[bosiemoncrieff]

I may be spoiled by hd800 and k1000, but I find hd600, while tonally beautiful, too soundstage-narrow to reach for all that often.

 

[DavidA]

I may be spoiled by hd800 and k1000, but I find hd600, while tonally beautiful, too soundstage-narrow to reach for all that often.

as you only listen to classical its what I would reason as a simple conclusion, but for other genres its quite good where sound stage is not an important criteria.

 

[StanD]

To me, many headphones that appear to have a very wide soundstage have a skewed FR (possibly phase response or both) that accentuates treble which gives the perception of a wider soundstage. In this case the placement of the instrument is wrong an may even shift as the instrument's melody moves throughout its register. I think one should listen very carefully for a well behaved soundstage. IMO the HD600 is well behaved.

 

[ubs28]

  To me, many headphones that appear to have a very wide soundstage have a skewed FR (possibly phase response or both) that accentuates treble which gives the perception of a wider soundstage. In this case the placement of the instrument is wrong an may even shift as the instrument's melody moves throughout its register. I think one should listen very carefully for a well behaved soundstage. IMO the HD600 is well behaved.

But the HD 650 has a wider soundstage than the HD 600 while being darker. Also the HD 650 on the Chord Dave + Taurus MKII has a wider soundstage than the HD 800 on the Chord Mojo.
 
So according to my ears, soundstage is not dependent on the frequency response. 

 

[StanD]

 
But the HD 650 has a wider soundstage than the HD 600 while being darker. Also the HD 650 on the Chord Dave + Taurus MKII has a wider soundstage than the HD 800 on the Chord Mojo.
 
So according to my ears, soundstage is not dependent on the frequency response. 

There is also phase response. I wonder how much of that is expectation bias due to all  of such discussions affecting perception. Human echoic memory only lasts for a few seconds so a proper comparison requires flipping back and forth quickly and having both setups volume matched. I was able to compare both with an A/B switch and didn't hear a difference in soundstage, only I could hear are tonal differences. The setup wasn't volume matched. Soundstage is baked into the recording as tonal and phase differences in the two channels, and changes due to these parameters by headphones can affect our perception. Human beings are not the best witnesses.

 

[serman005]

 Any more rockers out there? Am looking to collect experiences and build a little database. Thanks!

 

[ProtegeManiac]

   Any more rockers out there? Am looking to collect experiences and build a little database. Thanks!

 
Does that include metal?

 
And I really need to get this amp fixed, or get a Jazz FF.

 

[Rdwng1975]

Just got a pair over the weekend. Having never heard them before I am just floored. Coming from the HP50 this is such a change. I had a pair of HD598 years ago and was not crazy about them and spent very little time with them. Open backed!! I now know what people mean when they say something sounds closed in. This is like opening a window. Breath of fresh air!

 

[DecentLevi]

Just got a pair over the weekend. Having never heard them before I am just floored. Coming from the HP50 this is such a change. I had a pair of HD598 years ago and was not crazy about them and spent very little time with them. Open backed!! I now know what people mean when they say something sounds closed in. This is like opening a window. Breath of fresh air!

Interesting, how would you say the sound signature of the Viso sounds compared to the HD-600? And just to see if you may be getting the most out of your HD-600's, which amp are you using? 

 

[Argyris]

  Interesting, how would you say the sound signature of the Viso sounds compared to the HD-600?

 
I had an HP50 briefly but was forced to give it up as it was the most shockingly uncomfortable headphone I've ever owned. In my time with it I committed to thought my impressions of it. Keep in mind it's not a direct comparison as I've never had both the HP50 and the HD 600 at the same time.
 
