[Shaffer]

I enjoy all recordings with my HD600. Why? Because I like the music. Sorry to introduce the obvious.

 

[Tuco1965]

I enjoy all recordings with my HD600. Why? Because I like the music. Sorry to introduce the obvious.

Agree

 

[madwolfa]

  +1 GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. In that case there's not much to shine about.

 
Yeah, I'm not blaming HD600..

 

[rigodeni]

Really the only way for a can to be "forgiving" of bad material is to be of such low resolution that sounds all blend together and detail isn't retrieved. Those fans won't really sound good with anything. That said, I wouldn't say the 600 exaggerates problems, simply has enough resolution that problems can be heard. I'm still able to enjoy poor to mediocre recordings with the 600, they just don't allow the 600 to shine to its full potential

+1 on being "forgiving". In my opinion the DAC is an even bigger part of this. Generally speaking higher end DACs are even more resolving, but they resolve all the good stuff too. Even my 128kbps tracks sound better with a good DAC more so than sounding worse. Unless there really was an obvious defect. Remember there are good and bad recordings at any given bitrate. Recording quality being equal, I would say it's easier to hear the difference from a lower to higher bitrate song with a good DAC. That doesn't mean the lower one sounds worse, just that the DAC has the resolution to make the higher ones truly shine. To resolve the details the original recording meant for you to hear in the studio. Combined with a good resolving headphone like the HD 600 you get bliss. In terms of amplification the HD 600 really doesn't need much power, and is not at all "picky" about about such things.

 

[Midgetguy]

 
+1 on being "forgiving". In my opinion the DAC is an even bigger part of this. Generally speaking higher end DACs are even more resolving, but they resolve all the good stuff too. Even my 128kbps tracks sound better with a good DAC more so than sounding worse. Unless there really was an obvious defect. Remember there are good and bad recordings at any given bitrate. Recording quality being equal, I would say it's easier to hear the difference from a lower to higher bitrate song with a good DAC. That doesn't mean the lower one sounds worse, just that the DAC has the resolution to make the higher ones truly shine. To resolve the details the original recording meant for you to hear in the studio. Combined with a good resolving headphone like the HD 600 you get bliss. In terms of amplification the HD 600 really doesn't need much power, and is not at all "picky" about about such things.

Totally. Not quite what you'd expect to be saying about a 300ohm headphone, but it's true, it's not too hard to drive. I'm testing out a buddy's new set of AKG K7XXs and it seems like they need just a little more juice to run at equal volume for A/B testing even though it's rated as a 62ohm headphone. The HD600s are a marvelous balance in all regards: performance, price, relatively easily driven, comfortable (more so after slightly bending the metal bits to relieve clamping force), and isn't punishing on the music, allowing for great enjoyment at all levels. I'm bouncing around a couple of headphones to try out at the moment, but I'm fairly confident I'll be back in my HD600s as most preferred at the end of it all.

 

[rigodeni]

  Totally. Not quite what you'd expect to be saying about a 300ohm headphone, but it's true, it's not too hard to drive. I'm testing out a buddy's new set of AKG K7XXs and it seems like they need just a little more juice to run at equal volume for A/B testing even though it's rated as a 62ohm headphone. The HD600s are a marvelous balance in all regards: performance, price, relatively easily driven, comfortable (more so after slightly bending the metal bits to relieve clamping force), and isn't punishing on the music, allowing for great enjoyment at all levels. I'm bouncing around a couple of headphones to try out at the moment, but I'm fairly confident I'll be back in my HD600s as most preferred at the end of it all.

Yes impedance only plays one part in the power requirement equation. There's sensitivity and overall driver design. The AKG K7XX's do seem to need more power. Same with the Beyer DT series. My DT 770 Pro 250Ohm needs about 10-15% more on the dial in just about every amp I have tried. Honestly though I haven't found a headphone that needs more power than even low end amps have. The higher end amps are just cleaner and more resolving.
 
Power output specifications are just as misleading on headphone amps too. Similar to how contrast ratio on TV's is misleading because each manufacturer makes up their own tests for it. I have a 40mW at 32Ohm (TEAC UD-H01) and 160mW at 32Ohm (TEAC HA-P50). In this case numbers published by the exact same manufacturer yet both require the same position on the volume dial at just about every impedance from 32Ohm to 300Ohm. Point being don't judge any hardware, especially in the audio world, by numbers alone.

