[sheldaze]

  Perfectly valid points. I'm only speaking from using the HD800 as a PC/Mac based system. If you don't have the ability to EQ, I can certainly see the appeal of the S. It took me a while to tame my own HD800 to get it just how I like it.
 
Plus I think with the S, it's like adding salt to your soup, once you add too much, you can't go back to "bland" anymore if you know what I'm saying.
 
Some people might actually want the full revealing nature of the original. All I'm saying is, for the S flavor, I don't think I can justify another 1.5k out of my pocket. The original has its quirks, but once you do manage to tame it, you'll love it. If you only own the S version, how do you know you don't prefer the original in the first place? Just saying  
 
The milking comment is probably not called for but it is definitely not targeted to anyone who's buying the S. 

I like your analogy of the bland versus the spice.
 
Though I can hear the "advancement" of the HD 800 S versus the HD800, I'm still not at a point yet where I find the new version preferable. I am still liking the little extra salt that is in the HD800 

 

 

[Arniesb]

I'm somewhat confused by this. I know the exact meaning of descriptive adjectives when applied to sound is sometimes unclear, but I always thought the 'neutral' in this context meant not emphasised in any way, but that 'natural' can often mean that the sound is slightly altered in some way to be more 'realistic' (the adjective you used) or 'musical'.

The classic example of this which almost everyone understands is the HD600, which is more 'neutral' (flat and not emphasised anywhere), and the HD650, which is more 'natural' (emphasised bass response to make it more 'realistic and musical').

I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just trying to understand your experience of the bass on the HD800S as I think I have read you describe it as more 'neutral' before.

He heard Best of the bests, i think he know what is neutral.

 

[Whazzzup]

 
Perfectly valid points. I'm only speaking from using the HD800 as a PC/Mac based system. If you don't have the ability to EQ, I can certainly see the appeal of the S. It took me a while to tame my own HD800 to get it just how I like it.

Plus I think with the S, it's like adding salt to your soup, once you add too much, you can't go back to "bland" anymore if you know what I'm saying.

Some people might actually want the full revealing nature of the original. All I'm saying is, for the S flavor, I don't think I can justify another 1.5k out of my pocket. The original has its quirks, but once you do manage to tame it, you'll love it. If you only own the S version, how do you know you don't prefer the original in the first place? Just saying  

The milking comment is probably not called for but it is definitely not targeted to anyone who's buying the S. 

I like your analogy of the bland versus the spice.

Though I can hear the "advancement" of the HD 800 S versus the HD800, I'm still not at a point yet where I find the new version preferable. I am still liking the little extra salt that is in the HD800   

My doctor told me to cut back in salt, so S it is.

 

[Mike F]

He heard Best of the bests, i think he know what is neutral.

 
 
I wasn't questioning whether he knows what neutral is, I was looking for clarification as to his use of the term neutral relative to the term natural.
 

 
​I'd say this as well. In the sense that HD800 classic is even less neutral... It's all a matter of the right perspective:
 
I'd rank them like this: 

   DARKER                                                                       NEUTRAL                                                                               BRIGHTER
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
                                                        HD650      HD600                                            HD800 S                    HD800
 
 
So HD800 S to me is both darker and more neutral, while still being a bit bright. Don't quote me on the exact positions and distances. I'm only trying to visualize the relative references

 
 
This makes a lot of sense - thanks! However, I still think that, in the case of the bass response of the HD800S, the elevated bass response would be better described as 'natural' rather than 'neutral'.
 
If you look at the following graph:- http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=4061&scale=30, you can see that any enhancement of the bass from the HD800 will put the bass response further North of flat than it is already. That can't technically (AFAIK) be described as more neutral. I may well sound more natural, however.

 

[up late]

looks like quibbling over semantics to me

 

[Mike F]

looks like quibbling over semantics to me

 
 
Quite possibly, but that's exactly the question; did MacedonianHero mean that the bass on the HD800S is more neutral according to (what I thought was) the normally excepted definition. If not, then is my definition incorrect, or did he mean something else?
 

 
I'm somewhat confused by this. I know the exact meaning of descriptive adjectives when applied to sound is sometimes unclear, but I always thought the 'neutral' in this context meant not emphasised in any way, but that 'natural' can often mean that the sound is slightly altered in some way to be more 'realistic' (the adjective you used) or 'musical'.
 
The classic example of this which almost everyone understands is the HD600, which is more 'neutral' (flat and not emphasised anywhere), and the HD650, which is more 'natural' (emphasised bass response to make it more 'realistic and musical').
 
I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just trying to understand your experience of the bass on the HD800S as I think I have read you describe it as more 'neutral' before.

 

[up late]

these descriptors are used subjectively. i don't see a need for mh to clarify his use of them but that's up to him.

 

[MacedonianHero]

 
I'm somewhat confused by this. I know the exact meaning of descriptive adjectives when applied to sound is sometimes unclear, but I always thought the 'neutral' in this context meant not emphasised in any way, but that 'natural' can often mean that the sound is slightly altered in some way to be more 'realistic' (the adjective you used) or 'musical'.
 
The classic example of this which almost everyone understands is the HD600, which is more 'neutral' (flat and not emphasised anywhere), and the HD650, which is more 'natural' (emphasised bass response to make it more 'realistic and musical').
 
I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just trying to understand your experience of the bass on the HD800S as I think I have read you describe it as more 'neutral' before.

If the HD800 has a wee too little bass for "neutral", then 3dB more hits the sweet spot. The HD800S/HD800 is NOWHERE like the HD650HD600 comparison. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

 
​I'd say this as well. In the sense that HD800 classic is even less neutral... It's all a matter of the right perspective:
 
I'd rank them like this: 

   DARKER                                                                       NEUTRAL                                                                               BRIGHTER
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
                                                        HD650      HD600                                            HD800 S                    HD800
 
 
So HD800 S to me is both darker and more neutral, while still being a bit bright. Don't quote me on the exact positions and distances. I'm only trying to visualize the relative references

^^
 
What he said. 