My overall impression of the HP50 was that it was a mildly V-shaped headphone with slightly excessive midbass bloom that obscured the lower bass (though, due to the way the headband distributed its clamping force, there's a chance the bottoms of the pads weren't sealing properly). The basic tonality leaned toward warmth, but there was also an unusual mid-treble spike that added an edge and a touch of incoherence to what was otherwise a remarkably smooth frequency contour. The upper treble seemed a bit rolled off, and the upper midrange just a tiny bit laid back. All this combined to create a headphone that left me underwhelmed, despite my being quite impressed with its technicalities. The response was clean (no ringing), imaging was excellent, the soundstage was pretty well appointed (width and depth projection) for a closed headphone, and I found the HP50 to perform about equally well for every genre I tried, including, unique among closed headphones I've sampled, classical. I just never found it particularly engaging; I found that I respected it more than I enjoyed listening to it, and of course I had comfort issues. I don't regret returning it.

The HD 600 left an altogether different impression on me, and it went in reverse. I remember being initially taken with the HP50 (V-shaped responses always seem to do that) but finding over time that I liked it less and less. The HD 600 seemed upper midrange heavy and unengaging for the first hour or so as I got used to its signature (I was coming from a DT880). It grew on me fairly quickly, though, and by the next hour I was enjoying it immensely. Where the HP50 emphasized the mid- and upper bass and the lower vocal fundamentals, the HD 600 pushes forward the upper harmonics. Where the HP50 had a bit of a distracting edge in the treble, the HD 600 is glass smooth. If the HP50 was mildly V-shaped, the HD 600 is mildly mid-centric. If the HP50 really had a signature fault, I'd say that it sounded a bit stuffy up top due to the lack of upper treble extension. The HD 600, despite much of what I've read that says otherwise, doesn't seem to have this problem, though it does lack lower bass and, on rare occasions, tracks with thinner mastering can sound a bit lacking in body, which was never a problem with the HP50.

Overall, I'd say they're both interpretations of neutral, though they go in opposite directions. If nothing else, my memory of my experience with the HP50 (comfort aside) just makes me wish a closed headphone of its level of refinement existed that had something comparable to the HD 600's signature.

 

[kinkling]

   
I had an HP50 briefly but was forced to give it up as it was the most shockingly uncomfortable headphone I've ever owned. In my time with it I committed to thought my impressions of it. Keep in mind it's not a direct comparison as I've never had both the HP50 and the HD 600 at the same time.
 
My overall impression of the HP50 was that it was a mildly V-shaped headphone with slightly excessive midbass bloom that obscured the lower bass (though, due to the way the headband distributed its clamping force, there's a chance the bottoms of the pads weren't sealing properly). The basic tonality leaned toward warmth, but there was also an unusual mid-treble spike that added an edge and a touch of incoherence to what was otherwise a remarkably smooth frequency contour. The upper treble seemed a bit rolled off, and the upper midrange just a tiny bit laid back. All this combined to create a headphone that left me underwhelmed, despite my being quite impressed with its technicalities. The response was clean (no ringing), imaging was excellent, the soundstage was pretty well appointed (width and depth projection) for a closed headphone, and I found the HP50 to perform about equally well for every genre I tried, including, unique among closed headphones I've sampled, classical. I just never found it particularly engaging; I found that I respected it more than I enjoyed listening to it, and of course I had comfort issues. I don't regret returning it.

The HD 600 left an altogether different impression on me, and it went in reverse. I remember being initially taken with the HP50 (V-shaped responses always seem to do that) but finding over time that I liked it less and less. The HD 600 seemed upper midrange heavy and unengaging for the first hour or so as I got used to its signature (I was coming from a DT880). It grew on me fairly quickly, though, and by the next hour I was enjoying it immensely. Where the HP50 emphasized the mid- and upper bass and the lower vocal fundamentals, the HD 600 pushes forward the upper harmonics. Where the HP50 had a bit of a distracting edge in the treble, the HD 600 is glass smooth. If the HP50 was mildly V-shaped, the HD 600 is mildly mid-centric. If the HP50 really had a signature fault, I'd say that it sounded a bit stuffy up top due to the lack of upper treble extension. The HD 600, despite much of what I've read that says otherwise, doesn't seem to have this problem, though it does lack lower bass and, on rare occasions, tracks with thinner mastering can sound a bit lacking in body, which was never a problem with the HP50.

