shivohum
Keeper of the Quotes
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Posts
- 903
- Likes
- 12
I've had my Audio Technica W100 for a few weeks now, and my Sennheiser HD600 for a few months (though I owned another pair a year before that, and owned 580s for two years).
I've organized this review for maximum viewing pleasure. First come my conclusions on the sound of these two headphones as compared to each other. Second I talk about build quality and comfort. Third I give track-by-track comparisons of these two headphones on the Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc, Stereophile Test CD1, and some vinyl.
I must talk about how difficult it was to make my conclusions on this review. The W100 is a very persuasive headphone; every time I put it on trying to listen for its weaknesses, I ended up getting wrapped up in it... until a while later the imperfections in the music woke me up and I remembered my purpose. The HD600's problems are much more apparent: you put them on for a moment and there's nothing deceptive about the headphone's sound. Everything's laid up-front and on the table.
I tried to use an SPL meter to keep the volumes of the two headphones about the same when doing my comparisons, but since Radio Shack SPL meters aren't notorious for their accuracy, and I used music, not test tones, to calibrate the meter, and I didn't do the calibration before every track in my comparisons, the volumes were, just that -- "about the same."
System Used:
- Digital Source: Stan Warren Modified Pioneer DV-333
- Analog Source/Phono Amp: Music Hall MMF-2 and Radio Shack Phono Stage
- Interconnects: Stan Warren designed T1 interconnects
- Amp: David Berning micro-ZOTL w/1950s RCA 6SN7s and Telefunken 12AT7s
The HD600:
Quick Overall Character: Confident, solid, warm, coherent, slightly laid-back, and on the whole neutral and natural.
Break-in: There is some improvement on break-in after a few weeks. The music becomes more effortless; dynamics seem to improve.
Highs: Clear and delicate.
Mids: Gorgeous, but can be a bit recessed in certain places, like the upper midrange, which is the chief culprit. This leads to a sound that may sometimes feel not quite raw enough. But really, in this respect it is superior to the 580s, which were more polite. In the lower midrange there is a slight and pleasant warmth that gives music body.
Lows: Controlled and quite respectable, but not quite as deep as I'd like -- that last octave really isn't there.
Texture: The HD600s are able to communicate the texture of musical instruments quite well, and I especially like their ability to move air. For example, when a vocalist powerfully exhales a breathy note, you'll often feel the impact of that breath.
Macrodynamics: The HD600s are the best headphones I've heard in terms of their ability to portray the force of massive changes in volume with vigor. Again, this relates to the texturing ability above, because the visceral impact of these dynamic changes is really felt and is exciting in a natural way.
Soundstage: The HD600 places you in a quiet space that of course varies in size and scope depending on the recording. The key elements here are that typically one would is not extremely close to the instruments, as with Grados, and that in combination with the circumaural and comfortable nature of the headphones, these headphones can disappear -- one can come very close to forgetting that one is wearing headphones at all. In that sense these are very speaker-like. You'll find that with orchestras, the HD600 places the elements very well, although you may not hear real pinpoint imaging.
Microdynamics: The HD600 also has excellent microdynamics. Because of the way the HD600 distances you somewhat from the performance, it may seem that other headphones deliver the tiniest nuances of a performance better than the HD600 -- but I've typically found that, with some exceptions (Stax), these are frequency response aberrations more than truly better resolution.
Fatigue Factor: Definitely very unfatiguing. I can listen to these for hours with no problem. Of course for some people the powerful grip these have on your head can be a problem, but that's a separate issue not related to the sonics. This problem can be cured by putting a big book in between the earpads when the headphones are not in use.
Vocals: Reproduces pitch very well and shows voices to be...very human. Unfortunately, not quite as heavenly and ethereal as certain Stax headphones. Some female vocalists can be a little distant -- part of the laid-back quality of these heapdhones. But there is a deep solidity and zest to the voices, too.
Chamber Music: Excellent.
