[steven1859]

I am currently using the Yulong D100 amp/dac and Schiit Valhalla amp with my HD 650's it is an incredible sounding  combination!

 

[longbowbbs]

Quote:

I am currently using the Yulong D100 amp/dac and Schiit Valhalla amp with my HD 650's it is an incredible sounding  combination!

Awesome! Pictures are almost required....

 

[WeLikeAudio]

nope..

 

[talisman42]

Quote:

 
Well, I enjoy the mids and, until I heard the CAL!s recently (which I do not hold as a benchmark on anything, they just, um, opened my ears?), the bass. I thought them just perfect for blues, jazz and classic, and even though their highs aren't as forward as I'd like I often use them for metal and electronica, too, they are definitely all around competent.
 
The DT990 I was planning on buying before my sub-bass itch started, I was thinking of complementing my HD650 for movies and games, not really for music.
 
EDIT: Listening to Rachael Price's rendition of That Old Black Magic and damn, I love these headphones. It's pure pleasure listening to this recording, but I still feel that the bass should be... more.

 
The HD650 is often described as a warmer/dark hp which mitigates listening fatigue... but how dark are they?  Compared to the CAL, are the HD650 darker or brighter? I do enjoy the Senn PX200ii - and while I would describe them as a bass/mid centric phone, I'm hoping the HD650 sounds brighter than PX200ii.

 

[ericfarrell85]

I don't really see using the HD650's for games and movies. They don't have a suitable signature IMO. They're laidback and relatively dark when underpowered. It took a Zana Deux to get me to love this headphone, before which I felt they were slow and unexciting. The soundstage, while expansive with the right gear, is deep rather than wide. Something big and airy would probably be better for movies and games. I would check out the Denon D1100's as a possible candidate. They are pretty cheap and bass heavy, but with a nice soundstage for a closed can, with decent air and quite fun overall.

 

[talisman42]

Quote:

I don't really see using the HD650's for games and movies. They don't have a suitable signature IMO. They're laidback and relatively dark when underpowered. It took a Zana Deux to get me to love this headphone, before which I felt they were slow and unexciting. The soundstage, while expansive with the right gear, is deep rather than wide. Something big and airy would probably be better for movies and games. I would check out the Denon D1100's as a possible candidate. They are pretty cheap and bass heavy, but with a nice soundstage for a closed can, with decent air and quite fun overall.

 
Thanks. I did try the D1100 for movies, and I preferred my other cans because the mids/vocals seemed too recessed. While I do use EQ for this purpose, I got the D2000 and K550s where I liked them... alot. The D1100 sure were fun, though - especially with music requiring that oomf without any external amp. I'd also need to invest in more gear - hopefully an E17 or similar will be adequate.

 

[longbowbbs]

Quote:

 
The HD650 is often described as a warmer/dark hp which mitigates listening fatigue... but how dark are they?  Compared to the CAL, are the HD650 darker or brighter? I do enjoy the Senn PX200ii - and while I would describe them as a bass/mid centric phone, I'm hoping the HD650 sounds brighter than PX200ii.

 
I get a kick out of how many people compare so many things to the HD650's. Or they find the HD650's are the one's they can compromise on. FWIW, I have found them to be a more universally engaging HP than most. So far all of the superphones all have either more particular comfort zones or require a particular amp setup to get the best from them. I have really admired and enjoyed the HD800's. I even listened to them with a set of Entreq custom cables.  Nice for sure (North of $2K not counting amp/dac) Seems to be a similar situation for HE-6/LCD-2 or 3/T1, etc)
 
Are there better phones? Sure, but the cost benefit analysis has a strong liking for the HD650's and their generally flexible and more affordable nature. You can play in the clouds and not burn the wallet to the ground. My .02  

 
Now, back to Norah and my HD650's.....
 

 

[ericfarrell85]

Quote:

 
I get a kick out of how many people compare so many things to the HD650's. Or they find the HD650's are the one's they can compromise on. FWIW, I have found them to be a more universally engaging HP than most. So far all of the superphones all have either more particular comfort zones or require a particular amp setup to get the best from them. I have really admired and enjoyed the HD800's. I even listened to them with a set of Entreq custom cables.  Nice for sure (North of $2K not counting amp/dac) Seems to be a similar situation for HE-6/LCD-2 or 3/T1, etc)
 
Are there better phones? Sure, but the cost benefit analysis has a strong liking for the HD650's and their generally flexible and more affordable nature. You can play in the clouds and not burn the wallet to the ground. My .02  

 
Now, back to Norah and my HD650's.....
 

