[Albert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Especially true, when we know what will be heard is so very interdependant upon the "system" into which it is placed. Also, our own hearing so often called 'preferance' which I believe goes so much further than that. I now must conclude people hear diferently and also acclimate and accommodate, perhaps in our brain with the use of Headphones speciffically. Then this presentation become the referance by which others are judged. Or else we can conclude the fans of both the HD-650 and Grados are simply whacky because the other phone has such obvious sonic flaws, forgeting we ourselves too are a major componet in this sonic chain . /Maybe

How about the obvious flaws of the AKG's? In my experience, AKG's may sound superficially right, i.e. so as to let you think they're sounding right in a brief listen, yet are bound to reveal their musical flaws at length... Never experienced the same with my Senns. In fact, quite the opposite.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn I believe his exact words were "peaks and valleys" - in other words, not a ruler-flat freq graph.

Oh, that makes much more sense. Although some of those valleys are in there for a reason. Here is a quote from a review:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Phillips In addition to being made of a different material, the 650's diaphragms are constructed differently -- it's a membrane of variable thickness that has been tuned by ear. Not only by ear -- Sennheiser has comprehensive test and measurement facilities -- but engineer Axel Grell found that when the 'phones measured flat, they sounded harsh. So he very carefully tuned the response to have notches at 5kHz and 16kHz. These notches, speculates headphone maker-designer Tyll Hertsens, of HeadRoom, mimic the ridge notches of the concha -- the largest and deepest concavity of the external ear, or pinna -- which help you determine the azimuth and elevation of sounds.

I wonder if that is actually correct.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, that makes much more sense. Although some of those valleys are in there for a reason. Here is a quote from a review: I wonder if that is actually correct.

That very much confirms my earlier Sennheiser veil theory!

So basically they said that flat headphone sounded harsh, so they made those dips to make it enjoyable and euphonic. But again, not all ears are same, so they find Senns too veiled (includes me) to be enjoyable and find their musical bliss in flatter headphones like DT880 and such.

*moonwalks*

 

[Albert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder if that is actually correct.

So should be. That may explain why my Senns still sound right to me after a looong listen, while my AKG's didn't.

 

[MaZa]

About K701 bass, i guess people find it almost nonexistent because its so ghastly thin, despite frequency graphs? Testing mic in the other hand picks it easier. Senns have "wet and heavy" lush pumping bass that is easily perceived by everyone.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert /img/forum/go_quote.gif How about the obvious flaws of the AKG's? In my experience, AKG's may sound superficially right, i.e. so as to let you think they're sounding right in a brief listen, yet are bound to reveal their musical flaws at length... Never experienced the same with my Senns. In fact, quite the opposite.

Maybe we're reading too much into FRGs.....because if you looked at the HeadRoom FRG of the k701, you'd wonder why some on here call it the "accurate" "neutral" "reference" or whatever other cliche you want to use

IMO, a lot of our perception of a headphone comes from it mids: not so much its treble or bass extension. The HD600 has larger spikes in the middle frequencies over the HD650....yet the HD650 has more treble and bass extension. So many feel the HD600 is brighter. You look at the FRG of the k701, and you'd think it would be schizophrenic.....big bass, really high spike in the middle frequencies, and big dip in the upper treble regions. So maybe it's the emphasis in the middle frequencies that people identify with the k701. Or maybe the FRG of the HeadRoom k701 is so far off, that it's not typical for anyone's system. Who knows

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif That very much confirms my earlier Sennheiser veil theory! So basically they said that flat headphone sounded harsh, so they made those dips to make it enjoyable and euphonic. But again, not all ears are same, so they find Senns too veiled (includes me) to be enjoyable and find their musical bliss in flatter headphones like DT880 and such. *moonwalks*

Not to make it more enjoyable and euphonic per se, but to make the perceived response more neutral. Just because something measures flat, doesn't mean it will sound flat at the eardrum. As for the DT880... I don't think something with such a huge peak in the treble could be considered flat by any definition of the word. ;D

