[get2it1]

After trying the HD800 and HE-6 with an AURALiC Vega / Taurus MKII combo it was an easy call.  FWIW I took up headphones to get some music back after a hearing change from a round of experimental drug treatments.  I've added the sound of air-hoses blowing in both ears.  Listening to speakers became frustrating so the YG's and Marten's were sold.  Headphones tho provide about an 80% distraction and at times I can completely tune out the extraneous noise.  Back to the test.
 
The HD800's have been run in for 2 weeks to acclimate.  Only hi-rez, including DSD files, but all up-sampled to DSD126 was played.
 
The HD800 win the comfort category hand's down.  Initial impression was how spacious the HD sound was compared to lesser products.  Lower bass/sub-bass was present and well balanced for my genre's.  But the mid/upper above 2000 kHz was annoying - not a sibilance issue as some have reported, but simply a thinness in the upper harmonics.  A lack of extended harmonics made the overall sound fall well short of a good speaker/room set-up.
 
Then HE-6 arrived and the out of the box impression was strong on 2 fronts.  They weren't comfortable for my big ears but the sound was more complete and compelling throughout the frequency range.  It's too early to gauge or measure as a percent how much better in the mid to upper frequencies, but it was better.  While the HD800 had moments of 'that's nice', the HE-6's provided many more times when I would think that section or track sound better, more detailed so that I could identify what was making sounds in the back ground or when notes would noticeably sustain and decay as a good speaker would.
 
That's my quick take.  I'm new and I have no idea how much detail is distorted from the hearing issues, but I used the same set of defective ears for each session.
 
I'm enjoying the head-fi community as well.  Thanks for that.   LCD-3 vs HE-6 will be up next.

 

[Happy Camper]

After trying the HD800 and HE-6 with an AURALiC Vega / Taurus MKII combo it was an easy call.  FWIW I took up headphones to get some music back after a hearing change from a round of experimental drug treatments.  I've added the sound of air-hoses blowing in both ears.  Listening to speakers became frustrating so the YG's and Marten's were sold.  Headphones tho provide about an 80% distraction and at times I can completely tune out the extraneous noise.  Back to the test.

The HD800's have been run in for 2 weeks to acclimate.  Only hi-rez, including DSD files, but all up-sampled to DSD126 was played.

The HD800 win the comfort category hand's down.  Initial impression was how spacious the HD sound was compared to lesser products.  Lower bass/sub-bass was present and well balanced for my genre's.  But the mid/upper above 2000 kHz was annoying - not a sibilance issue as some have reported, but simply a thinness in the upper harmonics.  A lack of extended harmonics made the overall sound fall well short of a good speaker/room set-up.

Then HE-6 arrived and the out of the box impression was strong on 2 fronts.  They weren't comfortable for my big ears but the sound was more complete and compelling throughout the frequency range.  It's too early to gauge or measure as a percent how much better in the mid to upper frequencies, but it was better.  While the HD800 had moments of 'that's nice', the HE-6's provided many more times when I would think that section or track sound better, more detailed so that I could identify what was making sounds in the back ground or when notes would noticeably sustain and decay as a good speaker would.

That's my quick take.  I'm new and I have no idea how much detail is distorted from the hearing issues, but I used the same set of defective ears for each session.

I'm enjoying the head-fi community as well.  Thanks for that.   LCD-3 vs HE-6 will be up next.

I predict another "these HE-6 are pretty good" moments. You can get other pads for the 6s too. I think the gang has used Audeze pads.

 

[get2it1]

Thank you for the pad recommendation.  The velour have been the best option but the AUDEZE version will be worth trying.  With most of my gear going right out the door with only a few hours use, I'm thinking the HE-6's will be keepers and worth trying to improve on the comfort.
 
I've asked Steven from AudioSensibility about building a cable for speaker binding posts, coming out of the Merak mono-blocks to the XLR will be an interesting test.  Steven uses OCC copper and has custom barrels made from CNC Stainless.  Excellent product and results and he sells direct from the Toronto area with shipping to the US as well.
 
Thanks all!

 

[richbass]

  Thank you for the pad recommendation.  The velour have been the best option but the AUDEZE version will be worth trying.  With most of my gear going right out the door with only a few hours use, I'm thinking the HE-6's will be keepers and worth trying to improve on the comfort.
 
I've asked Steven from AudioSensibility about building a cable for speaker binding posts, coming out of the Merak mono-blocks to the XLR will be an interesting test.  Steven uses OCC copper and has custom barrels made from CNC Stainless.  Excellent product and results and he sells direct from the Toronto area with shipping to the US as well.
 