Of the headphones you named I actually believe the HE6 represents the better cost value (DAC + AMP). Paired with a good vintage amplifier (I use the Marantz 2285 and Pioneer SX1280, both of which were south of $500) I don't believe a similar setup can be found for the money ($1300 used for headphones + amp). I have spent more time and money tinkering with the 650's, finally settling on a Zana Deux/ Beta 22 and the Stefan Equinox cable. I adore my HD650's and I would say among my phones, they receive as much and likely more listening time than anything else (due mostly to my preference for jazz). But it took plenty of experimentation (mostly cables and amps, less than a handful of sources) to get here. 

 

[longbowbbs]

Quote:

Of the headphones you named I actually believe the HE6 represents the better cost value (DAC + AMP). Paired with a good vintage amplifier (I use the Marantz 2285 and Pioneer SX1280, both of which were south of $500) I don't believe a similar setup can be found for the money ($1300 used for headphones + amp). I have spent more time and money tinkering with the 650's, finally settling on a Zana Deux/ Beta 22 and the Stefan Equinox cable. I adore my HD650's and I would say among my phones, they receive as much and likely more listening time than anything else (due mostly to my preference for jazz). But it took plenty of experimentation (mostly cables and amps, less than a handful of sources) to get here. 

This is the journey..

 Glad you found your combo with them!

 

[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

Ok I see what you mean but do we really need to enjoy these cans. ?

 
You don't have to enjoy them and depending on your music tastes you may not.  One thing to keep in mind is that plenty of recordings, especially older analog masters don't even contain data below 40Hz.  So it depends on what you listen to as to if the sub-bass performance matters even slightly. If it matters a lot, then it's definitely the wrong headphone, no question.
 
Quote:

 
The HD650 is often described as a warmer/dark hp which mitigates listening fatigue... but how dark are they?  Compared to the CAL, are the HD650 darker or brighter? I do enjoy the Senn PX200ii - and while I would describe them as a bass/mid centric phone, I'm hoping the HD650 sounds brighter than PX200ii.

 
Haven't tried the PX200ii.  I can say not too many things seem darker.  HE-400 is darker.  I've heard that LCD-2 is darker than HE-400.  In comparison to those two they don't seem very dark at all. 
 
Quote:

I don't really see using the HD650's for games and movies. They don't have a suitable signature IMO. They're laidback and relatively dark when underpowered. It took a Zana Deux to get me to love this headphone, before which I felt they were slow and unexciting. The soundstage, while expansive with the right gear, is deep rather than wide. Something big and airy would probably be better for movies and games. I would check out the Denon D1100's as a possible candidate. They are pretty cheap and bass heavy, but with a nice soundstage for a closed can, with decent air and quite fun overall.

 
When underpowered perhaps.  When powered well, they're perfectly fine for movies.  I used them for years before deciding I prefer AD700 for movies.
 
 
Quote:

 
I get a kick out of how many people compare so many things to the HD650's. Or they find the HD650's are the one's they can compromise on. FWIW, I have found them to be a more universally engaging HP than most. So far all of the superphones all have either more particular comfort zones or require a particular amp setup to get the best from them. I have really admired and enjoyed the HD800's. I even listened to them with a set of Entreq custom cables.  Nice for sure (North of $2K not counting amp/dac) Seems to be a similar situation for HE-6/LCD-2 or 3/T1, etc)
 
Are there better phones? Sure, but the cost benefit analysis has a strong liking for the HD650's and their generally flexible and more affordable nature. You can play in the clouds and not burn the wallet to the ground. My .02  

 
Now, back to Norah and my HD650's.....
 

 
+1.  I love my new HE-6 rig and am getting a lot of head-time with them.  Are they better than HD-650?  Yes.  Are there things I still prefer HD650 with? Absolutely!  It's a fantastic headphone with a highly addictive signature and presentation, and doesn't feel horribly "out of the league" of the more expensive cans by any means.  They definitely play in the same club.
 
Quote:

Of the headphones you named I actually believe the HE6 represents the better cost value (DAC + AMP). Paired with a good vintage amplifier (I use the Marantz 2285 and Pioneer SX1280, both of which were south of $500) I don't believe a similar setup can be found for the money ($1300 used for headphones + amp). I have spent more time and money tinkering with the 650's, finally settling on a Zana Deux/ Beta 22 and the Stefan Equinox cable. I adore my HD650's and I would say among my phones, they receive as much and likely more listening time than anything else (due mostly to my preference for jazz). But it took plenty of experimentation (mostly cables and amps, less than a handful of sources) to get here. 

