[LCMusicLover]

...The HEKse are still thin in general...

I don’t disagree, but my ears say the SE are notably less so than v2.

 

[jlbrach]

thin/lightweight.....no way....

 

[LCMusicLover]

thin/lightweight.....no way....

Well, compared to my Blackwood Auteur...

 

[mixman]

^^^
The HEKse are still thin in general, I would advise anyone to skip modern hifimans if they are not okay with thin/lightweight sound in general. I have not tried any of them on tubes or pure class A tho.

Yep it’s that thin/lightweight sound that I am am gravitating away from lately. While technically it is the best HP I have, I now prefer a thicker sound from my cans.

 

[Slim1970]

Yep it’s that thin/lightweight sound that I am am gravitating away from lately. While technically it is the best HP I have, I now prefer a thicker sound from my cans.

I have enough headphones with that sound character as well. Although I wouldn't call the newer Hifiman's thin sounding. I would lean more to calling them uncolored. But this is why I've added the Audeze 4z's to my collection. They have the right about warmth to their sound while still being good technically. I'm also wouldn't mind having the Empyrean's after demoing them.

 

[sahmen]

^^^ "Thin in general"? sorry, but that does not square with my own experience. Your mileage may of course vary, but your statement makes me wonder whether the "thinness" you hear is not caused by accessories or other components in the chain from which you heard the SE...

Comparisons can be useful, but they will not really resolve the question satisfactorily... My LCD-4 certainly sounds more "thick" and lush in the mids as compared to the SE, but is that because the LCD-4's mids are "thicker than normal," or because the mids of the HeKSE are thinner than normal?

I do not even know if that is a helpful way of posing the question, since the expression "than normal" could suggest the possible presence of some deficiency, whereas I do not really see any in either headphone.

Bottomline? I would never be even tempted to associate the HekSE with anythng "thin," when considered on its own terms, with nothing to compare it with. On the other hand to argue that it is "less thick sounding in the mids than the LCD-4" is just a harmless description in my view, a non-judgmental statement of fact, without any intention to imply anything deficient on the HeKSE's or the 4's part. In fact, I enjoy some listening experiences more on the SE than I do on the 4, precisely because of their different characteristics. Of course, I also find that the LCD-4's sumptuous and creamy mids make it better equipped to bring the power and glory out of certain tunes than the HeKSE, but that is neither here nor there. It is just a matter of each can doing what it does best to contribute their own piece to enhancing the beautiful richness of sonic varieties that have been made available to us in this hobby... I really do not see any downsides here at all, as I could happily live exclusively with either of these cans if I was forced to do away with the other.

 

[mixman]

^^^ "Thin in general"? sorry, but that does not square with my own experience. Your mileage may of course vary, but your statement makes me wonder whether the "thinness" you hear is not caused by accessories or other components in the chain from which you heard the SE...

Comparisons can be useful, but they will not really resolve the question satisfactorily... My LCD-4 certainly sounds more "thick" and lush in the mids as compared to the SE, but is that because the LCD-4's mids are "thicker than normal," or because the mids of the HeKSE are thinner than normal?

I do not even know if that is a helpful way of posing the question, since the expression "than normal" could suggest the possible presence of some deficiency, whereas I do not really see any in either headphone.

Bottomline? I would never be even tempted to associate the HekSE with anythng "thin," when considered on its own terms, with nothing to compare it with. On the other hand to argue that it is "less thick sounding in the mids than the LCD-4" is just a harmless description in my view, a non-judgmental statement of fact, without any intention to imply anything deficient on the HeKSE's or the 4's part. In fact, I enjoy some listening experiences more on the SE than I do on the 4, precisely because of their different characteristics. Of course, I also find that the LCD-4's sumptuous and creamy mids make it better equipped to bring the power and glory out of certain tunes than the HeKSE, but that is neither here nor there. It is just a matter of each can doing what it does best to contribute their own piece to enhancing the beautiful richness of sonic varieties that are have been made available to us in this hobby... I really do not see any downsides here at all, as I could happily live exclusively with either of these cans if I was forced to do away with the other.

Yes, when I say thin/lightweight that is in the context of other "thicker" sounding cans. One has to give a frame of reference to others when discussing the sound of these headphones. Compared to cans like the Verite, Empy, LCD4 or even the HEDD, one would say they are thinner sounding than those examples. Now, in a comparison to the SR1's then perhaps they are not so thin sounding at all. It's all relative. I mentioned that I generally prefer thicker sounding cans as opposed to thinner sounding ones, with the SE being in the latter group.

This term is not meant as a derogatory term at all just a descriptive one. As many especially stat lovers may tend to think those thick sounding cans to be too thick and colored/euphonic sounding. That's another discussion altogether..............

 

[sahmen]

Yes, when I say thin/lightweight that is in the context of other "thicker" sounding cans. One has to give a frame of reference to others when discussing the sound of these headphones. Compared to cans like the Verite, Empy, LCD4 or even the HEDD, one would say they are thinner sounding than those examples. Now, in a comparison to the SR1's then perhaps they are not so thin sounding at all. It's all relative. I mentioned that I generally prefer thicker sounding cans as opposed to thinner sounding ones, with the SE being in the latter group.

This term is not meant as a derogatory term at all just a descriptive one. As many especially stat lovers may tend to think those thick sounding cans to be too thick and colored/euphonic sounding. That's another discussion altogether..............

