[bizkid]

Does the HD600 change with burn in?

 

[henkie196]

  oh sure, don't get me wrong, the readers are always the victims. I was just saying it would be good for them to have a "skepticism starter pack". ^_^
as for reviewers, I found that it's really hard to have them make things clear between facts and impressions. after all, it's not like pro reviewers are any better at separating facts from feelings or how the sponsor is paying part of the bills.

 I rely on measurements so much because I can't really find reliable information otherwise. so I'm with you all the way. it's not easy to find good intel and preconceptions(on all sides) certainly don't help.

I have plenty of skepticism, but if you're just starting, you have no reference and it's hard to know which snippets of information actually apply to you. A quick scan of any audio equipment thread may yield many people that assert that this piece of equipment has a neutral sound signature, but without reference, one doesn't know if that sounds neutral to yourself or not at all. In my case, I value a neutral sound, but what I find neutral, most people seem to evaluate as either bright or bass light.
 
Measurements can be useful, but suffer the same problem. What measurement graph corresponds to what I find neutral? When does bass fall-off register to me as not having enough bass extension? When does a treble spike become bothersome / painful? And perhaps most difficult of all: what shape does the mids need to have to not sound neither recessed nor boosted?
 
In the end, there is no substitute for listening, but auditioning in a shop will not always give accurate results either. Plus there is generally little in the way of headphones to audition around here, at all. For in-ears this problem is even worse, though at least I know I can usually rely on ljokerl's word, because we both seem to have a similar idea of neutrality.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  oh sure, don't get me wrong, the readers are always the victims. I was just saying it would be good for them to have a "skepticism starter pack". ^_^
as for reviewers, I found that it's really hard to have them make things clear between facts and impressions. after all, it's not like pro reviewers are any better at separating facts from feelings or how the sponsor is paying part of the bills.

 I rely on measurements so much because I can't really find reliable information otherwise. so I'm with you all the way. it's not easy to find good intel and preconceptions(on all sides) certainly don't help.

I have plenty of skepticism, but if you're just starting, you have no reference and it's hard to know which snippets of information actually apply to you. A quick scan of any audio equipment thread may yield many people that assert that this piece of equipment has a neutral sound signature, but without reference, one doesn't know if that sounds neutral to yourself or not at all. In my case, I value a neutral sound, but what I find neutral, most people seem to evaluate as either bright or bass light.
 
Measurements can be useful, but suffer the same problem. What measurement graph corresponds to what I find neutral? When does bass fall-off register to me as not having enough bass extension? When does a treble spike become bothersome / painful? And perhaps most difficult of all: what shape does the mids need to have to not sound neither recessed nor boosted?
 
In the end, there is no substitute for listening, but auditioning in a shop will not always give accurate results either. Plus there is generally little in the way of headphones to audition around here, at all. For in-ears this problem is even worse, though at least I know I can usually rely on ljokerl's word, because we both seem to have a similar idea of neutrality.

yup finding a reference is the most common problem. for that sadly I don't know of any method that doesn't involve going to a store of a meet and try an bunch of devices. for DAC and amps, electrical neutral and fidelity are enough to me so I don't really need to hear them most of the times if I can find enough specs. but for headphones of course you can't know what a frequency response graph means until you have the graph of something you're hearing yourself, and then use the same source of measurements for next time.

 

[alitomr]

I have plenty of skepticism, but if you're just starting, you have no reference and it's hard to know which snippets of information actually apply to you. A quick scan of any audio equipment thread may yield many people that assert that this piece of equipment has a neutral sound signature, but without reference, one doesn't know if that sounds neutral to yourself or not at all. In my case, I value a neutral sound, but what I find neutral, most people seem to evaluate as either bright or bass light.

Measurements can be useful, but suffer the same problem. What measurement graph corresponds to what I find neutral? When does bass fall-off register to me as not having enough bass extension? When does a treble spike become bothersome / painful? And perhaps most difficult of all: what shape does the mids need to have to not sound neither recessed nor boosted?

In the end, there is no substitute for listening, but auditioning in a shop will not always give accurate results either. Plus there is generally little in the way of headphones to audition around here, at all. For in-ears this problem is even worse, though at least I know I can usually rely on ljokerl's word, because we both seem to have a similar idea of neutrality.

Ifwe cant even standardize the concept of neutral, the discussion becomesa mess. Neutral is a flat frequency response. Wr need some kind of objectivity because otherwise reading amd trying to figure out the performance of audio equipment without actually listening to it is as close to impossible as itgets.

If we establish and accept that neutral is a flat frequency response from 20hz to 20khz, the discussion could start to makesense, and as long as you have heard what abump/peak ora dip in a givenarea represents FOR YOU, you van start to get a solid idea of wjat you are looking for.

