[bagwell359]

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

The 400 and 500 do not bear any particular relationship to each other. I have a 4XX and a 500 and the 500 is well better.

 

[kman1211]

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.

Electrostatic headphones are a bit hyped, electrostatic doesn't automatically mean better than dynamic, there are subpar electrostatics out there, nor are all STAX's that good, my favorite headphones are dynamics. I honestly liked the SR-007 more than the SR-009 as I found it a better balanced headphone with more body to it's sound, but I heard it at a later date. Also I was just referring to the summit-fi headphones I first heard, the SR-009 is just the first STAX to come to mind as it's the first electrostatic I ever heard so it was the most memorable. I actually think dynamic headphones have the most potential in terms of fidelity. I'm personally not a big fan of planars, some reason they never sounded quite right in the mids and treble, but I also haven't heard most newer ones. As much as I like stats I prefer dynamics in the end. Many summit-fi headphones do have a treble tilt, which can give the illusion of greater resolution than it actually has. While some headphones while bright are also truly detailed.

If anything you will notice I am a Beyer fan, I am well aware many Beyers are too bright and/or sharp sounding, but that's not why I like them, that brightness and/or sharpness has often been a curse, it's been an ordeal finding pairs that don't bother me treble wise, it's just they have a je ne sais quoi about them that I always come back to and I eventually resigned into having Beyers as my main headphones. I generally prefer the Sennheiser tuning though so I like to have a Sennheiser or two in my stable for that sound, but they don't sound quite right to me in the end, but not because of tuning, but rather it's like something subtle is missing.

 

[DavidA]

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

HE400i sounds nothing like a HE500, and this is with a HE500 in stock form. The HE500 that @bagwell359 has is modded and if its like my HE400 (also highly modded) they really are quite different from what the stock sound signature is.

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

I have to agree with @kman1211 about the difference in fidelity between the HD600 and those higher up like the HD800, HD800S, SR009, T1gen1 but even some mid level headphones are quite a bit clearer/cleaner but that doesn't mean they sound better. I stable of headphones changes over time but I tend to find those with different sound signature to what I already have and it fun trying a headphone on 3-5 different amps since some headphones really change how they sound with different amps driving them. I also don't consider the LCD-2 to be TOTL, more like Mid-Fi IMO.

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.

Like you I have a HD600 killer: Ypsilon S1 custom build (the HD600 is one of the few headphones that I sold off since the small peak at 3.5-5khz bothered me at times and I've noticed that I'm not the only one) but I have headphones that are much brighter but since their treble peaks are higher up they don't bother me like.

 

[bagwell359]

Well sure, I expect a headphone costing many times the price of the HD600 to exceed it in performance

Agreed.

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

This is an assertion/belief, not a fact.

and I am willing to argue no headphone blows the HD600 out of the water to such a degree as to replace it.

Another assertion based on acknowledged lack of exposure.

I still think the HD600 is kind of perfect, but you're also entitled to your opinion as well.

It's fun to be a fan, and you don't try and hide it. However, it can get in the way of being open to newer and/or better items.


In another post I was asked to run down the differences between the HD-600 and HE-500.

Both run XLR, 600 has a 40" Custom Cans cable, 500 has a 50" stock cable. Sony CD>Gungnir Multibit>Ragnarok; no mods to 600, fuzzor mod on 500 and Ether C angled pads.

Low Bass: 500 has decided advantage from 60 Hz down over 600, texture/sustain/rise time - all there. 600 what it has 45-60 quick and tuneful, but lack of impact

Mid Bass: In the 80-150 Hz area the 500's on lesser amps has good rise time, sustain in multi instrument situation - too long. But on Rag/XLR issue is well lessened. 600 very tight and fast, notable lack of colorations, but impact is foreshortened.

Upper bass: 500 seems to get the textures to seem richer and deeper than the 600 which is clean but not blooming.

Lower mids: Planar speakers and cans seem to really do well here. Male singers not too chesty as many cans with boosted mid/upper bass are on 500. 600's admirably flat. 500's continue the bloom - thicker textures, deeper/wider soundstage - just more palpable/real.

Upper mids: I'm addicted to female vocalists, seen many live. The lower pitched ones like k.d. lang really project on the 500. 600's don't give as much detail or force on the fundamental or the 2nd harmonic. Higher pitched singers such as Kate Bush seem to have more depth. That's because the 500 is slightly lower in output at the top of this range. That tends to make them silkier and easier to listen to, and less annoying, but can also cut the dynamic drive, and mess with image locations. As the 500 does it, it's not a major issue, twice as much reticence and its the LCD-2 take on reality in the upper mids lower treble.

Treble: 600 has slight raise in the 3-5k range. 500's have a rise around 11k. Both can be heard. Neither is really bad. The sense of overtones, and fine details of the 500 are mostly rooted in the treble and IMO the 500 treble is much better than the 600's - silkier, harsher, more reticent, more in your face - all depending on what the recording calls for.

So deeper bass, more realistic mids, and great treble detail/air for the 500.

More taut mid/upper bass, flatter upper mids/lower treble, easier to drive, cheaper to obtain used for the 600.

In a 15 round prize fight scoring that's 9-5-1.

