[Baxide]

Under EU regulation customers can send back an item within a week and without any reason if they have bought over the internet. What is an online shop supposed to do with returned items that were sent back but are not faulty? Throw them away? 
If buyers didn't abuse the system and only sent back items if there was a fault or it did not suit the purpose it was intended for, then life would be so much easier. But I know of people who order several items of the same type, ten test each one out against each other, and then send the ones back that they don't want. I even know of someone who bought a whole set of gear for his friends to play with during a weekend of gaming at his place. He even ordered several hifi systems to place all over the house and in the garden for that weekend. What would the sellers have thought of such an abuse of online ordering?
So before complaining that an item is not factory fresh, but that someone might have tried it out before, just think before you order and send something back. The retailer is losing money on that deal and has to make it up somehow. Maybe he does that by bumping up his prices so that he can even out his losses.
 

 

[MuppetFace]

Not quite what I expected in some respects.
 
. . . . . . .
 
1. I expected these to be comfortable, but I'm finding them far less comfortable than the HD800. and they're about on the same level as the HD800 for me after letting the cups un-stiffen a bit. Initially they had very little give, but now they adjust easily. These headphones do smell kind of... plastic-yucky.
 
2. I expected these to sound rather unpleasant, but I'm finding this isn't the case. Yes, that's pretty vague, but I don't want to say anything definitive too prematurely. I don't believe in transformative burn-in, but my brain likes to be deceptive, so I like giving it time to chill.
 
Edit: I'm finding these do have a bit more bottom-end presence than the HD800. The sub-bass on the HD800 is still better to my ears, but in terms of quantity the HD700 seems a bit more... robust down below. It makes for a more immediately enjoyable listen with certain genres. I do detect that upper-end harshness though, and with brighter tracks I'm already feeling some fatigue setting in here. However the question is: just how do these spotlit areas compare to the HD800's signature, and which will I find more tolerable?
 
I will say right off the bat that for me personally, the HD700's biggest competition isn't the HD800, but rather the SRH1840. I like the Shure flagship somethin' fierce, and given that it costs about $300 less than the HD700, I think they may be a good choice for some people.
 
Edit edit: Yeah... the HD700 is definitely bassier (mid-bass) to these ears.

 

[turokrocks]

Quote:

Not quite what I expected in some respects.
 
. . . . . . .
 
1. I expected these to be comfortable, but I'm finding them far less comfortable than the HD800. and they're about on the same level as the HD800 for me after letting the cups un-stiffen a bit. Initially they had very little give, but now they adjust easily. These headphones do smell kind of... plastic-yucky.
 
2. I expected these to sound rather unpleasant, but I'm finding this isn't the case. Yes, that's pretty vague, but I don't want to say anything definitive too prematurely. I don't believe in transformative burn-in, but my brain likes to be deceptive, so I like giving it time to chill.
 
Edit: I'm finding these do have a bit more bottom-end presence than the HD800. The sub-bass on the HD800 is still better to my ears, but in terms of quantity the HD700 seems a bit more... robust down below. It makes for a more immediately enjoyable listen with certain genres. I do detect that upper-end harshness though, and with brighter tracks I'm already feeling some fatigue setting in here. However the question is: just how do these spotlit areas compare to the HD800's signature, and which will I find more tolerable?
 
I will say right off the bat that for me personally, the HD700's biggest competition isn't the HD800, but rather the SRH1840. I like the Shure flagship somethin' fierce, and given that it costs about $300 less than the HD700, I think they may be a good choice for some people.
 
Edit edit: Yeah... the HD700 is definitely bassier (mid-bass) to these ears.

 
MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE,............more please, and thank you for the impressions, and I also came to this conclusion that the Shure1840 are the "enemy"...and maybe the better choice/price..but its still early!?

 

[shimmer n roar]

finally! a ringing endorsement.

 

[Eee Pee]

Quote:

 
Having both the HD 600 and HD 800 is hardly torture. 

True!  I'm happy with them.
 
I'm hoping this will be like The Three Little Bears.  Not that I have any big issues with the 600 or 800, but I suppose one could be too cold and one too hot, figuratively speaking.  More like too dull and too bright, but that's majorly exaggerated.  I have perfect 600 nights, and I have perfect 800 nights.  
 
Is it Tuesday yet?

 

[Magick Man]

Not quite what I expected in some respects.

. . . . . . .

1. I expected these to be comfortable, but I'm finding them far less comfortable than the HD800. and they're about on the same level as the HD800 for me after letting the cups un-stiffen a bit. Initially they had very little give, but now they adjust easily. These headphones do smell kind of... plastic-yucky.

