vid
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2005
- Posts
- 2,063
- Likes
- 130
Thanks for the info, Jefic!
Don't take my questions the wrong way, I'd just like to clarify things a bit further. You describe the 530 as woolly-sounding, but don't seem aware which version it was? Also, what's the source for the info that the drivers aren't the same between the 530 and the 560?
A guy made a review of the HD 540 and HD 560 here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/208013/review-8-european-full-size-open-dynamics-1985-1995-long
Although I'm not sure if wyki would agree with the boominess in the bass, this is also a guy who found (or had reason to assume) some 560s to have been bright.
Don't take my questions the wrong way, I'd just like to clarify things a bit further. You describe the 530 as woolly-sounding, but don't seem aware which version it was? Also, what's the source for the info that the drivers aren't the same between the 530 and the 560?
A guy made a review of the HD 540 and HD 560 here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/208013/review-8-european-full-size-open-dynamics-1985-1995-long
All of the first series 540 and 560 headphones were bright and a bit thin-sounding, something that was probably overcompensated for in the boomy and bass-heavy second series. ... The first things you notice with the [second series] HD560 are the big, boomy bass presence, warm sound, and deep soundstage. The second things you notice are the rolled-off treble, limited detail resolution, and inability to handle complex passages. This headphone may be the origin of the famous Senn veil.
Although I'm not sure if wyki would agree with the boominess in the bass, this is also a guy who found (or had reason to assume) some 560s to have been bright.