonderful points and I think I'd like to experience moving/oscillating membranes that really define a quality electrostatic headphone. The electrostatic headphone is a bit of unexplored territory to my ears. I certainly would love a trail run with the STAX 009 with a mark levinson amp.

 

[MacedonianHero]

You make some wonderful points and I think I'd like to experience moving/oscillating membranes that really define a quality electrostatic headphone. The electrostatic headphone is a bit of unexplored territory to my ears. I certainly would love a trail run with the STAX 009 with a mark levinson amp.

A SR-009 won't work with a mark levinson amp...it requires an electro-static amp to drive it. Traditional dynamic amps won't work...unless you buy a Woo WEE as an interface. That said, that's not an "ideal" stat solution (especially for the SR-007/009).

 

[Ferbose]

  Thanks for the impressions. Can you elaborate on the differences between the HE560 and HD800, and what makes the HE560 better for classical music?

 
No doubt both are excellent for classical music, and many other kinds of music as well. HE560 has better bass response, which is the nature of its driver design, and to my ears better tonality in high frequencies (this part may relate to individual's ear-related transfer function). Moreover, HE560 is significantly cheaper. I was about to check out with a new box of HD800 in my hand but changed my mind after hearing a HE560 laying around and walked home with it. I don't care so much about the openness of HD800 because I have AKG K1000, which lacks bass impact but with much better clarity and tonality than either too, and of course with much more open soundstage and natural crossfeed. For acoustic music, nothing can carry the fidelity of K1000, not the very best electrostatic, dynamic, or orthodynamic headphones.    

 

[nephilim32]

A SR-009 won't work with a mark levinson amp...it requires an electro-static amp to drive it. Traditional dynamic amps won't work...unless you buy a Woo WEE as an interface. That said, that's not an "ideal" stat solution (especially for the SR-007/009).

Your right. Thought they (levinson group) did. They make electrostatic speakers. Woops.

 

[Jazic]

  @Claritas: I think you're right.
 
Usually when I review a Headphone ( I try to write reviews for a french Web site ) I trust in two things : My really first impressions ( first seconds/minutes) and  my impressions after weeks/monthes of listening.  I found so often that these impressions are close. For the HD800 I did a copy/paste of my very first impressions I shared with a friend on our IRC Chan. Those impressions didn't change after one year of listenig. When I discover a headphone for the first time, I don't try ton analyze it, I try to pick up what strikes me . Analysis  begins a bit after this first moments.
 
That been said, I've many counter-examples. Currently I own a Beyerdynamic T1 I bought it in order to compare it to my HD800. If I tried this T1 in a store or at a meeting during even one completehour , my conclusion would be "piece of crap with 8Khz peak of the death , sibilant and dry overall sound" . but after a bit more head time , My brain & ears got habituated to the T1 sound and I discovered some good points and my opinion is much more balanced now.
 
I'm convinced our brain is adjusted to our favorite headphone. Then, when we try something new, our brain need to be "washed" of its habits. Maybe it's different when someone use equally many different headphones.
 

One thing many people forget is that when it comes to music and sound in general people have preferences. What one person may find more pleasurable another may find harsh or offensive to their ear. I have found that by doing some very basic EQ adjustments with a 7 band I can turn the T1's into the best sounding pair of headphones I have ever heard. I can also take the Shure SE215 IEMs and with some EQ tweaking I can make them 90% of the headphone that the SE846 is. Sure there is a level of detail that I'll just never get with the SE215's but it's pretty darn close. 
 
At the end of the day it comes down to what characteristics you like and by adding some very light EQ it can fix most of the problems people complain about with headphones.
 
That said EQ adjustments with cheap IEMs like the SE215 vs the SE846 the SE215 will take a lot more EQ dB change to get the same effect that the SE846 needs to do the same thing. I think that goes all the way up to top tier headphones. You can have the HD800, T1, LCD3, HE6 and the like all sounding pretty much the same but once you then start to notice their characteristics. The HD800 will sound more spacious, the HE546 will be quicker and more impactful and the like. 
 
Hopefully that makes sense... 
 

 
Having been out of touch with the headphone market for a few years, I am glad to discover that orthodynamic drivers have been developed to amazing new heights. Still, this is just my personal preference, and I was never a big fan of electrostatic headphones, except for the HE-90 Orpheus. I can't compare from memory to say if LCD-3 is better than HE-90, but I am really glad to see that orthodynamics have joined the battle for hi-end headphone sound. This will help push dynamic and electrostatic headphone manufacturers to invest in better designs. And I also miss the electrostatic-dynamic hybrid, AKG K340, and perhaps there is some room for technical development there. 

I totally agree. I wasn't exactly crazy about the sound sig of the HE400 but I absolutely was blown away by the clarity and detail while still being musical and awesome to listen to. In the end I decided to return them due to their weight. Comparing those to how I find most headphones now, most dynamic headphones feel like they have a type of graininess to them that just wasn't there with the orthos. I guess that has a lot to do with harmonic distortion that will always be an issue with dynamic drivers. 

 

[Nhubley]

  Having heard some old-time goodies like Sennheiser HE-90, Stax Omega II and Sony R10, and owning 5 pairs of AKG K1000 currently, I have not been particularly impressed with the previous generation of flagship headphones (HD650, K702, DT880, some woody Audio Technicas) for playing classical and jazz recordings. But in the past few years I have been out of touch with the new generation of flagship headphones, especially the orthodynamic breed, and hence I decided to drop by a very nice headphone store in Taipei to do a quick comparison between Hifiman HE-560, Audez LCD-3, Sennheiser HD800, and AKG K812.
 
