[donlin]

Somehow, I perferred the so called "mid fi" HD660S compared to HD800.
Mid-fi, flagship-fi is another another meaningless term the more expensive means flagship-fi and so on. That's how human mind tends to relate more expensive meaning better sound. This is true to some extend but not always the case.
To me, I can relate HD660S even better than my Grado GS1000e. I enjoyed my HD660S more than those more expensive models.

Absolutely right. The 600/650/660 are mid-priced but not at all mid-fi. Depending on personal preference they are just as good as any of the flagships. Back when the HD800 first came out, I quickly realized that I actually preferred the HD650 and made some posts on the HD800 thread about that. It didn't go over well at the time but now there are quite a few who would agree with that.

 

[donlin]

Thanks for that, good to know it wasn't just my ears with the Grado! Do you think, if you were using them like I do (many many hours a day, games, teleconferencing, music), that you wouldn't get tired of the 660s? One of the things I absolutely LOVE about the 650, is that I can do all that and the headphones just disappear from my head throughout the day whilst providing amazing sound, and then at the end of the day, crack open a bottle of wine, crank up the volume, and relax without swapping cans at all. I am worried that the 660s will be better musically, but they won't have the ability of the 650 to just feel like I am not even wearing them when I need that.

I realise this is an odd thing to ask of a mid level audiophile headphone that is primarily for music!

Thanks.

I can only speak for myself, but I could see wearing them for long periods without listener fatigue.

 

[pietcux]

Ok, but they imply from the measurements something about the sound of the 660S that is almost the opposite at listening.
And measurements in the high frequencies with headphones is still a tricky thing, that not even mighty sonarworks people has completely solved (see the differences I stressed before)

I hope that someday we will return to listen to music instead of viewing graph after graph. Btw, is Sonarworks somehow related to Golden Ears? At least the graph looks kinda similar....

EDIT: ^^ You pressed reply literally minutes before I just typed the below. Thanks for the input.

How bad is this "peaky" treble I am hearing about? I think I am overly sensitive to treble, as way back when, I blindly bought the Grado SR80i , and couldnt listen to them as it sounded like someone screeching in my ear.

My HD650s are on their last legs as Ive used them most days for about 10hrs or more, and have had 4 replacement cables and been dropped multiple times. They are still working, but much worse for wear. I was just going to order another pair, but with the 660s out, I am watching with interest to see if I would like them.

My main issue is that years ago I narrowed it down to the DT880 and HD650, and the more relaxed, smoother sound of the HD650 was a huge bonus for me. I use them for everything from gaming to tele conferencing, as well as music. Is the treble "as bad/sibliant/harsh" as the grados?

I never thought the HD650s had a veil apart from when I listen to them with other brighter headphones, but the fatiguing sound of those means I dont want to use them for as long as I tend to do.

As much as I like the HD660S, in your case I suggest get another HD650. Never change a running system, as you need to avoid any treble issues more than others

 

[Caruryn]

I don't agree with some saying using using a higher end DAP wins using a mobile phone to feed into Chord Mojo. It's just digital signal and I doubt the difference is a lot, it is how Mojo decode into analog and amplify it. I personally having a AK240 and a Opus #2 (which I think many would consider high-end enough), I don't notice any difference in sound quality with my iPhone 8 feeding into my Chord Mojo-Poly.
And while Chord Mojo is more than capable in driving HD660S but amping with Phatlab Phantasy tube Amp bring it into another level!

Well,i do.The benefit of using the same coax cable between N6/dx90 is that i can swap between them in less than 5 seconds and the difference is pretty big.With N6 there is much more air,much more clarity especially in the vocals much better depth,more holographic sound and the bass is faster,much more detailed and goes deeper.I know that shouldn't be the case but that's how i hear it and i am not alone.I linked a post from different site not too long ago about mojo with different daps.

If you add your $1500 amp no doubt the sound will be even better,i'm guessing bigger sound,better dynamics and bass depth,i found those change the most if you amp mojo but some of the mojo magic is lost for me.

 

[Bengkia369]

Well,i do.The benefit of using the same coax cable between N6/dx90 is that i can swap between them in less than 5 seconds and the difference is pretty big.With N6 there is much more air,much more clarity especially in the vocals much better depth,more holographic sound and the bass is faster,much more detailed and goes deeper.I know that shouldn't be the case but that's how i hear it and i am not alone.I linked a post from different site not too long ago about mojo with different daps.

If you add your $1500 amp no doubt the sound will be even better,i'm guessing bigger sound,better dynamics and bass depth,i found those change the most if you amp mojo but some of the mojo magic is lost for me.