A good example of this is what i am experiencing now. I am enjoying my HD600 with the modi 2u and Valhalla 2 immensely forwhat they are. Truly impressive audio quality. But when i decidedto get myself a pair of headphones i wanted to get something similar towhat i get from my speaker system, consisting of Klipsch speakers and svs subs, powered through a yamaha receiver. a combo most called aggressive or bright, which the hd600 with tubes, the valhalla 2 in this case, is not. Icould see that coming because i have measured and remeasured my system and ive gotten familiar with bumps in certain areas, and dios in anotherand i know what i like. Ithink that is an exercise people who love audio need todo before going intoa buying rampage that is unlikely to provideany real, lasting satisfaction.

We first need to understandsone basics and that is frequenvy response. When we measure and tweak and measureagain itbecomes very easy to understanf what your preference is amd plan accordingly.

BTW, the mini dsp is a neat little device. I use it tointegrate and EQ my two subs, anf vould be agreat addition to most headphone rigs based on desktops, and it doesnt even requirea computerto operate. To @argyris who said something about the necessityy of EQ beyong a single application in Windows.

 

[alitomr]

Sorry for the typos. I will try to correct them in a few minutes, from my computer. This little tablet doesn't help...

 

[StanD]

Quote:
Quote:

  It's good to avoid the marketing trap. I believe that once you have a quality DAC and or amp, easy enough to find, the story about scaling is more about marketing than appreciable sound benefits. IMO belief is a scary tool for marketing and forums. I believe that headphones are where you'll set the stage for your listening experience.
 

I don't know if you'd need a quality DAC, there doesn't seem to be much sound quality difference between the different DACs that I've tried, mostly in sound signature. A good amp can be useful, if you have hard to drive headphones. Or if your DAP has a really weak amp section. But there seems, to me, little point in getting a DAC/amp that costs more than your headphones (which seems to happen a lot on Head-Fi). As you say, the headphones have the biggest impact on sound (quality and signature).

 

 
Other than portable devices, I purchase separate DACs and Amps. I find that Scaling, and a variety of nondescript subjective terms are often used in the concept of expressing a listener's wishful perceptions and makes for good marketing and forum banter. For the most part the HD600 has remarkabley managed to survive the usual treatment by diehard audiophiles, survived Sennhieser's attempt to decommission them and still thrives at the checkout counter. That alone speaks volumes as to it's audio prowess.
A couple of years ago I spoke with a Sennheiser marketing rep when the HD600 was out of stock. He said that they were ramping up production due to popular demand and they weren't going to go away, despite the HD650 being hailed as its successor. Profit motives have won the day.

 

[gEEkzz]

Is it me or are these really efficient despite the high impedance?
 
Full potential or enhancements to SQ aside, my onboard soundcard is able to drive them loud enough.

 

[KT66]

Source first, for a properly balanced chain the DAC/amp should be a bit better than the headphones, note I said better not more expensive.

Rubbish in rubbish out.

Been an audiophile for 30 years and source first has always proved itself correct, and of course the primary source is the music, so badly mastered music will always sound bad, even on PS1000/SR009/HDxxx

 

[Argyris]

Pinning down the concept of neutrality certainly isn't made any easier when we consider that we still don't have a consensus on which curve headphones should follow to produce a flat response at the eardrum. It may well be that, due to the unnatural arrangement of having drivers acoustically coupled to the ear, there is no one correct curve that will result in a natural sound for all recorded material, and that any selection will be to some degree a compromise.
 
And viewing data graphically is made all the more difficult when we consider all the different compensation curves used to produce graphs. Which assumption should we use? How should we interpret the results? For the DF-like curves commonly used for compensation, a slanted line, possibly with a notch centered between 5-6 kHz (like the HD 6x0) or a gradually downsloping midrange that bottoms out around 5-6 kHz before rising again (some Audeze and Stax models), from an anecdotal standpoint seems to produce the most pleasing results. I've seen HD 600 measurements with and without the notch, though, implying that some compensation curves take the notch into account. The amicable buccaneers have produced such charts, as has Golden Ears.
 
What I can say is that purely DF-tuned headphones, which draw a nearly perfect flat line (like the V6/7506), don't sound very good to me at all, having too much upper midrange glare and harshness in the lower treble. This is not an uncommon opinion. Headphones like this look better on the chart, but they don't sound better (unless you like that DF tuning--I've never been able to get on with it).
 
Ultimately we need a compensation curve that takes into account the sound most people seem to feel is natural, so that a flat line on the chart is actually the ideal result. Then, at least, we will have a graphical target to shoot for that makes sense. Determining what this target should be, though, isn't easy because it's largely subjective. This is more or less what Tyll is working on currently, in collaboration with Harman. Preliminary results aren't surprising at all: the HD 600 charts as mostly flat but with bass rolloff and a slight push in the upper midrange.

 

[alitomr]

  Is it me or are these really efficient despite the high impedance?
 
Full potential or enhancements to SQ aside, my onboard soundcard is able to drive them loud enough.

