[Gwarmi]

Quote:

According to this guy at CES, the HD700 is "a $999 version of the superb $1,500 HD800."
 
"From my short listen to the HD700 at the show, it sounded very similar to the HD800as I expected. This means too bright for my taste fresh out of the box with a solid-state amplifier, however I'll bet you that the HD700s will be astounding when broken-in and used with a tube amp like any from Woo Audio, as are the HD800s.
 

"A new patent-pending feature is the special shape of the gauze, which continues the curved lines of the diaphragm. The resulting curvature reduces the volume of air beneath the diaphragm, thus guaranteeing even more precise control of the diaphragm motion and significantly lowering total harmonic distortion."

 Maybe with the earlier HD800 for certain - but I rocked a brand new #13477 HD800 with an SPL Phonitor and
 some Aerosmith - pure madness as a pairing with the earlier one if I remember correctly yet this particular late serial
 numbered unit was fine, no treble dagger to the ear what so ever.
 
 I'm certainly hoping that it's brighter all round than the HD650 though, even a notch here or there from the HD600
 would not hurt.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

Btw.: What do you think about the SHR-1840? Looking at the innerfi data sheet it seems to be very bass light, maybe even more than the first models of the K701...?

According to those measurements, it's not just bass light, it's quite rubbish from a technical point of view. But it may still provide for a very enjoyable listen for some people and with certain DAC / amp combinations, who knows.

 

[laohuchirenle]

hd700 must be hd800's little brother in overall
probably  some sound ajustment and compromise of hd800

 

[stv014]

Quote:

I call a 625ohm impedance peak at 100hz a reason why bass could be perceived as light. I don't consider HD800s to be all that light on bass with the best system, but that's the best system. With mediocre amping it certainly is.

 
It is the other way around. Impedance peaks in the bass range (like it is common with full size dynamic headphones) do not decrease, but rather increase bass compared to what is shown on the frequency response graph, if the source has high output impedance (e.g. a tube amp). This has nothing to do with "power". The FR graph was measured with very low output impedance, and from a technical point of view, this is the "correct" way of driving the headphone; although many people prefer the relatively boosted bass that results from a high output impedance/low damping factor.
 

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Germane /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Btw.: What do you think about the SHR-1840? Looking at the innerfi data sheet it seems to be very bass light, maybe even more than the first models of the K701...?

 
Do you mean HeadRoom ? I do not see any SRH1440/SRH1840 data sheets on innerfidelity.com yet.
Edit: never mind, they are available here and here, but the links are not shown.
 

 

[ac500]

I lost interest in the SRH1840/1440 when the FR showed both of them having if anything LESS bass and more treble than an SRH940. Removing bass from an SRH940 is like adding more treble to an HD800 -- it's the exact opposite of what people want.
 
At least Sennheiser listened to the general feedback on the HD800 and toned down the HD700 treble slightly (we'll have to see how many people take issue with sibilance though). The HD800 bass is almost perfect IMHO and if the HD700 has less treble and the same bass, I imagine a lot of people (excluding bassheads) will find the bass perfect (because removing treble will have a relative perceptive effect of more bass).

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

I lost interest in the SRH1840/1440 when the FR showed both of them having if anything LESS bass and more treble than an SRH940.

I don't think you're reading those graphs very well buddy.  If anything, they are the exact opposite.  Square waves look worse, but whatever. 

 

[TMRaven]

Quote:

I don't think you're reading those graphs very well buddy.  If anything, they are the exact opposite.  Square waves look worse, but whatever. 

?
 
 

 

[ac500]

Quote:

I don't think you're reading those graphs very well buddy.  If anything, they are the exact opposite.  Square waves look worse, but whatever. 

Huh?
 

 
Am I reading this wrong? Because I see less bass. It does seem to have less upper treble here though, but your comments about the bass are confusing.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Ahh, that's why.  I was looking at the Innerfidelity graph. 

 

[Gwarmi]

 
 Interesting - same headphone, two different graphs. Hmmm..
 
 Another drink for testing inconsistencies all round.

 

[nikp]

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

 
 Interesting - same headphone, two different graphs. Hmmm..
 
 Another drink for testing inconsistencies all round.

The data from headroom were provided by Tyll from innerfidelity (it's explained by a guy from headroom on a thread, i'm too lazy to refind it).
What are the inconsistencies ?  All  the frequencies responses curves from headroom are adjusted so they go through the point (1khz, 0 db) .

 
 

 

[Gwarmi]

Quote:

The data from headroom were provided by Tyll from innerfidelity (it's explained by a guy from headroom on a thread, i'm too lazy to refind it).
What are the inconsistencies ?  All  the frequencies responses curves from headroom are adjusted so they go through the point (1khz, 0 db) .

 
 

 Standardized scaling for X and Y would be good, unless differences in equipment and software prevents this for the time being.
 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

 Standardized scaling for X and Y would be good, unless differences in equipment and software prevents this for the time being.
 

Ok let's match the scaling with photoshop.
 
First there's the curve from innerfidelity:



Then the scaled version of headroom graph to match innerfidelity scaling:




Combining both pictures :



It's clear that headroom apply some averaging / smoothing of data so that it looks neater, but it's  basically same.