 

[Brooko]

 
Yes impedance only plays one part in the power requirement equation. There's sensitivity and overall driver design. The AKG K7XX's do seem to need more power. Same with the Beyer DT series. My DT 770 Pro 250Ohm needs about 10-15% more on the dial in just about every amp I have tried. Honestly though I haven't found a headphone that needs more power than even low end amps have. The higher end amps are just cleaner and more resolving.
 
Power output specifications are just as misleading on headphone amps too. Similar to how contrast ratio on TV's is misleading because each manufacturer makes up their own tests for it. I have a 40mW at 32Ohm (TEAC UD-H01) and 160mW at 32Ohm (TEAC HA-P50). In this case numbers published by the exact same manufacturer yet both require the same position on the volume dial at just about every impedance from 32Ohm to 300Ohm. Point being don't judge any hardware, especially in the audio world, by numbers alone.

 
There can be a huge difference when you're taking the impedance curve into account when it's not flat though.  Often you'll get enough overall volume - but parts of the frequency curve will suffer.  This post is a great one (I discovered a few years ago) which explains the difference in the K701 and HD650 - so relevant to current discussion.
 
https://lsirui.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/k701-vs-hd650-electrical-measurement/
 
When you start looking at the electrical equations required, you can understand why the K701 etc are described as hard to drive cans (because of their low sensitivity) - and understand also why there are a lot of people who comment that the AKGs are bass shy / too bright. When driven properly, the AKGs are beautifully balanced headphones.

 

[kman1211]

   
There can be a huge difference when you're taking the impedance curve into account when it's not flat though.  Often you'll get enough overall volume - but parts of the frequency curve will suffer.  This post is a great one (I discovered a few years ago) which explains the difference in the K701 and HD650 - so relevant to current discussion.
 
https://lsirui.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/k701-vs-hd650-electrical-measurement/
 
When you start looking at the electrical equations required, you can understand why the K701 etc are described as hard to drive cans (because of their low sensitivity) - and understand also why there are a lot of people who comment that the AKGs are bass shy / too bright. When driven properly, the AKGs are beautifully balanced headphones.

That is very true about the AKGs, they truly do need to be driven properly otherwise they are not the most pleasant listening experience. They interestingly sound fairly similar to Senns when properly driven, especially with the K712, K7XX, and Annies. 

 

[rigodeni]

   
There can be a huge difference when you're taking the impedance curve into account when it's not flat though.  Often you'll get enough overall volume - but parts of the frequency curve will suffer.  This post is a great one (I discovered a few years ago) which explains the difference in the K701 and HD650 - so relevant to current discussion.
 
https://lsirui.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/k701-vs-hd650-electrical-measurement/
 
When you start looking at the electrical equations required, you can understand why the K701 etc are described as hard to drive cans (because of their low sensitivity) - and understand also why there are a lot of people who comment that the AKGs are bass shy / too bright. When driven properly, the AKGs are beautifully balanced headphones.

Yeah it's interesting. There is some benefit to designing an amp for a particular headphone in that regard. The HD 600 really doesn't suffer from "needing" to be driven properly to shine though. The point I was making was more to do with how impedance alone does not explain power requirements. My HD 25-1 II at 70Ohm are super sensitive and get louder than some 16Ohm IEMs I have. At the same volume with any given device. If you could pick and choose which frequency range gets how much power you would obviously get an ideal result but that's a luxury nearly nobody has.

 

[yangian]

Dear headfier,
I want to update amplifier from fiio e12 for hd 600. I noticed kinds of choices. Basically, I only listen to classical, symphony. Could you guys give me some suggestions? On budget, it's better give me some choices. Like what's best under 300, under 600, under 1000. 
Thanks very much!

 

[Midgetguy]

   
There can be a huge difference when you're taking the impedance curve into account when it's not flat though.  Often you'll get enough overall volume - but parts of the frequency curve will suffer.  This post is a great one (I discovered a few years ago) which explains the difference in the K701 and HD650 - so relevant to current discussion.
 
https://lsirui.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/k701-vs-hd650-electrical-measurement/
 
When you start looking at the electrical equations required, you can understand why the K701 etc are described as hard to drive cans (because of their low sensitivity) - and understand also why there are a lot of people who comment that the AKGs are bass shy / too bright. When driven properly, the AKGs are beautifully balanced headphones.

