[bagwell359]

I'm gonna have to politely disagree with that. Headphones IMO can very much do some great bass reproduction and extension, so let's not get carried away with the absolute/rigid judgement mindset here. I like bass as much as the next guy, but to expect a headphone driver to produce the sort of impact/rumble/feel of something like a 10-12" subwoofer is just ridiculous. No amount of tinkering is going to overcome the physics of the the larger membrane being able to push air at such low frequencies with great accuracy. The lower the Hz, the less you're looking for a "sound" as opposed to the feel. For the purpose of a headphone, I'm expecting it to, at most, shake my head, not my body, with the driver that's 2 inches from my eardrum.

I'm reading what I've written above and while there's truth to it as well as probably a point, I can't for the life of me articulate it any better right now. Feel free to criticize, wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong, certainly not gonna be the last

Many of the really good bass cans are planar. Some of them are tuned to the basshead crowd. No use for those. Some like the MD 4XX are strong down to 55-60, but then fade out. The best are basically flat down to 30 and still pumping at 15.

You can get great bass at the ear. Not going to push you back in the chair however. Maybe get a sub that's crossed over just to run sub sonic. Seriously.

Back to to 600, what I like about them is what they do in the bass they do very well, what they don't do well, they don't attempt, and that makes them pretty easy to live with.

 

[bagwell359]

Well sure, I expect a headphone costing many times the price of the HD600 to exceed it in performance I am not really a believer that the industry has changed leaps and bounds, at least not in be-all end-all sound quality. Because in the end a TOTL headphone is only chasing down that last 5-10% performance, and I am willing to argue no headphone blows the HD600 out of the water to such a degree as to replace it. I also believe that people buy the headphones that they think sound best, otherwise why would we all be here? Obviously my preference and understanding of sound and target frequency response differs from yours, and that's also to be expected. To amend your statement: The HD600 lacks or the industry is a hoax, or we just hear differently. And I think that's a fine thing. There is no real right or wrong here, or at least if there is there is no way in hell anyone would agree anyway. I guess my point is, I still think the HD600 is kind of perfect, but you're also entitled to your opinion as well. Keep being an individual

I paid about $300 new for the 600 and $340 used for the 500, so that works for me as a comp.

I'm not sure that we have different tastes or target responses. I think I agreed with you 1.5 years ago - so it's maybe more of a matter of exposure/experience. What have you put against the 600 the past 1.5 years? I have heard the HFM Sundara, HFM HEX v2, Senn 800, LCD-2, LCD-3, and of course the HFM HE-500.

I don't know if people always buy cans that sound the same. I think they get complimentary cans (not opposite mind you). My cans choices are somewhat that way.

The 600 as I have written is a great choice for the price, probably still the flattest can I've heard. Great timbre. But it has flaws, and one can be a big fan of the device and still see and call out its flaws.

 

[yangian]

The 600 does the leading edge of drums very well but when you are talking sustain/moving air - no, it's not there. It's dynamic and fast but quite short on the grunt. The bass is a dead ringer for Cizek 1's a speaker from the late 70's/early 80's when the Q was set to .57 (10" woof). Very nice and tight, no overhang or sloppiness. Not powerful.

The 600 is the first good can I had for like 12 years, it was my ref. for some time. I listened to Grado 225's, 80's; HD-650, HD-700, AKG's, AT wood cups, and always was happy with the HD-600's - until I got a pair of HFM HE-500's a better can in almost every way (in my env), thus it's easy now to see the shortcomings of the 600 (which I point out were not that severe). The 600 sounds like a very good headphone the 500 cuts past the headphone part of the definition quite often. Better definition, better low level details, recording space/artifacts, bass under 50 hz much more in evidence, wider/deeper stage, jaw dropping mids - I.E. much more organic/real than the 600.

You are entitled to your choice, but, I cannot support your statement that the 600 is never lacking. It does lack OR the entire headphone industry since they debuted some years ago is nothing but a giant hoax. The HE-500's came later, as does a blizzard of cans since 2014, and many of them are better then the 600. Might not be as cost effective, but in an absolute money no object contest, the 600 is outgunned.