+1, though I didn't need to spend fortunes tinkering with HD650 to get them to sound great.  The Lyr isn't leaving my rack any time soon.  It's still the quintessential HD650 engine and lets the HD650 shine with a little tube rolling love even next to the more visually impressive HE-6 rig

 

[BBBS]

According to an audio engineer and some other people in the trade, they roll off most recordings at 60Hz because most people dislike real sub-bass and or their systems don't reproduce it well. There are obvious exceptions like classical and electronic, though.
 
In this superfast age of the internet it seems like most people are using the worst headphones and speakers ever. A pair of Portapro and a decent Walkman would be a better alternative to what half the people are using.

 

[TwoEars]

Quote:

According to an audio engineer and some other people in the trade, they roll off most recordings at 60Hz because most people dislike real sub-bass and or their systems don't reproduce it well. There are obvious exceptions like classical and electronic, though.
 
In this superfast age of the internet it seems like most people are using the worst headphones and speakers ever. A pair of Portapro and a decent Walkman would be a better alternative to what half the people are using.

Can only agree - there's a reason why all mainstream music sounds the same.
 
It needs to be snappy and catchy enough to catch people's attention, and it needs to play in the 1000-10.000 Hz range where even the radio at you local burger can play it ok.
 
Then there's another problem - when serious artist try to do real music that sound good on mid-range system we with our high-end systems actually suffer. Because something that was mid-range focused suddenly becomes bass-heavy when presented with a system that actually is able to produce that bass 100%.
 
Which is why I'm a big fan of EQ'ing. Not out of disrespect for the artist but OUT OF respect for the artist - wrap your heads around that one.

 

[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

According to an audio engineer and some other people in the trade, they roll off most recordings at 60Hz because most people dislike real sub-bass and or their systems don't reproduce it well. There are obvious exceptions like classical and electronic, though.
 
In this superfast age of the internet it seems like most people are using the worst headphones and speakers ever. A pair of Portapro and a decent Walkman would be a better alternative to what half the people are using.

 
I don't think anyone actually dislikes sub-bass.  Ever.  The second point is the winner though, most systems don't reproduce it well. I don't know those sponge foam walkman headphones were pretty darned awful.  iBuds are actually not horrible.  They're not good but compared to walkman standards they're actually decent.  The problem is iBuds are not the worst of the things people listen to music on.  Any random Aiwa or no-name speaker setup people have around, and worse, their iPod docks with built in laptop speakers are unimaginably horrible.  And that's how most people are listening. 
 
Quote:

Can only agree - there's a reason why all mainstream music sounds the same.
 
It needs to be snappy and catchy enough to catch people's attention, and it needs to play in the 1000-10.000 Hz range where even the radio at you local burger can play it ok.
 
Then there's another problem - when serious artist try to do real music that sound good on mid-range system we with our high-end systems actually suffer. Because something that was mid-range focused suddenly becomes bass-heavy when presented with a system that actually is able to produce that bass 100%.
 
Which is why I'm a big fan of EQ'ing. Not out of disrespect for the artist but OUT OF respect for the artist - wrap your heads around that one.

 
Let's face it, "mainstream" music isn't really music....it's carefully designed background tones.  It could be designed and implemented entirely by DSP, no artist required.  The snappy, catchy attention grabbing sound of most "pop" music is simply pre-ordained BPM and tone generation patters because a focus group determined the human brain will catch onto it.  It's not music in the sense of listening to music.  But it does it on the biggest problem of pop recording even beyond compression which is sometimes they master it badly specifically because the expect it will be played on garbage systems.  So rather than allow a garbage system to play it back like garbage, it tweaks it so it might sound almost musical on bad systems.  When they ramp up the 50-120Hz range to a peak 2-3dB above any other frequency, it says a lot about how it was mastered and why.
 
And you're right about the bass heavy effect from serious artists trying to sound good mid-range.  But that's not the artist's fault, that's the engineer's fault.  And it happens even in the audiophile genres (glares at Rudy Van Gelder....)

 

[BBBS]

I'll listen to basically any MFSL disc or studio master, because if it's popular enough to warrant a niche re-release, it's obviously got some qualities.
 
Basically old R.E.M. albums and Miles Davis sound a million times better than Californication, but I guess that's true regardless of the actual production.

 

[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

I'll listen to basically any MFSL disc or studio master, because if it's popular enough to warrant a niche re-release, it's obviously got some qualities.
 
Basically old R.E.M. albums and Miles Davis sound a million times better than Californication, but I guess that's true regardless of the actual production.

Most pop/mainstream albums are mastered, IMO as radio mixes without any regard to anything else.  Californication is a great example.  One of the hallmark examples of horrible compression.  Yet when you think about it, it's a perfect distribution for radio mix distribution.  
 
They're albums designed around a radio single with little other thought given to them. 
 
Only part I don't understand is: Does anyone actually listen to radio stations anymore?