[B-Dawk20]

Yeah, the only thing I can say is that the Maverick D1 is tuned for the 650 and a lot of people who have heard them together(as long as you swapped opamps) say they work well.

 

[olor1n]

Quote:

I think my next DAC/amp will be the Audio-gd NFB-10se. Apparently it sounds like the Lyr with the HD650, but more detailed and better overall. And it's solid state. And it's $500, within my budget, especially if I sell my NFB12. I may not upgrade in a while though because the NFB12 is good enough I think for a while, and I'm not looking to upgrade to an HD800 for probably a year at least.
 
Also, everyone seems to say it drives LCD2s, HD650s, HE500s, etc. with ease and "pretty much as good as any high end rig more or less". Then my next upgrade on this path will be something like the HD800, which I'll then be ready for . On the downside, it seems bordering too powerful for anything less than 300 ohms, with only the very lowest sound settings within bearable volumes.. hmm.
 
I'm really surprised that it seems asking for dac/amp suggestions here gives so little variety of SS suggestions - not that I'm blaming anyone here for not being all-knowing because everyone was really helpful who replied... but rather I mean I don't know why those with the NFB10se and HD650 don't speak up. Maybe they're too busy with their HD800s
 

No, the 10SE does not sound like the Lyr. It exerts the same sense of effortless authority and is pacier but the Lyr has the added bonus of tube rolling and changing the sound to match your preference.
 
The 10SE, as I've pointed out to you a number of times, rendered certain recordings through the HD650 with a dry and etched upper midrange that actually made the HD650 fatiguing. It effectively nullified everything I've come to love about this headphone. The odd thing though is that these qualities weren't really apparent through the LCD-2. I guess this further solidifies my belief that synergy is key to get the most out of the HD650. If you like this particular signature then great, but be aware the 10SE is not as versatile as the Lyr if you want to tailor its sound.
 

 

[ac500]

> but the Lyr has the added bonus of tube rolling and changing the sound to match your preference.
 
This is another concept of tube amps I really dislike (in addition to wearing out).
 
I want absolutely 100% dead flat neutral source components if possible. I'm sorry, but if a headphone needs special tailored gear deviating from flat neutral (hifi golden standard IMO) then that headphone is flawed by definition, from a hifi standpoint. But you're talking about preference, so fair enough.
 
I match my preference using a software EQ if absolutely necessary, and it turns out that I currently add a massive treble boost to the HD650 to get it sounding as I like. The HD650 is not even close to flat in treble. I like flat. So maybe the NFB10se would approach this better? 
 
Anyway if I upgrade to the NFB10se it will be a stepping point on my way to buying an HD800 later on, so I probably won't be upgrading from my NFB12 soon -- but I'm entertaining the possibility. 
 
... now if you're saying the NFB10 adds treble, then that's bad. I don't want to be adding treble with HD800s possibly in my future.

 

[kingoftown1]

Quote:

 
I want absolutely 100% dead flat neutral source components if possible. I'm sorry, but if a headphone needs special tailored gear deviating from flat neutral (hifi golden standard IMO) then that headphone is flawed by definition, from a hifi standpoint. But you're talking about preference, so fair enough.
 
I match my preference using a software EQ if absolutely necessary, and it turns out that I currently add a massive treble boost to the HD650 to get it sounding as I like. The HD650 is not even close to flat in treble. I like flat. So maybe the NFB10se would approach this better? 

 
Sorry, you may have already answered this before, but have you had a chance to listen to the HD600?
 

 

[ac500]

No, but from everything I've heard it's still laid back in terms of the upper frequencies being congested. If the only difference is sound signature, I can fix that with EQ. But EQ can't increase the actual detail. I've heard that the whole HD6x0 line suffers from the same core congestion in the upper frequencies (10 and 15+khz) that make it effectively less detailed for instruments that use those frequencies (violin, guitar, etc.).
 
In fact I'm starting to think many people like this congestion, being the very reason they find them so smooth. Similar to how people like tubes -- they literally congest the sound signature intentionally. While I will be keeping my HD650s as nice easy to listen headphones, I don't like congestion in general. I have very sensitive hearing (I've never done a real test, but while some people can only hear fingers quietly rubbing together a few feet away from their ear, I can hear it easily across a large room), and I like to have hi-fi music, and congested is not hifi. That's another reason I find tube amps stupid, in the context of hifi (and yes, people always report SS less congested and colored, than tubes, from what I see -- correct me if I'm wrong). Tubes are fine for intentional coloration if that's what you're after, but I'm not on head-fi for colored sound, I'm here for hifi.
 