Thanks all!

Waiting for your HE-6 vs LCD-3 Impressions !

 

[get2it1]

LCD-X's are on the way next week.  After much discussion with my dealer, we thought the X's are the way to go.  Thanks Richard / AUDACOUSTICS.COM.

 

[rydenfan]

After trying the HD800 and HE-6 with an AURALiC Vega / Taurus MKII combo it was an easy call.  FWIW I took up headphones to get some music back after a hearing change from a round of experimental drug treatments.  I've added the sound of air-hoses blowing in both ears.  Listening to speakers became frustrating so the YG's and Marten's were sold.  Headphones tho provide about an 80% distraction and at times I can completely tune out the extraneous noise.  Back to the test.

The HD800's have been run in for 2 weeks to acclimate.  Only hi-rez, including DSD files, but all up-sampled to DSD126 was played.

The HD800 win the comfort category hand's down.  Initial impression was how spacious the HD sound was compared to lesser products.  Lower bass/sub-bass was present and well balanced for my genre's.  But the mid/upper above 2000 kHz was annoying - not a sibilance issue as some have reported, but simply a thinness in the upper harmonics.  A lack of extended harmonics made the overall sound fall well short of a good speaker/room set-up.

Then HE-6 arrived and the out of the box impression was strong on 2 fronts.  They weren't comfortable for my big ears but the sound was more complete and compelling throughout the frequency range.  It's too early to gauge or measure as a percent how much better in the mid to upper frequencies, but it was better.  While the HD800 had moments of 'that's nice', the HE-6's provided many more times when I would think that section or track sound better, more detailed so that I could identify what was making sounds in the back ground or when notes would noticeably sustain and decay as a good speaker would.

That's my quick take.  I'm new and I have no idea how much detail is distorted from the hearing issues, but I used the same set of defective ears for each session.

I'm enjoying the head-fi community as well.  Thanks for that.   LCD-3 vs HE-6 will be up next.

Very interesting, thanks for posting. I own the Vega & Taurus Mk.II combo currently with LCD2's. I would like to demo the X"s, HD800’s and HE-6

 

[DefQon]

Voted for the HE-6.
 
When they are amp'd right and this doesn't mean throwing 100 watts at it and expect it to sound right, no..just like a car it's needs tuning to perform best, they sound fantastic with classical pieces and rock and even female vocals are presented quite nicely.
 
I think pairing speaker amps with headphones is ridiculous but the HE-6 is one of the very few exception. Probably the only ortho that gets closer to the 009 then any other, HD800 being the dynamic one. The treble isn't exactly the best but its good enough and neutral enough for classical pieces.
 
Personally for $1.2k or less then $1k for used units the HE-6 goes for it's a no brainer that I'd choose it, I would not pay the extra premium for a 5% difference between the LCD2 and LCD3's, folks here tend to overhype and hyperbole differences, trust your own ears is all I can say. The only thing I prefer the LCD2/3's over any of the Hifiman's is the bass and mid's.

 

[NinjaHamster]

The only thing I prefer the LCD2/3's over any of the Hifiman's is the bass and mid's.

This makes it sound as though you preferred the LCD 2/3, but you prefer the HE-6. Would you mind elaborating further ?

 

[preproman]

The issues I had with the LCD-2s compared to the HE-6 was in fact the mids.  The Bass seemed to creep into the mids to much for me.  Made the mids a bit foggy compared to the HE-6.  Not so much with the LCD-3 - they did dress with mids up pretty good - still not as clear / clean as the HE-6.  IMO..

 

[DefQon]

This makes it sound as though you preferred the LCD 2/3, but you prefer the HE-6. Would you mind elaborating further ?

See below. Preproman summed it up pretty nicely for me. It greatly depends on the genre phase cycle I'm going through. There would be a time of a few months where I'll be just listening to EDM or classical/piano sonatas and another few months just metal/rock or rap. But most of the time I would be listening to anything other than reference based genres (i.e classical pieces). So the seductive mids and bass becomes an appeal to me. But with the HE-6 I've heard a moon ago and I'm guessing it could be the tint of brightness to the lower registers of the mids I guess this is what gave me the impression that it was cleaner sounding then the LCD's which can be mushed up in comparison. Do take note that at the time of testing I only used classical recordings provided by both myself and the owner. 
 