Yup, I agreed that there is a difference in sound via different digital I/p but I find it very slight.
Adding a amp does have a bigger impact in the sound than the variables in digital I/p.
That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[Mike F]

My point is that:

amartignano, I have absolutely no wish to have an argument with you, and I'm sure the HD660S is a fine headphone - which you obviously like - no problem with that, but my desire to understand and be understood prevents me from just letting this go.

1)voice and strings overtones in the 660S are less pronounced than the hd600 and the hd650 (although for the hd650 I have to go by memory). And they say the opposite only mentioning freq resp graph, so it comes the 2nd point... [overtones presence and overall response tilt - brighter/darker/etc - are two different things]

Could you possibly explain further what you mean in your point, 1) I'm a musician and I know what overtones are, so I'd like to better understand what you mean.

2)it's at least uncomplete and incorrect to judge the sound of an headphone just from a frequency response graph, without mentioning listened music and comparison with known headphones with precise and declared tracks

I totally agree that it's at least incomplete and incorrect to judge the sound of a headphone from the FR graph alone, but as I've already pointed out, they haven't done that!! And they have also compared them to known headphones - the HD600 and HD650! OK, it's nice in an in-depth review to know what tracks were used and so on, but how many reviews do that? Certainly it's not, IMHO, a reason to completely dismiss a review if the reviewer hasn't stated the source material.

3)if someone know how the 660s sounds with renowned good recordings, they perfectly do their job for production purposes, even because they seem to me to do a wonderful job up in the highs that hd600 and 650 can only dream of (overtones and timbre of triangles cymbals & co for example) and more linear/less colored and more detailed in the midbass and bass frequencies. So it's incorrect to say that they are not equally good to the 650 for the production purposes.

I'm quite sure that given familiarity with the 660S someone could mix with them successfully. The SW review was simply stating that, for the reasons they gave as a result of their listening and measurement tests, the 660S would be inferior to the 650 as a tool for that job. Is that so hard to accept? And again, what exactly are you referring to with the term 'overtones'? Are you saying the at 660S is more resolving of fine details in the sound of the acoustic instruments which you mention than the 650, or are they just brighter (and better for it in your opinion) because they have more treble energy at certain frequencies?

These are genuine questions as I'd like to understand if you have good reasons for dismissing the SW review.

However now the thing seems more serious that I wanted to be and I'm starting to seem a 660S fanboy, which I'm not.

Well, sorry if it's become more serious than you intended! For my part I simply thought it was a good fact based review which was exactly the subject of this thread. As such I thought that someone would find it useful.

I would also add that I totally agree that using FR graphs to judge headphones can be very misleading. A FR graph will only give an indication of what a hp might sound like - at best. However, they are still at the end of the day an objective measurement which can help us understand and interpret what we hear, and given that we all hear somewhat differently I believe that objective measurements have their place.

I will also add that I like some hp's which look terrible on paper!

 

[Me x3]

I've never found the HD650 to be a great reference, although it's just fine anyway.
You miss some information in the mid-bass, the tonality has a fuller tilt to it and the treble lacks some natural sparkle/bite.
It's a very good headphone for certain recordings and listening preferences.

I'm yet to hear the HD660S. I own HD650.

@Mike F you can take sonarworks as your personal reference, but that's it. You can not push others to trust them as you do.
They (SW) say they know how things should sound just as many others saying different things, take it or leave it.
Same applies to their measurements which are different from other measurements due to different rigs used and different compensations applied.

If you really want to know which headphone is better (HD650 vs HD660S) the only way to find it is buying HD660S and making your own judgement.
Then share your impressions here. That's valuable.

Copy pasting what SW said or what Tyll Hertsens said is not very useful at this point.

 

[amartignano]

amartignano, I have absolutely no wish to have an argument with you, and I'm sure the HD660S is a fine headphone - which you obviously like - no problem with that, but my desire to understand and be understood prevents me from just letting this go.



Could you possibly explain further what you mean in your point, 1) I'm a musician and I know what overtones are, so I'd like to better understand what you mean.



I totally agree that it's at least incomplete and incorrect to judge the sound of a headphone from the FR graph alone, but as I've already pointed out, they haven't done that!! And they have also compared them to known headphones - the HD600 and HD650! OK, it's nice in an in-depth review to know what tracks were used and so on, but how many reviews do that? Certainly it's not, IMHO, a reason to completely dismiss a review if the reviewer hasn't stated the source material.



I'm quite sure that given familiarity with the 660S someone could mix with them successfully. The SW review was simply stating that, for the reasons they gave as a result of their listening and measurement tests, the 660S would be inferior to the 650 as a tool for that job. Is that so hard to accept? And again, what exactly are you referring to with the term 'overtones'? Are you saying the at 660S is more resolving of fine details in the sound of the acoustic instruments which you mention than the 650, or are they just brighter (and better for it in your opinion) because they have more treble energy at certain frequencies?