People say the HD600 is neutral but FR graphs show quite the opposite, with the HD650 being more neutral with perhaps more bass. But the problem with the HD650 is not too much bass, it's the lack of quality treble. I don't think the HD650 bass is much emphasized if at all -- rather the lack of treble makes it (incorrectly) seem like there should be less bass, but that just would give a upside-down smiley face FR.
 
The lack of strength in treble frequencies is not a problem because EQ can fix that and I'm not a no-EQ purist. While EQing the HD650 does make it sound much more natural and actually realistic for violin, guitar, etc. (it removes the feeling you're in a wooden box listening to the outside), it doesn't fix the subtle congestion aka detail aka sound quality in those frequencies, versus for example an SRH940's highs.
 
I've ordered a DT880 which will be my all-around neutral headphone where treble matters, hopefully. My SRH940 worked but my head is so large it broke the SRH940. I kind of doubt the DT880 will be as good with bass as my HD650 or as comfortable (I got to try a DT990 and it was a bit less comfortable than HD650s), so I don't ever see myself selling the HD650s. But I like to at least have an alternate headphone that does treble right. I may have to wait until HD800s though until I get one that does bass/mids/treble all excellently.

 

[MayaTlab]

I didn't try the SRH940 long enough, but I was able to directly compare both my HD650 and a friend's DT880 250 ohms out of my feeble TTVJ Slim and we both agreed that it had more treble, but not more details in the trebles. And we didn't find it anymore neutral than the HD650. Conditions weren't optimal, so that has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I've never read that the DT880 does treble "more right" than the HD650. At best just differently. Personally I did find them both lacking in many areas in absolute terms (not for their price though), trebles included, and wasn't impressed by the SRH940 either in this area for the brief time I would try it (same source).
 
Also, you seem to infer "neutrality", whatever that means to you (something most likely to be different than my conception of neutrality) from graphs to a larger extent than I believe is wise. Obviously a pair of headphones that massively deviates from the optimum (example : pick any Ultrasone) isn't likely to be "neutral" at all. But the FR differences between the K701, HD800, HD650, DT 880, HD600, LCD-2, HE500 are rather small and I suspect there are many, many, other reasons why sound characteristics are different (driver mass, construction, and material for example, magnet power, I don't know).

 

[sphinxvc]

Quote:

No, but from everything I've heard it's still laid back in terms of the upper frequencies being congested. If the only difference is sound signature, I can fix that with EQ. But EQ can't increase the actual detail. I've heard that the whole HD6x0 line suffers from the same core congestion in the upper frequencies (10 and 15+khz) that make it effectively less detailed for instruments that use those frequencies (violin, guitar, etc.).
 
In fact I'm starting to think many people like this congestion, being the very reason they find them so smooth. Similar to how people like tubes -- they literally congest the sound signature intentionally. While I will be keeping my HD650s as nice easy to listen headphones, I don't like congestion in general. I have very sensitive hearing (I've never done a real test, but while some people can only hear fingers quietly rubbing together a few feet away from their ear, I can hear it easily across a large room), and I like to have hi-fi music, and congested is not hifi. That's another reason I find tube amps stupid, in the context of hifi (and yes, people always report SS less congested and colored, than tubes, from what I see -- correct me if I'm wrong). Tubes are fine for intentional coloration if that's what you're after, but I'm not on head-fi for colored sound, I'm here for hifi.
 
People say the HD600 is neutral but FR graphs show quite the opposite, with the HD650 being more neutral with perhaps more bass. But the problem with the HD650 is not too much bass, it's the lack of quality treble. I don't think the HD650 bass is much emphasized if at all -- rather the lack of treble makes it (incorrectly) seem like there should be less bass, but that just would give a upside-down smiley face FR.
 
The lack of strength in treble frequencies is not a problem because EQ can fix that and I'm not a no-EQ purist. While EQing the HD650 does make it sound much more natural and actually realistic for violin, guitar, etc. (it removes the feeling you're in a wooden box listening to the outside), it doesn't fix the subtle congestion aka detail aka sound quality in those frequencies, versus for example an SRH940's highs.
 