Symphonic Music: Outstanding. The macrodynamic abilities of this headphone combined with their neutrality make symphonic climaxes a real rush.
Pop Music: Ironically, these are almost certainly the best headphones for pop music I've heard. The simplicity and purity of the music really comes through.
Rock: I really don't listen to much of it, so I'm not sure I am so qualified to comment. But from what little I heard, these are excellent for the rock music generally speaking -- mostly because they can be so thunderous and yet keep the melodies going so well.
Strength Summary: The HD600 is a headphone that is very skilled at bringing out the flow of music. I compared it a few times to the Ety ER4S and although the ER4S is arguably more detailed, notes don't lead into each other nearly smoothly as the 600 -- you can't follow the melody with as much gusto. The HD600 is very dynamic, smooth, and slightly warm, with high neutrality throughout the spectrum. Its soundstage is very speaker-like as well.
Weakness Summary: Its two drawbacks are that it can sound a little polite on some music, and that its bass could do deeper, but ultimately these are flaws that are more acceptable than the vast majority of headphones possess.
---
The W100:
Break-in: Just as Tomcat and others have claimed, break-in is an enormous factor with the sound of these headphones. In the first 30-40 hours, these headphones were very harsh. They lacked bass and were thin and pretty painful to the ear. Playing pink noise and music at very high levels, it took until essentially around 80-90 hours to develop their full character: an energetic, bass-rich powerhouse. Hints of the old treble are still there, though, and can occassionally catch you by surprise.
Quick Overall Character: Involving, ear-catching, forceful, strong, rich. Think hot volcanic magma -- deep, and warm... not much air. Music played on these headphones is colored, everything possessing a sort of woody texture to it -- either hollow or rich.
Highs: Has top end energy in spades, and instruments like flutes are reproduced well, although, despite all the break-in, the W100 can be a little raspy at times.
Mids: Feels like a window into the sound, but a narrow window. I think this is the woody quality of the headphone -- it imparts a transparency, but only in the narrow range where the wood of the headphone is in natural sympathy with the sound. In the
rest of the frequency space, that transparency is lacking.
Lows: Rich and reverberant. Very tuneful. This is the star quality of this headphone, and I prefer the lows on this headphone to the HD600. But what makes it preferable is not the fact that it goes so much deeper (I don't think it does), but that the bass conveys the tones better.
Texture: Woody. You can hear this resonance on all music, and because of this wooden instruments like violins often sound more natural on these headphones than on the HD600. On the other hand, some of the beauty of the true timbre of other instruments is given up.
Macrodynamics: Pretty good. I think the problem here is that the unfortunate resonances of this headphone limits the emotional rewards of any existing macrodynamics. However, there's no question that this is a quick headphone and can go loud fast.
Soundstage: You're close to the stage (like Grados), and the stage is wide (unlike them), but not particularly deep (like them). I feel that during complex passages of the music, the "big picture" can be lost... also, I think the W100 often fails to reproduce subtle ambient cues. I think that these may be homogenized due to the headphone's woody resonances. This, I think, is what contributes to the feeling of a lack of air in recordings, not any lack of treble energy.
Microdynamics: Excellent. The W100 has an intimate sound to it that captures with ease minor volume fluctuations. The sound is a little dry, but -- likely because this is nominally a closed headphones -- comes from a "silky" background. Indeed, this background is the very first thing I noticed the moment I initially listened to the W100. This silkiness, though, does seem to be one good thing that was actually reduced after break-in. In any case, the silences between notes are still blacker than with the HD600, and this lower noise floor allows some greater amount of refinement in microdynamics.
Fatigue Factor: These headphones were only very slightly fatiguing, and I wore them sometimes for 5-6 hours at a time. What little fatigue I did endure I attribute to the W100's closed nature, which created a slight pressure around my ears.
