[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yanfeng /img/forum/go_quote.gif I translate "slow" as having longer decay. Yes, HD650 has the longest decay of all the headphones I've heard.

OK, I've got the HD650 on a great system for it......so I don't see it as being "slow". On my setup, my k501 has the slowest decay....even though it's hollow sounding. But I find no headphone has the decay of a speaker system IMO.

@J-Pak's comments:

1)HD650's soundstage: Well I think it's very good for a headphone. I've now listened to the k1000 and Stax Lambdas. The k1000 might have a larger soundstage, but it still sounds like a headphone (ie center image is in your head). That's why I just prefer the dynamics of the HD650s. The HD650s have the more typical extreme headphone left/right soundstage, but I get a very good sense of depth with my setup. Have you critically listened to the HD650 on your Lavry using a Single Power amp? IMHO, the Lavry or Benchmark do not have a large soundstage for headphones. A tube amp really helps.

2)Instrument seperation: well this gets back to what amp you're using and especially what recordings your using. Since the HD650s don't make pretensions on a headphone's stereo image, they reveal recordings that have poorly mastered pans. Classical music is always great as far as placement IMO. Various mixed rock may be questionable. But actually, I've been grooving out to the latest Beck and Shinns CDs this week.....both of them are really well mastered and give me a great spacial image with the HD650.

3)PRAT. This is probably why the 650s are percieved as dark or slow by some people/ on certain setups. The 650s are one of the few headphones that doesn't have a spike in the high mids.....it's more even throughout. Since "detail" isn't as pronounced as with other headphones, that's probably why you're not seeing PRAT. IMO, what the 650 needs is a really revealing source and proper amping. I've got to say that my Benchmark changed character as soon as I got a more expensive transport. That with my SP amp seems to be giving my HD650s some really great PRAT and soundstage. Honestly haven't heard it with another headphone yet (and I've listened to a k1000 and some stats).

I guess I'm also countering all your negatives on the HD650s since you say you want to list some positives about it

 

[J-Pak]

Yes but everything that I typed up is from ownership of both headphones. Not brief meet impressions.

And even then, not brief ownership. I got the K1000 last summer, and the HD650 sometime in November.

As for point number two I said "This effect is most obvious for most music except for some studio rock music." so no I wasn't using rock music to voice my opinion. It was based off symphonies and jazz. I'll leave one real life example, I'm very familiar with the Star Wars Ep IV-VI box set (6 disc version), I fell in love with it after registering on Headfi and reading Darth Nut's review of the STAX Omega 2. I've learned these recordings well, very well. I've probably listened to them too much but they're wonderful for attempting to portray height (or vertical headstage). Like I said the HD650 is empty anywhere from slightly above the x axis. The K1000 fills this space with sound, which as far as I know is an accurate representation as the orchestra plays in a similar fashion. I've also used sample tracks from this box set on my demo CDR's that I've used to audition many types of equipment in 2 years. Most <good> speakers were also able to capture this vertical height; yet the HD650 is incapable. Thats just one example of the "3 blobs effect" I could go on...

I'm not even going to attempt to argue the other points, because it's futile (I'm not in the camp that thinks the HD650 need superamps to shine and there are many more that would agree with me).

edit: I'll just leave at that, I'm not going to bother replying to this thread again, since it will just turn into a pointless back that I've seen with a certain other notorious member in K701/HD650 type threads.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes but everything that I typed up is from ownership of both headphones. Not brief meet impressions. I'm not even going to attempt to argue the other points, because it's futile (I'm not in the camp that thinks the HD650 need superamps to shine and there are many more that would agree with me).

Well this is where we get into never ending cycles of how much money do you want to spend: more on headphones, or more on source equipment

If you are basing your impressions of the 650 on your sig, then I could see some of your points. My assertion about the 650's great soundstage come from the SP amp IMO. PRAT is coming from my transport and DAC-1. For me, it's worth it to have a full system (transport,DAC, amp) for the HD650: with it I don't see the same weaknesses. But I realize that some people would rather just get another headphone and worry about this stuff. With an accurate source and good amp, well the HD650 is the most refined headphone I've listened to.

 

[aphex944]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3)PRAT. This is probably why the 650s are percieved as dark or slow by some people/ on certain setups. The 650s are one of the few headphones that doesn't have a spike in the high mids.....it's more even throughout. Since "detail" isn't as pronounced as with other headphones, that's probably why you're not seeing PRAT. IMO, what the 650 needs is a really revealing source and proper amping.

