[bagwell359]

I should probably have clarified. I didn't mean to suggest that bass rolloff is universal, since it obviously isn't. By "inevitable," I just meant that the longer you're in the hobby, the less you will be able to avoid it.

That's true.

Bass takes center stage for me. Much more than the high treble ("air" region), it is the bass that establishes the size of the soundstage.

If you are a fan of the HD-600 than isn't timbre the main thing? The HD-600 has 4 weaknesses IMO. If its your only source then after awhile its not nearly as apparent. I'll leave the order up to each individual.

* sound stage (3 blobs on gear that doesn't deliver enough current at 300 ohms including my Rag 1, but goes to 5 blobs with the Violectric V-281 and my BHCs)
* bass heft/dynamics
* spikes around 3k and 6k
* lack of overall detail (the newest one I found) which I found in spades vs a ZMF Auteur on a Liquid Platnum a few weeks ago. I actually had to cut short the demo vs my 600 was so weak in that regard - that I pit the ZMF against my HE-6 SE (which it generally nailed) and his HEK Stealth which it also beat overall (Aune S17 Pro for those comparisons). It's younger relative the HD-800 (any version) has what many consider a great soundstage and it lacks bass heft too. Too bad for the 800 that w/o PEQ it's timbre isn't a match for the HD-600. My two other main cans - the HE-6 SE and HE-500 both have average soundstage - well better than the HD-600, and both have esp with bass PEQ much more heft than the HD-900, and they can't soundstage anywhere in that league.

End of digression. I wasn't talking high treble, which most consider 10k and above, but all treble which I put at 3.5k and above. I consider mids to be 320 Hz-3.5k which is where the music primarily lives.

I don't think bass under 320 Hz establishes sound stage. If present, it underpins the stage certainly, but is not the only factor in its size.

As Esperanza Spaulding once said in an interview, "The bass lays out the dance floor." That's true for me while wearing headphones as much as it is while listening to loudspeakers. Sub-bass especially. Must be something to do with the omnidirectionality of bass.

Planar/estat/open baffle speakers certainly are omnidirectional into the treble, and even my box speaker with the ribbon tweet that has one direction has very healthy dispersion up to 180 degrees well into the treble, and considerable output beyond 180 in the mids. Does a violin quartet or a solo female soprano have no soundstage? The layout of the mics has a lot to do with it too, not to mention other processing after that.

This is an area where the HD 600 lacks for me. They communicate bass just fine, but they don't give me a sense of "space" via bass the way that other headphones do.

See comments in main body of my text.

 

[equalspeace]

That's true.

If you are a fan of the HD-600 than isn't timbre the main thing? The HD-600 has 4 weaknesses IMO. If its your only source then after awhile its not nearly as apparent. I'll leave the order up to each individual.

* sound stage (3 blobs on gear that doesn't deliver enough current at 300 ohms including my Rag 1, but goes to 5 blobs with the Violectric V-281 and my BHCs)
* bass heft/dynamics
* spikes around 3k and 6k
* lack of overall detail (the newest one I found) which I found in spades vs a ZMF Auteur on a Liquid Platnum a few weeks ago. I actually had to cut short the demo vs my 600 was so weak in that regard - that I pit the ZMF against my HE-6 SE (which it generally nailed) and his HEK Stealth which it also beat overall (Aune S17 Pro for those comparisons). It's younger relative the HD-800 (any version) has what many consider a great soundstage and it lacks bass heft too. Too bad for the 800 that w/o PEQ it's timbre isn't a match for the HD-600. My two other main cans - the HE-6 SE and HE-500 both have average soundstage - well better than the HD-600, and both have esp with bass PEQ much more heft than the HD-900, and they can't soundstage anywhere in that league.

End of digression. I wasn't talking high treble, which most consider 10k and above, but all treble which I put at 3.5k and above. I consider mids to be 320 Hz-3.5k which is where the music primarily lives.

I don't think bass under 320 Hz establishes sound stage. If present, it underpins the stage certainly, but is not the only factor in its size.

Planar/estat/open baffle speakers certainly are omnidirectional into the treble, and even my box speaker with the ribbon tweet that has one direction has very healthy dispersion up to 180 degrees well into the treble, and considerable output beyond 180 in the mids. Does a violin quartet or a solo female soprano have no soundstage? The layout of the mics has a lot to do with it too, not to mention other processing after that.

See comments in main body of my text.

The Auteur Classic really surprised me. It's so good you hear it and you wonder where it's been all of your life. Wonderful HP. On detail retrieval, I think 650 gets closer to Auteur Classic than 600. I think 650 digs out plankton details better than the 600. 600 is over 650 for pure speed and timbre though. Each have their strengths and they trade blows. To my ears 650 is a bit more refined than 600, overall. Auteur Classic and Ambrosia could replace 600 in my stable.

