[klipschter]

HD400, $39.99
HD470, $39.99
HD470, $59.99
HD490, $69.99
HD212, $69.99
HD495, $85.99
HD500, $99.99
HD265, $189.99
HD570, $149.99
HD590, $225.99
HD590, $249.99
HD600, $249.99

Those are the best prices I have seen at local dealers.

 

[bkelly]

MACdef,

Yeah, I know we disagree but there is a new twist in my contention that the 600's are more colored than the 590's and that is that I just listened to a recording that I played on and helped mix on extremely flat studio monitors and when I played that final mix on the 600's it was way off. I could still tell it was my playing but a lot of the original recorded detail was gone, dynamics were noticeably reduced and my guitar sounded tame and muted almost. It sounded good but as I say it was not at all accurate.

I haven't tried this with the 590's because they are on their way back from Sennhieser for repair and to have the right earpiece replaced so that it matches the left but, without even listening, I can tell you what the result will be. The 590 is significantly more accurate. In fact, I think I could remix that same recording with the 590's and get it pretty close to where it is now using only the 590's.

Eagle_Driver,

I'd like to hear your opinion after a few days of breaking in the 600 because I bought my 600's used and have no idea of what they sounded like when they were new. You might want to consider keeping both of these phones becasue they are definitely different and it would be great to use each on what they do best. It is commonly believed that the 590 are better for rock becaue they are more aggressive but I like to use mine on classsical and accoustic jazz more than anything else.

Anyhow, Keep in touch.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Sorry, bkelly, but I was never wowed all that much by the 590's. Never. And the upper mids are recessed on my 590's, but the highs are over-aggressive. And the lower mids on my 590's tend to squash much of the detail in the bottom-end - even more so than those of the 600's.

 

[bkelly]

Eagle-Driver,

Are you sure you have a pair of 590's? If you do your 590's are definitely broken or you need your hearing checked!

I'm not saying that to be funny or smart either because when I recorded a lot for a living I had mine checked often so I could adjust to what I was was listening to for recording purposes. It's a good idea.

Anyhow, if you hate your 590's so much sell them to me cheap. While mine were away at Sennheiser to be worked on I missed them terribly even though there is a pair of RS-1's and a set of 600's right there on the floor to listen too.

Talk soon.

I'm serious about buying your headphones.

Talk soon.






Thanks
Brian

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by bkelly Eagle-Driver, Are you sure you have a pair of 590's? If you do your 590's are definitely broken or you need your hearing checked!

I'm clarifying my HD590 dilemna: I'm sure that what I've heard were the 590's. You see, I actually have acute hearing in the highs (that is, my hearing has greater sensitivity to the treble than to the bass or mids). No wonder many of the sounds seem overbright to me, especially on the 590's.

 

[SumB]

The HD570 and 590 have a rise in the bass and treble relative to the HD580/600. This may help them sound fine on unamped portables but from a real source with dedicated amp they are hopelessly outclassed.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by bkelly Eagle_Driver, I own both of these phones and the 590's are clearly easier to drive than the 600's. At least through my Melos SHA-1. I've also tried every cable I know of on the 600's to no avail. They are just to tame to be acceptable. I wouldn't argue that the 600's actually sound bad, they don't, they are clearly a quality headphone but my biggest problem with them is that they are nowhere near as accurate as they should be and what you hear out of them is sort oof an audiophile vision of what music sounds like rather than what music ACTUALLY sounds like. "scrypt' another studio musician on this sight is exactly right when he desciribes the 600's as being "not terribly realistic". I just listened to and album I recorded recently and the 600's portrayal of the mix was way off and I mean way off. Unfortunatley I cannot check this mix with the 590's yet since they are in route back from Sennheiser for repair but I know what the result will be. They are quite a bit more accurate than the 600's. I don't have any doubt about that.

I had said that it was your hearing that made you think the 590's were more "accurate" than the 600's. But did you know that tube headphone amps themselves (such as your Melos SHA-1) color the sound in their own way? And did you know that different tubes color the sound in different ways? Or maybe the tubes that you're using in the Melos roll off the middle-to-extreme highs and boosts the upper mids/lower treble so much that the 590's somehow sound 'correct'? (BTW, I'm using solid-state amps, which clearly show the overdone highs and murky mids on the 590's - but with those same amps the 600's sound more 'correct'.)

Just my thoughts.

 

[bkelly]

Eagle-Driver,

If you knew you had an unusual sensitvity to highs you should have said that in your ealiest review.

I am beginning to think that you want to be accepted by the HD600 crowd so badly you are beginning to say stuff that is irrational. An example is the comments on the Melos. amp. This amp is a not a tube amp but rather a hybrid tube/transistor amp and if you ever heard one you would be shocked at how little they sound like a traditional tube amp. Forget folled of highs or softened dynamics. This amp is aklso nearly immune to tube rolling. I know as I have four sets of some of the best tubes out there and they don't make near the difference in this amp as they might in some other.

