[zakazak]

Hello everybody,
I have been using my HD600 with a NFB-12.1 for about 12 years or maybe longer.
I decided that I wanted more and upgrade it as I always was interested in the HD800 and kind of thought of it as my holy grail of headphones.
How ever, after reading a lot of comparisons between the HD800 and the HD800S as well as the measurements from u/oratory1990 on reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/8kfitx/difference_between_hd800_and_hd800s_with/ )I decided to go with the HD800S instead of the HD800.

So today was the day and I sat infront of my laptop comparing the HD600 vs HD800S on my NFB12.1.

At first I wasn't really impressed or suprised by how much different the HD800S was.
Lower Bass, more highs...alright, lets get more suitable tracks.
Then I noticed how everything on the HD800S sounded like it was further away compared to the HD600. Kinda like I would be in a room with music around me with lots of air and room. This must be the awesome soundstage everyone is talking about!
I also noticed a lot more details and realized that some of my web .flac releases actually do not sound that good
Bass/Mids/Highs are faster and more present.
Some songs gave me goose bumps and made vocals more emotional than ever.
In the end I probably still expected more from a headphone that is 6 times the price of the HD600.
I only had 30 minutes today to listen to the HD800S so I might have not noticed everything.

But if I missed smth, what are the other differences I should hear or pay attention to?
Anyone else wants to share his thoughts of his own HD600/HD800S comparison?
Last but not least, would a DAC/AMP upgrade bring a lot of improvements or is it only like 10% of an improvement compared to the improvement of HD600 -> HD800S?

 

[AutumnCrown]

In my opinion, DAC and amp changes are mostly placebo and subtle preference-based.

If I didn't listen mostly to classical, I wouldn't think the HD800 S is worth it over the HD600, because the 600 does almost as well in most genres.

But for classical (and some other well recorded music) the HD800 S is so much better than the HD600. The HD600 is technically advanced and tonally balanced enough to give 90% of music what it deserves. It lacks the last bit of speed, but this doesn't matter because the brain fills in the missing information as long as there isn't too much missing. If the music gets too complex, the HD600 falls apart, but most people don't listen to music that is complex enough for it to matter. The HD600 can actually sound better, because there aren't extraneous details, and the detail that is there is somehow presented in a euphonic way. The HD800 S gives you the whole raw image, but the trade-off is your brain has to process the whole thing. The HD600 rounds off the harsh overexposed areas, turns the contrast down a bit, crops out the uninteresting edges, and puts a subtle filter over everything, making it all seem a bit cleaner and simpler than it really is in real life. For many uses, this is as good or better than the raw image. It's only when you want to recreate a huge, complex musical image life-sized, that the HD600 falls down. For most music, there isn't any raw image to recreate anyway. The original, organic, stark beauty of the instruments vibrating together has been processed away on equipment that is simply inferior to the HD800 S. I'm not just talking about modern music, but classics like Dark Side of the Moon as well. There just isn't enough going on, musically, to challenge the HD600 on that album. Sure, you get a bit more soundstage at times, but the overall experience is similar between the two phones. As for jazz, only larger ensemble jazz, with more than 4 or 5 instruments, really even begins to use the extra ability of the HD800 S. For small ensemble jazz, the HD600 shows its own technical merits and wonderful timbre. TLDR: Don't expect the the HD800 S to wow you unless you like big, complex music. For everything else, the HD600 holds it own.

 

[bagwell359]

HD-600 is a great can. Good for all sorts of listening. Objectively the 800S is better at detail retrieval then than the 600, and have a great soundstage. The downside of that is the 800S can tire out some listeners. If I had a pair, I'd be pairing them with a tubed amp to increase the warmth level of the 800S to avoid fatigue. 600 is less fussy, in fact it doesn't seem the scale up that much with better equipment - another advantage.for the 600's in terms of cost. I understand the 600 is supposed to really sing with the bottlehead (also pretty cheap) - but I haven't heard that combo.

I think the HD-600 is the most common can for the users here - great sound and alue. And if you want a def/soundstage can the 800S is at the top of that list.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

I just talked to my friend who works with music production, and he and some 10 colleagues of his spent a good 5 hours blindtesting a Chord Dave and an iPhone 6. Much to everyone’s surprise (except for my friend that is) no one could discern a difference.
They went all out too with electrostatic nearfield speakers, hd800 with one person in the room, all kinds of ulterior constellations, the works basically. I’m invited to go hear for myself tomorrow but I guess I’ll pass seeing as I’ve tried these tests once too many...with the same end result.
Life’s simply too short to sit around and compare cymbal decays for 2 hours...

BUT I think you’ll find that the hd800s will change a little over time once you get to know it more intimately. It’s not the headphone though but your brain wrapping itself around the presentation
A great match though, the 600 and 800. The albums that sound ‘off’ on the 800 will most likely fit the 600 right down to the t.