Vocals: This is probably the weak point of the W100. The W100 has a sort of unnatural roundness to voices, and on the ZOTL, they sounded "ripe" and excessively deep. This is perhaps pleasant, but it does not sound right to me. The vocals still sound good generally, but it cannot stand up to its peers in this highest class of headphones.
Chamber Music: Good. The immediacy and energy of the instruments make up in many ways for their less-than-perfect timbre.
Symphonic Music: A little disappointing. Again, neutrality is a requirement here, and although the W100 is sufficiently dynamic, its resonances & spikey treble don't let those dynamics show their stuff so well.
Pop Music: Excellent. The W100's superb bass performance rhythmic abilities make pop music a pleasure. There is a small loss of neutrality but the music is very immediate and has a "live" sound to it.
Rock: Interestingly, with certain rock-and-roll and big band music I think the W100 is definitely more enjoyable than the HD600. It's a matter of that top-end energy, I suspect, in which the HD600 is somewhat lacking. But this is really recording dependent. On some recordings the HD600's greater tonal neutrality wins out and in others the W100's higher energy is more important. Overall, though, I would say that the HD600 is more consistently enjoyable while the W100 can be a star on some music and a dud with other music.
Other notes:
Strength Summary: The W100 commands your attention. It's not easy to keep it on as background music. Its treble energy, its powerful bass, its immediate soundstaging all contribute to a headphone that screams strength, rhythm, power.
Weakness Summary: Unfortunately, the resonances of its earcup and its sometimes uneven treble undermine the ability of these headphones to carry a melody and to present instruments and voices in a natural way. They often sound alternately too full or too hollow, with wooden string instruments perhaps being an exception (they sound excellent).
---
Build Quality & Comfort
This has been talked about by so many others I'm going to keep my comments here brief.
The HD600 is light and comfortable, with soft velveteen pads. When using them at first, they exert an irritating pressure against your head. My solution was to put a large book between the earcups when I was not using the headphones; that naturally stretches the headband over time. I've found that a combination of this and simple use of the headphones has made them totally unobtrusive and extremely comfortable now.
The W100 definitely looks more like a high-end product should than the HD600. Its beautiful wooden cups and cloth-covered cord are seem to show an elegance and taste that the mundane German headphone has utterly neglected. It is, to boot, light and comfortable, but not as much as the HD600. It is a closed headphone, but it only isolates you a little bit from the outside. On the plus side, it definitely leaks less sound than the HD600.
---
Chesky Track by Track
Track #1. Narrators Voice:
W100: Voice is smooth but has unnatural chestiness. Voice sounds too bassy.
HD600: Voice is also smooth but much more natural. Voice is breathier: can hear inhalations of breath more easily.
Track #3: Rebecca Pidgeon, "Spanish Harlem"
HD600: Initial bass goes a little less deep than I would like. Rebecca's voice is sweet and breathy. Piano's a bit plasticky. Rises and falls of the voice are done with great ease. Each shake of the shaker does sound different, as it should, but each shake isn't as resolved as I've heard on other systems.
W100: Bass is tighter and more well-defined than with HD600. Voice is more discolored than with HD600; tonal restriction is easily audible. Voice is a little more sibilant. Instruments are more crowded. Shaker is perhaps a little less resolved than on HD600, though the difference is not very significant.
Track #5: Sara K., "If I could sing your blues"
W100: Trumpet is quite distant. Sarah's voice is 2-dimensional and reminds me a little of plywood
. I notice distinctly a lack of the ambience that I'm used to with this track. I don't send the dark club surrounding the place, only isolated instruments. Cymbal a bit splashy.
HD600: Wow. A big difference. Trumpet's even further away. Sarah's voice is a bit more distant, but it's also much more characterful and melodic. The music is now darker, softer, and more langorous. Perhaps the guitar is a little too liquid, though. I've got the ambience now. Instruments have more space around them. Voice seems a little too laid-back.
Track #9: Livingston Taylor, "Grandma's Hands"
HD600: Snap of the fingers at beginning of track is very natural.