I agree you technically 600 is not the most prominent cans. But the merit of 600 is its ability of holistic illustration and its most natural timbre. Mechanically talking which aspect is better on whatever any other cans make little sense to me at least. It's like seeing tree only without perceiving forest.

 

[yangian]

I paid about $300 new for the 600 and $340 used for the 500, so that works for me as a comp.

I'm not sure that we have different tastes or target responses. I think I agreed with you 1.5 years ago - so it's maybe more of a matter of exposure/experience. What have you put against the 600 the past 1.5 years? I have heard the HFM Sundara, HFM HEX v2, Senn 800, LCD-2, LCD-3, and of course the HFM HE-500.

I don't know if people always buy cans that sound the same. I think they get complimentary cans (not opposite mind you). My cans choices are somewhat that way.

The 600 as I have written is a great choice for the price, probably still the flattest can I've heard. Great timbre. But it has flaws, and one can be a big fan of the device and still see and call out its flaws.

Anything has flaws, please!! Something that has no flaws in your eyes can be flawed in the eyes of others.

 

[kman1211]

Well sure, I expect a headphone costing many times the price of the HD600 to exceed it in performance I am not really a believer that the industry has changed leaps and bounds, at least not in be-all end-all sound quality. Because in the end a TOTL headphone is only chasing down that last 5-10% performance, and I am willing to argue no headphone blows the HD600 out of the water to such a degree as to replace it. I also believe that people buy the headphones that they think sound best, otherwise why would we all be here? Obviously my preference and understanding of sound and target frequency response differs from yours, and that's also to be expected. To amend your statement: The HD600 lacks or the industry is a hoax, or we just hear differently. And I think that's a fine thing. There is no real right or wrong here, or at least if there is there is no way in hell anyone would agree anyway. I guess my point is, I still think the HD600 is kind of perfect, but you're also entitled to your opinion as well. Keep being an individual

The difference between the very high fidelity headphones and the HD 600 may be more dramatic than you may think. What the HD 600 does exceptionally well is tuning, but is it the HD 600 last word in terms of fidelity? IMHO, no not even close, for example the much older DT 48/480 or a good electrostatic/STAX(including the old ones, some of the old STAX are just as good as the new stuff) far exceed the HD 600 in terms of fidelity. I heard the grain and distortion on the HD 600 and many other good headphones with ease after listening to those. I was actually shocked at the difference between some headphones. I haven’t heard a flawless headphone, even the highest fidelity headphones can have numerous flaws that marr or even ruin the experience, thus modding and/or EQ may be highly recommended for some of those headphones. There are a lot of cases of headphones with excellent drivers that aren’t properly utilized. I’m a fan of the HD 600’s tuning especially, but it does have its flaws.

I have found while headphone transducers haven’t improved much, overall headphone design has improved. Biggest improvements have been in tuning ability, housing design, computer modeling, precision, materials, and things such as Bluetooth, ANC, etc. Driver quality and fidelity hasn’t really changed much. I honestly like some of the older headphones as sometimes their tuning is more pleasing to the ear. Many do fall into the trap that newer is always better and the hype machine sadly.

 

[SilverEars]

I paid about $300 new for the 600 and $340 used for the 500, so that works for me as a comp.

I'm not sure that we have different tastes or target responses. I think I agreed with you 1.5 years ago - so it's maybe more of a matter of exposure/experience. What have you put against the 600 the past 1.5 years? I have heard the HFM Sundara, HFM HEX v2, Senn 800, LCD-2, LCD-3, and of course the HFM HE-500.

I don't know if people always buy cans that sound the same. I think they get complimentary cans (not opposite mind you). My cans choices are somewhat that way.

The 600 as I have written is a great choice for the price, probably still the flattest can I've heard. Great timbre. But it has flaws, and one can be a big fan of the device and still see and call out its flaws.

I think the most bass extension I've heard was HEK. You can feel the linear subs. My ears was used to either declined or rolled-off subs that it made me think the headphone was U-shaped because the subs was truly extended. I'll be getting my HE-500 fix soon.

I guess the way planars are designed, bass tend to extend. Not all planars are same in bass though. Hifiman and Audeze bass are different, and same for MrSpeakers.

The main weakness of Sennheisers are the bass. Probably due to the type of drivers used.