 

[kman1211]

The Auteur Classic really surprised me. It's so good you hear it and you wonder where it's been all of your life. Wonderful HP. On detail retrieval, I think 650 gets closer to Auteur Classic than 600. I think 650 digs out plankton details better than the 600. 600 is over 650 for pure speed and timbre though. Each have their strengths and they trade blows. To my ears 650 is a bit more refined than 600, overall. Auteur Classic and Ambrosia could replace 600 in my stable.

I agree I think the HD 650 does dig out more plankton details than the HD 600 and the HD 600 has better timbre and speed though. For me the problem with the HD 600 more than anything is I am not fond of it's upper mids and lower treble region as it's a bit lacking refinement here, tonally it's great here it's just I notice it more here as it's a region I'm especially sensitive to. The HD 650 can get a little 'hard' sounding but I have been able to adjust to it. I have decided I'm likely going to let go of the HD 660S2 though, it's been a mixed bag for me, yes it has some technical improvements but they don't agree with my ears, and honestly I prefer the R70x to the HD 660S and HD 660S2 anyways as I feel it's a better take on a modern HD 6xx sound than those two.

 

[Hypops]

If you are a fan of the HD-600 than isn't timbre the main thing? The HD-600 has 4 weaknesses IMO. If its your only source then after awhile its not nearly as apparent. I'll leave the order up to each individual.

* sound stage (3 blobs on gear that doesn't deliver enough current at 300 ohms including my Rag 1, but goes to 5 blobs with the Violectric V-281 and my BHCs)
* bass heft/dynamics
* spikes around 3k and 6k
* lack of overall detail (the newest one I found) which I found in spades vs a ZMF Auteur on a Liquid Platnum a few weeks ago. I actually had to cut short the demo vs my 600 was so weak in that regard - that I pit the ZMF against my HE-6 SE (which it generally nailed) and his HEK Stealth which it also beat overall (Aune S17 Pro for those comparisons). It's younger relative the HD-800 (any version) has what many consider a great soundstage and it lacks bass heft too. Too bad for the 800 that w/o PEQ it's timbre isn't a match for the HD-600. My two other main cans - the HE-6 SE and HE-500 both have average soundstage - well better than the HD-600, and both have esp with bass PEQ much more heft than the HD-900, and they can't soundstage anywhere in that league.

I haven't noticed (by ear) the spikes at 3k or 6k, but otherwise, I'd agree with these. I had been without an HD 600 for about a decade until very recently, so I was surprised by the lack of detail since that's not something I remembered or was expecting. But I think that's also what makes these so forgiving across different recordings/genres, and it might also be why I don't really notice any treble spikes (or at least I'm not bothered by them). The edges are all "rounded off."

I don't think bass under 320 Hz establishes sound stage. If present, it underpins the stage certainly, but is not the only factor in its size.

Planar/estat/open baffle speakers certainly are omnidirectional into the treble, and even my box speaker with the ribbon tweet that has one direction has very healthy dispersion up to 180 degrees well into the treble, and considerable output beyond 180 in the mids. Does a violin quartet or a solo female soprano have no soundstage? The layout of the mics has a lot to do with it too, not to mention other processing after that.

Soundstage is one of those effects that comes from lots of different sound cues (especially reflections). Many just assume soundstage comes from those upper harmonics (>10kHz) and leave it at that. But in my experience, bass sets the dimensions of the stage. I might still get that sense of "air" from the upper treble, but it just sounds directionless and disconnected without a firm bass foundation. It's one of the reasons I try not to overcorrect when I'm doing EQ (for both speakers and headphones); those dips and peaks often are what contribute to a sense of space. But it's all a bit moot with the HD 600 since "space" is not among its strongsuits.

 

[bagwell359]

I haven't noticed (by ear) the spikes at 3k or 6k, but otherwise, I'd agree with these. I had been without an HD 600 for about a decade until very recently, so I was surprised by the lack of detail since that's not something I remembered or was expecting. But I think that's also what makes these so forgiving across different recordings/genres, and it might also be why I don't really notice any treble spikes (or at least I'm not bothered by them). The edges are all "rounded off."

Some hear issues there, others do not. With good amps/recordings it tends to be the least annoying of the 4 issues to me, but in other cases it wants me to take them off or turn it down.

Soundstage is one of those effects that comes from lots of different sound cues (especially reflections). Many just assume soundstage comes from those upper harmonics (>10kHz) and leave it at that. But in my experience, bass sets the dimensions of the stage. I might still get that sense of "air" from the upper treble, but it just sounds directionless and disconnected without a firm bass foundation. It's one of the reasons I try not to overcorrect when I'm doing EQ (for both speakers and headphones); those dips and peaks often are what contribute to a sense of space. But it's all a bit moot with the HD 600 since "space" is not among its strongsuits.

