Sennheiser HD800 S Impressions Thread (read first post for summary)

[SomeGuyDude]

  I almost can't tell any bass difference, but the treble brightness is noticeable. The S is smoother, but can also sound a bit more veiled. I like the way the 800 reveal everything indeed. The difference between the two is not huge, not even close, but considering prices... Yeah, my 800 S did not justify the cost premium over the 800.

 
Random devil's advocate thought: is it "revealing" everything, or artificially amplifying it thanks to the sharper treble?

 

[beowulf]

   
Random devil's advocate thought: is it "revealing" everything, or artificially amplifying it thanks to the sharper treble?

Very valid question. Definitely worth more listening. But so far I am having the feeling it's more of a neutral treble-cannon effect, not emphasized, just naturally revealing.  Seems easy to smoothen them a bit with some sources or even with EQ, but many other headphones can't reach that level of detail even if you tweak them.
 
Certainly not a tool for every type of music/recording tho.

 

[Whazzzup]

What I find about my S is i just can't eq it, its fine on its own and needs the detail, at least with my system.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

 
Very valid question. Definitely worth more listening. But so far I am having the feeling it's more of a neutral treble-cannon effect, not emphasized, just naturally revealing.  Seems easy to smoothen them a bit with some sources or even with EQ, but many other headphones can't reach that level of detail even if you tweak them.
 
Certainly not a tool for every type of music/recording tho.

 
It's just something that I wonder about a lot, because I feel like headphones that have a significant treble spike (HD800, any Grado, DT990, etc) are lauded for being "revealing" and "expose bad recordings," but I'm not confident that's correct. If it takes a headphone with a treble spike for an album to sound bad, then where does the error lie? 
 
It's a sort of audiophile cliche. Treble cannons are revealing and clear, despite the natural consequence of a lack of bass and an overabundance of treble meaning being able to hear details that you wouldn't be able to otherwise... but I don't think you're supposed to hear it.
 
Like, if that's a sound you enjoy, then I'd be a real toolbox to try and convince you otherwise. The best part of this hobby is that there's a sound for every taste. I just sort of wince a little at the notion that being able to hear things like spit on the lips or fingers sliding along guitar strings being something that adds to the experience, because I really feel like if I'm hearing all the scrapes and clicks (which, not coincidentally, all exist at the higher register) then something is heavily out of balance.

 

[Whazzzup]

Lets get real, the mids is where the magic happends

 

[swspiers]

 


Very valid question. Definitely worth more listening. But so far I am having the feeling it's more of a neutral treble-cannon effect, not emphasized, just naturally revealing.  Seems easy to smoothen them a bit with some sources or even with EQ, but many other headphones can't reach that level of detail even if you tweak them.

Certainly not a tool for every type of music/recording tho.

It's just something that I wonder about a lot, because I feel like headphones that have a significant treble spike (HD800, any Grado, DT990, etc) are lauded for being "revealing" and "expose bad recordings," but I'm not confident that's correct. If it takes a headphone with a treble spike for an album to sound bad, then where does the error lie? 

It's a sort of audiophile cliche. Treble cannons are revealing and clear, despite the natural consequence of a lack of bass and an overabundance of treble meaning being able to hear details that you wouldn't be able to otherwise... but I don't think you're supposed to hear it.

Like, if that's a sound you enjoy, then I'd be a real toolbox to try and convince you otherwise. The best part of this hobby is that there's a sound for every taste. I just sort of wince a little at the notion that being able to hear things like spit on the lips or fingers sliding along guitar strings being something that adds to the experience, because I really feel like if I'm hearing all the scrapes and clicks (which, not coincidentally, all exist at the higher register) then something is heavily out of balance.

I "hear" you. But the truth is I have headphones because I want to hear the fingers on the strings, mostly because that's what I hear either listening or playing live. I do agree about "treble canons", and for me the classic HD800 was just that. I think the 800S are almost as revealing, but in a more natural way.

 

[lurk]

Treble cannons vs bass heads...
Mid goes where?

 

[Whazzzup]

Treble cannons vs bass heads...
Mid goes where?

Stuck in the middle with.....

 

[beowulf]

 
Like, if that's a sound you enjoy, then I'd be a real toolbox to try and convince you otherwise. The best part of this hobby is that there's a sound for every taste. I just sort of wince a little at the notion that being able to hear things like spit on the lips or fingers sliding along guitar strings being something that adds to the experience, because I really feel like if I'm hearing all the scrapes and clicks (which, not coincidentally, all exist at the higher register) then something is heavily out of balance.

 
Oh, I see your point, but I enjoy the little details. I like hearing the rain hitting the ceiling when Melissa Menago is singing on "Little Crimes". I like hearing a chair creak on a performance if that was what you'd hear while being there. I like hearing all sorts of small details in other albums that are well recorded and have a good sense of space and a lot of detail.
 
That's what separates good headphones from speakers, with the headphones sometimes you notice tiny details that well, might not be relevant for the art but give you that sense of "I'm hearing everything" that you get when listening to a good classical music concert, sitting on the first row - even someone turning a page or a string snap is part of the experience.
 
The more detailed, the more it matches what I hear when I'm there for real, well perhaps a bit emphasized sometimes, but still, that's part of the experience to me. All that can sound unpleasant and painful with some types of music, but there are ways to circumvent it.
 
More interestingly, even old albums that were recording with more modest equipment sometimes turn out to sound great, with an amazing amount of (pleasant/entertaining) detail that only headphones with a fairly bright, grainy treble reveal.