For some reason I can not explain because I dont know the science of it, it is not ONLY about loudness. You will find a lot of people who say it is, I invite you to try different gear and hear for yourself. I have been listening to my HD600 from my iphone, laptop, receiver, mixer, magni 2 uber and now from the valhalla 2. Even though the magni 2 uber has power, allegedly, to break the drivers (HD600 has a maximum nomimal power handling  of 200vW, vs. the 320mW output of the magni into 300ohms.), the difference with it and the Valhalla 2 is quite noticeable. You will be able to hear MORE things and some of what you hear will sound way differently, better, with "better" meaning "how they actually sound when you are next to the thing/instrument making the sound". 
 
At this point, with only two days wth the Valhalla 2, my recommendation for anyone thinking about spending 300usd in the HD600 is to at least get the Valhalla 2, or some of its competitors, because it is sad to listen to them performing worse than this, knowing they are capable of this... If the budget dont allow, get them now (it is likely you will enjoy them even from the headphone out of a laptop) and save to get something at the level of the V2, and prepare to be pleasantly surprised with the improvement. 
 
I couldn't get my mind to spend more in electronics than the actual speakers o headphones producing the sound, but it seems that economies of scale and other cost factors have helped us to get incredibly performing speakers and headphones, but not so much for high end or mid end audio electronics. It makes sense if the main cost factor is economies of scale: way more people buy speakers than they buy amps, at least high end...

 

[StanD]

  Is it me or are these really efficient despite the high impedance?
 
Full potential or enhancements to SQ aside, my onboard soundcard is able to drive them loud enough.

IMO, they are not as inefficient or hard to drive as many make them out to be. Nor do they require tube amps to sound proper. Some people believe otherwise, however, there is no technical reason for special requirements other than the amp be able to swing enough voltage to drive 300 Ohm cans to the power levels sufficient for the HD600's. Beyond that, enter the world of the subjective experience, your call.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I'm curious if other JRiver users could give me their opinion on my low bass boost attempt with the HD 600. I hear it as an improvement, but I would like to know if it is just me. I use 3 low-shelf filters to gently boost:
 
1st 80Hz Q=0.4 +2db
2nd 60Hz Q=0.8 +1.5db
3rd 40Hz Q=0.6 + 1db
 
I'm just starting to try this, and I have no idea if it is a bad idea in terms of basic EQing fundamentals. I am trying to see if multiple adjustments is somehow better at restoring the low bass than one larger boost. My logic, which might be flawed so please any input is welcome is that I want the 80Hz to spread out the most with both of the other adjustments being narrower. The db boost is I think modest, but again all feedback is welcome. I might actually be creating more issues than I'm solving.

 

[castleofargh]

  I'm curious if other JRiver users could give me their opinion on my low bass boost attempt with the HD 600. I hear it as an improvement, but I would like to know if it is just me. I use 3 low-shelf filters to gently boost:
 
1st 80Hz Q=0.4 +2db
2nd 60Hz Q=0.8 +1.5db
3rd 40Hz Q=0.6 + 1db
 
I'm just starting to try this, and I have no idea if it is a bad idea in terms of basic EQing fundamentals. I am trying to see if multiple adjustments is somehow better at restoring the low bass than one larger boost. My logic, which might be flawed so please any input is welcome is that I want the 80Hz to spread out the most with both of the other adjustments being narrower. The db boost is I think modest, but again all feedback is welcome. I might actually be creating more issues than I'm solving.

what is your objective? if it's for you to like it and you like it, then you've got it right ^_^

 

[Argyris]

  I'm curious if other JRiver users could give me their opinion on my low bass boost attempt with the HD 600. I hear it as an improvement, but I would like to know if it is just me. I use 3 low-shelf filters to gently boost:
 
1st 80Hz Q=0.4 +2db
2nd 60Hz Q=0.8 +1.5db
3rd 40Hz Q=0.6 + 1db
 
I'm just starting to try this, and I have no idea if it is a bad idea in terms of basic EQing fundamentals. I am trying to see if multiple adjustments is somehow better at restoring the low bass than one larger boost. My logic, which might be flawed so please any input is welcome is that I want the 80Hz to spread out the most with both of the other adjustments being narrower. The db boost is I think modest, but again all feedback is welcome. I might actually be creating more issues than I'm solving.

 
I would agree with castleofargh at this point. What you've done seems quite modest overall, just enough to add a little bit of extra oomph to the lows without going any higher. The actual measured rolloff gets more severe as the frequency gets lower, so making the lower frequency bands higher in amplitude might result in a more accurate result. But I'm guessing the point of this exercise is to dial in a sound you like, so if your settings sound good to you, then enjoy! 

 

[DavidA]

  Is it me or are these really efficient despite the high impedance?
 
Full potential or enhancements to SQ aside, my onboard soundcard is able to drive them loud enough.

The HD-600 is quite efficient, it can get way too loud for me on a Fiio X3 and even louder on my computer's headphone output.