Hey @mixman : I did not find anything you said to be problematic. I think I understood you loud and clear. To prevent any misunderstandings, I should have made clear that I was responding to the post below from @nishan99

^^^
The HEKse are still thin in general, I would advise anyone to skip modern hifimans if they are not okay with thin/lightweight sound in general. I have not tried any of them on tubes or pure class A tho.

 

[nishan99]

Indeed it's all relative, but they're still lighter than most of my gear (including speakers).

I think the term "light" is better, most people usually associate the "thinness" term as subdued lower mids which is definitely not the case here. The notes are just light and smooth with faster decay in general.

And yes it's a preference thing and potential buyers should be aware of that.

 

[sahmen]

Indeed it's all relative, but they're still lighter than most of my gear (including speakers).

I think the term "light" is better, most people usually associate the "thinness" term as subdued lower mids which is definitely not the case here. The notes are just light and smooth with faster decay in general.

And yes it's a preference thing and potential buyers should be aware of that.

"Relative" and subjective "preference," are descriptions I do not find to be controversial at all. However, when I hear "thin," I tend to think "deficient," and since you were generalizing this attribute to all "modern hifiman" cans, you seemed to be leaning quite heavily toward a negative general evaluation. I get the sense that you do not particularly care for the hifiman cans you have heard, which I do not find troubling in any. way, but I thought the relativity idea needed to be emphasized to even the playing field a little more, in the light of that earlier evaluationl At any rate I find this last description to be a lot more even handed and "fair" than the previous one. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[TheAttorney]

I dug out this old post below from Articnoise. I didn't fully get it at the time, but I think I do now - and it relates to recent discussions about whether or not the HEK's are thin/light.

Moving the HEK back and forth does change the soundstage (more than anything else for me), and I agree that ear cups almost touching the backs of my ears is best position.
But moving HEK up and down changes both soundstage and tonal character as follows...

From my default vertical placement, one click upwards gives a tighter, sharper, and slightly thinner presentation - that is possibly more technically correct.
And one click downwards gives a looser, fuller, more spacious sound - that is possibly less technically correct, but oh so euphonic! And no thinness.
I've settled on the one-click-down position as just engaging me more with the musical event, even though it is a compromise.

By "one click" I literally mean one click on one side only. Clicking on both sides is too big a step for getting the best balance. Although counter-intuitive, getting the left/right clicks slightly out of step with each other does not cause the headphones to go lop-sided - both pads seem to move equally enough for it not to matter.

I think I can notice such changes more easily as the rest of my system improves in transparency. Although still probably objectively subtle, it's now very obvious and subjectively important.

So for those who still think the HEK SE sounds a bit thin or light, there are 3 parameters involved:

1. The FR curve (that can only be corrected by EQ)
2. The quality of the upstream equipment (e.g. reducing RFI) (I keep stressing how crucial this is... because it is!)
3. The HEK's position on one's head

My own experience is that, if you can't or won't delve into EQ, then items 2 and 3 will totally banish any lingering concerns about lightness that anyone could possibly have.

Like with other headphones the SE can sound different depending on how you “put them on you head”, and it’s well worth to experiment a bit to get the best overall position. The HE1000 that has such big ear cups it’s possible to get very different sound depending on position of the drivers to our ears. Only one click down for me on the headband and the sound stage gets smaller, less air etc and one klick up from my preferred position and the bass/low mids decreases too much. The same is true with the back and forth position but with a bit different sonic outcome. I like to have the ear cups so that they almost, but doesn’t, touch the back of my ears. A more forward position result in recessed upper mids IME.

Maybe you don’t get the exact same difference as I do, but am sure that it’s worth the time to get it right for you because the SQ difference is not trivial.

 

[nishan99]

^^^
I agree!, all egg shaped hifimans sound best when they're touching or almost touching my ear lobes.
Also the stage gets to be positioned higher which is also better to me, it adds to the scale of the stage

 

[Articnoise]

I would descriptive the HE1000se as very open and revealing with a flat frequency with only a minor dip between 500 Hz and 2 KHz. The dip is indeed minor and I would guess around -1 dB. The minor dip is however notable because many instruments and voices have their foundation at this frequency. The treble is clear as a day but with the “wrong” upstream gear or records it can be a bit rough. Susvara for example is smoother and more forgiving on bright and harsh upstream gears and recordings.

The HE1000se will IMO not mate very well with upstream gear that is on the bright and lean side. The rest of our audio gear can either keep, enhance or subdue the sound of the HE1000se.

 

[Law87]

thin/lightweight.....no way....

it might not be thin/lightweight on paper but how does it sit on your head? The Ether 2 have the claim to being the lightest (and Thin) but I cannot managed more than 30 min on my head...I actually thought it was atrocious in all categories: Comfort and sound.

 

[LCMusicLover]

...The Ether 2 have the claim to being the lightest (and Thin) but I cannot managed more than 30 min on my head...I actually thought it was atrocious in all categories: Comfort and sound.

But apparently there are those who disagree with you

I find my E2 very comfortable and have no trouble wearing them for long sessions. And I certainly wouldn’t call their sound ‘atrocious’.

BTW, ‘thin’ was used to describe the sound of HEK, not their physical form factor.