[donlin]

Maybe some of these conclusions are a little premature, but it seems safe to assume that for those of us that think the LCD-2 treble is just fine and were hoping for some of the 800's qualities with a more forgiving top end, these will not be a good choice.

 

[Magick Man]

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.

This. I didn't say they're awful, I simply wasn't impressed. They're like mini-HD800s, but without the aspects that make the HD800 great. If I were told they were $600 cans I'd give them a hesitant recommendation. However, they're $1000 and there are many headphones in that price range, and hundreds of dollars less, which offer a superior value.

I suppose the part that disappointed me most was their artificial timbre, it was quite artificial and lacking natural tone. Over the years many have pointed out that this is a failing of the HD800s as well, only we can forgive them because their resolution is stellar. Not so with the 700s. Given how much you give away to their sibling in terms of detail and dynamics, you expect a more musical and balanced experience in return, but they simply don't provide that. Right now the Koss ESP/950 and Shure SRH1840s are around $700 and they crush the HD700s in, well, just about everything and offer great musicality. Same goes for the HE-500s, which also provide greater bass extension. Heck, I'd take the now defunct D7000s over these based on the Denons' lush and inviting presentation alone.

Which gets me down to brass tacks. They aren't as precise or as enveloping as the 800s, and they aren't as engaging and rich as the 650s, so I suppose in a sense they are "in the middle". However, they didn't master their little brother's tricks and have too few of their bigger brother's talents. I'm just left wondering, "what's the point?"

 

[beaver316]

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.

Great post! Just my thoughts. Hopefully we'll get some more in depth reviews, with not so much comparisons to the HD800, we know its not as good.

Sent from my Desire HD

 

[Kowalski74]

Quote:

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.

 
The problem is that from what I see, so many people have irreal espectations about the HD700. They hope for a HD800, with almost its qualities, but with a bit less treble and a bit more bass (as HD650 or LCD-2). And for $500 less. Me too. But that is irreal. This is only a tonal balance adjustement. It is only the "line and color" of the car. It has nothing to do with quality, it is just a personal preference.

In that case the HD700 would cost the same or even more than the HD800. You can see the LCD-2, with a tonal balance similar to HD650 but without much of the characteristics of the HD800 but with obvious limitations... for $1K. Almost no one complains here at head-fi (I can't understand it). Now, the people want the good of the LCD-2, with the good of the HD800 for less price. Great. And I want a HD800 for $500, but it is not going to happen.  

HD700 is a "different" headphone than HD800. It is obviously, by its price, an inferior headphone than HD800. $500 inferior. Don't expect the qualities of the HD800. The T1 has not the qualities of the HD800, nor the Ed8 nor the PS1000 and they cost the same or even more. No one complains. All of them are different and have other qualities.

The HD700 is much more cheaper. Don't expect the best of your favourites headphones without too much compromises for less money. As simply as that.

Regards,

PD: 11 post in 3 years

. I prefer enjoy my music with my headphones that to speak about headphones. Today I have a bad day.

 

[Magick Man]

The problem is that from what I see, so many people have irreal espectations about the HD700. They hope for a HD800, with almost its qualities, but with a bit less treble and a bit more bass (as HD650 or LCD-2). And for $500 less. Me too. But that is irreal. This is only a tonal balance adjustement. It is only the "line and color" of the car. It has nothing to do with quality, it is just a personal preference.


In that case the HD700 would cost the same or even more than the HD800. You can see the LCD-2, with a tonal balance similar to HD650 but without much of the characteristics of the HD800 but with obvious limitations... for $1K. Almost no one complains here at head-fi (I can't understand it). Now, the people want the good of the LCD-2, with the good of the HD800 for less price. Great. And I want a HD800 for $500, but it is not going to happen.  


HD700 is a "different" headphone than HD800. It is obviously, by its price, an inferior headphone than HD800. $500 inferior. Don't expect the qualities of the HD800. The T1 has not the qualities of the HD800, nor the Ed8 nor the PS1000 and they cost the same or even more. No one complains. All of them are different and have other qualities.


The HD700 is much more cheaper. Don't expect the best of your favourites headphones without too much compromises for less money. As simply as that.


Regards,


PD: 11 post in 3 years :bigsmile_face: . I prefer enjoy my music with my headphones that to speak about headphones. Today I have a bad day.:blink:

In many ways it's an inferior headphone to the HD650 as well, and that's inexcusable. $1000 is still a lot of money for a set of headphones, anyone who thinks otherwise is smoking something. It isn't too much to ask for a pleasing mix of 800 and 650, but that isn't what's offered. It's much more than $500 inferior from my testing, in actuality it's more like $800-900. What's worse is that it fails to trump products from other companies that are considerably less expensive. So, and I hate to put it this way, but it's true, you're left with a gimpy HD800 (because that's what it sounds like) with a little more bass, for the price of a nice set of used HD800s. That's just... meh.