Anyhow, I have defended you on another thread so it's nothing personal I just think you are getting little over-zealous and missing the mark in your reviews. You are obviously passionate about this stuff so I welcome you enthusiastic comments and I look forward to reading your posts.

Best Wishes
Brian Kelly

 

[Eagle_Driver]

My bad.

And also, your Melos (being a hybrid tube/solid-state amp) also sounds little like most 100%-solid-state amps, as well. You see, almost all pure solid-state amps actually bring out the overdone highs on the HD590's.

Moreover, I was wrong that tube amps make the HD590's "accurate". Au contraire. The HD590's sound even more murky than the HD600's on many all-tube amps.

Anyway, the HD590's are one of those 'phones that seem to "click" when used with a certain amp (which in your case is the Melos). Too bad I couldn't obtain such an amp new, since Melos itself had gone out of business a couple of years ago.

 

[bkelly]

SumB,

I have a real source and a great amp and there is no way I would ever agree that the 600's somehow are able to outclass the 590.

One of my biggest complaints about the 600 is how much help in the way of amps, cables and earpad removal these phones need jsut to sound nice. The 590 sound great right out of the box and even with better equipment it only improves as much as the equipment. In other words, the 590 does not need fixing.

I've likened the 600 to the headphone equivalent of the Barbie doll. It needs endless accesories just to get along in this world, same as Barbie. I think that's why so many people are so attached to this phone -- it needs love.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Ahhh, bkelly... I think I know how I thought my HD590's sounded too bright and a bit murky...

I looked at the Headroom response curve of both the HD590's and the HD600's, and discovered that the HD590's have an even greater bass-boost than the HD600's. And practically everything above 3kHz has been overboosted, by as much as 5dB over the reference response in the midrange - and then the response curve drops off quite rapidly above 14kHz. That can cause some hearing fatigue. The HD600's treble response never shows an overboost by more than 2dB.

 

[fredpb]

Quote:

Originally posted by SumB The HD570 and 590 have a rise in the bass and treble relative to the HD580/600. This may help them sound fine on unamped portables but from a real source with dedicated amp they are hopelessly outclassed.

I don't know about the 590, but the 570 has an accurate level of bass.

The 580/600 have a serious dip in low freq response, check the graphs. In this respect, this is pure defect. The low end is a valid portion of the frequency spectrum. The 600/580 do NOT reproduce this accurately, with ANY amp. That is the price you pay for high detail.

My experience is based on owning the 570, and 600 (with clou red) and MG Head OTL and Headroom Premium Little.

The 570 cannot compare in accuracy to the 600, except in the lower freqs, where it squarely stomps the 600.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by fredpb The 580/600 have a serious dip in low freq response, check the graphs. In this respect, this is pure defect. The low end is a valid portion of the frequency spectrum. The 600/580 do NOT reproduce this accurately, with ANY amp. That is the price you pay for high detail.

Woah... this is the first time I've ever heard this argument about the HD 580/600. Properly amped, the HD 580/600 have very good bass extension, and don't have any sort of "serious dip." The do have a slight midbass HUMP, so maybe you're interpreting the decline of that hump as a "dip." But they certainly do not have a dip or defect at the low end.


Quote:

The 570 cannot compare in accuracy to the 600, except in the lower freqs, where it squarely stomps the 600.

The best response I have to that statement is this:

<http://www.headphone.com/graphCompar...are+Headphones>

 

[kelly]

Brian
You crack me up.

I think you have a valid point about the accessories. There certainly seems to be a trend on this board of people who enjoy the whole "upgrade path" process of being able to buy a headphone, then buy the cable for it, the amp, etc. Collectors mentality, maybe.

fred
I would agree if you were talking purely about a lack of bass extension in the HD600. ER-4S, HP-1000, W2002, and all Stax above the SR-202 seem to have better bass extension. However, I would say the rolloff doesn't occur until very low in the frequency spectrum and that in fact the HD600 is a bit bumped up in the midbass. I'm not very familiar with the HD570 except to say that I disliked them when I heard them and didn't give them a chance beyond that. The MG Head I'm quite fond of but I do believe it is quite a bit rolled off in the bass (the TwinHead much less so).

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eagle_Driver Ahhh, bkelly... I think I know how I thought my HD590's sounded too bright and a bit murky... I looked at the Headroom response curve of both the HD590's and the HD600's, and discovered that the HD590's have an even greater bass-boost than the HD600's. And practically everything above 3kHz has been overboosted, by as much as 5dB over the reference response in the midrange - and then the response curve drops off quite rapidly above 14kHz. That can cause some hearing fatigue. The HD600's treble response never shows an overboost by more than 2dB.

And what does that mean? Listening to the HD590's instead of the HD600's on a given receiver is like turning the bass control up by +3dB and the treble control up by +5dB. If that isn't enough to cause hearing fatigue, at least you'll hear those boosts in the slightly murkier overall sound and shrill highs. And with that boosted-up response at both ends of the audible spectrum for the HD590's, the middle of the midrange is neglected. No wonder why I hear mids from the HD590's that are even more recessed than those of the HD600's.