2. I expected these to sound rather unpleasant, but I'm finding this isn't the case. Yes, that's pretty vague, but I don't want to say anything definitive too prematurely. I don't believe in transformative burn-in, but my brain likes to be deceptive, so I like giving it time to chill.

Edit: I'm finding these do have a bit more bottom-end presence than the HD800. The sub-bass on the HD800 is still better to my ears, but in terms of quantity the HD700 seems a bit more... robust down below. It makes for a more immediately enjoyable listen with certain genres. I do detect that upper-end harshness though, and with brighter tracks I'm already feeling some fatigue setting in here. However the question is: just how do these spotlit areas compare to the HD800's signature, and which will I find more tolerable?

I will say right off the bat that for me personally, the HD700's biggest competition isn't the HD800, but rather the SRH1840. I like the Shure flagship somethin' fierce, and given that it costs about $300 less than the HD700, I think they may be a good choice for some people.

Edit edit: Yeah... the HD700 is definitely bassier (mid-bass) to these ears.

You're so much nicer than I am.

They do have more bass than the HD800 from ~60-120Hz, perhaps a couple dB more. My main issue is the difference in resolution and headstage is quite large. I was expecting less of a gap, considering a person would be paying 2/3 the price of their flagship. For the price, I just can't help but think that they're quite a poor value. IMO, the SRH1840s beat them soundly in almost every way, if you want a clean, neutral listening experience, and they do it for $300 less. If they want these to fly they're going to need to re-tune and drop the price ~$250-300.

Eh, I know in terms of sales that Sennheiser rules, but this time I can say without any doubt that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[radioplay]

Quote:

You're so much nicer than I am.

They do have more bass than the HD800 from ~60-120Hz, perhaps a couple dB more. My main issue is the difference in resolution and headstage is quite large. I was expecting less of a gap, considering a person would be paying 2/3 the price of their flagship. For the price, I just can't help but think that they're quite a poor value. IMO, the SRH1840s beat them soundly in almost every way, if you want a clean, neutral listening experience, and they do it for $300 less. If they want these to fly they're going to need to re-tune and drop the price ~$250-300.
Eh, I know in terms of sales that Sennheiser rules, but this time I can say without any doubt that the emperor has no clothes.

 
The Amazon inventory has held steady at eight for the last 24 hours. If that's any indication, the HD 700 is a bust right out of the gate.

 

[Magick Man]

My buddy who has them is a Sennheiser fanatic, he has HD600s, 650s, and 800s. Yet, he's leaning towards sending the 700s back. That says a lot.

 

[John Willett]

Quote:

The good thing is that here in Europe we can find the HD800 for 700€ (875$)

 
 
Only from unofficial dealers or dealers who are breaking their signed agreement with Sennheiser - in which case they will not get any more stock.
 
It was designed this way so the dealer can afford to give time to the customer and demonstrate the headphones properly - discounting to this low price means there is no margin left for the dealer to demo the headphones.

 

[Kowalski74]

Seriously, we are at a point in wich I can't believe all these bad reviews.

There was too much hype. Then, the first impressions were not good. Perhaps, that started a "general opinion" trend. I don't know.

Above a certain quality and price range it is difficult to say wich is "better". It is all about personal preferences. Why a neutral frequency response is "better"? What happens with Grado or Ultrasone, for example? Why a wider soundstage is better? What happens with all the orthodynamic? And so on.

Perhaps, it is similar to the "flavor of the month" or of the year, but on the other way. When I bought the LCD-2 all I had read were incredible positive reviews. When I first listened to them I could not believe the congested sound, narrow soundstage, poor imaging, overly dark sound, absence of treble, closed and tunnel sound, lack of air, heavy weight and clamp force, etc. Once I was used to them, I started to appreciate all the good qualities. Natural sound, excellent timbre of instruments, perfect and neutral bass response, transient response, etc. But the LCD-2 has important limitations.

All headphones have pros and cons. For example, some people prefer T1 with a narrower soundstage than HD800, less definition, but more suitable headphones for all music genres (all around headphones).

I don't like when I read a review and all that it is all about is frequency response and soundstage, but then the author say wich headphone is "better" based on that. Really? It is like a car review based only in its design, color, power and speed. Ok, perhaps an amateur review with what is more important to teenagers, yes, but... you know.

What about the timbre of instruments, naturalness, attack and decay, speed, articulation, transients, dynamic response, texture, grain, imaging, PRaT, resolution, etc.? Without taking into acount the "burn-in", "brain burn-in", headphone amp, sinergies, etc.