 

[muffins]

I paid about $300 new for the 600 and $340 used for the 500, so that works for me as a comp.

I'm not sure that we have different tastes or target responses. I think I agreed with you 1.5 years ago - so it's maybe more of a matter of exposure/experience. What have you put against the 600 the past 1.5 years? I have heard the HFM Sundara, HFM HEX v2, Senn 800, LCD-2, LCD-3, and of course the HFM HE-500.

I don't know if people always buy cans that sound the same. I think they get complimentary cans (not opposite mind you). My cans choices are somewhat that way.

The 600 as I have written is a great choice for the price, probably still the flattest can I've heard. Great timbre. But it has flaws, and one can be a big fan of the device and still see and call out its flaws.

Well I meant that people buy headphones that they like, not that they always buy the same type of headphone. My stable is similar in being diverse with tuning as well. As for experience, I have not owned the HD600 for even a year yet. And my TOTL experience is admittedly limited, as I don't own any current TOTL cans (which I cannot afford, nor will I ever be able to), only in-ears, of which I have the 8.2 Harmony and Vega with an Andromeda arriving tomorrow. I do however own the previously TOTL LCD-2, which you also own, and in my opinion it doesn't do anything better than the HD600. I find that bass extension flat to basically zero (from a certain frequency down) is neither a positive or a negative, and doesn't really influence my enjoyment of a headphone. I also don't think that small little bits of grain or lack of resolution in comparison to other "better" cans are really flaws. My personal headphones journey has made me conclude that a headphones only true goal is to present the music as accurately and naturally as possible, and in this regard the HD600 wins by leagues over anything I have ever heard by far. When I listen the them, the HD600 disappear and I hear the music and nothing else. Which is not to say that I don't like other headphones, I own many and love almost all of them. So I'm still of the opinion that the HD600 doesn't have any real flaws, and thus why it has stuck around for over 2 decades. And once again I'm also not trying to dissuade you, just that I hear things differently

 

[muffins]

The difference between the very high fidelity headphones and the HD 600 may be more dramatic than you may think. What the HD 600 does exceptionally well is tuning, but is it the HD 600 last word in terms of fidelity? IMHO, no not even close, for example the much older DT 48/480 or a good electrostatic/STAX(including the old ones, some of the old STAX are just as good as the new stuff) far exceed the HD 600 in terms of fidelity. I heard the grain and distortion on the HD 600 and many other good headphones with ease after listening to those. I was actually shocked at the difference between some headphones. I haven’t heard a flawless headphone, even the highest fidelity headphones can have numerous flaws that marr or even ruin the experience, thus modding and/or EQ may be highly recommended for some of those headphones. There are a lot of cases of headphones with excellent drivers that aren’t properly utilized. I’m a fan of the HD 600’s tuning especially, but it does have its flaws.

I have found while headphone transducers haven’t improved much, overall headphone design has improved. Biggest improvements have been in tuning ability, housing design, computer modeling, precision, materials, and things such as Bluetooth, ANC, etc. Driver quality and fidelity hasn’t really changed much. I honestly like some of the older headphones as sometimes their tuning is more pleasing to the ear. Many do fall into the trap that newer is always better and the hype machine sadly.

I would love to put your theory to the test Though I think my headphone journey will be ending very soon, and I won't be able to get a chance to try some of the higher fidelity cans you touched on. I don't disagree though that the quality of current production cans certainly has seen a rise, a trend I am ALL for

 

[muffins]

@bagwell359 Also, I'm just curious, what specifically do you find in the HE-500 compared to the HD600 that is better? I'd like to hear you thoughts specifically, especially if you have the two handy.

 

[kman1211]

I would love to put your theory to the test Though I think my headphone journey will be ending very soon, and I won't be able to get a chance to try some of the higher fidelity cans you touched on. I don't disagree though that the quality of current production cans certainly has seen a rise, a trend I am ALL for

Honestly if I didn’t hear some of the best stuff out there early on such as the SR-009, R10, the Orpheus, and others. I likely would of been more satisfied with the HD 600 when I first got it, but I always got a nagging feeling they aren’t enough. Overall headphone quality and driver utilization has definitely improved. It’s much easier to find a headphone that is well-utilized and a complete package now.