I've ordered a DT880 which will be my all-around neutral headphone where treble matters, hopefully. My SRH940 worked but my head is so large it broke the SRH940. I kind of doubt the DT880 will be as good with bass as my HD650 or as comfortable (I got to try a DT990 and it was a bit less comfortable than HD650s), so I don't ever see myself selling the HD650s. But I like to at least have an alternate headphone that does treble right. I may have to wait until HD800s though until I get one that does bass/mids/treble all excellently.

You are misinformed on multiple levels.  
 
 

My SRH940 worked but my head is so large it broke the SRH940.

 
Lol. 

 

[ac500]

I refer to neutrality in amps because they can be measured very easily and precisely. Headphones aren't the same, so I understand you can't really easily characterize what is "flat". That said, if you're trying to say the HD650 treble is not recessed... you probably have high frequency hearing loss.
 
In terms of being misinformed about the HD600, all I can say is every time I've been suggested to try the HD600, people on the HD600 thread suggest that the HD600 is probably not what I want.
 
The SRH940 has much better treble than the HD650, however I don't think it's as noticeable except above 10 or 15khz. Even 15, 16, 17khz etc. is incredibly important in a lot of things, particularly the example I've given multiple times (reloading/shooting the M1911 in Battlefield 3), violins, guitar. 
 
I'll have the DT880-600 soon so we'll see how it compares. I have a month to listen to it until I decide to keep/return it at least so of course I should give plenty of time to get over the initial new-product excitement hype phase.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

That said, if you're trying to say the HD650 treble is not recessed... you probably have high frequency hearing loss.

That's logically incoherent.
 
I'd like indeed a touch more trebles in the HD650, but certainly up to the point of the SRH940 and DT880, which I found exaggerated the other way. And saying that the SRH940 trebles quality is "much" better than the HD650 is to me, at best, an exaggeration as well. 
If you want a real improvement in treble quality, I'd suggest Stax headphones. It's not a huge leap forward, but it's still the only way IMHO to have great trebles quality at an entry price.
 

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

No, but from everything I've heard it's still laid back in terms of the upper frequencies being congested. If the only difference is sound signature, I can fix that with EQ. But EQ can't increase the actual detail. I've heard that the whole HD6x0 line suffers from the same core congestion in the upper frequencies (10 and 15+khz) that make it effectively less detailed for instruments that use those frequencies (violin, guitar, etc.).
 
In fact I'm starting to think many people like this congestion, being the very reason they find them so smooth. Similar to how people like tubes -- they literally congest the sound signature intentionally. While I will be keeping my HD650s as nice easy to listen headphones, I don't like congestion in general. I have very sensitive hearing (I've never done a real test, but while some people can only hear fingers quietly rubbing together a few feet away from their ear, I can hear it easily across a large room), and I like to have hi-fi music, and congested is not hifi. That's another reason I find tube amps stupid, in the context of hifi (and yes, people always report SS less congested and colored, than tubes, from what I see -- correct me if I'm wrong). Tubes are fine for intentional coloration if that's what you're after, but I'm not on head-fi for colored sound, I'm here for hifi.
 
People say the HD600 is neutral but FR graphs show quite the opposite, with the HD650 being more neutral with perhaps more bass. But the problem with the HD650 is not too much bass, it's the lack of quality treble. I don't think the HD650 bass is much emphasized if at all -- rather the lack of treble makes it (incorrectly) seem like there should be less bass, but that just would give a upside-down smiley face FR.
 
The lack of strength in treble frequencies is not a problem because EQ can fix that and I'm not a no-EQ purist. While EQing the HD650 does make it sound much more natural and actually realistic for violin, guitar, etc. (it removes the feeling you're in a wooden box listening to the outside), it doesn't fix the subtle congestion aka detail aka sound quality in those frequencies, versus for example an SRH940's highs.
 
I've ordered a DT880 which will be my all-around neutral headphone where treble matters, hopefully. My SRH940 worked but my head is so large it broke the SRH940. I kind of doubt the DT880 will be as good with bass as my HD650 or as comfortable (I got to try a DT990 and it was a bit less comfortable than HD650s), so I don't ever see myself selling the HD650s. But I like to at least have an alternate headphone that does treble right. I may have to wait until HD800s though until I get one that does bass/mids/treble all excellently.