No, they don't have a spike, they have a -10dB dip. "Really revealing" tends to mean a system that leans on the brighter side, which the HD 650s do sound decent on. The only time I've really heard the HD 650 sound balanced was, ironically, with a balanced pair on a very bright CDP.

I think humanflyz put it really well-- you're "waiting" for the music. Not to say they're not detailed, just pretty slow in their presentation IMO.

 

[granodemostasa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well this is where we get into never ending cycles of how much money do you want to spend: more on headphones, or more on source equipment If you are basing your impressions of the 650 on your sig, then I could see some of your points. My assertion about the 650's great soundstage come from the SP amp IMO. PRAT is coming from my transport and DAC-1. For me, it's worth it to have a full system (transport,DAC, amp) for the HD650: with it I don't see the same weaknesses. But I realize that some people would rather just get another headphone and worry about this stuff. With an accurate source and good amp, well the HD650 is the most refined headphone I've listened to.

i have to agree, while the balenced HD650 does do some good, there are still all kinds of issues with it, mostly the images are bashing together on the XLR from the lavry. the sp, dynamight, and zana deux all do the HD650 justice (and the equinox cable).
however, i have to disagree with you on the K1000. the K1000's imaging is better (at least on the F1 amp) than the HD650s, it's not some speaker sound, but a good, widespread and precise soundstage. My own problems with the K1000 stem from what i think are it's lack in refinement and bass.

 

[J-Pak]

I'll humor you a bit more Dave.

I'm going to run the HD650 balanced in a few days and I'll give my honest opinion of what it's like to drive the HD650 "properly".

I have heard the HD650 on big $$$ amps, and it's still a HD650 at the end of the day. There are some improvements, but it doesn't transform the headphone. Most of my points above were still there. Especially the part about PRaT, it just was not there.

As for a good source, I find it a bit funny since I've compared the DA10 to a DAC1, and I felt the DA10 was clearly superior. If mods can improve the DAC1 then great; because it has plenty of room to improve.

edited this into my other post:
Quote:

As for point number two I said "This effect is most obvious for most music except for some studio rock music." so no I wasn't using rock music to voice my opinion. It was based off symphonies and jazz. I'll leave one real life example, I'm very familiar with the Star Wars Ep IV-VI box set (6 disc version), I fell in love with it after registering on Headfi and reading Darth Nut's review of the STAX Omega 2. I've learned these recordings well, very well. I've probably listened to them too much but they're wonderful for attempting to portray height (or vertical headstage). Like I said the HD650 is empty anywhere from slightly above the x axis. The K1000 fills this space with sound, which as far as I know is an accurate representation as the orchestra plays in a similar fashion. I've also used sample tracks from this box set on my demo CDR's that I've used to audition many types of equipment in 2 years. Most <good> speakers were also able to capture this vertical height; yet the HD650 is incapable. Thats just one example of the "3 blobs effect" I could go on...

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aphex944 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, they don't have a spike, they have a -10dB dip. "Really revealing" tends to mean a system that leans on the brighter side, which the HD 650s do sound decent on. The only time I've really heard the HD 650 sound balanced was, ironically, with a balanced pair on a very bright CDP. I think humanflyz put it really well-- you're "waiting" for the music. Not to say they're not detailed, just pretty slow in their presentation IMO.

Oh yes, my system is so bright, that it makes my Grados to harsh to listen to

OK.....I guess I'm imagining that small spike that the HD600 has and is probably why people say make it brighter.

Now this is all I'm gonna say....it's my bedtime and there's no point arguing with set Beyer and AKG fans over what's the most "neutral" headphone.......as they all can with the proper setup.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

No, they don't have a spike, they have a -10dB dip.

There are two dips in the HD650's treble response; they are a part of the headphone's diffuse-field equalization. They are supposed, nay, need to be there.

As for "PRaT"... well, I think it is one of the most abused and overused words I've ever heard here. The real truth is that headphones probably don't vary from each other by more than a fraction of a fraction of a second when it comes to speed of attack/decay. The real sense of a headphone's speed is a perceptual effect caused by the headphone's unique frequency response. And my own personal perception says that the HD650s are not slow. In fact, I've never heard a "slow" headphone, ever.

As for vertical soundstage, well, I've never heard such a thing of any headphone, ever. I don't even see how it would be physically possible. Not that it matters to me; most of the music I listen doesn't have that kind soundstage to begin with, so... even the HD650 fails utterly there, I wouldn't be missing much.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif however, i have to disagree with you on the K1000. the K1000's imaging is better (at least on the F1 amp) than the HD650s, it's not some speaker sound, but a good, widespread and precise soundstage. My own problems with the K1000 stem from what i think are it's lack in refinement and bass.