The Music Hi-Fi Co. store in Taipei is incredibly freindly and well-stocked (all kinds of goodies there), probably the leading retail store in Taiwan for hi-end headphone products. I did my listening on an Eddie Current Balancing Act (PX4 version) and Burson Conductor (solid state). Both amps were very nice and showed me the same thing--I now believe orthodynamic drivers have surpassed dynamic drivers in full-size headphones. To make the story short, I would rank them in this order: LCD-3 > HE560 > HD800 > K812. 
 
Within 1-hour listening session, I relied on a violin sonata recording to check tonal balance, treble smoothness, and airy details. A Japanese drum (huge ones) album was used to evaluate bass extension and impact. I have often read that the greatest strength of orthodynamic drivers is in the bass department, and I totally agree, although this is only the first time I have heard them. I would rate LCD-3 > HE560 >HD800 >K812 in terms of bass extension and impact, and that was rather obvious to my ears.
 
But I don't really listen to bass-heavy music that much, and what I really cherish is tonal purity in classical recordings. Again, I am really surprised that LCD-3 > HE560 > HD800 > K812 when it comes to the correct portrayal of fine violins, to achieve brilliance without being dry or edgy. 
 
Nevertheless, HD800 is the most comfortable (HD800 > K812 > HE560 > LCD-3) and open sounding of these four, and K812 is the easiest to drive (K812 > HD800 > HE560 > LCD-3). So dynamic drivers still have their advantages in some departments. But in terms of tone quality, I have to say that even HE560, which is kind of engineering for speed and pop music, is still a more refined classical headphone than HD800. Although HD800 has a more open sound and amazing comfort, it is more expensive than HE560, and I ended up buying a pair of HE560 on the spot. In all fairness, K812 is also fine sounding and has the AKG house sound (yes I am a fan), but I am not sure if its ease of drive is so important for hi-end open headphones and its price tag seems kind of high compared to HD800. 
 
Having been out of touch with the headphone market for a few years, I am glad to discover that orthodynamic drivers have been developed to amazing new heights. Still, this is just my personal preference, and I was never a big fan of electrostatic headphones, except for the HE-90 Orpheus. I can't compare from memory to say if LCD-3 is better than HE-90, but I am really glad to see that orthodynamics have joined the battle for hi-end headphone sound. This will help push dynamic and electrostatic headphone manufacturers to invest in better designs. And I also miss the electrostatic-dynamic hybrid, AKG K340, and perhaps there is some room for technical development there. 

Some great points! 

 

[Canadian411]

Some great points! 

 


Be careful, reviews like this is not very reliable, you need someone who actually own these headphones and heard from their home. Auditioning few hours/days at the store is completely different experience.

I had LCD vs HD800 at the store and thought LCD was far better than HD800, I made many trips back and forth.

Today, HD800 (my second purchase) was not the same headphone I heard at the store.

my 2 cents,

 

[zolkis]

When I tried in a store the whole Audeze line, and a HD800, ultimately I preferred the latter over all Audeze, mainly because the open sound. However, I agree the LCD-3 is special, and would require a long time and carefully selected chain to properly explore its potential. This shows that a headphone can be better in nearly everything, but one important area may override it: in my case this was openness - even if the LCD3's velvet sound is both more musical and less aggressive against hearing, but it has crossed a line in being too dark for me. 
 
I have a theory (based on headphone tweaking so far) that this is due to too deep/thick ear pads, but I won't enter that experiment. I wonder has anyone tried the Audeze with more shallow ear pads (at least in the back side)? It could be a bummer. I couldn't believe how ear pads changed my Stax 007 Mk1, from velvet dark to open sounding, bigger sound stage and maintaining its fluid musicality, with higher perceived resolution. If that could be done to the LCD-3, we'd have a perfect headphone this side of the Abyss.
 
As for the K812, it also needs more time than a first impression, no matter how well grounded. I am still not sure which one is better, the K812 or the HD800, both have some issues, and do most of the things right. For the price, the HD800 is better.

 

[Canadian411]

When I tried in a store the whole Audeze line, and a HD800, ultimately I preferred the latter over all Audeze, mainly because the open sound. However, I agree the LCD-3 is special, and would require a long time and carefully selected chain to properly explore its potential. This shows that a headphone can be better in nearly everything, but one important area may override it: in my case this was openness - even if the LCD3's velvet sound is both more musical and less aggressive against hearing, but it has crossed a line in being too dark for me. 


 


I have a theory (based on headphone tweaking so far) that this is due to too deep/thick ear pads, but I won't enter that experiment. I wonder has anyone tried the Audeze with more shallow ear pads (at least in the back side)? It could be a bummer. I couldn't believe how ear pads changed my Stax 007 Mk1, from velvet dark to open sounding, bigger sound stage and maintaining its fluid musicality, with higher perceived resolution. If that could be done to the LCD-3, we'd have a perfect headphone this side of the Abyss.


 


As for the K812, it also needs more time than a first impression, no matter how well grounded. I am still not sure which one is better, the K812 or the HD800, both have some issues, and do most of the things right. For the price, the HD800 is better.

 


Ya the thinner pads will be great, I asked Audeze to make some flat non angled earpads but all they said was they will address to the r & d, so not sure when we will be getting it.

If the next flagship LCD4 ? is lighter (cheaper) and fix few design flaws I will certainly buy one.

 

[zolkis]

Do you know what is the Audeze LCD-3 pads outer diameter? I could perhaps try them with a more shallow pad, but need the dimensions. Also, the inner diameter is important. I wonder if the Stax 009 pads would fit (107.5 mm outer diameter, 31.5 mm high at the back and 18 mm in the front). My current pads on the 007 are 104 mm diameter, 18 mm high in the back and 15 mm in the front.