Voices are also portrayed quite well, with the requisite solidity. There is a pleasant sensation of moving air
W100: Snap does not have the same solidity. Voices are reproduced with the right solidness, but the woody tonal coloration is very evident. Voices sound a bit flat. Music seems to have more energy. It's also evident from this that the mids are definitely recessed on these headphones. I had to raise the volume considerably higher than usual to get them to a point of subjective equality.
Track #11: Ana Caram, "Correnteza"
W100: Guitar melodic. Cello is gorgeous and resonant on this track. Tinkle near beginning is not as airy as it should be, I think. Ana's voice is again a little unnatural, seems a little drier and deeper than it should be, a little more "manly" if you will. Bird whistle near end of track seems a tad stifled.
HD600: The whole atmosphere is created; the space of the recording is 3-d to the W100's 2-d. Guitar and cello sound a little thin in comparison. Tinkle near beginning is definitely more tuneful and airy than it was on the W100. Ana sounds like a different person! Much more seductive, quiet, and natural. Perhaps a little too quiet, though. But still, made me want to continue listening to the track. Bird whistle is clearer than with W100. Rhythms on this headphone (e.g. with drum) may not be as insistent as with the W100, but they are somehow more insightful -- the instruments seem more aware of each other.
Track #13: Fred Hirsch Trio, "Played Twice"
HD600: Can hear the percussive sound of the piano very well, though perhaps not as clearly as I've heard with some other systems. Bass could be a tad more defined. Cymbals and drums are appropriately taut -- quite transparent. Could definitely stand to have a little more upper-midrange energy (but we all knew that, right?).
W100: Piano sounds more percussive than HD600. Drums sound startlingly live, significantly more so than HD600. Bass oddly seems not to go as deep here as HD600. Metallic quality of cymbal a little obscured.
Track #15: Tyner McCoy, "Ask Me Now"
W100: Saxophone warm all right, but that woodiness creeps in and diffuses the tone a little. Key pressing, etc. can all be heard very well, along with the echo against the back wall that the narrator asks us to look for.
HD600: Considerably more believable. More (correctly) metallic, more focused, a more subtle sense of rhythm. The sax's range is more coherently assembled. Also resolves the back room echo properly.
Track #17: Monty Alexander, "Sweet Georgia Brown"
HD600: Actually can summon quite a bit of energy here, and the various instruments play in tune and with knowledge of each other, in harmony if you will. Brass has a pleasing bite. Drum has a good, strong agitation. Piano can sound just a bit watered down at times. Despite my previous comments, song needs a little more "oomph" -- it's a bit too relaxing.
W100: Wow! We have an influx of energy here
. Things sounds faster and more intense, and also more intimate. Piano actually sounds more on-key here than HD600. Normal woody colorations are present here. Drums are more transparent than HD600.
Track #19: Johnny Frigo, "I Love Paris"
W100: Good sense of speed and rhythm, but violin is disappointingly narrow in its range. Doesn't sound as melodic as it should. Bass goes deep but does not seem all that well defined. Cymbals seem energetic but also a touch harsh. That tonal diffusion/woody texture/resonance again... I'm hearing it in every track.
HD600: Here comes back the melody. Much easier to follow the notes now. Cymbals more natural. Bass more tuneful. Overall ambience better reproduced. The song is a little too relaxed, though.
Track #23: Benjamin Britten, "Festival Te Deum"
HD600: The voices are sweet, but I wouldn't mind it if they were more articulate. Also, the ambience is produced expertly, but I just don't think headphones are up to the task of reproducing the whole ambience of a 90-foot cathedral. Organ isn't as visceral as I would like. Overall, the choir sounds superb, and the headphones cope well with the large dynamic changes.
W100: Organ seems to be more visceral, voices seem more palpable and forward. But definitely less ambience. Voices reveal their tonal colorations here, though -- there is not as much of a range in pitch, though they can certainly keep up in volume. Also, again that relative 2-dimensionality.
