Sennheiser HD800 Appreciation Thread
Aug 22, 2012 at 2:19 AM Post #5,161 of 6,607
That's probably just the 940's lack of bass.  The 1840 and 1440 are still slower.  The Sony SA5000 can give that impression too for the same reason.  Roll off the bass from 100hz and speed and clarity seem to improve.  Until you realize you are actually missing information on the recording.  Even though the HD800 is among the fastest dynamics there is room for improvement.


don't forget to add in the air response as well. bumped up air response from 14khz and up can add bit extra clarity besides the bass roll off. with extra air, it will help with bass dispersion too so, bass will sound cleaner and quicker.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 2:39 AM Post #5,162 of 6,607
Quote:
don't forget to add in the air response as well. bumped up air response from 14khz and up can add bit extra clarity besides the bass roll off. with extra air, it will help with bass dispersion too so, bass will sound cleaner and quicker.

Yup.  I didn't want to get into tipped up treble considering where I'm posting atm.  
tongue_smile.gif

 
Aug 22, 2012 at 4:21 AM Post #5,163 of 6,607
The srh940 are actually fast according to the cumulative spectral decay measured at golden ears :
http://en.goldenears.net/10181
And it looks better than the one measured for the hd800:
http://en.goldenears.net/4326
 
Anyway, I don't know where the hd800 got it's reputation for being one of the fastest  headphone in the market ,
because I 'm tempted to think it's not true.
 
The measurements of golden ears for hd800, doesn't contradict the one from purrin,
once you realize that the scale at gold ear stop at 2.68 ms, while the one for purrin at 5 ms.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/15#post_7698438
It's a pity that purrin didn't bother to make the measurements for the srh940, making the assumption that it's just
a tweaked srh840. But the measurements still look interesting for the srh840.
 
I'm sorry to say, but the "perceived"difference of speed is not just because of frequency balance. I  tend to use EQ  anyways.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 4:57 AM Post #5,164 of 6,607
Fudge the measurements and use your ears to decide. I have both the SRH940 and HD800, HD800 crushes it in every aspect. The story that SRH940 is a miracle started from Dale Thorn's overenthusiastic review. There is no comparison between the two, except the nasty sibilance that SRH940 produces nearly all the time.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 5:39 AM Post #5,165 of 6,607
Quote:
 
To cut a long and tiresome story short, what eventually made all the difference was improved filtering and reduced jitter in DACs.  Yes amplifiers etc can sound different but not nearly as dramatically as DACs do.  I'm a sceptic about a lot of the snake oil sold in the name of hi-fi but must concede that the apodising now employed by some (Meridian, Ayre, PS-Audio & others) IS a break through.  I have over 11,000 CDs burned into the Meridian Sooloos system here (and that includes 1500 odd pop) and I no longer hear the awful "digitalis" I used to.  Not that all are pristine recordings but many previously with "bad" stickers on the original CDs now sound fine.

 
 
Interesting observations - I'm generally sceptical about differences between DACs and amplifiers (excepting deliberately colored equipment), but it seems reasonable that there should be small differences between DACs. Still, the change you describe seems a bit overly dramatic to me (CDs that used to sound bad now sound fine all of a sudden). I'm in no position to judge your findings, but I suspect that the change you have observed *could* have been caused by one of the following:
a) Your previous system was colored in a way that made CDs sound poor,
b) Your new system is colored in a way that makes recordings sound "right" to you, or
c) Psychoacoustics.
 
As said before, I'm in no position to judge, especially since you clearly are serious about music - 11'000 CDs is quite a collection!
And, as always, if it sounds good to you, it is good.
 
 
On a side note, I've once done a comparison between the three DACs I've had at hand at the time: The Squeezebox touch, Meier StageDAC, and my Marantz CD player. I've used some recordings I'm familiar with, not particularly "audiophile" ones, but still of decent quality. In short, I simply could not find the slightest difference, even though I tried.
Now of course this isn't conclusive at all. Just as expectance bias can work towards the listener hearing a "distinct" difference between two pieces of equipment, my (negative) expectance bias could have led me to the conclusion that there was indeed no difference...
 
