[depleted]

  Idk, I don't think I like how the x series is evolving. The x1 measured better, so I think I'd rather have that. I don't think philips is above making a regression. If you recall, they screwed up the cable on the x1, so they aren't infallible.

The whole point of Tyll review is that we thought X1 measured better, but this wasn't the case. He is rethinking the compensation model he used, so the graphs we thought were nice and flat didn't actually sound nice and flat.
 
First reviews say otherwise, but yes someone will say that X2 sounds worse, but not on the hypothesis that X1 measured better

 

[mandrake50]

  Idk, I don't think I like how the x series is evolving. The x1 measured better, so I think I'd rather have that. I don't think philips is above making a regression. If you recall, they screwed up the cable on the x1, so they aren't infallible. I'm going to assume they made a mistake somewhere with the x2 rather than tyll's generous assumption that philips did some psychoacoustic tuning.

Tyll talked to people directly involved in the design of the X2. In this case, I don't believe that it was an assumption. It seems that he was reporting what he had been told.. and relating what he actually heard.

 

[AnalogSavior]

This is why I'm really interested in trying them.  Only way to know for sure it to listen to them.

 

[vertical]

This is why I'm really interested in trying them.  Only way to know for sure it to listen to them.

+1 agreed!

 

[waynes world]

Same man. I only go with the MOST comfortable stuff. They are enough of a nuisance as it is, with wire and all. Don't need a ****ton of weight too. That means Beyers in, few Sennheisers in... Most other stuff OUT.

Fwiw, the X1's are one of my heavier headphones, but they are probably my most comfortable. And for some reason, I don't notice their weight.

 

[eac3]

  When Tyll says the X2 better balanced than the HD600 does that mean the treble is a bit recessed on the HD600 (even though it's less grainy)? 

 
What exactly do you mean by grainy? Has the X1's (and possibly X2) been grainy?

 

[SunshineReggae]

   
What exactly do you mean by grainy? Has the X1's (and possibly X2) been grainy?

read tyll's review man. Yes he says grainy treble is on X1.

 

[SunshineReggae]

Fwiw, the X1's are one of my heavier headphones, but they are probably my most comfortable. And for some reason, I don't notice their weight.

that is pretty cool, ofcourse, but there is no guarantee we share same standards on this matter. I will ever see for myself.

 

[AnalogSavior]

Well, in my experience the HD600 treble is just a little recessed (at least compared to what I have come to consider neutral), but its detail and absolute lack of any grain make up for it.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if the X2 was a touch grainier, though I would hope it wasn't very appreciable if Tyll still put it up there with the HD600.

 

[SunshineReggae]

Probably not. Anyhow, it's not necessarily a big deal. For instance, HD600 have weaknesses too. Subbass is bad, midbass hump is questionable, and soundstage could be more spacy.

 

[h1a8]

Are there any details on how the bass compares with the X1? I'm hoping that it doesnt get weaker

plus 1
I really hope the bass isn't lower at all. The two reasons why I love the x1 is the bass and the soundstage without being muddy.

 

[h1a8]

I hope the bass isn't lesser. I wouldn't mind more sub bass though than the x1. I love good bass slam without mudding or recessing the midrange.

 

[slackman]

  Probably not. Anyhow, it's not necessarily a big deal. For instance, HD600 have weaknesses too. Subbass is bad, midbass hump is questionable, and soundstage could be more spacy.

And the VEIL
I'm not much of a fan of the HD600, all midbass hump and mids to me, and that veil is just horrible to me (yes I've heard them amped properly, doesn't fix it for me). I like the HD650 better. Very un-neutral though, big bass makes for fun with lots of electronic music but again that veil is something I can't live with. They both sound like "slow" headphones to me, and do not give the impression of being full range (all focus is on slow mids to low mids to me, with some nice bass addition on HD650, HD650 is also a bit "smoother" sounding to me).
Even the HD800 isn't completely void of the "Sennheiser" sound to me. It too has just a tiny tiny bit of "veil" left to my ears in the treble and a not perfect focus to me (I know many won't agree here but to me it is so). But the HD800 is miles and miles ahead of the HD600 and HD650, no comparison here at all really.

The review of the X2 sounds great. Definately will be ordering them.
And good to hear they beat the HD600 on almost all points. Better imaging / width etc, better clarity, better bass. Wouldn't be a great headphone if it didn't beat the HD600 on those points.
Also had an AKG K701 btw, and while I liked it's imaging and focus I couldn't live with its plastic sound and no bass. Seems like the X2 has great imaging but unlike the K701 also sounds mostly neutral, not plastic but fun instead and with enough bass.
Sounds like the X2 is a total winner to me

 

[Head1]

  Well, in my experience the HD600 treble is just a little recessed (at least compared to what I have come to consider neutral), but its detail and absolute lack of any grain make up for it.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if the X2 was a touch grainier, though I would hope it wasn't very appreciable if Tyll still put it up there with the HD600.

That's how I read it but as sunshinereggae mentioned the X2 beats it in most other areas (going by what was written). So if he says it competes with the HD600 you can't really argue because that is just his opinion based on his study.
 
With regard to the midbass hump I'm guessing the X2 has one as well to make it warmish and intimate sounding.

 

[depleted]

Anyway from the review it's pretty clear that X2 bass is lower, in relation to the other frequencies