 

[SilverEars]

Honestly if I didn’t hear some of the best stuff out there early on such as the SR-009, R10, the Orpheus, and others. I likely would of been more satisfied with the HD 600 when I first got it, but I always got a nagging feeling they aren’t enough. Overall headphone quality and driver utilization has definitely improved. It’s much easier to find a headphone that is well-utilized and a complete package now.

Although SR-009 has been praised as being at the top, such is the hype with these headphones that are considered high-end. And there will be disagreements. And the disagreements will be sourced from what each individual finds most important. For example, it's tonal balance for me, and that is at the top of the list. expensive headphones at minimum should be tonally balanced (given the crazy prices, it's warranted), and we know this is not the case. People may think that raised treble is resolution. More often than not, summit-fi headphone responses are toward the treble elevated side (not really balanced).

Some may think SR-009 should be at the top, and others do not see why. Count me in as one of them that do not understand why it's considered top. Even from when I first heard the SR-009 whether Blue Hawaii or not, it hasn't really grabbed me. I find it to be over-rated, and not better than dynamic or planar drivers, just different, and it's not better than a top dynamic or planar in a good setup. That's my take anyways.

I think electrostats are a bit hyped. It's probably pushed to the point of convincing newbies that lower-end STAX is better than anything, which is not the truth.

 

[bagwell359]

I agree you technically 600 is not the most prominent cans. But the merit of 600 is its ability of holistic illustration and its most natural timbre. Mechanically talking which aspect is better on whatever any other cans make little sense to me at least. It's like seeing tree only without perceiving forest.

I agree, I have been trying to keep a low profile with my opinion. The HE-500 all by its lonesome modified in a fairly common way is the single can I have that buries the 600 - in particular when it comes to "holistic" sound. I did not cobble up the best of various cans to shoot down the 600. I'm a booster of the 600, but it can't stand up to the HE-500 here. If you're within driving distance of Lowell MA, come on by and try for yourself.

 

[bagwell359]

Anything has flaws, please!! Something that has no flaws in your eyes can be flawed in the eyes of others.

Certainly, probably why I've owned at least 30 speakers in my time.

 

[yangian]

I agree, I have been trying to keep a low profile with my opinion. The HE-500 all by its lonesome modified in a fairly common way is the single can I have that buries the 600 - in particular when it comes to "holistic" sound. I did not cobble up the best of various cans to shoot down the 600. I'm a booster of the 600, but it can't stand up to the HE-500 here. If you're within driving distance of Lowell MA, come on by and try for yourself.

I never heard he 500. But I have he400i and I like 600 much more than it

 

[bagwell359]

I do however own the previously TOTL LCD-2, which you also own, and in my opinion it doesn't do anything better than the HD600.

Actually the 600 > LCD2. I bought used it used after hearing it a few years ago, ugh. I had a friend of a friend haul over his and while mine were defective to an extent and I got my money back I still didn't like his LCD-2's at all. I just leave them in my sig so I can keep dissing them. Voicing is all wrong.

I find that bass extension flat to basically zero (from a certain frequency down) is neither a positive or a negative, and doesn't really influence my enjoyment of a headphone. I also don't think that small little bits of grain or lack of resolution in comparison to other "better" cans are really flaws.

I don't really care what happens under 30 Hz, I hate any falseness in the bass so the 600 mostly does it for me, but they fade under 55 Hz and basically done at 42 or so - that's a lot. I do listen to a lot of bass: 600's are great with snares and rototoms, but I listen to electric bass, acoustic bass, cellos, violas - and the 600 won't growl, expand, sustain - it goes as far as it goes and stops. It's not right, so it must be wrong.

My personal headphones journey has made me conclude that a headphones only true goal is to present the music as accurately and naturally as possible, and in this regard the HD600 wins by leagues over anything I have ever heard by far.

I was there a year ago. No longer.

When I listen the them, the HD600 disappear and I hear the music and nothing else. Which is not to say that I don't like other headphones, I own many and love almost all of them. So I'm still of the opinion that the HD600 doesn't have any real flaws, and thus why it has stuck around for over 2 decades. And once again I'm also not trying to dissuade you, just that I hear things differently

If you've only seen 7's you don't really know what a 10 is.