Depends on which reflections - early reflections undermine soundstage and headphones are certainly more prone to those in ways a very well set up room stereo are not. Reflection/absorption are both easy to overdo, its those things in balance with diffusion that gets the best soundstage - which is really not something you can do with headphones. That's why sound stage is on average much more lifelike for open back headphones. Closed backs which have a high level of soundstage try to have absorption spread across a wide range, even including bass vents. No absorption or the same depth of absorption won't do well wrt to soundstage, nor FR.

I have never thought sound stage is the province of one part of the frequency spectrum. A great CD to demonstrate sound stage is Thurman Green "Dance of the Night Creatures". the first few seconds of the CD on my modded HE-500 have sound from brass seeming to come from left and right about 135 degrees apart, with another burst almost from on top of ones head.

I don't conform my PEQ to 2018 Harman which is frankly wrong (under 100 Hz and between 2.5-4k) but I like to use reference recordings to address the 4-5 of the most out of step areas - and not just FR but for planars - CSD issues too. For the HD-600:

+1.6 db @ 70 Hz bass shelf Q 1.0
+2.4 db @ 50 Hz bass shelf Q 1.0 (this is with my BHCs, which adds about a db to the bass output. anymore on the bass causes issues - mostly sonic, but also headroom concerns

- 1.8 db @ 200 Hz analog bell Q 3.4 - no use for overly warm midbass, low bass stands out better w/ this setting
- 3.4 db @ 3.2 kHz digital bell Q 4.0 - the critical setting to cut treble issues

- 6.0 db @ 15 Hz analog bell Q 4.0 - still playing w/ this setting, no need to have the driver flapping around when it doesn't produce useful bass under 35 Hz but it will cut IM distortion higher by cutting here, issues likely with phase response - so maybe a setting at 10 Hz and another one at 20 Hz, haven't played around enough.

More shaping in the treble possible, but, unit variation and tastes differ, so my settings - which are minor may not do it for others. My goal is met, improves sound, but does not molest or alter the 600 to be something else - just its best self.

 

[Hypops]

Depends on which reflections - early reflections undermine soundstage and headphones are certainly more prone to those in ways a very well set up room stereo are not. Reflection/absorption are both easy to overdo, its those things in balance with diffusion that gets the best soundstage - which is really not something you can do with headphones. That's why sound stage is on average much more lifelike for open back headphones. Closed backs which have a high level of soundstage try to have absorption spread across a wide range, even including bass vents. No absorption or the same depth of absorption won't do well wrt to soundstage, nor FR.

This jives with my experience too, and it's frankly the reason I generally don't worry too much about soundstage on headphones. My oldest and least-used pair of headphones (HD 598) are also the ones that soundstage best. Clearly it's not something I value much in headphones or I would listen to them more.

I don't conform my PEQ to 2018 Harman which is frankly wrong (under 100 Hz and between 2.5-4k) but I like to use reference recordings to address the 4-5 of the most out of step areas - and not just FR but for planars - CSD issues too.

I wouldn't call the Harman data "wrong" (since it's just an average of people's preferences), but there are definitely places in the target that I usually ignore. One of the big conclusions of the Harman data is the very wide range of bass and upper treble preferences. Therefore the target is deliberately maleable under 100Hz (across a range of about 6dB) and similarly maleable over about 4kHz (again, across a 6dB range). The Harman target is really only narrow from about 200Hz to about 2kHz. That's the range where it's actually useful.

For the HD-600:

+1.6 db @ 70 Hz bass shelf Q 1.0
+2.4 db @ 50 Hz bass shelf Q 1.0 (this is with my BHCs, which adds about a db to the bass output. anymore on the bass causes issues - mostly sonic, but also headroom concerns

- 1.8 db @ 200 Hz analog bell Q 3.4 - no use for overly warm midbass, low bass stands out better w/ this setting
- 3.4 db @ 3.2 kHz digital bell Q 4.0 - the critical setting to cut treble issues

- 6.0 db @ 15 Hz analog bell Q 4.0 - still playing w/ this setting, no need to have the driver flapping around when it doesn't produce useful bass under 35 Hz but it will cut IM distortion higher by cutting here, issues likely with phase response - so maybe a setting at 10 Hz and another one at 20 Hz, haven't played around enough.

More shaping in the treble possible, but, unit variation and tastes differ, so my settings - which are minor may not do it for others. My goal is met, improves sound, but does not molest or alter the 600 to be something else - just its best self.

I do more extensive, though gentler, EQ for these. But my overall EQ curve is fairly similar to yours. I also bring down 1k-6kHz a bit and give a gentle boost to the 7k-9kHz region. But, really, while the HD 600 might benefit from EQ, they don't need it.

 

[bagwell359]

I wouldn't call the Harman data "wrong" (since it's just an average of people's preferences)

The designers of this think that users are conditioned to poor room speaker listening environments and want the same in their headphone, and also take in user preference. I wouldn't mind if they offered two curves for every headphone - one that's the average of peoples opinions and one that is objective. Of course there is no average ear - so I do use it for what its good for - a rough baseline with obvious biases. So since they do not offer two curves, and it has subjective components it is not correct or right.

but there are definitely places in the target that I usually ignore. One of the big conclusions of the Harman data is the very wide range of bass and upper treble preferences. Therefore the target is deliberately maleable under 100Hz (across a range of about 6dB) and similarly maleable over about 4kHz (again, across a 6dB range). The Harman target is really only narrow from about 200Hz to about 2kHz. That's the range where it's actually useful.

Ahhh - should have kept reading, I do think Harman settles back down from about 6 kHz to 12 kHz - at least not 6 db wrong, maybe 1.5-2 db elevated.

I do more extensive, though gentler, EQ for these. But my overall EQ curve is fairly similar to yours. I also bring down 1k-6kHz a bit and give a gentle boost to the 7k-9kHz region. But, really, while the HD 600 might benefit from EQ, they don't need it.

Yes it needs a bit of help centered on my set around 9k - narrow but deep deficit. The 600's need less EQ than most, and as I mentioned, once habituated to them, and not playing heavy bass cuts under 60 Hz they do get to seeming quite excellent. My other two headphones both need more PEQ by a good amount.

 

[jeromesabbagh]

I still really like my HD600. Got the black foam replaced (ordered from Sennheiser a while back). Still going strong and very balanced and right sounding, even if not the last word in detail, compared to Audeze LCD-X for example.

 

[16tons]

Do any of you use these headphones with a dongle? I ve tried shanling up4 22 and the ua4, this last is more powerful but not enough. Maybe the hip dac 2/3? A bit bulky but still portable

 

[rafaelo]

Do any of you use these headphones with a dongle?

All the time. I have many dongles and reviewed some. Currently I am using KA17 and I will receive in any moment now the new go bar kensei for reviewing and testing.

You can still enjoy and get a lot of fun from these headphones even with a dongle... that is my opinion.

 

[16tons]

What do you recommend with a budget of 100€? I can buy the hip dac2 for that price or better something newer?

 

[Promee]

Do any of you use these headphones with a dongle? I ve tried shanling up4 22 and the ua4, this last is more powerful but not enough. Maybe the hip dac 2/3? A bit bulky but still portable

Did you use the UA4 with a balanced 4.4mm cable? If not, that may be the better place to invest the money. For most sources (there are just a few exceptions) switching to a balanced cable will roughly double the power output. This way you don’t wind up having to overspend on a more powerful device that will waste battery life trying to drive enough power through single-ended. The HD600 is very efficient / sensitive even though it is high impedance, so it shouldn’t require an enormous amount of power if it is used well. I don’t see any specs for the UA4 at 300 ohm (not unusual) but based on what it is saying at 32 ohm, I think it’s reasonable to expect that it is powerful enough. At 32 ohm, through single ended 3.5mm you get 137 mW, but through the 4.4mm you get 227 mW - almost double the power.

Hope this helps! Happy listening!

 

[16tons]

Yes I use it in balanced but with some songs I ve to set the volume next to max. Since i can return the ua4 I m thinking to buy the hip dac2 that should give 200mw at 300ohm

 

[Promee]

Yes I use it in balanced but with some songs I ve to set the volume next to max. Since i can return the ua4 I m thinking to buy the hip dac2 that should give 200mw at 300ohm

That should give you a ton of headroom! Sounds like you have covered your bases on the cable, so with that in place, more power is the way to go, and the hip DAC should do it!

 

[WoodyLuvr]

Did you use the UA4 with a balanced 4.4mm cable? If not, that may be the better place to invest the money. For most sources (there are just a few exceptions) switching to a balanced cable will roughly double the power output. This way you don’t wind up having to overspend on a more powerful device that will waste battery life trying to drive enough power through single-ended. The HD600 is very efficient / sensitive even though it is high impedance, so it shouldn’t require an enormous amount of power if it is used well. I don’t see any specs for the UA4 at 300 ohm (not unusual) but based on what it is saying at 32 ohm, I think it’s reasonable to expect that it is powerful enough. At 32 ohm, through single ended 3.5mm you get 137 mW, but through the 4.4mm you get 227 mW - almost double the power.

Hope this helps! Happy listening!

The Sennheiser HD 600 is not hard to drive perse but rather does require a rather high voltage swing that a many smartphone, usb dongle, and lower-tiered DAPs and headAMPs are unable to provide (more here).

Not to say that they won't/don't sound good from weaker sources they do scale tremendously with more power (voltage).