My setup is probably driving it at least sort of (?) properly haha. Budget setup but it's decent. Whatever it's considered, I prefer my HD600s over the K7XXs. Through my setup, the AKGs seem pretty flat and accurate and I've got no gripes with that, but the HD600s just has a more musical effect to me. And the Fidelio X1s I mentioned I got last week....I think I like those more than the K7XXs as well. I think the AKGs take it on technical merit easily considering the sort of sound signature the X1s exhibit, but I find the X1s more fun and they fit my music better. The AKGs strike me as good for stuff like rock and jazz, but I have more hip-hop and electronic music so the X1s are better. The HD600s work amazingly for like everything in my library from electronic to orchestral pieces to video game soundtracks. It's why they're still my top headphone

 

[Shaffer]

Dear headfier,
I want to update amplifier from fiio e12 for hd 600. I noticed kinds of choices. Basically, I only listen to classical, symphony. Could you guys give me some suggestions? On budget, it's better give me some choices. Like what's best under 300, under 600, under 1000. 
Thanks very much!

What sort of sound to you prefer? Does tube or ss matter to you?

 

[Brooko]

  My setup is probably driving it at least sort of (?) properly haha. Budget setup but it's decent. Whatever it's considered, I prefer my HD600s over the K7XXs. Through my setup, the AKGs seem pretty flat and accurate and I've got no gripes with that, but the HD600s just has a more musical effect to me. And the Fidelio X1s I mentioned I got last week....I think I like those more than the K7XXs as well. I think the AKGs take it on technical merit easily considering the sort of sound signature the X1s exhibit, but I find the X1s more fun and they fit my music better. The AKGs strike me as good for stuff like rock and jazz, but I have more hip-hop and electronic music so the X1s are better. The HD600s work amazingly for like everything in my library from electronic to orchestral pieces to video game soundtracks. It's why they're still my top headphone

 
Oh - totally agree with this.  HD600s are THE great all-rounder.  I think that's why so many people still gravitate back to them - even after trying TOTL.
 
My Mum has my K701's now - she's driving them straight from a DAP, but she's in her 70's and I don't think she's worried about the bass

.  She solely listens to classical anyway.  I have to admit that whenever I get a chance to get home, I usually throw some gear in a bag and often "borrow" the K701's for a few hours to remind myself how good they can be. Should get a pair again at some stage - even if it's just for the odd day that I feel like it.  There is nothing quite like the AKG mid-range (if you enjoy it).
 
Saying that though - between the HD600 and T1 I don't really need another full sized can .......

 

[paulguru]

Really the only way for a can to be "forgiving" of bad material is to be of such low resolution that sounds all blend together and detail isn't retrieved. Those fans won't really sound good with anything. That said, I wouldn't say the 600 exaggerates problems, simply has enough resolution that problems can be heard. I'm still able to enjoy poor to mediocre recordings with the 600, they just don't allow the 600 to shine to its full potential

   
From my experience with HD600, it's quite unforgiving to bad source material (people may say otherwise, but...). For that reason I've mostly listened to high quality stuff on my pair (jazz, acoustic, some classic rock)... Suffice to say since I got my LCD-2, my listening preferences have shifted and widened considerably.

  The HD600 has less distortion, a better quality bass and a more consistent treble. The 600 also leaks more sound, if that's an issue. Given the two, I reach for the HD600's.
I ditched the 598's and later on picked up the 558's for office use as it does not leak so much and being open I can hear another person when they come by to talk to me and respond. There's not much of a difference between the 558's and 598's, although the 598's look cooler.

 
 
Compared to Fidelio X2 who give the most unforgiving and less analitycs sound between two ?
Im looking for an headphone can sound good with gaming, and not excessive unforgiving.

 

[onebigunion]

   
 
Compared to Fidelio X2 who give the most unforgiving and less analitycs sound between two ?
Im looking for an headphone can sound good with gaming, and not excessive unforgiving.

IMO, if you're going to use them ONLY for gaming, either may be overkill.  I'd save a little cash and go for the Senn 558.  Still a reasonably balanced can, not as resolving as either of the other two you mentioned, but still acceptable, and OK soundstage. Maybe a bit tilted down in the treble, which can make for less fatigue over longer sessions. Easy to drive too.  sorry I'm not a gamer, so maybe I'm prejudiced but I don't think you need 600 / X2 caliper phones for gaming.