Now, for kicks, this last track again on the JMT w/enhanced bass crossfeed on.
W100: Voices seem to be more articulate, and the tonal discoloration a little reduced. There's also increased dynamic kick. On the other hand, the music is much drier -- it seems on the whole less compelling.
I've organized this review for maximum viewing pleasure. First come my conclusions on the sound of these two headphones as compared to each other. Second I talk about build quality and comfort. Third I give track-by-track comparisons of these two headphones on the Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc, Stereophile Test CD1, and some vinyl.
I must talk about how difficult it was to make my conclusions on this review. The W100 is a very persuasive headphone; every time I put it on trying to listen for its weaknesses, I ended up getting wrapped up in it... until a while later the imperfections in the music woke me up and I remembered my purpose. The HD600's problems are much more apparent: you put them on for a moment and there's nothing deceptive about the headphone's sound. Everything's laid up-front and on the table.
I tried to use an SPL meter to keep the volumes of the two headphones about the same when doing my comparisons, but since Radio Shack SPL meters aren't notorious for their accuracy, and I used music, not test tones, to calibrate the meter, and I didn't do the calibration before every track in my comparisons, the volumes were, just that -- "about the same."
System Used:
- Digital Source: Stan Warren Modified Pioneer DV-333
- Analog Source/Phono Amp: Music Hall MMF-2 and Radio Shack Phono Stage
- Interconnects: Stan Warren designed T1 interconnects
- Amp: David Berning micro-ZOTL w/1950s RCA 6SN7s and Telefunken 12AT7s
The HD600:
Quick Overall Character: Confident, solid, warm, coherent, slightly laid-back, and on the whole neutral and natural.
Break-in: There is some improvement on break-in after a few weeks. The music becomes more effortless; dynamics seem to improve.
Highs: Clear and delicate.
Mids: Gorgeous, but can be a bit recessed in certain places, like the upper midrange, which is the chief culprit. This leads to a sound that may sometimes feel not quite raw enough. But really, in this respect it is superior to the 580s, which were more polite. In the lower midrange there is a slight and pleasant warmth that gives music body.
Lows: Controlled and quite respectable, but not quite as deep as I'd like -- that last octave really isn't there.
Texture: The HD600s are able to communicate the texture of musical instruments quite well, and I especially like their ability to move air. For example, when a vocalist powerfully exhales a breathy note, you'll often feel the impact of that breath.
Macrodynamics: The HD600s are the best headphones I've heard in terms of their ability to portray the force of massive changes in volume with vigor. Again, this relates to the texturing ability above, because the visceral impact of these dynamic changes is really felt and is exciting in a natural way.
Soundstage: The HD600 places you in a quiet space that of course varies in size and scope depending on the recording. The key elements here are that typically one would is not extremely close to the instruments, as with Grados, and that in combination with the circumaural and comfortable nature of the headphones, these headphones can disappear -- one can come very close to forgetting that one is wearing headphones at all. In that sense these are very speaker-like. You'll find that with orchestras, the HD600 places the elements very well, although you may not hear real pinpoint imaging.
Microdynamics: The HD600 also has excellent microdynamics. Because of the way the HD600 distances you somewhat from the performance, it may seem that other headphones deliver the tiniest nuances of a performance better than the HD600 -- but I've typically found that, with some exceptions (Stax), these are frequency response aberrations more than truly better resolution.
Fatigue Factor: Definitely very unfatiguing. I can listen to these for hours with no problem. Of course for some people the powerful grip these have on your head can be a problem, but that's a separate issue not related to the sonics. This problem can be cured by putting a big book in between the earpads when the headphones are not in use.
Vocals: Reproduces pitch very well and shows voices to be...very human. Unfortunately, not quite as heavenly and ethereal as certain Stax headphones. Some female vocalists can be a little distant -- part of the laid-back quality of these heapdhones. But there is a deep solidity and zest to the voices, too.