I'm not saying that there must be a review with all that info in the first hours. It would be insane. What I'm saying is that a review of the kind of "more bass, less soundstage, less details than HD800" and concluding with "HD800 is much better, HD700 it isn't worth the price, isn't like HD600/650, I don't like it, my neighbor does not like it, we prefer the other" does not say anything to me.
Please, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to be offensive. I really really thank you for your comments. Really. And I want more comments. More, more, more, more, please

. The only that I don't understand are the conclusions ("worse", "does not worth it"...) with only few hours of listening and with limited info, based almost in obvious things (worse than HD800, not like HD650) and subjectivities

. That may discourage someone who might like the headphones.

Thanks.

Regards.

 

[wilzc]

Quote:

Seriously, we are at a point in wich I can't believe all these bad reviews.

There was too much hype. Then, the first impressions were not good. Perhaps, that started a "general opinion" trend. I don't know.

Above a certain quality and price range it is difficult to say wich is "better". It is all about personal preferences. Why a neutral frequency response is "better"? What happens with Grado or Ultrasone, for example? Why a wider soundstage is better? What happens with all the orthodynamic? And so on.

Perhaps, it is similar to the "flavor of the month" or of the year, but on the other way. When I bought the LCD-2 all I had read were incredible positive reviews. When I first listened to them I could not believe the congested sound, narrow soundstage, poor imaging, overly dark sound, absence of treble, closed and tunnel sound, lack of air, heavy weight and clamp force, etc. Once I was used to them, I started to appreciate all the good qualities. Natural sound, excellent timbre of instruments, perfect and neutral bass response, transient response, etc. But the LCD-2 has important limitations.

All headphones have pros and cons. For example, some people prefer T1 with a narrower soundstage than HD800, less definition, but more suitable headphones for all music genres (all around headphones).

I don't like when I read a review and all that it is all about is frequency response and soundstage, but then the author say wich headphone is "better" based on that. Really? It is like a car review based only in its design, color, power and speed. Ok, perhaps an amateur review with what is more important to teenagers, yes, but... you know.

What about the timbre of instruments, naturalness, attack and decay, speed, articulation, transients, dynamic response, texture, grain, imaging, PRaT, resolution, etc.? Without taking into acount the "burn-in", "brain burn-in", headphone amp, sinergies, etc.

I'm not saying that there must be a review with all that info in the first hours. It would be insane. What I'm saying is that a review of the kind of "more bass, less soundstage, less details than HD800" and concluding with "HD800 is much better, HD700 it isn't worth the price, isn't like HD600/650, I don't like it, my neighbor does not like it, we prefer the other" does not say anything to me.
Please, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to be offensive. I really really thank you for your comments. Really. And I want more comments. More, more, more, more, please

. The only that I don't understand are the conclusions ("worse", "does not worth it"...) with only few hours of listening and with limited info, based almost in obvious things (worse than HD800, not like HD650) and subjectivities

. That may discourage someone who might like the headphones.

Thanks.

Regards.

 
 
Amen....
 
My exactly thoughts, feelings and emotions. 
 
We are soulmates :O

 

[Jodet]

Best and most concise description I've read to date on the LCD-2's.   I cannot understand all the fuss over these.   Mine were sent back. 
 
I'm very happy these days with my HD800s/Cardas cable. 
 
 
Quote:

 

I had bought the LCD-2 but I found them too dark, flat line neutral to 1KHz and above that without mid-highs nor highs, and with congested soundstage. I sold them. Technically better, very natural timbre and without listening fatigue, but I was enjoying more the 325 with the most of my music. Moreover, they were heavy and uncomfortable.

 

 

[rhythmdevils]

If you like the SR325 I don't know why you would even buy an LCD-2.  Complete opposites.  If you can withstand the jarring, piercing, sharp resonant mess that is the SR325, the HD800 is going to sound warm and clear.

 

[Blisse]

10 posts in 3 years. You are a god.

-allhail-

But yeah, what Kowalski suggests is pretty reasonable. We know that MuppetFace said he's noticed some changes over time (burn in, brain burn in, whatever), so it'd be nice to see reviews coming in after 100-200 hours of listening and adjusting to the HD700s.

 

[MuppetFace]

The main issue, I think, is not that the recent influx of impressions is overwhelmingly negative. Rather it seems that most people hearing these and reporting their findings are simply underwhelmed.
 
That is the problem I'm having thus far. The HD700 is not a bad headphone. It's just underwhelming.
 
I'm still getting my head around how it sounds though before writing anything too definitive.