I wasn't comparing imaging of the k1000 and HD650. It depends on your preferences IMO. The k1000 places the instruments farther forward in the extreme left and right......but they still sound like headphones to me (ie the center image is in your head). I can see how some would like this effect though. I'd just rather take the dynamics of the HD650 over having less of an extreme left/right headphone feel. That's my preference.

 

[J-Pak]

Vertical soundstage: the HE90 and K1000 can do it. I can't remember too much about the Omega 2, but from what Darth Nut wrote it (over a decadge of STAX experience) sounds like it could.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll humor you a bit more Dave. I'm going to run the HD650 balanced in a few days and I'll give my honest opinion of what it's like to drive the HD650 "properly". I have heard the HD650 on big $$$ amps, and it's still a HD650 at the end of the day. There are some improvements, but it doesn't transform the headphone. Most of my points above were still there. Especially the part about PRaT, it just was not there. As for a good source, I find it a bit funny since I've compared the DA10 to a DAC1, and I felt the DA10 was clearly superior. If mods can improve the DAC1 then great; because it has plenty of room to improve. edited this into my other post:

OK, I said I was going to bed.....but the posts keep coming

OK, I'll respond to ya J-Pak, then I'm going to bed

Well I guess I already touched some on imaging of headphones. IMO, on my setup, the HD650 has a good depth and center image (all be it in your head). Especially some of my favorite classical SACDs and Marriner's version of Mozart's Reqieum.....the recordings are so well made that I can easily imagine where all the performers are. If I listen to Heifetz, it sounds as though he is on center stage. Now is this effect as good as speakers? No, because the front image isn't in front of me: I have never heard any headphone that can do that though.

I would be interested in hearing your impressions of a balanced HD650. I don't have mine balanced....not really anxious to since I've heard mixed reviews about it: some like it, some don't. But maybe it will help you with PRAT.

As for DAC-1 vs DA10: the DAC-1 gells with Senns really well IMHO. I haven't compared the DAC-1 and DA10 on the same transport/ headphone. Seems like most indications are that they're both very similar: Lavry being a little more luquidy and the DAC-1 being more detailed. Heck differences are probably so small that you'd see more difference with a transport.

Anywho, this is getting too wordy for being way past my bedtime. G'night!!

 

[granodemostasa]

don't underestimate the differences between the lavry and the benchmark, although they are both very good, they are completely different flavors.

 

[humanflyz]

Wow, my old thread gets bumped. I am just attempting to write down my thoughts on some things which have been brought up.

1) HD650s:
This is what it always comes down to whenever someone, anyone, for that matter, makes a claim that the HD650s are not the be-all end-all in headphones. Every time someone even makes a remote criticism against the HD650s, people come out of the woodworks to say that the person making the claim is not getting the "right" synergy; that the person needs the right cables, amps, power cords, source, etc in order for the HD650s to shine.

Well that's just missing the point: if someone doesn't like the HD650s to begin with, no amount of ancillary equipment will change the BASIC sound signature. Everyone knows that no headphone is perfect, but what separates one person's preference from another's is each individual's tolerance for compromises or deficiencies in any given transducer, speakers or headphones.

Just because you (and I'm using you in the generic sense here) think that the HD650s don't have any flaws doesn't mean that other people will think the same way. All that can be objectively said is that you are willing to live with the flaws of ANY given transducer while another person might not. Now why would a person who cannot live with the compromises in a transducer in the very first place waste time, money, and effort to try to overcome something that cannot be fixed to begin with?

It only makes sense to get the right synergy if you are willing to live with the headphone's BASIC sound signature: you then try to find synergistic equipment to minimize its deficiencies and maximizes its strengths. It makes no sense for someone who absolutely does not like the HD650s to begin with to try to compensate. His time and money would be much wiser spent on finding a headphone whose basic sound signature he agrees with and work on that setup instead.

Having said that, I don't think the HD650s are a bad headphone, not at all. But if I say, for example, that I feel the they lack PRaT compared to other headphones I've had in the past, is it really an informative response to say that you think they don't? Well of course you don't think they lack PRaT, because you like their sound to BEGIN WITH. Mine criticisms of the HD650s don't mean that they are bad in any objective or absolute sense; it just means that I don't want to spend a lot of time or money to get them to sound like something they are not. And that doesn't mean that they won't be massively improved when paired with the right equipment, because they are, but at the end of the day: a pair of HD650s is STILL a pair of HD650s.