Overall, I'd say they're both interpretations of neutral, though they go in opposite directions. If nothing else, my memory of my experience with the HP50 (comfort aside) just makes me wish a closed headphone of its level of refinement existed that had something comparable to the HD 600's signature.

My experience is almost the exact opposite!   Both are fairly balanced in their presentation of the bass/mids/highs in proportion to one another, but I agree that the HP50s roll off the highest highs (which does not equal v-shaped), but the extended treble on the HD600 annoyed me to the point I was about to return them until a few days had passed.  Now I find the HD600s fantastic for A/B comparisons and the open back is quite nice, but I find the Visos much more enjoyable to just relax and listen to music with.

 

[Rdwng1975]

My experience is almost the exact opposite!   Both are fairly balanced in their presentation of the bass/mids/highs in proportion to one another, but I agree that the HP50s roll off the highest highs (which does not equal v-shaped), but the extended treble on the HD600 annoyed me to the point I was about to return them until a few days had passed.  Now I find the HD600s fantastic for A/B comparisons and the open back is quite nice, but I find the Visos much more enjoyable to just relax and listen to music with.

I agree with your sound comparisons kinkling and felt the same way for the first 1.5 day about the treble. For me the HP50's are mildly uncomfortable but I really didn't know comfort until putting on the hd600. In comparison it is almost like wearing nothing. My ears don't touch anything, no creaking/microphonic noise, and I know some people struggle with the hd600 clamp but for me vs the hp50 its a walk in the park.

 

[DecentLevi]

Hi guys, thought I'd post this to hopefully benefit anyone who's interested to change their earpads for the HD-600's (or 650's for that matter).
 
I've just finished a comparison of a pair of knock-off Chinese made HD-600 earpad to a pair of authentic Sennheiser earpads, and the differences were greater than I thought! Upon needing a change of earpads a few weeks ago I though I'd order this one because it's cheaper and looks OK:
 
 
As I had noticed from the pictures, these are quite shallow, and upon receiving it I noticed how narrow the opening on these damn things are! Upon trying it, I always felt slightly uncomfortable, as if the cotton was too firm. The sound was always 'meh' or 'OK', often causing me to reach for my HD-650 instead.
 
Finally today I got an authentic pair of Sennheiser HD-600 compatible earpads. Comparing the knock-offs to the originals, it becomes clear how drastically different these are. They both fit, and that's about it. The pads are a good 1/3rd more shallow, the material is cheaper and firmer feeling, and the width (internal roundness) is about 25% more narrow on the fake pair.
 
Gave one last listen to the knock-off pair, then upon putting on the authentic pair - I couldn't believe my ears! It was akin to a whole new set of headphones! The FR was about the same, but everything else sounded improved - more of all that is good, as if it had just opened-up more and 'grown a pair' - this is for real and I'm sure not placebo effect. I'd liken the difference being to the wider sound opening, better pad material and deeper padding of the original.
 
I got the authentic one from the Sennheiser website itself for about $48 (with free UPS shipping), and I believe they will ship it to you from either their US or German warehouse, whichever is closest to you. They also come with the flat foam pads for a cleaner looking / smelling result. I would highly encourage anyone interested to replace dirty / smelly / flattened earpads to go authentic or get nothin' at all. From what I can see, there are dozens of different eBay listings for earpads, and they are all essentially just different vendors and different photos of the same exact knock-off's, including the one I got from Florida (Chinese made). So at least make sure it says it's the authentic one, and it's Prod. Code 050635.

 

[aCommunistSpy]

Thanks for the heads-up! Those pads were tempting but I guess you reap what you sow.
 
I hear even the HM5 pads drastically alter the sound for the worse (bass mostly).

 

[troymadison]

eh i might pick up a HD600 oneday even tho I already got a HD580