 

[Jahn]

yep, if two separate Senn reps say it, it's probably definitely part of the Senn approach at this time. again, it's not BAD, it's just "tailored" and not everyone is going to like it, just like not everyone is going to actually enjoy a true flat response either.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif About K701 bass, i guess people find it almost nonexistent because its so ghastly thin, despite frequency graphs? Testing mic in the other hand picks it easier. Senns have "wet and heavy" lush pumping bass that is easily perceived by everyone.

another reason why I think bass is really a perception of the mids.....is that the really bass heavy headphones have a recession in the mids. The DT770 is the biggest example of bass heavy lush I can think of!

While AKGs have a lower bass, they also have prominent mids....so we percieve the mids more. Our senses always like to reach an equalibrium.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to make it more enjoyable and euphonic per se, but to make the perceived response more neutral. Just because something measures flat, doesn't mean it will sound flat at the eardrum. As for the DT880... I don't think something with such a huge peak in the treble could be considered flat by any definition of the word. ;D

Cough Cough *flashes the -2db 10Khz EQ setting*

Yeah, its not the flattest headphone there, but I take that slight spike anyday than dips. In my ears, reducing something doesnt affect soundquality so badly, but trying to enhance something with EQ disturbs other frequencies too badly. I dont even use that slight bassboost anymore with my DT880 cuz it muddied other frequencies too much, and losed all tightness.


Quote:

another reason why I think bass is really a perception of the mids.....is that the really bass heavy headphones have a recession in the mids. The DT770 is the biggest example of bass heavy lush I can think of! While AKGs have a lower bass, they also have prominent mids....so we percieve the mids more. Our senses always like to reach an equalibrium.

True. Human hearing is sharpest in the middle, so if that is recessed by headphone (or extremes boosted, doesnt matter) bass and highs seems more prominent. But notice, the mids between HD650 and K701 doesnt overall differ much when frequency graph is looked, except K701 doesnt have those dips in upper mids but it matters not in this case. Still HD650 is way bassier in the ear while K701 seems thin like dying breath (exaggeration). But looking at the graphs it shouldnt be like that, so there is gotta something funky in K701 soundtone how it plays bass frequencies.

=255&graphID[]=549]http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCom...phID[]=549

 

[Davesrose]

Whatever inaccuracies there are in the HR graphs, the k701 does have quite a larger hump in the 10K range over the HD650. It then has some massive dips in the upper treble range, so that's why I think maybe this 10K range is the most important in percieving brightness.....and overall bass is the amount of recession in the mids. Hince why so far all Beyers I've listened to have seem veiled to me. They have bigger bass and upper treble, but recession in the mids to my ears.

 

[SeagramSeven]

Many of the K701's upper frequencies are 5-8dB louder than the 650's.

The K701's bass region however is only 1-3dB louder.

The result of that when presented in a song is simple---bass sounds louder on the 650.

If you are going to use the graph as your reference---you must take the entire graph into account, not simply the bass region. When taken as a whole, it makes sense.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn /img/forum/go_quote.gif dunno, but what sounds like Bass to my ears, the HD650 has it, the K701 doesn't.

X2

Well, the HD650 has more of it and is more impactful

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many of the K701's upper frequencies are 5-8dB louder than the 650's. The K701's bass region however is only 1-3dB louder. The result of that when presented in a song is simple---bass sounds louder on the 650. If you are going to use the graph as your reference---you must take the entire graph into account, not simply the bass region. When taken as a whole, it makes sense.

You're probaply right.

Somebody that has HD650 and K701, try -5db on 7-12Khz frequency range and confirm if its the highs that is disrupting the bass.

 

[laxx]

I don't know. I really need to hear the HD650's to judge, but I find my k701's have just the rigth amount of bass for me. It makes me very curious as to how the 650's sound.