Chamber Music: Excellent.
Symphonic Music: Outstanding. The macrodynamic abilities of this headphone combined with their neutrality make symphonic climaxes a real rush.
Pop Music: Ironically, these are almost certainly the best headphones for pop music I've heard. The simplicity and purity of the music really comes through.
Rock: I really don't listen to much of it, so I'm not sure I am so qualified to comment. But from what little I heard, these are excellent for the rock music generally speaking -- mostly because they can be so thunderous and yet keep the melodies going so well.
Strength Summary: The HD600 is a headphone that is very skilled at bringing out the flow of music. I compared it a few times to the Ety ER4S and although the ER4S is arguably more detailed, notes don't lead into each other nearly smoothly as the 600 -- you can't follow the melody with as much gusto. The HD600 is very dynamic, smooth, and slightly warm, with high neutrality throughout the spectrum. Its soundstage is very speaker-like as well.
Weakness Summary: Its two drawbacks are that it can sound a little polite on some music, and that its bass could do deeper, but ultimately these are flaws that are more acceptable than the vast majority of headphones possess.
---
The W100:
Break-in: Just as Tomcat and others have claimed, break-in is an enormous factor with the sound of these headphones. In the first 30-40 hours, these headphones were very harsh. They lacked bass and were thin and pretty painful to the ear. Playing pink noise and music at very high levels, it took until essentially around 80-90 hours to develop their full character: an energetic, bass-rich powerhouse. Hints of the old treble are still there, though, and can occassionally catch you by surprise.
Quick Overall Character: Involving, ear-catching, forceful, strong, rich. Think hot volcanic magma -- deep, and warm... not much air. Music played on these headphones is colored, everything possessing a sort of woody texture to it -- either hollow or rich.
Highs: Has top end energy in spades, and instruments like flutes are reproduced well, although, despite all the break-in, the W100 can be a little raspy at times.
Mids: Feels like a window into the sound, but a narrow window. I think this is the woody quality of the headphone -- it imparts a transparency, but only in the narrow range where the wood of the headphone is in natural sympathy with the sound. In the
rest of the frequency space, that transparency is lacking.
Lows: Rich and reverberant. Very tuneful. This is the star quality of this headphone, and I prefer the lows on this headphone to the HD600. But what makes it preferable is not the fact that it goes so much deeper (I don't think it does), but that the bass conveys the tones better.
Texture: Woody. You can hear this resonance on all music, and because of this wooden instruments like violins often sound more natural on these headphones than on the HD600. On the other hand, some of the beauty of the true timbre of other instruments is given up.
Macrodynamics: Pretty good. I think the problem here is that the unfortunate resonances of this headphone limits the emotional rewards of any existing macrodynamics. However, there's no question that this is a quick headphone and can go loud fast.
Soundstage: You're close to the stage (like Grados), and the stage is wide (unlike them), but not particularly deep (like them). I feel that during complex passages of the music, the "big picture" can be lost... also, I think the W100 often fails to reproduce subtle ambient cues. I think that these may be homogenized due to the headphone's woody resonances. This, I think, is what contributes to the feeling of a lack of air in recordings, not any lack of treble energy.
Microdynamics: Excellent. The W100 has an intimate sound to it that captures with ease minor volume fluctuations. The sound is a little dry, but -- likely because this is nominally a closed headphones -- comes from a "silky" background. Indeed, this background is the very first thing I noticed the moment I initially listened to the W100. This silkiness, though, does seem to be one good thing that was actually reduced after break-in. In any case, the silences between notes are still blacker than with the HD600, and this lower noise floor allows some greater amount of refinement in microdynamics.
Fatigue Factor: These headphones were only very slightly fatiguing, and I wore them sometimes for 5-6 hours at a time. What little fatigue I did endure I attribute to the W100's closed nature, which created a slight pressure around my ears.
