[karloil]

I mean, just look at its longevity and iteration. When it comes to electronics and technology, the rule of thumb tends to be that if it's around a while (like a few years) and people still want/use it, it's probably doing something right. When it's been around for over two decades without changes or updates to its design, it's most definitely doing something right. Unlike other headphones where new versions/iterations pop up every few years, the HD600 has been almost literally unchanged for over 20 years; it got a new box a few years ago and then got a new paint job last year(?) and to my knowledge, that's it. For my musical tastes, the HD600 not only sounds great, but in the world of audio, its price is relatively tame. At ~$300, it seems to be right where a majority of people are willing to spend on headphones at most. I know that I've personally rarely gone past the $500 range and these days it's gradually lowered as I've settled into my setup. I'm happy with where it is and so my money goes elsewhere. And yet, contrary to what some may have you believe, I'm still incredibly happy with my audio experience; one does not need to continually spend money in order to enjoy one's music collection.

I got mine for $184 brand new - no complaints here Truly enjoying this can for years to come!

 

[BobG55]

The HD600 has been around for 23 years and is still amongst the best all round sounding headphone regardless of price. I also always refer to the fact that as recently as two years ago upon his retirement from HeadRoom, the highly regarded and venerated headphone critic/ expert Tyll Hertsens still had the HD600 on his Wall of Fame. Myself, I’ve never been without a pair of HD600 since 2003 when I purchased my first one. I’ve bought & sold much more expensive and reputated headphones over the years. The HD600 is one of the best headphone ever made.

Error : Tyll Hertsens retired from Innerfidelity and not HeadRoom.

 

[bagwell359]

MQA seems like a perfect match to HD600. Upper mids are way less shrilling than with PCM so the 3-4kHz peak doesn't bother. With PCM the peak absolutely has to be equalized out.

MQA is great, but, sometimes I find the Toneboosters 6 band EQ actually sounds better, when there is no MQA and you are in 41.1 land then the EQ is a must.

88 Hz +4.1 0.71 low shelf
160 Hz -2.1 1.10 dig bell 2
2.5 kHz +1.0 2.30 dig bell 2
3850 Hz -3.3 3.33 analog bell
8 kHz -4.0 3.33 dig bell 2
12.4 kHz +4.6 3.9 analog bell

give it a try.

 

[SilverEars]

I was looking the response, and I was curious what it would sound like if the upper-mids was reduced slightly? Sometimes the upper-mids can get too much. I do want subs on it of course as R70X has demonstrated that subs on dynamic driver open-backs are quite nice.

 

[SpeakerBox]

I did some research before replacing my pads last time and as far as I remembered most people preferred the original pads over all (most) aftermarket pads. At least all aftermarket pads changed the characteristics of the 600's quite considerably.

Going from no dac other than the dac in my bluesound node 2 to a Gumby shows me how well a HD600 scales..All tones, notes, instruments, just everything sounds much larger and fuller. The 600's seem to profit from a better source more than my Alpha Dogs do. At least with my current set up.

Will be trying the HD-600 with the Node 2i soon. Hope to have similar results.

 

[powit]

Anybody have issues around 5-6k? I remember the 650 being a little smoother in this region.

From what I've heard, the black and silver versions differ mostly in the 2-4k range so it doesn't seem like switching versions would help too much.

I've been thinking about picking up an Asgard 3. Could that maybe help my issue? It's not quite sibilant, just a little edgy.

 

[Asspirin]

Anybody have issues around 5-6k? I remember the 650 being a little smoother in this region.

From what I've heard, the black and silver versions differ mostly in the 2-4k range so it doesn't seem like switching versions would help too much.

I've been thinking about picking up an Asgard 3. Could that maybe help my issue? It's not quite sibilant, just a little edgy.

It's a little straining in that region, yes. Just took my antique HD 600 for a spin yesterday and coming from the 660S, they were quite an exhaustive listen. It's nothing you couldn't get used to, though. Can't comment on amps.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Anybody have issues around 5-6k? I remember the 650 being a little smoother in this region.

From what I've heard, the black and silver versions differ mostly in the 2-4k range so it doesn't seem like switching versions would help too much.

I've been thinking about picking up an Asgard 3. Could that maybe help my issue? It's not quite sibilant, just a little edgy.

No, in fact I consider the 600 very smooth. For instance I can listen to Joni Mitchell's vocals or a Hubert Laws album and the voicing is perfect, no harshness.

 

[ADUHF]

It is possible to generally rank the HD 600, 650, 660S, and HD58x Jubilee in terms of both their brightness in the treble and their extension into the bass region, for anyone trying to decide between them. In terms of the treble, the ranking goes something like this...

1. HD 600 = brightest in treble
COMPENSATED L & R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/3992
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/4012

2. HD 650
COMPENSATED L &R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#245/3992
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#245/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#245/4012

3. HD 58X
COMPENSATED L & R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#891/3992
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#891/4011
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#891/4012

4. HD 660S = darkest in treble
COMPENSATED L & R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#816/3992
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#816/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#816/4012

The differences between the four in the treble is easiest to see in the compensated plots, which is why I put them first for each headphone above. Also, the HD 650 may have a slightly darker tilt in the mid to upper treble than the HD 58x. But the 58x has a few more recessed areas in the treble than the HD 650. So depending on the specific areas you're looking at, it could be more or less a wash between those two in terms of their brightness.