After this I have also done a less direct comparison between the StageDAC and the Marantz over a prolonged time. This time I was quite sure that I heard a difference - I'm just not sure how much of it was psychoacoustics/placebo.
For comparison: The StageDAC sounds to me very detailed, a bit lean and with treble that tends to be a bit sharp. My Marantz CD player on the other hand, sounds to me slightly less detailed, darker, smoother.
Now if you'll take a look at the two devices: The StageDAC is silver in colour, smaller than most HiFi devices, and has sharp edges on the chassis. The Marantz is black, bulky, with smoothed edges.
... See the similarities between perception of sound and visual appearance of the devices? Light/silver colour is commonly associated with bright sound, whereas black or other dark colours usually lead to a darker sound (or perception thereof). Silver and Copper cables (and the perceived changes they make) are a popular examle of this phenomenon.
Of course this does not have to mean anything, it may very well be that both devices actually do sound as I perceive them and the similarity in the visual appearance is just a coincidence. Who knows?
 
 
Regarding CDs in general, I used to be very careful about the quality of a recording. I went as far as not to play certain bad sounding recordings anymore, even if I liked the music. Took me a while to realize how immensely stupid that was. Then at some point I just stopped caring. If there are different versions of an album to be had, I'll still take the time to select the one that sounds better, but other than that I'm perfectly satisfied with even the worst sounding recordings. As long as the music is any good, of course
wink.gif

There's a nightmare scenario that I'm particularly afraid of: A world where music lovers exclusively listen to Pink Floyd, "audiophile" recordings and reference test tracks. *Shudder*
(nothing wrong with Pink Floyd by the way, just an example of popular well recorded music)
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 5:45 AM Post #5,166 of 6,607
@ dukeskd
 
The hd800 and srh940 are significantly different, but I disagree that the hd800 crushes the srh940 in every aspect. I'd say in lot of aspect, but not  the speed. Yeah there's the myth from dale thorm that they would sound similar, and I understand that a lot of people would find the comparison weird ,wrong, or whatever ... Nevertheless  I bought first the srh940 because of this comparison, and then after the hd800, because I was thinking I was missing a lot from reading the reactions.
 
Give me examples of fast paced music that would give you an adrenalin rush on the hd800, that would be interesting. Personaly, when I listen for instance to the title anarchy from skazy, I have the feeling to miss some of the "high voltage". Now perhaps with a better source, off course ....
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM Post #5,168 of 6,607
Quote:
Interesting observations - I'm generally sceptical about differences between DACs and amplifiers (excepting deliberately colored equipment), but it seems reasonable that there should be small differences between DACs. Still, the change you describe seems a bit overly dramatic to me (CDs that used to sound bad now sound fine all of a sudden). I'm in no position to judge your findings, but I suspect that the change you have observed *could* have been caused by one of the following:
a) Your previous system was colored in a way that made CDs sound poor,
b) Your new system is colored in a way that makes recordings sound "right" to you, or
c) Psychoacoustics.

 
The way I read it, seemed like he was talking about some digital source from the advent of digital sources.  So, maybe the difference is that dramatic between those Cretaceous period digital sources and modern ones.  Possibility "d)" I guess.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM Post #5,170 of 6,607
Quote:
 
The way I read it, seemed like he was talking about some digital source from the advent of digital sources.  So, maybe the difference is that dramatic between those Cretaceous period digital sources and modern ones.  Possibility "d)" I guess.

