As one of the few Sony R10 naysers, I'd like to clarify my position as I feel I've somewhat contributed to some rather bizarre inspirations.
I think the Sony R10 is an excellent headphone. It is, in my view, undoubtedly better than the HD600. I'd go as far as to say it is undeniably better than the HD600. In my audition of it, I could not put my finger on a single aspect of the R10 that I did not like better than the HD600.
How much better? That takes a little more explaining.
First, let me say that I like the HD600 a lot. Not so long ago, my headphone world was much smaller and I thought the HD600 headphone was the best there was. I already thought it obscenely overpriced and honestly conisdered it just an over-the-top made-to-cost-more version of the already overpriced-yet-best-there-was HD580. I was wrong on a number of counts. One, of course, is that as I learned, the HD600 actually is marginally better than the HD580--the bass ever so slightly tighter and the highs ever so slightly cleaner and more focused. Finally, while the retail price of the HD600 is rather high ($450!!), the street price is closer to half that... and Grado's competing headphones easily cost more regardless.
After spending some time with the HD600, I found some shortcomings that rather surprised me a bit. Keep in mind, before this time I thought these were the best there were. How could they possible 1) have an audibly recessed upper midrange that makes vocals seem distant compared to the rest of the music, 2) lack absolute bass extension, and 3) have an overall excessive and sloppy midbass. Yet, that is how I felt about them. It was sad for me. Sennheiser was like a fallen hero in my world. Amp upgrades and cable upgrades later, these flaws became less pronounced in the Sennheiser and I came to regain much of my admiration for the headphone. Yet those flaws never completely disappear.
Flaws that... frankly, the Sony R10 does not have. The bass of the Sony R10 may not be the best in an absolute way but I find it to be more balanced than the HD600 without the midbass bloat. I also, of course, found no recession in the vocal region. Quite the contrary. The R10 places some amount of emphasis on the vocal region that makes female vocals sound especially sweet. This, it has in common with the AT W2002, along with the W2002's beautiful continous soundstage. It's no wonder some people love this headphone. But why not get the W2002 instead then since it is so much more available and cheaper? The W2002 has a glaring signature in its lower registers--a murkiness that haunts its bass and flavors the body of instruments. I'm told this trait subdues on some amplifiers but by the same token, I've heard the headphone on amps that many of its fans love. While MRael implied otherwise in his reviews, my belief is that most folks who like the W2002 would like the R10 just a little bit more.
The R10 is also what I would regard as a high resolution headphone. That is to say not much gets lost when you're listening for details. Such a fine gradient of volume exists that a true sense of depth is accomplished and even vocalled layering effects in pop and rock music have a surreal aspect of convincing you that the singers must clone themselves and stand next to one another in a real three-dimensional space. Again, this quality is found in many headphones but the HD600 even on the best amplifiers, just can't keep up.
So the R10 is perfect then? Not in my book, no. But it isn't looking at how the R10 is better than the HD600 that would help you establish that. Better would be to look at what the two headphones have in common. Both headphones, to my ears, sound much like good speakers. To use an analogy, maybe the HD600s are somewhat like NHTs and the R10s more like Thiels--different quality grades but still both quite obviously speakers. Never was I convinced with either headphone that I was hearing a real instrument. I was, at all times, listening to music that sounded very much like they were being played through a speaker. I'm told this is probably the accuracy of timbre that seems to matter more to me than to other folks. It may not be so important to you and I think whatever your preferences may be, they're just as valid as mine. For me, part of the emotion is caught up in the beauty of the instrument itself and that seems to be quite an elusive trait for me.
Of all the dynamic headphones I have auditioned, it is the long discontinued Joseph Grado HP-1000 that can best do this slight of hand, not the lofty R10. I have a feeling I would think the same of the Grado RS-1 as well if it weren't just bright enough to make it impossible for me to overlook the distraction. In either case, this is a primary spot where I feel the R10 falls short--and to be honest, it falls just as short as the HD600 does. Neither are truly convincing for me and this contributes much to my belief of the R10 being somewhat overrated and overpriced. How could I justify paying so much more for a headphone that does not solve what to me is such a glaring fault? I couldn't and I could easily find less costly alternatives in the way of Stax electrostatics that DO solve this problem and are far more convincing to me.
Secondly, while I did find the overall curves of the R10's frequency response to be pleasing, it did not portray a sense of being a flat linear response. I don't think that was ever the intent of the R10 if indeed it was ever the intent of any headphone. Worse yet, because of the shapes and curves within our individual ears, that I hear may not be such a close approximation of what anyone else hears anyway. But... what I hear, are obvious frequency spikes and curves. The results can sometimes be seductive as they are here and with the W2002 and the HD600, though perhaps even moreso here, but for me, they can also be a distraction. For me the ultimate headphone sounds not only good but invisible. Reproduce the sound and get out of the way is my feeling on the matter. Again, I found the old HP-1000 doing this the most accurately (though, I'd give a good honorable mention to the Etymotic ER-4S as well). And the Stax? Even better--so much so that when I've listened I've had trouble finding any spots where the Stax don't sound flat and linear.
As far as bass goes, I feel I'm definitely left of center. For me, tactile bass has no rank of importance and yet audible bass notes are excruciatingly important to me. When they are absent or recessed, I feel that the entire lower frequency response is weak and lacking in body and richness. None of these headphones are particularly lacking in this department. I found the R10 to have adequate bass relative to whatever amp I plugged it into. On the Max, it was better than most and on the RKV (the very same RKV Vertigo owned, albeit a repair or two later), the bass was excellent and full. I expect many would disagree with me but I also expect those people might often be referring to tactile bass. Those HP-1000s aren't particularly impactful either and the Stax I love so much are practically as free from bass slam as the Etymotics are. And yet I love their bass because every note is reproduced and at the approriate level of volume.
So maybe my priorities aren't the norm. I don't expect that they are. I think we're talking about excellent high end headphones here regardless of where you mark the rankings and to tell you the truth, the pissing match that has become who has the best what seems unnecessary to me. I'd rather simply describe how I hear things and hope that information is useful to some other people. I'd not be at all surprised if anyone stacked any of these in a different order of preferences. Even the things that I found fault with in the HD600 for me are traits that endear them to some of their biggest fans. How can someone be wrong for liking a different flavor of ice cream than you like? To each his own, I say.
Is the R10 overrated? For me it is, yes. It falls too far short of the ideals the Stax and Grados come closer to achieving and not far enough ahead of the Sennheisers to be worth their extremely high price. For you, it may turn out differently.
And what about the HD590? Just so as not to leave a stone unturned, I only heard the HD590 briefly at the World of Headphones tour stop in Dallas. There I found the HD590 to be a little dryer, a littler brighter and a little thin sounding compared to the HD600. Clearly I liked the HD600 better but again, not by miles. If you'd never heard the HD600, you'd probably like the HD590 a lot and that there are a couple of people that like the 590 better is of no surprise to me.
That's enough. EOF and all that. Thanks for reading if you made it this far without cheating. If you don't like my spelling and sentence structure, you'll just have to find a way to go on living.