These are genuine questions as I'd like to understand if you have good reasons for dismissing the SW review.



Well, sorry if it's become more serious than you intended! For my part I simply thought it was a good fact based review which was exactly the subject of this thread. As such I thought that someone would find it useful.

I would also add that I totally agree that using FR graphs to judge headphones can be very misleading. A FR graph will only give an indication of what a hp might sound like - at best. However, they are still at the end of the day an objective measurement which can help us understand and interpret what we hear, and given that we all hear somewhat differently I believe that objective measurements have their place.

I will also add that I like some hp's which look terrible on paper!

I'm a musician too, plus a physicist.
And nor I want to have an argument with you.

Overtones = partials other than the fundamental. aka what makes the timbre of an instrument. And yes, my hd660s compared to my hd600 has less present overtones with voices and strings. Not more or less correct, who knows, just a bit less evident (at least at listening level, a slightly subdued mid-high region is the reason).

And yes I think the 660S is more resolving (in the high frequencues), and not because of added treble energy. (They have a brighter overall tilt but not a clear added treble imho).

In the review of SW they only mention the measurements, how can I understand they have also listened carefully to them, given their for me strange conclusions?

Anyway, to each one his tastes. To me, the 650 was way too thick sounding for reference use. But again, it depends on what you're used to. If someone has clear ideas with their 650, the 650 will be the best headphone. The same can be said for the 660s, which leaner overall sound suits me better in terms of "reference sound".Hope this will clear up my thoughts about this. I think it's now enough bit space occupied about this.


PS. I tried their True-Fi app with the Hd800S, quite interesting... despite the fact that the sound with true-fi disabled was strangely lifeless sounding compared to the Neutron app. And nevertheless, the eq, although apparently very well done (but the reference without the eq applied was strange sounding as said), changed the character of the 800s too much, the result was ok in the basses, not so accurate imho in the mid-highs.

 

[Sigmaaa]

Edited

 

[DavidA]

So mixing has to be done on dark headphones. This is new for me. What would be neutral, then? HD650 are dark, averybody agrees, even Tyll, haven't seen a review not to consider them a tad dark, or maybe it's one out of 100 reviews. If the HD650 would be a 0 in terms of brightness and the bright HD700 (which some people call warm for some reason) a 10, the HD660s would be a 1 or a 2 maybe, right on the neutral spot. If you decrease the brightness of HD660s for just a little bit, you end up with a HD650. If HD660s is bright, then HD700 has to be sound torture.

I still have the HD650 and enjoy them from time to time, but I wouldn't turn them into a cult and and never let go of them, there's no reason with the HD660s being available.

Also need to consider that some like me are affected by different frequencies so just saying something is bright is not the whole story. I did have some issues with the HD600 being sibilant and irritating at times and it was the small peak that they have in the 3.5-5khz range while other "brighter" headphones like the HD700, HD800 and most Grado don't bother me at all. The HD660S while brighter than the HD650 is closer to the HD600 to me but it doesn't have the peak like the HD600 so to me it sounds great. The problem with the HD660S for me is that it doesn't have the smooth mids and slightly rolled of treble of the HD650 that is relaxing to me and the HD660S didn't seem to scale as much as the HD650 when used on better amps but for those that don't want to deal with amps the HD660S is a great headphone since its quite easy to drive and sounds great out of a phone or average DAP while the HD650 does need a little better supporting gear.
For those that haven't heard the latest generation of "e" series Grado they are tuned very differently compared to the older "i" and original and for some genres of music like rock/classic rock and some acoustic jazz a much better choice than the HD600/650/660S.

 

[Sigmaaa]

Btw, is Sonarworks somehow related to Golden Ears? At least the graph looks kinda similar..../QUOTE]
Impossible. The site looks like a joke compared to goldenears. The sound evaluatiom chart looks like a strange thing compared to the detailed and informative one on goldenears and the measurement seems to be flawed, all the other sites show no huge peak at 10kHz in addition to the smaller 5-6kHz peak. And nobody can hear that to, the hd660s is almost as rolled off beyond 7kHz as hd650, struggling not to be dark, let alone peaky...


The site takes my response as a quote too, can't fix it, so...anyway

 

[Mike F]

I'm a musician too, plus a physicist.
And nor I want to have an argument with you.

amartignano, thanks for taking the time to respond and explaining more fully what you mean. I appreciate it! I don't want to take up any unnecessary space here with this either, but as we are directly discussing the subject of the thread then I will take the liberty of responding one more time.

Overtones = partials other than the fundamental. aka what makes the timbre of an instrument. And yes, my hd660s compared to my hd600 has less present overtones with voices and strings. Not more or less correct, who knows, just a bit less evident (at least at listening level, a slightly subdued mid-high region is the reason).