In terms of extension into the bass region, the ranking goes something like this...

1. HD 58X = most extended in bass
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#891/4011
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#891/4012
COMPENSATED L & R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#891/3992

2. HD 650
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#245/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#245/4012
COMPENSATED L &R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#245/3992

2. HD 660S (tied with HD 650)
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#816/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#816/4012
COMPENSATED L & R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#816/3992

4. HD 600 = least extended in bass
RAW LEFT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/4011
RAW RIGHT: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/4012
COMPENSATED L & R: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#325/3992

In both cases, the differences between the headphones are not huge. I think you would hear the difference in brightness between the HD600 (brightest) and HD660S (darkest) fairly easily though. And the difference in bass between the more extended HD 58x, and less extended HD 600. The differences between these headphones and the others might be more subtle, but still audible imho. YMMV of course.

Note re compensated graphs...
Some peaks and valleys in the treble on the compensated graphs is normal btw. RTINGS' target compensation curve still needs some work in that area, to improve it's accuracy imo. See some of my comments in these other topics for more on this...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/most-overrated-headphone-brands.532168/page-7#post-15597388
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...iew-impressions.765004/page-114#post-15605422
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aud...iew-impressions.765004/page-115#post-15606680

 

[mobbaddict]

No, in fact I consider the 600 very smooth. For instance I can listen to Joni Mitchell's vocals or a Hubert Laws album and the voicing is perfect, no harshness.

Me too. If anything I find the HD600 slightly smooth in the upper mids, compared to my imaginary reference sound

 

[SilverEars]

Me too. If anything I find the HD600 slightly smooth in the upper mids, compared to my imaginary reference sound

I'm not too fond of HD600 for vocals although I find it to be the most transparent can in the HD6 series. I really do like it with instrumentals and how detailed it gets, but with vocals it can get slightly bothersome with some recordings. For vocals I do prefer HD650.

I do find that HD660S has less presence in 5-6k, and I don't like it quite as much as the 650/600. Maybe people with portable amps like how it gets driven, but I have full-sized rigs like with BH Crack, and etc.. There is no need for 660S.

 

[ADUHF]

Added a small addendum to my last post above re the Rtings compensated graphs, which is worth a look imo, if you have the time/interest in such things. Cheers!

 

[Midgetguy]

I'm not too fond of HD600 for vocals although I find it to be the most transparent can in the HD6 series. I really do like it with instrumentals and how detailed it gets, but with vocals it can get slightly bothersome with some recordings. For vocals I do prefer HD650.

I do find that HD660S has less presence in 5-6k, and I don't like it quite as much as the 650/600. Maybe people with portable amps like how it gets driven, but I have full-sized rigs like with BH Crack, and etc.. There is no need for 660S.

Huh, I quite like the HD600 for vocals. Not the best vocals I've heard, sure, but I like them. Different people, different ears. My bro has the HD650, I never liked it better than my HD600. treble on that feels sharper to me actually than the HD600 due to there being more bass in the HD650. The extra bass skews the perception of the treble so it becomes sharper than that of the HD600. It's the concept of being more sensitive to opposites so the extra bass makes my ears more sensitive to treble, making the treble sharper to the ears, even if it's not true by measurement graphs.

 

[SilverEars]

Huh, I quite like the HD600 for vocals. Not the best vocals I've heard, sure, but I like them. Different people, different ears. My bro has the HD650, I never liked it better than my HD600. treble on that feels sharper to me actually than the HD600 due to there being more bass in the HD650. The extra bass skews the perception of the treble so it becomes sharper than that of the HD600. It's the concept of being more sensitive to opposites so the extra bass makes my ears more sensitive to treble, making the treble sharper to the ears, even if it's not true by measurement graphs.

Yes, I've heard this and it's weird to me. Why some people think this? Do you listen to many genres or only audiophile tracks?

One thing I don't understand from your statement is the more bass presence causing 650 to sound sharp. I thought it would be opposite, unless you mean you notice a valley in-between the upper-mids and bass impact region. Perhaps you mean, you notice more dynamics from the 650, and it's too much for you. I think the latter is likely the case. If this is the case, avoid Focal Elex or Utopia as they are more dynamic and sharper.

I really don't know how somebody can't enjoy the 650 for vocals, it's so smooth to me. I guess not for everybody.

 

[judson_w]

I will just throw in the fact that not everyone's hearing is perfectly flat. When a friend of mine was studying to be an audiologist a few years back, she gave me a free hearing check. My hearing was pretty good though I had some hearing loss in the midrange. This was attributed to chronic ear infections I had as a kid.

Thus, the frequency response of my ears is kind of v shaped. That would affect how I hear things compared to someone with that that.