[Evshrug]

Ah sorry, maybe I didn't write that sentence properly, but what I meant was that the steel mesh is there specifically to resonate, and that having a microscopic metal mesh weave must be a right pain in the arse to manufacture. It does its job well though, and helps to make it feel more like listening to speakers, which in my view is good, because I tend to prefer speakers.
I remember reading a thread in another forum (can't for the life of me remember which one now) but someone had tried the 700's with something like 12 different amplifiers, and they were really surprised that the 700's sounded far more different between different amps than any of other headphone they'd tried. They also said that they found an 800 to be around 5% amplifier picky, versus a 700 to be more like 20% amplifier picky. So it certainly is a transparent design
.
From my own experience, it was the only pair of headphones I had that revealed my op amps to be faulty and out-of-focus. Then again, once I got the sennheiser amp, I was also hearing things like noticeably less distortion and better clarity if I plugged it into the wall, instead of an extension lead, which was something I'd have previously dismissed as being the sort of difference that, if it were there, couldn't be heard.
Come to think of it, I have a pair of dekoni hybrids for the 700, which exagerrated that out-of-focus character, so I was physically exhausted after about 5 or 6 songs, and haven't tried them since... might be worth having another go with those now!

So, where do you think drop might stand on the notion of being involved in some sort of new 700 variant? Just incase that sort of collaboration makes it an easier effort, or more likely to happen?
Edit, just saw you added more to your post since I started typing. You are right about the 700's enclosure being integral to its sound. Maybe the answer to having a more open sound is to have some sort of adjustment to the mesh, like a change in the density, or the weave pattern, so that it still does it's job, but allows for slightly better airflow, or just images bigger? I know the 660S2 is supposed to have better airflow in the driver as well, but it doesn't hurt to try and tackle that issue from multiple angles. Or, possibly, the frequency response might be a tad too dark. I have occasionally felt like I'd prefer it to be a little bit brighter.
But, given that I consider the insane lack of treble on my 600's to be really annoying, I might be in the relative minority of people who prefer an overall brighter sound, and it might have less mass appeal if it were to go up too high? Tricksy

I can’t speak for everyone, but I have a theory that people with larger ear canals have less resonance gain in the highs and thus want more (the shape of the concha and the folds of the ear effect the tonal perception as well). I have learned that the distance between eardrum and driver absolutely does cause a resonance.

As far as Sennheiser’s future roadmap goes, I don’t know what is coming next, but Sennheiser is always working on something(s)! I do know some of Drop’s plans, but I take my NDA’s seriously and I can merely tease that I’m looking forward to their next collaboration project.

 

[Backsplash7]

I can’t speak for everyone, but I have a theory that people with larger ear canals have less resonance gain in the highs and thus want more (the shape of the concha and the folds of the ear effect the tonal perception as well).

So, you could have good high frequency acquity from the hairs and/or your brains interpretation, but also perceive highs at a lower volume just because of the size of the canals? I wonder if something similar happens for people who crave more bass

 

[Evshrug]

So, you could have good high frequency acquity from the hairs and/or your brains interpretation, but also perceive highs at a lower volume just because of the size of the canals? I wonder if something similar happens for people who crave more bass

Well, just like a tube of a different diameter, length (think trombone!), or cavity volume (think of singing wine glasses with different amounts of liquid), ears have different resonance frequencies. Acuity and the condition of your cochlear hairs is definitely a factor as well, but ear shapes can make a difference even when comparing two people with no hearing loss. Most of the difference is limited between to a range of frequencies though… people who want more bass may have other reasons for their preference.

 

[Backsplash7]

Well, just like a tube of a different diameter, length (think trombone!), or cavity volume (think of singing wine glasses with different amounts of liquid), ears have different resonance frequencies. Acuity and the condition of your cochlear hairs is definitely a factor as well, but ear shapes can make a difference even when comparing two people with no hearing loss.

It sounds like this supports my argument earlier in this thread, for having two differently tuned headphone options at the higher price points, because its difficult to please everybody. Stick with the same overall design, just tune the drivers differently, but give people an alternative which isn't "I'll go with another manufacturer"

 

[Evshrug]

That’s what they’ve done with the HD 6x0 series! Arguably the HD 8xx was also an attempt to do that, and I personally liked the HD 8xx better when it offered something more different (I had an HD 800 and the earlier prototype wasn’t different enough for me to want it, but the 2nd/final prototype made me get one!), though many people are resistant to change. I’m glad to have the HD 8xx; I like having those ergonomics with both an exciting and more laid back signature.