 

[MuppetFace]

Actually, as I've tried to indicate in some of my previous (admittedly rambling posts), I'm not a particularly devoted fan of the HD800. I never expected---nor wanted---the HD700 to compete with the HD800. My wanting a tonal profile oriented more toward the HD650, one free of nasty treble peaks, doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation in this sense.
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but so far many of the negative opinions I'm reading seem to bring up the HD800 not as an unrealistic benchmark with which to compare the HD700, but rather the opposite: in questioning why Sennheiser would make the HD700 an "HD800 lite" instead of something unique and, frankly, more interesting.
 
Having spoken with several other head-fiers about it, I get the sense that many people wanted the HD700 to be MORE different from the HD800 than it is, not LESS. From this perspective it's too much like the HD800. It's not that these folks are wanting an HD800 for $500 cheaper (though I'm sure there are those who do) so much as they're wanting a headphone more like the HD650 with a few of the HD800's benefits (more expansive presentation and added clarity).
 
On the other hand I will say this: It's NOT simply a matter of "why wouldn't you pay $500 and get a HD800?" We forget all too easily that the HD800 is a persnickety little bugger when it comes to amping, and so you're also going to need to factor in the cost of a nice amp. With the HD700 you're getting a headphone that approximates the sound of the HD800 but with added bass emphasis and a less demanding set of drive requirements.
 
However! I'm just not "feeling" the HD700 as much as I'd like to be. I can't help but feel like the Shure SRH1840 does what the HD700 is trying to do, only better, and for $300 less.

 

[John Willett]

Quote:

 
That is the problem I'm having thus far. The HD700 is not a bad headphone. It's just underwhelming.

 
To me, this sounds good - headphones that do ot initially impress often turn out to be excellent as they are doing things right rather than trying to impress.

 

[Windsor]

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.

 
Nice post - 
 
I agree that with headphones, it makes sense for people to trust what they hear and go with what they like.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

 
To me, this sounds good - headphones that do ot initially impress often turn out to be excellent as they are doing things right rather than trying to impress.

 
This has not been my experience though I do agree with the trend.  I am impressed by a lack of coloration and problems.  If a headphone doesn't have those, it impresses me.  In the first 5 minutes, and after 30 days.
 
However, most people are the opposite and are impressed by certain colorations, specifically boosted or even resonant upper midrange which gives headphones that heightened sense of clarity that everyone here is after.  But then upon living with it, it's fatiguing because it isn't neutral and so it doesn't play well with recordings unless they are perfect. 
 
So it depends on what you're looking for.  If you are in fact looking for neutral, I dont think it takes long to evaluate headphones unless they are close to accurate (very few headphones are) in which case you're listening for subtleties so it may take longer.  But if you are impressed or swayed by colorations and are looking for a good experience, and not accuracy, it will be easy to be swayed by these things and you may need a considerable amount of time to get over this and start to get bothered by the problems. 

 

[purrin]

^ If you have a certain level of experience and developed personal preferences, I doubt "underwhelming" headphones are going to turn out to be excellent. The 007 may however fit this sort of description, i.e. I was intrinsically impressed with its "underwhelming" nature. Then again, What am I talking about? The 007 is not underwhelming at all. My jaw dropped when I first heard it off n3rdling's BHSE a few years ago.
 

---

 
Based on Muppetface's comments, I'm wondering if Sennheiser has indeed partially fixed the treble issues. The word "underwhelming" is interesting because that would be a description I would concur with regarding the HD700 even if those treble peaks on the pre-production pair were resolved. Maybe Sennheiser applied the Anaxilus mod to it?
 
Well, a friend of mine is sending a pair to me soon. We all know what happens when that happens.

 

[Windsor]

If I were to call a headphone 'underwheming,' that'd be when it completely gets out of the way of the music, like the HD 600 does, or if I'm listening with iBuds i.e. "the underwhelming technical performance of iBuds."

 

[Magick Man]

Maybe "underwhelming" isn't the right word... more like "boring". As in, "yeah, they sound like crippled HD800s with some bass bloat". *yawn*

Yeah, that fits better.

 

[jerg]

Thing is, neutrality is only one of many aspects of personal audio, namely how flat the perceived frequency response is. There are lots of other technicalities to judge by, and those also tend to be the very focused-upon guidelines in reviewing higher end headphones.

 

[Voohoo]

Guys, CHILL. There are always the HD 750 to look forward too!  

 

[Magick Man]

Guys, CHILL. There are always the HD 750 to look forward too!  

Huh? We're just having a friendly talk, no one's popped a blood vessel... yet...