 

[MorrisL]

I agree with the poster above that the difference is significant only with classical music. I spent 3 hours AB-ing HD 600 with the original HD 800 and came away with the same conclusion. Often times, with rock and pop music, you'd find that HD 600 actually does it better. I was swayed when I heard some vocals with solo piano, then played some orchestral works... The sound of the piano was so much more real on HD 800 (assuming it would be similar on HD 800S). HD 58X is another can worth mentioning, if the lack of deep bass on the HD 600 is a concern. Between the 600 and 58X, I decided to keep the 58X because I found the tone even less fatiguing that the 600 which can be a bit shouty sometimes.

 

[alexdi]

Is there anything unequivocally better in the midrange than the HD600 (/HD650)?

I've had my HD600 set for a couple of years. I think the balance in the vocal range is perfect. It's so good that I can't get along with Sonarworks or similar flat EQ settings because any change to the midrange takes away from it. But the bass response, while average to start, suffers in accuracy when I add EQ, and the soundstage is fairly intimate.

My plan was to upgrade to an EQ'd HD800 or a Focal Clear (or Focal Elex), but I really don't want to step backwards in realistic vocal response. Haven't heard any of the three and don't want to make an expensive mistake.

 

[SilverEars]

Hello everybody,
I have been using my HD600 with a NFB-12.1 for about 12 years or maybe longer.
I decided that I wanted more and upgrade it as I always was interested in the HD800 and kind of thought of it as my holy grail of headphones.
How ever, after reading a lot of comparisons between the HD800 and the HD800S as well as the measurements from u/oratory1990 on reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/8kfitx/difference_between_hd800_and_hd800s_with/ )I decided to go with the HD800S instead of the HD800.

So today was the day and I sat infront of my laptop comparing the HD600 vs HD800S on my NFB12.1.

At first I wasn't really impressed or suprised by how much different the HD800S was.
Lower Bass, more highs...alright, lets get more suitable tracks.
Then I noticed how everything on the HD800S sounded like it was further away compared to the HD600. Kinda like I would be in a room with music around me with lots of air and room. This must be the awesome soundstage everyone is talking about!
I also noticed a lot more details and realized that some of my web .flac releases actually do not sound that good
Bass/Mids/Highs are faster and more present.
Some songs gave me goose bumps and made vocals more emotional than ever.
In the end I probably still expected more from a headphone that is 6 times the price of the HD600.
I only had 30 minutes today to listen to the HD800S so I might have not noticed everything.

But if I missed smth, what are the other differences I should hear or pay attention to?
Anyone else wants to share his thoughts of his own HD600/HD800S comparison?
Last but not least, would a DAC/AMP upgrade bring a lot of improvements or is it only like 10% of an improvement compared to the improvement of HD600 -> HD800S?

I had similar thought when I first tried out the HD800. I expected more, and it wasn't quite what I was expecting.

Is there anything unequivocally better in the midrange than the HD600 (/HD650)?

I've had my HD600 set for a couple of years. I think the balance in the vocal range is perfect. It's so good that I can't get along with Sonarworks or similar flat EQ settings because any change to the midrange takes away from it. But the bass response, while average to start, suffers in accuracy when I add EQ, and the soundstage is fairly intimate.

My plan was to upgrade to an EQ'd HD800 or a Focal Clear (or Focal Elex), but I really don't want to step backwards in realistic vocal response. Haven't heard any of the three and don't want to make an expensive mistake.

I would recommend the Clear if looking for something in the lines of HD600. For vocals I prefer the smoother presentation of HD650, but I do wish that 650 had more treble presence like the 600.

 

[zakazak]

I had similar thought when I first tried out the HD800. I expected more, and it wasn't quite what I was expecting.

I would recommend the Clear if looking for something in the lines of HD600. For vocals I prefer the smoother presentation of HD650, but I do wish that 650 had more treble presence like the 600.

Well I made an upgrade for my DAC and AMP and that has brought the HD800S to a whole new level. The difference to the HD600 is huge now.

 

[SilverEars]

Well I made an upgrade for my DAC and AMP and that has brought the HD800S to a whole new level. The difference to the HD600 is huge now.

Hopefully it doesn't get fatiguing. If you stay within certain genres, it will not, but it can depending on music types listened to. I do really like electronic out of it with a particular tube amp that increases the sound stage quite considerably with increase in tightened bass.

Some people EQ it, and I've tried EQ'ing and it sounded like it's techical characteristics were gone, and going with 600 would have been just as good minus the sound stage. Perhaps, it's due to the treble being EQ'd down. I think tube amp softens the prickliness of the treble for better engagement.

The mids of Sennheisers including 800S I find are similar level of definition and resolution, a bit on the fuzzy side, so if you EQ 800S treble down, it would lose it's treble resoltion or support. So, you will get more mids, but not technically better than the HD6 series in terms of resolution and definition.

So, the HD800S technical characteristics in part is due to support from it's treble. So there is a trade-off there with it's treble. In some instances it works with you, other times cause fatigue.

 

[Bern2]

HD 58X is another can worth mentioning, if the lack of deep bass on the HD 600 is a concern. Between the 600 and 58X, I decided to keep the 58X because I found the tone even less fatiguing that the 600 which can be a bit shouty sometimes.

