[bagwell359]

I find that the 3.8 kHz and 8 kHz area is most of what needs fixing in the 600, outside of the bass under 75 Hz. Unit to unit variation could push those numbers around a bit. 3.8 kHz is an annoying area for many ears, and is the 2nd harmonic of the upper midrange area that the ear hears louder than most. Actually centered at 2.5 kHz is a minor trough in response, so I don't think the upper mids is accentuated, just blamed by familiarity of other transducers irritating ears.

Now that I have all my aftermarket pieces for the BH Crack, I'll find out if the EQ I have set now works.

650 has pleasing vocals, but then they are always pleasant, never any bite. Add that on top of the puffy mid/upper bass and lower mids and I'm out. Classical/audiophile recordings seem a whole lot more transparent and correct on the 600 to me.

 

[Majestyk]

This is why I love my vintage Yamaha receiver. The tone controls really come in handy. I can easily make my 650's sound closer to the 600's and vice-versa. I'm surprised no one has considered putting basic bass and treble controls on dedicated amps, like the BH Crack.

 

[Majestyk]

I find that the 3.8 kHz and 8 kHz area is most of what needs fixing in the 600, outside of the bass under 75 Hz. Unit to unit variation could push those numbers around a bit. 3.8 kHz is an annoying area for many ears, and is the 2nd harmonic of the upper midrange area that the ear hears louder than most. Actually centered at 2.5 kHz is a minor trough in response, so I don't think the upper mids is accentuated, just blamed by familiarity of other transducers irritating ears.

Now that I have all my aftermarket pieces for the BH Crack, I'll find out if the EQ I have set now works.

650 has pleasing vocals, but then they are always pleasant, never any bite. Add that on top of the puffy mid/upper bass and lower mids and I'm out. Classical/audiophile recordings seem a whole lot more transparent and correct on the 600 to me.

Just curious if you've ever tried the HD660S?

 

[Midgetguy]

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.

Honestly, I have no idea what you mean by "audiophile tracks" vs. multiple genres. Music is music, if it's mastered/released in good quality, "genre" and "audiophile" are not mutually exclusive. I'd say my library is more pop and EDM these days (I prefer my EDM to have featuring vocals in them), though I do have a decent amount of rock from the old days as well. Haven't heard the HD650 in a while at this point, so my audio memory is gonna be clouded a bit, but I meant what I said. And I did actually try the Utopia before, too sharp for my tastes, damn clear though, but sound sig wasn't for me.

This isn't to say the vocals on the HD650 aren't smooth, I'm not taking that away from it, but due to overall sound signature, I prefer the presentation of the HD600 more. Bass response for me really affects just about everything higher up the frequency scale, from mids to the treble.

Consider the hearing analogous to sight (which it is, really, they're both part of your set of main senses). If you're in darkness a bunch, your eyes will be much more sensitive to bright lights. That reaction can be on a very short time scale. On a longer time scale, and tied together, would be the relationship between your sight and your hearing (though really in only one direction); if you can't see for an extended period of time, your hearing becomes more sensitive and you're able to hear more around you and in greater detail. As there's more bass in the HD650, it becomes more apparent to hear the sharper frequency responses above, and as such, the HD650 becomes sharper to my ears than the HD600 despite the peaks in the HD600s measurements.

It may be weird to you, but remember why this hobby exists in the first place: my ears aren't yours and your ears aren't mine. Hearing is perceptive and subjective and the mind is complex. Or just conclude I've got crap ears, wouldn't argue with you on that one

 

[CaptainFantastic]

Female Vocals Sound test - "One Voice" The Wailin' Jennys. HD-600 wipes the floor with the HD-650.

 

[bagwell359]

Just curious if you've ever tried the HD660S?

No. I modded my 600's (felt and dynamat) - but no covering of holes, and SilverEars said they sounded more like 660's now - so I guess I would like them.

 

[staticV3]

I just A/Bed every HD600 PEQ on the AutoEQ GitHub, here are the results:
I used foobar with the MathAudio Headphone EQ plugin. Wasapi Push output, 9038S DAC/Amp, pretty new pads, very old drivers

Spoiler: Results:

The only good ones:​

rtings

nice bass boost and takes some of the edge off, link

ReferenceAudioAnalyzer

similarly great bass boost, retains the original bite up top, link

The bad ones:​

Crinacle

sounds veiled, link

Innerfidelity

honky, very weird sound, that 6K peak is a bad idea, link

oratory1990

unnatural, blunt, drastic treble reduction is a bad idea, link

Headphone.com

veiled, unnatural

I hope that, despite my very short descriptions, this summary will prove useful to some and I'd love to hear if you agree with my findings.
Cheers!