Good that we have the same understanding of the word overtones! I'm curious however about your findings. I have always associated the presence of more overtones in the sound of instruments with greater/better resolution (which is not the same thing as brightness which can simply be more treble energy), yet you say that the 660S has less overtones than the 600 but is more resolving!? That is what didn't/doesn't make sense to me. However, it obviously makes sense to you or you way of thinking, so - fair enough - we all hear and perceive things differently and I'm sure this makes sense to you, even if it doesn't to me! I can only assume that you must be talking about the very lowest overtones, whereas I assumed that you meant the highest partials.

And yes I think the 660S is more resolving (in the high frequencues), and not because of added treble energy. (They have a brighter overall tilt but not a clear added treble imho).

I have to say that that does seem contradictory!

In the review of SW they only mention the measurements, how can I understand they have also listened carefully to them, given their for me strange conclusions?

Again, as I pointed out in post #2176, they start by giving their subjective impressions from listening, so your repeated claim that they are only going by measurements is simply false. You seem like a reasonable and intelligent person so I don't understand why you keep stating this!?

Uncalibrated sonic performance
Subjectively, before peeking in the measurements the HD660 S felt familiar, yet it seemed brighter than the HD6XX old guard. Not annoyingly so, if used for recreative listening, however in mixing these extra highs might prove troublesome.

It's not exactly an exhaustive listening test, I agree, but the whole review is very short, and in the context of the length of the review this is certainly enough to indicate that they did some actual listening to form subjective impressions and were not entirely reliant for their opinion on measurements.

Anyway, to each one his tastes. To me, the 650 was way too thick sounding for reference use. But again, it depends on what you're used to. If someone has clear ideas with their 650, the 650 will be the best headphone. The same can be said for the 660s, which leaner overall sound suits me better in terms of "reference sound".Hope this will clear up my thoughts about this. I think it's now enough bit space occupied about this.

Absolutely! You're entitled to your own opinion of course, and I glad that you like your HD660S. I hope you get many years of enjoyment from them. What you are NOT entitled to (IMHO and with respect) is to slam a review from a very respected source, by making false claims that the reviewer(s) haven't listened to the hp's in question and then rubbishing their measurements, simply because you don't like their conclusions. Well, not without someone pulling you up for it!

 

[Mike F]

@Mike F you can take sonarworks as your personal reference, but that's it. You can not push others to trust them as you do.

I'm not pushing anyone to use SW as a reference, I simply shared their review as it was entirely relevant to the subject of this thread. The only thing I did was to object to amartignano's response to my post. See the final paragraph in my above reply to him for a summary as to why!

Copy pasting what SW said or what Tyll Hertsens said is not very useful at this point.

You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I'm interested in what people with experience and expertise have to say. I'm sure that other people who read these threads (many of whom don't post opinions) may also like to be informed.

 

[amartignano]

@Mike F
More or less presence of a certain part of the frequency range is not related to detail. Detail has more to do with time domain characteristic. So it can perfectly be that for example an overall darker but cleaner headphone has more detail than a brighter but less resolved one.
A darkish high resolution image has more detail than the same image with more lightness but blurred.

For the other things, I'm entitled to see that a measurement is strange and different from all the other measurements, and express doubt about implying sound characteristics from that measurements, which they (also) do. Also the frequency response of the hd800S visible in their app is physically wrong in bass (an open headphone can't have flexus points in the bass response), and
different from any other measurement.

And about this:

Well, not without someone pulling you up for it!

You too seem quite an intelligent person until now. Don't make me think otherwise. I have too much work and life outside this forum to be "pulled by someone to write against something about an headphone thing"... My God, are you people so overwhelmed by this hobby?

 

[Mike F]

@Mike F
More or less presence of a certain part of the frequency range is not related to detail. Detail has more to do with time domain characteristic. So it can perfectly be that for example an overall darker but cleaner headphone has more detail than a brighter but less resolved one.
A darkish high resolution image has more detail than the same image with more lightness but blurred.

For the other things, I'm entitled to see that a measurement is strange and different from all the other measurements, and express doubt about implying sound characteristics from that measurements, which they (also) do. Also the frequency response of the hd800S visible in their app is physically wrong in bass (an open headphone can't have flexus points in the bass response), ans different from any other measurement.

And about this:

You too seem quite an intelligent person until now. Don't make me think otherwise. I have too much work and life outside this forum to be "pulled by someone to write against something about an headphone thing"... My God, are you people so overwhelmed by this hobby?

LOL! I was beginning to think exactly the same!

Let's leave it. I accept the part of your post in Italic, and I have to say that I 100% agree with the part in bold! The underlined sentence sounds like the perfect description of a HD650! Darker but more resolving and detailed (than most headphones )!