[apaar123]

Soundstage is an illusion in headphones largely produced by how the mind interprets the frequency balance of the headphone. Other factors might contribute, but this is the major one. Headphones with forward upper midrange (like the HD 600) are always going to sound intimate, since the mind interprets that sort of balance as if the sound is close to you. A headphone with more laid back upper mids will tend to sound more diffuse and like the sound is originating from further away.

This is an immutable part of how human hearing works. No amp or DAC is going to change this as it would require a significant alteration of the frequency balance right in the most sensitive area of human hearing. This kind of response feature doesn't happen accidentally. It would have to be an intentional choice on the part of the equipment designer, and no designer would make such a choice because it would make their equipment largely useless unless a prospective buyer was looking for precisely the alteration offered and happened to have exactly the right headphone to pair it with. Simple logic and basic economics tell us that this would be an untenable situation, as the number of people who would fall into this situation and choose to buy such a piece of equipment is minuscule. Equipment makers would much rather target the widest market possible with their products, as this would give them the greatest chance of making a sale.

Don't buy something you suspect won't work for you on the assumption that you'll somehow be able to "fix" it with additional purchases. Get what you need in the first place. If a wide soundstage is a paramount requirement, the HD 600 is probably not for you. Something like a Beyerdynamic DT880 or one of the AKG K7## family is going to have a noticeably wider soundstage. I can personally vouch for the DT880, as I've owned one for over six years at this point. It's on the bright side compared to the HD 600, and overall I would consider the HD 600 a better headphone, but the DT880's soundstage projection is definitely wider.

i want a headphone with 600 quality and wider soundstage?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

i want a headphone with 600 quality and wider soundstage?

Try running your HD600 through this and see if you get what you want
http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-1-major-update-made-public

 

[U-3C]

Try running your HD600 through this and see if you get what you want
http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-1-major-update-made-public

Tried that before with my friend's HD600.

I can vouch for it. I assume my friend, who had to take his headphones back by force can vouch for how much I loved it too.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I fixed my quote screwup but apparently it was infectious :eek:

 

[Argyris]

It's been a while since I played with crossfeed. I remember my impression was that it tended to make the soundstage move forward rather than make it wider, though I wasn't really expecting a width expansion so I didn't pay much attention to that aspect. I liked the effect, since it made things seem less shouty and overbearing at higher volumes, and it somewhat alleviated the "in your head" headphone presentation. The particular implementation I used did have a subtle attenuating effect on the upper bass / lower treble region, though. I guess some alteration of the balance is unavoidable, and I didn't find it particularly bothersome. I can't say why I stopped using it--it could have been as simple as forgetting to track down the plugin when I reset my system one time.

 

[funkisound]

i want to know can i increase its soundstage by an amp dac?

You could maybe try out the Asus STU (a USB DAC/Amp) in its stock opamp configuration. I once tried it with the 600's and I thought the soundstage was quite wide for a 600 and had very good air and depth.

 

[ToTo Man]

  The charts from the other sources use different compensations, some of which are derived from the work done by Dr. Sean Olive and Harman. These come closer to what might be ideal, but I find myself at odds with the amount of bass boost the so-called Harman Curve considers to be neutral--for my taste I think it's about 2-3 dB too high. I also feel like the compensation expects too little upper treble--if you look at preliminary compensated curves for most headphones, including the HD 600, they all ramp up severely after 10 kHz, when this just isn't borne out in my own personal impressions or those I've read from anybody else.
 
The DIY-Audio-Heaven curves come closest to what I actually hear. I'm not sure which compensation is used--maybe it's a custom curve. Nonetheless, it gets everything about right for the HD 600, from the bass rolloff, to the slight bump between 2 kHz and 6 kHz, to the well-extended and even treble. One of my first impressions of the HD 600 was that, contrary to a lot of what I'd read, it doesn't lack high treble at all. It's not emphasized the way it is in some headphones (e.g. the DT880), but it's not missing, either.

 
In the HD800S user manual Sennheiser make reference to the “masking effect”, where a peak in one part of the response impedes the ability to hear the frequencies above as clearly.  So perhaps the bump around 3.5kHz in the HD600 makes it seem like there's less high frequency incision and extension?  Interestingly when I used parametric EQ to dip the 3.5kHz region the treble indeed became easier to hear IMO.  However I note that the DIY-Audio-Heaven graph shows a -4dB dip at 12kHz, so wouldn't it be a good idea to boost 12kHz just a little?
 
FWIW - I'll always love the HD600, it was my first proper 'reference-quality' headphone and remained so for many years, and it will remain a benchmark especially given its incredibly competitive price.  However after auditioning more expensive 'phones, such as the HD800S, and Mr Speakers' Ether, it becomes evident that the HD600 isn't as resolving or as layered/spacious (which of course is completely understandable given the huge price delta!).  However I'm still convinced that with some minor EQ tweaks the performance of the HD600 can be elevated to a level closer to its far pricier peers...  

 

[HC Over Lambda]

An HD800 with the Super Dupont Resonator?

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Originally Posted by ToTo Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
However I note that the DIY-Audio-Heaven graph shows a -4dB dip at 12kHz, so wouldn't it be a good idea to boost 12kHz just a little?

 
The problem there is how Q factor works. Given the high numerical number of 12khz, a narrow dip in that range will require an unnatural and extremely narrow Q, otherwise it will affect too many frequencies below and above it. Instead of filling in 12khz to level with 10khz and 14khz, you can end up boosting 12khz to where 10khz and 14khz were, but then you boosted everything from 9khz to 16khz.
 