I wouldn't exactly call it a congested treble response up top, but more of a "smooth" response and not as "extended" as other headphones that are known to have good treble and appear to be bright. While everybody has their own opinion regarding the HD650's, I for one enjoy the laid back and smooth treble that the HD650 presents itself with. I recently got a Q701 because I do like treble and the Q701 should fill that void perfectly. If I were to be writing a post about the HD650's treble response and an explanation for it, I don't think I could have worded it any better than who you just did.
 

 

[ac500]

Listen to something with a lot of 10+khz on the SRH940 and HD650, match relative volume (i.e. remove a LOT of treble from the SRH940 with EQ because the SRH940 has emphasized treble), and you'll see how the SRH940 treble wins in quality. I'm not the only one who finds the SRH940 treble to be markedly superior. 
 
I'm not saying the SRH940 is better than the HD650. The HD650 is superior all around (particularly bass), but it would be foolish of me to try to say the SRH940 doesn't have superior treble. Trust me, I really WANT the HD650 to have superior treble to the SRH940 because the SRH940 is uncomfortable and has inferior lower mids and bass and is overall less refined FR. But I cannot change that I hear superior treble in the SRH940 despite my bias being opposite. There is no comparison where the SRH940 treble doesn't win over the HD650.

 

[MayaTlab]

Quote:

Listen to something with a lot of 10+khz on the SRH940 and HD650, match relative volume (i.e. remove a LOT of treble from the SRH940 with EQ because the SRH940 has emphasized treble), and you'll see how the SRH940 treble wins in quality. I'm not the only one who finds the SRH940 treble to be markedly superior. 

To form an opinion on treble quality, I usually listen to classical recordings (very often ones from the RCO live label, I find them of a quite good quality), Geinoh Yamashirogumi, Ghost In The Shell soundtrack, and a few others. On all these recording I've never been impressed at all by the SRH940. Unfortnuately, as I'd like to spend more time with it, but I can't right now. I'm not saying it's worse, but it never felt any better either. If there is any headphone that should have been handicapped by the TTVJ, it's the HD650, not the SRH940. My Stax 2170 on the other hand is an improvement over most of the headphones I've tried on those tracks regarding treble rendition. Not huge, but it's there.
And frankly, there's quite a lot of stupidity (more than the usual amount on HF I'd say) in the SRH940 thread. Like the entire thing about how the SRH940 can match the HD800. Ahah.
 

 

[ac500]

To judge the treble flatness or natural-ness, that's another matter unrelated to actual quality, and is best judged with good classical recordings to listen to how real the instruments sound. Bad quality treble can limit how real instruments sound, however even infinite sound quality cannot fix an unnatural FR curve. The SRH940 doesn't have a very refined FR which is what you may be experiencing, however I find the HD650 stock even much less realistic -- it sounds like violins etc. are being listened to with you inside of a virtual wooden coffin (i.e. muffled treble). EQ'ed, I find the HD650 sounding a little bit more natural but still lacking in actual quality/detail versus SRH940 treble.
 
As for quality: The best way to judge treble quality is with electronic music, because you can be sure there's no issues related to the recording/microphone since electronic instruments product theoretically optimal quality. You can judge to some extent with violins, but then you will be preoccupied with how natural it sounds versus the actual quality and resolving ability of the treble.
 
> And frankly, there's quite a lot of stupidity (more than the usual amount on HF I'd say) in the SRH940 thread. Like the entire thing about how the SRH940 can match the HD800. Ahah.
 
That's mostly perpetuated by a single person I think, and most people disagree.
 
I listened to an HD800 the other day and there is absolutely no comparison. That guy is insane. The HD800 destroys the SRH940 in every way you could possibly imagine. The treble detail and quality on the HD800 was absolutely astounding to me (as was the soundstage everyone talks about).
 
Without hearing the HD800 I was inclined to believe the SRH940 matched up with much more expensive headphones, and they DO - they beat the HD650 IMO, so granted, the SRH940 sounds much beyond its price range. But it's nothing like an HD800 obviously.

 

[SemiAudiophile]

how bout HD700? http://www.head-fi.org/t/173816/new-sennheiser-hd-700/270

 

[ac500]

Well nobody's heard it let alone seen or confirmed it yet, so I'd say the answer to that question is: