[Philimon]

This discussion is way over my head but will attempt anyway. Please dont read my statements as facts.

I'm curious about low end distortions without any damping material. They're usually high enough for even the E.A.R.S to get somewhat usable data in the sub.

ime, the noise floor in my home is too high to easily get consistent distortion measurements. I live in an apartment building...

Damping material(beside probably interfering with high freqs) is often used to calm resonance frequencies, I'm guessing the bass bump could be most of it here.

Based on my very limited understanding or misunderstanding, I agree.

Oof, I am nervous chatting it up with a sound science representative. Its good to see you outside your dominion @castleofargh .

I don't recommend doing it on purpose, but you could have picked a much worse headphone to go kill the damping material IMO.

There are seemingly times when a driver’s bass levels and transients have been too diminished by damping materials, or atleast detrimental to a set of constraints like target frequency response.

I wonder how important it is for front and back of driver to have equal damping.

On this headphone, that's not even dangerous for the frequency response.

I am hoping HD600 responds better, however now I think I should seek a headphone that has the frequency response, etc. that I desire without resorting to underdamping to achieve whatever sound Im looking for.

castleofargh, what do I do now?

 

[dakanao]

It's fortunate that you have the E.A.R.S and manage to use REW, because whatever you do, you can directly check for the consequences. So I'm not too worried about you. Damping material(beside probably interfering with high freqs) is often used to calm resonance frequencies, I'm guessing the bass bump could be most of it here. On this headphone, that's not even dangerous for the frequency response. I don't recommend doing it on purpose, but you could have picked a much worse headphone to go kill the damping material IMO.

I'm curious about low end distortions without any damping material. They're usually high enough for even the E.A.R.S to get somewhat usable data in the sub.

I don't mind distortion in the bass for the HD650, as the impact is already quite low, so when distortion in the bass gets up, it gets up in quantity.

I hate reflective distortion in the mids and treble though. However if you only know how to read graphs and don't actually listen, you won't know what I'm talking about

 

[dakanao]

This discussion is way over my head but will attempt anyway. Please dont read my statements as facts.


ime, the noise floor in my home is too high to easily get consistent distortion measurements. I live in an apartment building...


Based on my very limited understanding or misunderstanding, I agree.

Oof, I am nervous chatting it up with a sound science representative. Its good to see you outside your dominion @castleofargh .


There are seemingly times when a driver’s bass levels and transients have been too diminished by damping materials, or atleast detrimental to a set of constraints like target frequency response.

I wonder how important it is for front and back of driver to have equal damping.


I am hoping HD600 responds better, however now I think I should seek a headphone that has the frequency response, etc. that I desire without resorting to underdamping to achieve whatever sound Im looking for.

castleofargh, what do I do now?

Imo, that damping behind the driver just restricts the driver for the sake of FR response. It actually makes the transients sound edgier than if there was no damping behind it .

 

[Philimon]

Imo, that damping behind the driver just restricts the driver for the sake of FR response. It actually makes the transients sound edgier than if there was no damping behind it .

Edgier because of frequency response, reflections, or related to acoustic impedance damping? Or combination? And how can you know?

My subjective experience is that removing the metal mesh in front of driver allows for more higher frequencies (8kHz+) which are completely not harsh but only adds air and sense of detail. Unlike some other headphones that sound sharp in that area so decreasing the volume there is preferable (e.g. some HFM), ime, (resonance?).

Did removing the metal mesh also take the edge off for me? Uncertain, but so far so good. Will update on that and other baffle materials later.

 

[Luckyleo]

A common issue for many including myself. You have to very carefully bend the headband without breaking it… good luck!

Agree, I've found though that extending the headband all the way and then slightly bending each side seems to work better for me.....YMMV

 

[rafaelo]

I like very much how this metal mesh looks like and i have this feeling based only on intuition and my personal wild speculation that this metal mesh is doing something rather good for the timbre rather than the opposite.

And as i love the tonality in all of the 6 series i am just a bit worried that we may point them towards the wrong direction.

If someone does not like this headphone there are plenty of others around we should not modify the hell out of this headphone unless only for fun...

 

[castleofargh]

This discussion is way over my head but will attempt anyway. Please dont read my statements as facts.


ime, the noise floor in my home is too high to easily get consistent distortion measurements. I live in an apartment building...


Based on my very limited understanding or misunderstanding, I agree.

Oof, I am nervous chatting it up with a sound science representative. Its good to see you outside your dominion @castleofargh .


There are seemingly times when a driver’s bass levels and transients have been too diminished by damping materials, or atleast detrimental to a set of constraints like target frequency response.

I wonder how important it is for front and back of driver to have equal damping.


I am hoping HD600 responds better, however now I think I should seek a headphone that has the frequency response, etc. that I desire without resorting to underdamping to achieve whatever sound Im looking for.

castleofargh, what do I do now?

I sold my soul to digital processing, including EQ, a long time ago. So now I tend to be like the surgeons who always think the best fix to any health problem is to operate.
I always want to start with EQ because I can try a lot of settings with great precision, and it's always reversible if I don't like it. I tried a few reversible things here and there regarding mods(more with IEMs than headphones), but being sure I can go back is usually where I draw the line. Who made that chicken sound? I'm not a coward!

I wonder how important it is for front and back of driver to have equal damping.

Now you're the one going over my head. Intuitively, I would think that it's not necessary because compression/depression of the air caused by some damper of sort on one side is enough to act on the diaphragm moving in both directions in similar fashion. Just thinking about air pressure change relatively to ambient value, I would expect that adding constraints behind (not the side where the ear is) will add on top of whatever exists on the ear side. So I imagine it wouldn't balance things out but add on top of what exists.

When it comes to acoustic, I don't even have the level of a failing sound engineering student, so don't quote me on that one.

I hate reflective distortion in the mids and treble though. However if you only know how to read graphs and don't actually listen, you won't know what I'm talking about

I'm not sure what you're talking about when writing reflective distortion. But about listening to headphones, a friend said it was great. I never tried it myself, of course, as it's legally banned in the Sound Science section, and I've been a member since the day I was born.

 

[dakanao]

Edgier because of frequency response, reflections, or related to acoustic impedance damping? Or combination? And how can you know?

My subjective experience is that removing the metal mesh in front of driver allows for more higher frequencies (8kHz+) which are completely not harsh but only adds air and sense of detail. Unlike some other headphones that sound sharp in that area so decreasing the volume there is preferable (e.g. some HFM), ime, (resonance?).

Did removing the metal mesh also take the edge off for me? Uncertain, but so far so good. Will update on that and other baffle materials later.

I think reflections, not sure though, I can only comment on how it sounds. I didn't only try this on the HD650, but on a lot of other dynamic drivers. The result was always more and looser mid bass, less sub bass and smoother uppermids and highs with more rounded transients.

However, this only works with closed backs when you add some additional soft foam in the back cup.

In regards to the metal mesh on the baffle: I first started out replacing it with 2 layers of micropore tape, and 1 layer on the round side where the diapghram sits against. This makes it closest to the FR response of the metal mesh, but without the edginess of the metal mesh.

However I wanted more bass, so I took off the mp tape, and used closed felt tape on the baffle, and left the 1 layer of mp tape on the diapghram side. This gave me more bass and lower mids, since it mimicks the closed front baffle of a closed back more instead of the more leaky yet more resonant stock metal mesh.

I'm happy with the results I got.

 

[dakanao]

I sold my soul to digital processing, including EQ, a long time ago. So now I tend to be like the surgeons who always think the best fix to any health problem is to operate.
I always want to start with EQ because I can try a lot of settings with great precision, and it's always reversible if I don't like it. I tried a few reversible things here and there regarding mods(more with IEMs than headphones), but being sure I can go back is usually where I draw the line. Who made that chicken sound? I'm not a coward!



Now you're the one going over my head. Intuitively, I would think that it's not necessary because compression/depression of the air caused by some damper of sort on one side is enough to act on the diaphragm moving in both directions in similar fashion. Just thinking about air pressure change relatively to ambient value, I would expect that adding constraints behind (not the side where the ear is) will add on top of whatever exists on the ear side. So I imagine it wouldn't balance things out but add on top of what exists.

When it comes to acoustic, I don't even have the level of a failing sound engineering student, so don't quote me on that one.





I'm not sure what you're talking about when writing reflective distortion. But about listening to headphones, a friend said it was great. I never tried it myself, of course, as it's legally banned in the Sound Science section, and I've been a member since the day I was born.

Distortion caused by internal reflections; ie damping material behind driver, reflective baffle (metal mesh in the case of modern 6xx series), earpads that are too thick on the inside.

 

[SHAMuuu]

I wonder why they are insistent on metal mesh in spite of the difficulties in consistency. HD800 driver uses a fabric mesh like some older HD6X0 variants with their “black silk” mesh.

I just know if they chose it, there is a good reason LOL. Can't beat German engineering

The black paper seemed quite durable but ages a bit over time (like decades) vs the silk and metal material.

I put the old driver in the new metal baffle and also sharing with other local head-fiers to get their opinion.

At the end of the day Sennheiser knows what they are doing, but it's fun to tinker

 

[dakanao]

I just know if they chose it, there is a good reason LOL. Can't beat German engineering

The black paper seemed quite durable but ages a bit over time (like decades) vs the silk and metal material.

I put the old driver in the new metal baffle and also sharing with other local head-fiers to get their opinion.

At the end of the day Sennheiser knows what they are doing, but it's fun to tinker

I would say there's 2 sides to this. Yes, they know what they're doing. Is it always in favor of optimal sonics? No.

They already knew what they were doing sonic wise with the black paper when they started out, since that would be one of the least reflective baffle materials they could choose.

Later on they changed to the metal mesh. In terms of the material staying consistent over time , they knew what they were doing. However in terms of sonics, it's a downgrade from the softer materials.

Unless you like more edge to your sound, which is a personal preference (paper and silk baffle too "veiled"). In that case, the metal mesh is an upgrade in every way.

 

[SHAMuuu]

I would say there's 2 sides to this. Yes, they know what they're doing. Is it always in favor of optimal sonics? No.

They already knew what they were doing sonic wise with the black paper when they started out, since that would be one of the least reflective baffle materials they could choose.

Later on they changed to the metal mesh. In terms of the material staying consistent over time , they knew what they were doing. However in terms of sonics, it's a downgrade from the softer materials.

Unless you like more edge to your sound, which is a personal preference (paper and silk baffle too "veiled"). In that case, the metal mesh is an upgrade in every way.

Those are all solid points! I stopped using the word "veil" and call it musical haze

From watching their podcast talks and also following Grell's philosophy.. It seems it's a mix of things.

Axel did mention that back in the day vs modern techniques the computer simulation results are much quicker. So more adjustments can be made vs the older days. I know initially with the 580 he tried to get the magic of the Orpheus but obviously limited by the size of driver and the technological difference (in context of distortion and speed)

Perhaps Sennheiser felt they had a near perfect product but then people complained for ages about the lack of extension in both areas except mid-range.

And really, all I can see is that they tried to satisfy a larger group of the people. Because they made so many variations.

Now, we have new brains and ears working on their new products. And it was mentioned they do group discussions so it's never really one set of ears making the decisions and some might like one and others the other slightly different sound. Then they reach some middle ground regarding sonics.

The 660S2 promising more bass and treble refinement while keeping those mids Sennheisery.

One thing I am always impressed by as well is the tight tolerance on the new models. The new line feels so solid vs my original 580.

 

[Philimon]

^ EARS, both using new version 2023 pads which came standard with this HD600 but I had to buy seperately for the older HD650. Measurements just for relative comparison and lols, do not accept as accuracy or highly relative to your personal experience.

First impression, I was quite surprised by the bass extension of HD600. The last time I heard HD600 was an older variant (black silk mesh) which sounded notably less bassy than my HD6XX (massdrop) when compared side-by-side. Of course variation in pads, etc. so not perfect comparison.

Today we have a current production HD600 with brand new pads, same as my HD650 with brand new pads... Unfortunately, I cant provide much else in terms of subjective stock comparisons because Ive now modded my HD650... From memory, HD600 does sound a little more microdetailed but I would 100% attribute that to frequency response. HD600 tom and snare drum also sound a little more snappy but I would also attribute that to frequency response, specifically the increase in higher harmonic levels and their effect on edge and definition, in this specific way HD600 reminds me more of Grado than HD650 does.

Will HD600 have the same flaws as HD650? HD650 flaws:
- too much 3kHz (shout)
- bass a tad boomy and bloomy. I think HD650MOD may have fixed but not sure yet, bass sounds tighter but dont know yet what is causing that perception such as earlier bass roll off, other alterations to frequency response like in higher harmonics of drum kit, etc

 

[rafaelo]

The Astonishingly beautiful new version HD600 should go to the HD650 astonishingly beautiful box...

I should do the same with mine...as I already did with my 660s and 660s2 where i have swapped boxes.

I like the "edginess " of the metal mesh particularly with my 58x where rock and AC/DC sound spectacular well.

Now I understand that if someone does not like that with the 650 since it is associated with the absolute smoothness.

But there is another benefit with the metal mesh. I posted before a picture with the metal mesh of one of my 58X driver which is liked burned or something like being spilled with coffee. Not sure how this has happened but the sound did not change a bit so there is some robustness to this construction. Not sure how the black paper could have handled this.

 

[addicted2music]

I got my new HD 650 since my old ones(2017) died. These sound different than my old pair. These have more treble and the mids don't sound as full as the old ones. These sound more technical than musical. What's going on here? Are there any changes made to the new HD 650? Someone told me that the pads have been changed. The new pads when worn out won't sound the same as old ones? I have to admit I am a little disappointed.