For classical and other reference based material I would still take the HD800's over any of the other headphones including the 009's which makes some of the recordings I've heard artificial sounding, something that is there and only presented by the headphone but is not on the recording. Possibly due to to much attenuation in that one area. If I had to live with one headphone that can do it all (covering all genres except rock/metal) I'd take a 009 and a LCD2/3 for rock/metal. 
 

  Not so much with the LCD-3 - they did dress with mids up pretty good - still not as clear / clean as the HE-6.  IMO..

 

[NZtechfreak]

  See below. Preproman summed it up pretty nicely for me. It greatly depends on the genre phase cycle I'm going through. There would be a time of a few months where I'll be just listening to EDM or classical/piano sonatas and another few months just metal/rock or rap. But most of the time I would be listening to anything other than reference based genres (i.e classical pieces). So the seductive mids and bass becomes an appeal to me. But with the HE-6 I've heard a moon ago and I'm guessing it could be the tint of brightness to the lower registers of the mids I guess this is what gave me the impression that it was cleaner sounding then the LCD's which can be mushed up in comparison. Do take note that at the time of testing I only used classical recordings provided by both myself and the owner. 
 
For classical and other reference based material I would still take the HD800's over any of the other headphones including the 009's which makes some of the recordings I've heard artificial sounding, something that is there and only presented by the headphone but is not on the recording. Possibly due to to much attenuation in that one area. If I had to live with one headphone that can do it all (covering all genres except rock/metal) I'd take a 009 and a LCD2/3 for rock/metal. 
 

 
Personally I rather intensely disliked my LCD-2 for metal. The LCD-3 I could live with, but I prefer the HE-6 for those genres unequivocally.
 
Like Prepoman the problem I had with the LCD-2 (or should I say one of the problems) was there was just a touch of bloom to the bass and bleeding over the lower mids, I really want tight bass with great slam, which the HE-6 offers in spades.

 

[DefQon]

   
Personally I rather intensely disliked my LCD-2 for metal. The LCD-3 I could live with, but I prefer the HE-6 for those genres unequivocally.
 
Like Prepoman the problem I had with the LCD-2 (or should I say one of the problems) was there was just a touch of bloom to the bass and bleeding over the lower mids, I really want tight bass with great slam, which the HE-6 offers in spades.

The LCD2's needs a touch of eq and some special pairing amplification (not MOAR watts is better sort of thing) that I've tried and given that I listen to nu/black metal such as Born of Osiris, Meshuggah and such it sounds extremely nice. Forgot to mention that my LCD2's have been modded internally and they are rev.1's as well. I could not stand the HE-6 with some of the metal there was a tint of brightness thrown in there that gave me fatigue with listening to fast paced and sharp sounding rifts.

 

[NinjaHamster]

Ah - sounds like the infamous LCD-2 "wall of sound" is the main issue, and mostly with classical music ... Still, if you're going to have a wall of sound, may as well be a very pretty wall.

 

[get2it1]

It's time for a brief summary of the LCD-X vs. HE-6.  One short-coming of my server, the Baetis Revolution II, when paired with the AURALiC Vega is the Baetis' inability to play DSD in 'exact' clock mode.  Even with that limitation and with my hearing as it is, the test track DSD from Phoebe Snow - 'Poetry Man' was a revelation for each product.  The X's out of the box with no break-in revealed the reverb / echo for vocals with a clarity, decay and accuracy which was subjectively maybe 20% better than the HE-6's.  The wood block was also clearly a wood block on the X's.  With the HE-6's I wasn't quite sure if it was a wood block or a stick hit on the rim of a drum.  The subjective, fast take away is this;  with the HE-6 I listened and enjoyed the clarity over HD800's, while trying track after track.  With the X's, it was a discovery of music that had me playing one song after another - the usual 'I was hearing my music as new again' response.  It was almost like that.
 
Is the X worth the up-charge?  I think for an additional 20% cost you'll experience a 10 to 15% improvement in sound when using the AURALiC configuration.  When it came to speakers in the upper stratosphere, spending an extra 20% was typically expected with as little as a 5% improvement.  It's still subjective, but for me, the X's checked my 'musical enjoyment' box without hesitation.  Time to pull out the stand-by James Taylor, Fire and Rain to compare the hi hat snare hit at the 2 minute mark.  How accurate, loud and with how much sustain will I be able to tell this snare hit on the high hat cymbal?  It was a jazz drummer technique used for the first time on a rock album.  This is fun isn't it!

 

[Happy Camper]

New respect for the X.