You can have every pair of high end headphones and pair them with the most synergistic components possible, and in the end they will still retain their basic sound signature, albeit at a very refined level. Why isn't it possible that in this scenario that one STILL prefers something other than the HD650s? Why not give the same treatment to RS-1s? To the DT880s? The claim that the HD650s, once paired with the most synergistic setup that it is capable of, will suddenly transform into a totally different headphone and will convert all non-believers doesn't make any logical sense. Why wouldn't I want to pair the RS-1s with a $15K Singlepower amp? Or a $20K source? Because I can pretty much guarantee you that I will like the RS-1s better than the HD650s on that setup.

3) HD650s and brightness:
I believe that a neutral treble response will actually sound harsh to most people. Why? Because most mainstream recordings are mixed really hot, so the high-end is harsh to begin with. If a transducer truly can reproduce treble in an extended, neutral manner, then it is not surprising why a lot of CDs will sound harsh, because the harshness is in the recording. There are ways to compensate for this, and I am totally for it. Music comes first: if a recording is too bright, and that's preventing your full enjoyment, than go right ahead and compensate for that. I don't have a problem at all with that; in fact, that's the biggest reason why I have my HD650 setup: so that I can listen to some of my harshest recordings.

But trying to compensate for the inherent brightness in the recording is a compromise to me. Sure, it might make horrible recordings listenable, but at the same time, it limits the potential of the best recordings. If a CD is recorded with a neutral, smooth, and extended high-end, having a system that is designed to have a little bit of a treble roll-off will cut out some musical information in that area. Sure, good recordings will sound great, but they are not being heard at their best.

My basic point: you can't have your cake and eat it too. A transparent transducer will reveal everything, and I mean everything in a recording (just go listen to an Orpheus and hear for yourself). Bad recordings will simply sound bad, and blaming a transducer for revealing the inherent brightness in a recording is like blaming a High Definition camera for revealing all the blemishes on a person's face. A transparent transducer should never make ALL recordings sound euphonic, if what you value is transparency, and indeed that is what I personally value the most.

The real question is: how far are you willing to go? If 90% of my recordings are revealed to be horribly mastered, and only 10% are of good quality, will I create a system that will make those 90% tolerable, but at the expense of limiting the highest potential of the 10%? That's a personal judgment, and I don't really care how someone goes about doing it. But for me, it is not something that I would do. I would rather have 90% of my music to be revealed to me as having horrible recording quality, instead of giving up the highest potential of the 10%. At least that's what I would do in my critical-listening/reference system.

That doesn't mean that I can't create a secondary/non-reference system for those times when I don't feel like doing critical listening. And that's exactly what my current HD650s are. That is not to say that they are "muddy" or "veiled", cliched as those terms are around here. All I'm saying that the HD650s serve a non-critical purpose for me, and I don't see why that is a problem. I feel no guilt or shame whatsoever in saying that I use my HD650s so that I can listen to my really really horrible recordings, because I can listen to them and still enjoy them. Now would it be perfect if I didn't need a secondary system for this purpose? Well yes, but I can't control the recording industry.

2) Vertical Soundstage:
As for vertical soundstaging, the K1000s, Orpheus, and the Omega IIs can easily reproduce it. If you don't hear it, that doesn't mean that other people can't. For me it's pretty easy to hear vertical soundstaging on the three headphones I just mentioned.

 

[onecm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by humanflyz /img/forum/go_quote.gif My biggest gripe with the HD650s is not its dark tonality, but rather, its lack of speed. I get fatigued after listening to the HD650s extensively. I know, strange, but that's because I'm always waiting for the music, which seems just to arrive one step too late. After a while, this strains my mind and make me tired. The soundstage, although big, is not as precise. There's a hole in the middle of the soundstage. The bass can become over-powering at times. Overall, my biggest gripe is that the HD650s sound labored, as if it's struggling somewhat to produce the notes. .

I agree entirely. I get this sensation when listening to my 650s, but not with our speaker system or 600s. PRAT may well be a good term for it. When it comes to what may be described PRAT, if the 650s swing like a college big band, the 600s swing like the basie band.

That being said I still prefer the 650s over 600s due to the quality of the 650s tonal reproduction. If I could find a (affordable) headphone that reproduced tone as good the hd650 but without the problems described above, I'd have no complaints.

 

[Patu]

Good write up humanflyz. You have some valid points there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not even going to attempt to argue the other points, because it's futile (I'm not in the camp that thinks the HD650 need superamps to shine and there are many more that would agree with me).

I agree that they don't NEED superamps to shine. They sounded very good with Corda Aria plugged in my PC with USB. What's true anyway, is that HD650 has more potential than many other headphone out there. I mean that the difference between the HD650 combo with bad synergy and good synergy is huge. This is based on my own experiences with them.