 

[yangian]

The 400 and 500 do not bear any particular relationship to each other. I have a 4XX and a 500 and the 500 is well better.

May I ask you what kinds od genre you usually listen?

 

[SilverEars]

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 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.



I was there a year ago. No longer.



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

I have never really been an Audeze fan. I find their cans over-rated and over priced for the performance. Perhaps people have affinity for the look and build, but definately not the weight. Performance, weight, and price wasn't good.

Their tuning either had odd mids or upper mids.

 

[bagwell359]

May I ask you what kinds od genre you usually listen?

That's a broad answer:

remastered classic/indie rock
various female vocalists (jazz, indie, small ensembles, classical)
classical (prokofieff, really all the Russians of the past 150 yrs)
jazz (late 50's thru mid 70's)
I do listen to labels too: chesky, 4AD, cherry red, factory, MOFI,

no rap, country, hop

 

[bagwell359]

I have never really been an Audeze fan. I find their cans over-rated and over priced for the performance. Perhaps people have affinity for the look and build, but definately not the weight. Performance, weight, and price wasn't good.

Their tuning either had odd mids or upper minds.

Yes, built like tanks. Too much bass, missing upper mids/lower treble and also upper treble. I hear the LCD-4 is a great can, but that's well out of my price range, and I like HFM tuning more than Audeze/Beyer/AKG/Grado schools. I really want to hear the latest from some of the newer outfits and of course HFM.

 

[yangian]

That's a broad answer:

remastered classic/indie rock
various female vocalists (jazz, indie, small ensembles, classical)
classical (prokofieff, really all the Russians of the past 150 yrs)
jazz (late 50's thru mid 70's)
I do listen to labels too: chesky, 4AD, cherry red, factory, MOFI,

no rap, country, hop

I see. I almost only listen to classical, symphonic work.

 

[bagwell359]

I see. I almost only listen to classical, symphonic work.

I have to say I'm surprised that classical and jazz (not elevator soft jazz) have both lost so much popularity since 1975. For both the players and audiences - there is so much more than is visible to the casual, and very enriching.

I grew up with classical and jazz due to my father. Lots of visits to see the BSO, but not the Pops. My brother started playing the Animals in the mid 60's and took me to a Led Zep concert in 1969, and two Pink Floyd concerts in 1971.

Guess I'm just carrying my early experiences forward.

 

[SilverEars]

Yes, built like tanks. Too much bass, missing upper mids/lower treble and also upper treble. I hear the LCD-4 is a great can, but that's well out of my price range, and I like HFM tuning more than Audeze/Beyer/AKG/Grado schools. I really want to hear the latest from some of the newer outfits and of course HFM.

I always thought Hifiman generally does well with female vocals. Sennheiser open headphones, classical. I'll admit Beyer/AKG/Grado are areas I'm not all too familiar with.

 

[yangian]

I have to say I'm surprised that classical and jazz (not elevator soft jazz) have both lost so much popularity since 1975. For both the players and audiences - there is so much more than is visible to the casual, and very enriching.

I grew up with classical and jazz due to my father. Lots of visits to see the BSO, but not the Pops. My brother started playing the Animals in the mid 60's and took me to a Led Zep concert in 1969, and two Pink Floyd concerts in 1971.

Guess I'm just carrying my early experiences forward.

Most people like 600 for vocal, Actually I'm not a fan of 600 for vocal, like opera, but I like 600 for symphony/orchestra very much.

 

[yangian]

I always thought Hifiman generally does well with female vocals. Sennheiser open headphones, classical. I'll admit Beyer/AKG/Grado are areas I'm not all too familiar with.

Totally agree.

 

[bagwell359]

I always thought Hifiman generally does well with female vocals. Sennheiser open headphones, classical. I'll admit Beyer/AKG/Grado are areas I'm not all too familiar with.

Yes, HFM is great with female vocals. Senn 600 are fine with classical, unless there is dynamic bass when the mighty tympani or cannon shot is reduced in scale to a great degree. Also the 500 does things like page turning and fingering of instruments much better then the 600.

Added:
I listened to a number of classical pieces last night on both the 600 and 500. Overall they were pretty close to each other. On more stately pieces the edge may have been the 600. More dynamic pieces edge 500. Then I swung over to modern ensemble works that are well recorded, mostly w/ female singers. Big edge 500. For instance, Patricia Barber CD - Cafe Blue. 600 was nice and reasonably accurate, but the 500 had a much more vivid feeling. Wider and deeper soundstage. Instruments more vivid in their own space. Sounded like a performance. 600 was correct but the music wasn't coming through - like a scientist taking notes about a performance.

Might push up my trip to NYC (Audio46) to find the next all-in-one contender to add to my collection.

 

[northendjazz]

A rural auction + £7.42 = a Pair of Hd600's and box of junk. Yes the foam was about to go, the headband cushion already gone but the pads came up with a vacum and a lint roll thingy. While the replacement parts I cut some synthetic dish cloth and clicked the pads back. So I'll see where they fit in my collection, other headphones are mix of planars, grado/magnum and valve and vintage amps make up the amplifiction end of my system. If I don't like them a profit looms large.