 
Yes, that is certianly possible - I have not considered this. Also, I don't know whether it is relevant or not, but many recordings from the early days of the CD tend to sound bright & harsh. Remasters and newer recordings on the other hand are usually smoother and in many cases bass-heavy (dark sounding) which may contribute to the perception that CDs sound better than they used to.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM Post #5,171 of 6,607
I just rolled in my Mullard ECC32 drivers in my WA5-LE last night.. Wow! I forgot how good these headphones sound with this combination
atsmile.gif

 
Moon Audio Stay updated on Moon Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/MoonAudio/ https://twitter.com/MoonAudio https://instagram.com/moonaudio https://www.moon-audio.com/ https://www.youtube.com/@moon-audio sales@moon-audio.com
Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM Post #5,172 of 6,607
Quote:
1-Increase 1.5khz-4.5khz 1.5-2dB
2-Drop 6khz by 2dB
3-Improve distortion performance below 100hz
4-Make it even faster
5-Paint it Black

 
Why do I get the feeling you have admin privileges?  
 
Posts disappear, stuff gets edited with no time stamp.  Next time I need to revise something I will be in touch.  =P
 
Anyway, playing around w/ AU EQ and Isone and this has worked out quite well.  It's very subtle.  Works well w/o Isone too by the way, I just needed to expand the soundstage a bit while I await a new speaker tap adapter for my F3.  Using the V51 tube amp the soundstage is a little smaller.
 
 
 
 

 
Aug 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM Post #5,173 of 6,607
Quote:
The srh940 are actually fast according to the cumulative spectral decay measured at golden ears :
http://en.goldenears.net/10181
And it looks better than the one measured for the hd800:
http://en.goldenears.net/4326
 
Anyway, I don't know where the hd800 got it's reputation for being one of the fastest  headphone in the market ,
because I 'm tempted to think it's not true.
 
The measurements of golden ears for hd800, doesn't contradict the one from purrin,
once you realize that the scale at gold ear stop at 2.68 ms, while the one for purrin at 5 ms.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/15#post_7698438
It's a pity that purrin didn't bother to make the measurements for the srh940, making the assumption that it's just
a tweaked srh840. But the measurements still look interesting for the srh840.
 
I'm sorry to say, but the "perceived"difference of speed is not just because of frequency balance. I  tend to use EQ  anyways.

 
Sorry, you're dead wrong, Goldenears is way off.  Purrin's don't match his at all.  There is no 2khz ringing and his goes down 36dB not just 30dB.  Purrin's matches more w/ Tyll's impulse responses in relative comparison and GE has the HD650 destroying the HD800 in speed which is ludicrous.  Go look at the IR on IF and see how the Shures stack up among other ToTL dynamics.  With the exception of a few dynamics you'd need to go planar to surpass the HD800.  Even many stats are slower still.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM Post #5,174 of 6,607
Quote:
 
Why do I get the feeling you have admin privileges?  
 
Posts disappear, stuff gets edited with no time stamp.  Next time I need to revise something I will be in touch.  =P
 
Anyway, playing around w/ AU EQ and Isone and this has worked out quite well.  It's very subtle.  Works well w/o Isone too by the way, I just needed to expand the soundstage a bit while I await a new speaker tap adapter for my F3.  Using the V51 tube amp the soundstage is a little smaller.
 

The hd800 already have a big soundstage, expanding artificially with dsp, can easily sound fake.
Other headphone might benefit from this, but on the hd800 it might do more harm than anything else.
I've adopted the reverb vahlalaroom to expand soundstage , with a highly tweaked preset.
 
Aug 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM Post #5,175 of 6,607
Quote:
 
Anyway, playing around w/ AU EQ and Isone and this has worked out quite well.  It's very subtle.  Works well w/o Isone too by the way, I just needed to expand the soundstage a bit while I await a new speaker tap adapter for my F3.  Using the V51 tube amp the soundstage is a little smaller.
 
 

 
Glad it's working out.  A really subtle difference I think makes a appreciable difference w/o changing the phone.  Maxvla was fortunate enough to have this built in from Senn already.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top