Vocals: This is probably the weak point of the W100. The W100 has a sort of unnatural roundness to voices, and on the ZOTL, they sounded "ripe" and excessively deep. This is perhaps pleasant, but it does not sound right to me. The vocals still sound good generally, but it cannot stand up to its peers in this highest class of headphones.
Chamber Music: Good. The immediacy and energy of the instruments make up in many ways for their less-than-perfect timbre.
Symphonic Music: A little disappointing. Again, neutrality is a requirement here, and although the W100 is sufficiently dynamic, its resonances & spikey treble don't let those dynamics show their stuff so well.
Pop Music: Excellent. The W100's superb bass performance rhythmic abilities make pop music a pleasure. There is a small loss of neutrality but the music is very immediate and has a "live" sound to it.
Rock: Interestingly, with certain rock-and-roll and big band music I think the W100 is definitely more enjoyable than the HD600. It's a matter of that top-end energy, I suspect, in which the HD600 is somewhat lacking. But this is really recording dependent. On some recordings the HD600's greater tonal neutrality wins out and in others the W100's higher energy is more important. Overall, though, I would say that the HD600 is more consistently enjoyable while the W100 can be a star on some music and a dud with other music.
Other notes:
Strength Summary: The W100 commands your attention. It's not easy to keep it on as background music. Its treble energy, its powerful bass, its immediate soundstaging all contribute to a headphone that screams strength, rhythm, power.
Weakness Summary: Unfortunately, the resonances of its earcup and its sometimes uneven treble undermine the ability of these headphones to carry a melody and to present instruments and voices in a natural way. They often sound alternately too full or too hollow, with wooden string instruments perhaps being an exception (they sound excellent).
---
Build Quality & Comfort
This has been talked about by so many others I'm going to keep my comments here brief.
The HD600 is light and comfortable, with soft velveteen pads. When using them at first, they exert an irritating pressure against your head. My solution was to put a large book between the earcups when I was not using the headphones; that naturally stretches the headband over time. I've found that a combination of this and simple use of the headphones has made them totally unobtrusive and extremely comfortable now.
The W100 definitely looks more like a high-end product should than the HD600. Its beautiful wooden cups and cloth-covered cord are seem to show an elegance and taste that the mundane German headphone has utterly neglected. It is, to boot, light and comfortable, but not as much as the HD600. It is a closed headphone, but it only isolates you a little bit from the outside. On the plus side, it definitely leaks less sound than the HD600.
---
Chesky Track by Track
Track #1. Narrators Voice:
W100: Voice is smooth but has unnatural chestiness. Voice sounds too bassy.
HD600: Voice is also smooth but much more natural. Voice is breathier: can hear inhalations of breath more easily.
Track #3: Rebecca Pidgeon, "Spanish Harlem"
HD600: Initial bass goes a little less deep than I would like. Rebecca's voice is sweet and breathy. Piano's a bit plasticky. Rises and falls of the voice are done with great ease. Each shake of the shaker does sound different, as it should, but each shake isn't as resolved as I've heard on other systems.
W100: Bass is tighter and more well-defined than with HD600. Voice is more discolored than with HD600; tonal restriction is easily audible. Voice is a little more sibilant. Instruments are more crowded. Shaker is perhaps a little less resolved than on HD600, though the difference is not very significant.
Track #5: Sara K., "If I could sing your blues"
W100: Trumpet is quite distant. Sarah's voice is 2-dimensional and reminds me a little of plywood
HD600: Wow. A big difference. Trumpet's even further away. Sarah's voice is a bit more distant, but it's also much more characterful and melodic. The music is now darker, softer, and more langorous. Perhaps the guitar is a little too liquid, though. I've got the ambience now. Instruments have more space around them. Voice seems a little too laid-back.
Track #9: Livingston Taylor, "Grandma's Hands"
HD600: Snap of the fingers at beginning of track is very natural.