Besides, there really isn't a lot of information higher than 10khz anyway, which is why most graphs don't go all the way to 20khz. If you can get 20hz to 10000hz smooth enough and as level as possible with 1000hz, then you're pretty much as neutral as current technology allows.

 

[ToTo Man]

   
The problem there is how Q factor works. Given the high numerical number of 12khz, a narrow dip in that range will require an unnatural and extremely narrow Q, otherwise it will affect too many frequencies below and above it. Instead of filling in 12khz to level with 10khz and 14khz, you can end up boosting 12khz to where 10khz and 14khz were, but then you boosted everything from 9khz to 16khz.
 
Besides, there really isn't a lot of information higher than 10khz anyway, which is why most graphs don't go all the way to 20khz. If you can get 20hz to 10000hz smooth enough and as level as possible with 1000hz, then you're pretty much as neutral as current technology allows.

Sorry to stray further OT but I'm fairly new to parametric EQ so don't yet understand desirable/undesirable Q-values.  Would for example a +3dB boost centred on 13kHz with a high-Q (e.g. 15) be silly?

 

[BobG55]

 
In the HD800S user manual Sennheiser make reference to the “masking effect”, where a peak in one part of the response impedes the ability to hear the frequencies above as clearly.  So perhaps the bump around 3.5kHz in the HD600 makes it seem like there's less high frequency incision and extension?  Interestingly when I used parametric EQ to dip the 3.5kHz region the treble indeed became easier to hear IMO.  However I note that the DIY-Audio-Heaven graph shows a -4dB dip at 12kHz, so wouldn't it be a good idea to boost 12kHz just a little?
 
FWIW - I'll always love the HD600, it was my first proper 'reference-quality' headphone and remained so for many years, and it will remain a benchmark especially given its incredibly competitive price.  However after auditioning more expensive 'phones, such as the HD800S, and Mr Speakers' Ether, it becomes evident that the HD600 isn't as resolving or as layered/spacious (which of course is completely understandable given the huge price delta!).  However I'm still convinced that with some minor EQ tweaks the performance of the HD600 can be elevated to a level closer to its far pricier peers...  

Agreed & also & foremost, in my case, with a better amp like the Zana Deux S combined w/ a quality vacuum tube.   I've owned the HD600 since 2003 (bought a new pair 2 yrs ago/ sold older pair) & this is the best I've ever heard them.  I've owned other "very good" amps e.g. GS-X mk2, Taurus mkII, Trafomatic audio exp head one, etc. & this is the best combination yet.  While designing the ZDS, the HD600 was one of the headphones Craig Uthus used & had in mind synergy wise.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  Sorry to stray further OT but I'm fairly new to parametric EQ so don't yet understand desirable/undesirable Q-values.  Would for example a +3dB boost centred on 13kHz with a high-Q (e.g. 15) be silly?

 
Here's a good place to start understanding all that.
https://howtoeq.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/q-factor-and-bandwidth-in-eq-what-it-all-means/

 

[SpeakerBox]

   
However I'm still convinced that with some minor EQ tweaks the performance of the HD600 can be elevated to a level closer to its far pricier peers...  

 
I was able to make mine sound much better with the multi-level tone controls on the Pioneer SX-1250. 

 

[castleofargh]

just want to add that measurements of someone else's pair using whatever measurement rig is but one interpretation of that specific pair of headphone. it may feel like captain obvious speaking but that leads to a bunch of things people should be aware of/concerned about:
 
-each pair is a little different, there will be a few db change at some frequencies from the start between 2 pairs of hd600. and then you will set your headband the way you do, use the headphone in the position you do with pads more or less used and more or less hair under them...  all of which will affect the sound getting inside your ears.
the direct consequence is that you might want to at least multiply the measurements sources you're going to use as reference for you EQ, to try and find out if some peaks and dips are found consistently at consistent magnitudes before you start EQing them out. and in the end you still should use your own ears to fine tune your EQ anyway. 
 
-measurements graphs of headphones come from a specific device using a specific calibration and sometimes over that will be applied a particular compensation. at no moment the result tells you that a flat line is neutral sound for your ears! if somebody tells you that getting a given signature on the headphone is neutral, that person is ignorant or lying to you. we do not have one universal reference of neutral for headphones. the very guys building the dummy heads are very reserved on that matter. they try to simulate an average based on plenty of different people, and never pretend to have the neutral reference. we have electrically neutral for amps and DACs, but that can't possibly apply to headphones. so the only neutral you can hope to get on headphones is "neutral to my ears", or neutral on a specific compensation curve that may or may not sound neutral to you(most likely it won't TBH).
 
don't get me wrong, I'm all for EQ, and I feel that measurements can be very informative(to the point where I do plenty of them myself), but the frequency response of a pair of headphone measured at one position on one rig does not dictate what neutral is for different people with different pairs of headphone.
 
I couldn't find the same kind of graph for the hd600 and feel too lazy to toshop them myself out of different websites, but here is the hd650 as an example of what I mean from Rin Choi's blog. each line is a different website measurement(so different gears) of a pair of hd650:


you can see how relying only one graph can be misleading.
 
and to be even more scary, I find that Senn headphones are on the good side of manufacturing consistency. with most audeze or hifiman headphones I really wouldn't recommend to put too much faith in online graphs to tell you how your pair will sound.

 

[Argyris]

Assuming the different lines are comparable, I want the one with the blue and orange traces. Dat bass extension!