The lack of low end (even with EQ) was the reason I didn't keep the 600. I'm talking sub bass here. Ended up with an 800 (among others) and use Sonarworks to EQ those.

Bern

 

[Alan Sk]

In my opinion, DAC and amp changes are mostly placebo and subtle preference-based.

If I didn't listen mostly to classical, I wouldn't think the HD800 S is worth it over the HD600, because the 600 does almost as well in most genres.

But for classical (and some other well recorded music) the HD800 S is so much better than the HD600. The HD600 is technically advanced and tonally balanced enough to give 90% of music what it deserves. It lacks the last bit of speed, but this doesn't matter because the brain fills in the missing information as long as there isn't too much missing. If the music gets too complex, the HD600 falls apart, but most people don't listen to music that is complex enough for it to matter. The HD600 can actually sound better, because there aren't extraneous details, and the detail that is there is somehow presented in a euphonic way. The HD800 S gives you the whole raw image, but the trade-off is your brain has to process the whole thing. The HD600 rounds off the harsh overexposed areas, turns the contrast down a bit, crops out the uninteresting edges, and puts a subtle filter over everything, making it all seem a bit cleaner and simpler than it really is in real life. For many uses, this is as good or better than the raw image. It's only when you want to recreate a huge, complex musical image life-sized, that the HD600 falls down. For most music, there isn't any raw image to recreate anyway. The original, organic, stark beauty of the instruments vibrating together has been processed away on equipment that is simply inferior to the HD800 S. I'm not just talking about modern music, but classics like Dark Side of the Moon as well. There just isn't enough going on, musically, to challenge the HD600 on that album. Sure, you get a bit more soundstage at times, but the overall experience is similar between the two phones. As for jazz, only larger ensemble jazz, with more than 4 or 5 instruments, really even begins to use the extra ability of the HD800 S. For small ensemble jazz, the HD600 shows its own technical merits and wonderful timbre. TLDR: Don't expect the the HD800 S to wow you unless you like big, complex music. For everything else, the HD600 holds it own.

Yes and no. The HD800S is at its best with live acoustic music and not just large orchestra music. The key to the soundstage is that there actually has to be a sound stage. Even small works as in sonatas, trios, quartets etc are better with the HD800 S if the recording captures not just the instruments but the room it was recorded in. Nearly all non-classical and jazz are recorded with the instruments plugged directly into the board, plus lots of overdubbing. Any soundstage is artificially added in the mixing. That is not at all the case with pretty much all classical. All classical music recordings are done live with no overdubs and with acoustic instruments (with a few rare exceptions). There is a whole lot more going on. On a good recording the soundstage is there because it was recorded to capture the natural soundstage of where ever it was recorded. For myself that natural soundstage is just as important in a quartet as it is in a large orchestra.

 

[Ratephi]

Yes and no. The HD800S is at its best with live acoustic music and not just large orchestra music. The key to the soundstage is that there actually has to be a sound stage. Even small works as in sonatas, trios, quartets etc are better with the HD800 S if the recording captures not just the instruments but the room it was recorded in. Nearly all non-classical and jazz are recorded with the instruments plugged directly into the board, plus lots of overdubbing. Any soundstage is artificially added in the mixing. That is not at all the case with pretty much all classical. All classical music recordings are done live with no overdubs and with acoustic instruments (with a few rare exceptions). There is a whole lot more going on. On a good recording the soundstage is there because it was recorded to capture the natural soundstage of where ever it was recorded. For myself that natural soundstage is just as important in a quartet as it is in a large orchestra.

Totally agree

 

[MozartMan1201]

I've also auditioned the 800S extensively and compared it with AKG K812 and HD600.
For large-scale orchestral and choral works I prefer the 800s for the recessed and wide soundstage like I'm sitting in the mezzanine section of a large concert hall (as opposed to K812 and HD600 putting you in the front row or even on stage which may be good for chamber music and lieder.
Between the 812 and 600 I prefer the 812 for its clarity and laser-sharp imaging; the wide soundstage of the 812 is comparable to the 800S but everything sounds a lot closer and more intimate....therefore perfect for small ensembles and solo recitals.

I've also auditioned the Focal Utopia, which has the attributes of BOTH 812 and 800S, only difference being a narrower soundstage (picture yourself in a small European concert hall or church), and costing $2k more. Ideally, if money is no object, I would get all 3 that cover all bases (and moods); but on the deserted island of Naxos, the Utopia.

I based above opinion on my 30 years of attending live concerts and operas in the U.S. and Europe.

 

[billqs]

I'd second the Focal Clear. You get neutral tuning but with really dramatic dynamics. The Focal Utopia is a better headphone (but it should be at 4Xs the price) but many people prefer the tuning on the Focal Clear.

 

[jbarrentine]

I returned an 800S and kept my 660S. I like classical crossover and similar. Saved $1500, I was pretty happy. Don't ever feel forced to like something just because other people do.