 

[Metrops]

Should get my replacement RCA cables tomorrow or Wednesday

 

[chuckwheat]

good news everyone! there should be a special box coming sometime in the next 24 hours

 

[VoyagerDude]

  good news everyone! there should be a special box coming sometime in the next 24 hours

What do you mean exactly?

 

[iAudio365]

Seems I don't learn from my mistakes.

About 6 months after selling my HD 800 S, I just got the HD 800. The initial impression was that selling the S was the right choice in terms of value for money.
I like the extra treble detail and grain of the 800, those aspects are easy to notice, even in negative aspects like being more noticeable when a track has some faint mastering hiss.

Imaging and overall sense of space might be better too, but I'm just comparing to memories, so wouldn't put too much emphasis on that comment. This might also be an impression given by the slightly brighter signature. Bass is about the same as on the S, I expected a bigger drop there.

Also like the color a lot more. It looks metallic and less plastic than the S, it just looks nicer, IMHO. But of course, that's an illusion. That fake chrome will chip and reveal the dark plastic under it, so it ages worse than the S and will look uglier. The S hides that nicely by being all black.

"Bass is about the same as on the S"

Highly dissagree with that comment, imho. Just heard the hd800 today for the first time and thats actually the first thing I noticed how thin the bass was and how high the trebble is comapared to the 800S. But for me the 800S sounds much better, I definetly wouldn't be selling mine to downgrade to the 800.

And unless you actually sold them for RRP and didn't take a loss then you not only lost money but down graded in process... I want to say, lol?

But different strokes for sifferent folks, of they sound better to you then that's all that matters in the end.

 

[Gamergtx260]

Seems I don't learn from my mistakes.

About 6 months after selling my HD 800 S, I just got the HD 800. The initial impression was that selling the S was the right choice in terms of value for money.
I like the extra treble detail and grain of the 800, those aspects are easy to notice, even in negative aspects like being more noticeable when a track has some faint mastering hiss.

Imaging and overall sense of space might be better too, but I'm just comparing to memories, so wouldn't put too much emphasis on that comment. This might also be an impression given by the slightly brighter signature. Bass is about the same as on the S, I expected a bigger drop there.

Also like the color a lot more. It looks metallic and less plastic than the S, it just looks nicer, IMHO. But of course, that's an illusion. That fake chrome will chip and reveal the dark plastic under it, so it ages worse than the S and will look uglier. The S hides that nicely by being all black.

I did the same but I had a chance to compare them both for some days.

I liked the bass on HD800 better to the HD800S, it was just right and anything more seemed bloated to me.

Mids were about the same on both.

Treble is the tricky part. I owned the HD800 long back when I had the Mjolnir and they were super bright, very sibilant that was almost not listenable when sober. So I switched to the HD800S and the tamed treble and tiny bit deeper bass was good to my ears but still it didn't feel "special". It was like HD650 with a wider soundstage and more detail retrieval. When I got the Ragnarok/Yggdrasil the detail retrieval was much higher and the treble was much more extended. This made me to rebuy the HD 800.

When I got the HD 800 I compared them both and I really liked the bass and the sparky treble which showed improved soundstage and pin point imaging. The HD800 S though very close didn't feel anything special.

My point of this long story is, if you have the "right" setup then HD800 will shine better than the HD 800S. If you have a decent setup then it's safer to choose HD 800S.

 

[beowulf]

"Bass is about the same as on the S"

Highly dissagree with that comment, imho. Just heard the hd800 today for the first time and thats actually the first thing I noticed how thin the bass was and how high the trebble is comapared to the 800S. But for me the 800S sounds much better, I definetly wouldn't be selling mine to downgrade to the 800.

And unless you actually sold them for RRP and didn't take a loss then you not only lost money but down graded in process... I want to say, lol?
 

 
To my ears, the difference in bass was minimal. I prefer the little bit of extra brightness of the 800, mostly because somehow it seems to translate in even better separation and positioning, although the 800S is very good at it too.
 
Ultimately, they are both good, but to me they are very similar and I don't see how the S can justify the price difference, even with the balanced cable.
 

And unless you actually sold them for RRP and didn't take a loss then you not only lost money but down graded in process... I want to say, lol?
 

 
It was a matter of value. I kept looking at the S and thinking there was money there than I felt it was justified, so I sold them and thought I'd snatch a used 800 in good condition. Found one, traded it for one of my other cans. Overall, considering the used value of an 800, I ended up having what - to me - is a similar sound and still recovered some $.
 
Gotta admit it was a weird route. 800S new>800 used. But it was the sweet spot in value.
 
Also, I later noticed I prefer the 800 visually. That metallic look, a bit refreshing from the usual plastic black. However, in practice the S is better at that because the structure won't start showing marks of the paint chipping, as it does on 800 if they're not handled carefully.
 

When I got the HD 800 I compared them both and I really liked the bass and the sparky treble which showed improved soundstage and pin point imaging. The HD800 S though very close didn't feel anything special.

My point of this long story is, if you have the "right" setup then HD800 will shine better than the HD 800S. If you have a decent setup then it's safer to choose HD 800S.

 
I'd agree with that. Although, the difference is symmetrical, IMO. While I prefer the 800's sparkle, it's not a night and day difference to the S, same like the bass. I can see some people preferring a slightly smoother, warmer sound, so maybe that's why Sennheiser kept both models in the lineup. What I don't get is the pricing difference, considering they're virtually the same headphones with a small tweak.