 

[SilverEars]

I just A/Bed every HD600 PEQ on the AutoEQ GitHub, here are the results:
I used foobar with the MathAudio Headphone EQ plugin. Wasapi Push output, 9038S DAC/Amp, pretty new pads, very old drivers

Spoiler: Results:

The only good ones:​

rtings

nice bass boost and takes some of the edge off, link

ReferenceAudioAnalyzer

similarly great bass boost, retains the original bite up top, link

The bad ones:​

Crinacle

sounds veiled, link

Innerfidelity

honky, very weird sound, that 9K peak is a bad idea, link

oratory1990

unnatural, blunt, drastic treble reduction is a bad idea, link

Headphone.com

veiled, unnatural

I hope that, despite my very short descriptions, this summary will prove useful to some and I'd love to hear if you agree with my findings.
Cheers!

You mean your EQ based on measurements from which website was successful? I never heard of that EQ plug-in. Is it parametric? Are those your measurements after EQ?

What was the target objective of the PEQs?

 

[bagwell359]

This is why I love my vintage Yamaha receiver. The tone controls really come in handy. I can easily make my 650's sound closer to the 600's and vice-versa. I'm surprised no one has considered putting basic bass and treble controls on dedicated amps, like the BH Crack.

The trouble with bass and treble controls only is:

It can be like taking out a sledgehammer when a scalpel will do.

An EQ in an amp has to be built to pretty high standards to do just what you intend. Don't know your rec, so I'm not sure if that's an issue or not.

I can't think of any mid/high priced headphone amps that have them (but I'm sure there is some). Part of it is a purist appeal probably and part of it is cost/size considerations. Also these days with a lot of digital source comeing form PC and phones there are lots of EQ options available that have multiple settings. I had a Soundcraftsman PE-2217 (light face, wood cabinet) - (rated well by either TAS or Stereophile) back in '77 (10x2 bands) and that had a big enough soundprint outside of my settings that I sold it. The 6 band parametric digital EQ I have runs sonic rings around it and it cost like $5.

 

[staticV3]

You mean your EQ based on measurements from which website was successful? I never heard of that EQ plug-in. Is it parametric? Are those your measurements after EQ?

What was the target objective of the PEQs?

I used the AutoEQ Github which summarizes all popular audio measurement sites.
Mathaudio is parametric.
The images aren't measurements but graphical representations of the PEQ settings suggested by AutoEQ and, in extension, by the different measurement sites.
The target objective of the PEQs was to eliminate sonic flaws in the HD600 and to offer the most neutral sound possible.

 

[bagwell359]

You mean your EQ based on measurements from which website was successful? I never heard of that EQ plug-in. Is it parametric? Are those your measurements after EQ?

What was the target objective of the PEQs?

Wow, very interesting. If there can be a few others that verify these results, could be posting lots of results.

 

[SilverEars]

I used the AutoEQ Github which summarizes all popular audio measurement sites.
Mathaudio is parametric.
The images aren't measurements but graphical representations of the PEQ settings suggested by AutoEQ and, in extension, by the different measurement sites.
The target objective of the PEQs was to eliminate sonic flaws in the HD600 and to offer the most neutral sound possible.

So, AutoEQ is the software that controls PEQ based on measurements fed into it? Very interesting to try.

I always found RAA measurements too smoothed out.

 

[staticV3]

So, AutoEQ is the software that controls PEQ based on measurements fed into it. Very interesting to try.

I always found RAA measurements too smoothed out.

No, AutoEQ is not a program. It's a GitHub reppository which collects all measurements from popular sources and presents then in a unified way.
Please just click on the links after each description.

 

[staticV3]

The trouble with bass and treble controls only is:

It can be like taking out a sledgehammer when a scalpel will do.

An EQ in an amp has to be built to pretty high standards to do just what you intend. Don't know your rec, so I'm not sure if that's an issue or not.

I can't think of any mid/high priced headphone amps that have them (but I'm sure there is some). Part of it is a purist appeal probably and part of it is cost/size considerations. Also these days with a lot of digital source comeing form PC and phones there are lots of EQ options available that have multiple settings. I had a Soundcraftsman PE-2217 (light face, wood cabinet) - (rated well by either TAS or Stereophile) back in '77 (10x2 bands) and that had a big enough soundprint outside of my settings that I sold it. The 6 band parametric digital EQ I have runs sonic rings around it and it cost like $5.

While I would generally recommend the E1DA PDv2 for EQing headphones on a hardware basis, for this test I used strictly software-based EQ solutions in the form of the MathAudio Headphone EQ plugin for foobar2000.

 

[SilverEars]

No, AutoEQ is not a program. It's a GitHub reppository which collects all measurements from popular sources and presents then in a unified way.
Please just click on the links after each description.

Gotcha. I'm eager to try his EQs based on various measurements sites to compare. This reveals how accurate the measurements really are.

I wouldn't even try to attempt Headphones.com If it's Resolve reviews crappy way off the mark measurements he uses for analysis.

I generally had a sense that Rtings measurements looking the most accurate out there, and they know what they are doing in terms of measurements. I also had a sense that Innerfidelity's measurements are rolled-off in the mid-treble, and the EQ shows it.