Voices are also portrayed quite well, with the requisite solidity. There is a pleasant sensation of moving air
W100: Snap does not have the same solidity. Voices are reproduced with the right solidness, but the woody tonal coloration is very evident. Voices sound a bit flat. Music seems to have more energy. It's also evident from this that the mids are definitely recessed on these headphones. I had to raise the volume considerably higher than usual to get them to a point of subjective equality.
Track #11: Ana Caram, "Correnteza"
W100: Guitar melodic. Cello is gorgeous and resonant on this track. Tinkle near beginning is not as airy as it should be, I think. Ana's voice is again a little unnatural, seems a little drier and deeper than it should be, a little more "manly" if you will. Bird whistle near end of track seems a tad stifled.
HD600: The whole atmosphere is created; the space of the recording is 3-d to the W100's 2-d. Guitar and cello sound a little thin in comparison. Tinkle near beginning is definitely more tuneful and airy than it was on the W100. Ana sounds like a different person! Much more seductive, quiet, and natural. Perhaps a little too quiet, though. But still, made me want to continue listening to the track. Bird whistle is clearer than with W100. Rhythms on this headphone (e.g. with drum) may not be as insistent as with the W100, but they are somehow more insightful -- the instruments seem more aware of each other.
Track #13: Fred Hirsch Trio, "Played Twice"
HD600: Can hear the percussive sound of the piano very well, though perhaps not as clearly as I've heard with some other systems. Bass could be a tad more defined. Cymbals and drums are appropriately taut -- quite transparent. Could definitely stand to have a little more upper-midrange energy (but we all knew that, right?).
W100: Piano sounds more percussive than HD600. Drums sound startlingly live, significantly more so than HD600. Bass oddly seems not to go as deep here as HD600. Metallic quality of cymbal a little obscured.
Track #15: Tyner McCoy, "Ask Me Now"
W100: Saxophone warm all right, but that woodiness creeps in and diffuses the tone a little. Key pressing, etc. can all be heard very well, along with the echo against the back wall that the narrator asks us to look for.
HD600: Considerably more believable. More (correctly) metallic, more focused, a more subtle sense of rhythm. The sax's range is more coherently assembled. Also resolves the back room echo properly.
Track #17: Monty Alexander, "Sweet Georgia Brown"
HD600: Actually can summon quite a bit of energy here, and the various instruments play in tune and with knowledge of each other, in harmony if you will. Brass has a pleasing bite. Drum has a good, strong agitation. Piano can sound just a bit watered down at times. Despite my previous comments, song needs a little more "oomph" -- it's a bit too relaxing.
W100: Wow! We have an influx of energy here
Track #19: Johnny Frigo, "I Love Paris"
W100: Good sense of speed and rhythm, but violin is disappointingly narrow in its range. Doesn't sound as melodic as it should. Bass goes deep but does not seem all that well defined. Cymbals seem energetic but also a touch harsh. That tonal diffusion/woody texture/resonance again... I'm hearing it in every track.
HD600: Here comes back the melody. Much easier to follow the notes now. Cymbals more natural. Bass more tuneful. Overall ambience better reproduced. The song is a little too relaxed, though.
Track #23: Benjamin Britten, "Festival Te Deum"
HD600: The voices are sweet, but I wouldn't mind it if they were more articulate. Also, the ambience is produced expertly, but I just don't think headphones are up to the task of reproducing the whole ambience of a 90-foot cathedral. Organ isn't as visceral as I would like. Overall, the choir sounds superb, and the headphones cope well with the large dynamic changes.
W100: Organ seems to be more visceral, voices seem more palpable and forward. But definitely less ambience. Voices reveal their tonal colorations here, though -- there is not as much of a range in pitch, though they can certainly keep up in volume. Also, again that relative 2-dimensionality.
Now, for kicks, this last track again on the JMT w/enhanced bass crossfeed on.
W100: Voices seem to be more articulate, and the tonal discoloration a little reduced. There's also increased dynamic kick. On the other hand, the music is much drier -- it seems on the whole less compelling.