 
Thanks...well stated. Except I'd put the HD800S closer to NEUTRAL than the HD600.

 

[Mike F]

  If the HD800 has a wee too little bass for "neutral", then 3dB more hits the sweet spot. The HD800S/HD800 is NOWHERE like the HD650HD600 comparison. 

Thanks for the response and clarification! 

 

[up late]

so i guess he's in the minority where the hd600 is concerned

 

[MacedonianHero]

 
Thanks for the response and clarification! 

 

so i guess he's in the minority where the hd600 is concerned

 
Most definitely. 

 

[CoLdAsSauLt]

I wasn't questioning whether he knows what neutral is, I was looking for clarification as to his use of the term neutral relative to the term natural.



This makes a lot of sense - thanks! However, I still think that, in the case of the bass response of the HD800S, the elevated bass response would be better described as 'natural' rather than 'neutral'.

If you look at the following graph:- =4061&scale=30]http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=4061&scale=30, you can see that any enhancement of the bass from the HD800 will put the bass response further North of flat than it is already. That can't technically (AFAIK) be described as more neutral. I may well sound more natural, however.

This is where it gets difficult with headphones I think. They are so close to the eardrum... moving the headphones a bit backwards or forwards can alter the sound (Tyll sometimes mentions that one headphone is more sensitive to different positions on his meadurement head than the other), seal alters the sound, worn earpads as well (reducing the distance to the eardrum/resonance chamber), ...

Room acoustics do make speaker science hard indeed... but headphones have their own factors messing with the sound

That alone is enough to make the curve which is represented by the flat baseline in those graphs (as the headphone's curve is weighted to it), a speculation, or an approximation at least. I thought it was even created by listening tests, so there is some subjectivity involved probably. As I understand it, speakers are easier to measure, they should just produce every frequency equally loud in their sweet spot, create a real flat sound signature. (That's given that microphones also record the reality without any coloration or boosting of certain frequencies, so we get a 1:1 reproduction).
Headphones have nowhere near flat frequency curves. Check out Tyll's unweighted graphs... Some frequencies don't travel through air the same way as others, nor does our ear work the same way from this closeby, as if the frequency response of your ear changes by changing the distance to your eardrum. Try moving a tiny speaker closer or farther away, you'll hear tonality change... or pushing the headphones closer to the ears generally enhances bass...

This is nowhere funded theory, rather nothing but a concept that formed in my head by reading around in this great forum, and on Innerfidelity of course.

It's me trying to understand why a "flat and neutral headphone" has a nowhere flat frequency curve when not weighted. Maybe someone with more brains and better knowledge might chime in and verify or correct this concept I created for myself?

^^

What he said. 

Thanks...well stated. Except I'd put the HD800S closer to NEUTRAL than the HD600.

Hahah yeah... I anticipated by saying not to quote me on that I played some bulls eye to quickly make up an example. (And when seeing it on mu smarthone now, spacing is all messed up ^^ my apologies for that)
I never heard a HD600 (shame on me), just went straight for a new HD650 (online order) as the newer was said to be less dark/veiled than older versions. Reason for that: Audeze = too damn heavy for some comfy tv moment or to lie down with it in my bedroom for some pre-bedtime listening, sadly, so I searched for a relaxed sound to have a suitable alternative for my HD800 classic at the time. The latter was too sibilant to my liking for tv (settop-box via toslink into Focusrite Saffire pro 24) (at least as much to the fault of broadcasting signal I think), or through my Vega + Taurus Mk2 for too many music genres, so my relaxing moment got from magical and dreamy one moment, to plainly irritating at times, if not close to unbearable. To give an reference point: as I write, I'm on a train (very early one, so hardly anybody here, so I dare to use an open can ) and just heard some sibilance through my Mojo + HD650... Not at all disturbing, but sibilance nevertheless. So it might be that I'm still traumatised by the HD800 and therefore place it so far to the (b)right side. As I'm apparently sensitive to high frequencies, this might explain why those cans are experienced as bright for me. Maybe I hear highs as boosted so close to my ear. (I still hear up to 19k at the age of almost 29... makes me happy actually, but often drives me crazy as some in buildings or rooms something exhibits this constant high pitch beep or noise. I really started doubting myself, until I installed "spectrum analyzer" on my note 4 which showed a hell of a peak at that frequency , saving my confidence in my sanity. The curse is that NObody els seemed to hear it, so it never gets fixed )

 

[shabta]

Steve Guttenberg mentioned the S in a review of the HEX:
 
"I also compared Edition X with the new $1,700 Sennheiser HD 800S, which was a less vivid and pure sounding headphone. I felt the Edition X was more dynamically alive, but the HD 800S' sound had more weight and body, whereas the Edition X has a somewhat leaner tonal balance. They're both reference quality headphones, but they sound different."
 
http://www.cnet.com/news/sound-unbound-hifiman-edition-x-headphones/#ftag=rss.audiophiliac.ftag

 

[Mike F]

This is where it gets difficult with headphones I think. They are so close to the eardrum... moving the headphones a bit backwards or forwards can alter the sound (Tyll sometimes mentions that one headphone is more sensitive to different positions on his meadurement head than the other), seal alters the sound, worn earpads as well (reducing the distance to the eardrum/resonance chamber), ...

Room acoustics do make speaker science hard indeed... but headphones have their own factors messing with the sound

That alone is enough to make the curve which is represented by the flat baseline in those graphs (as the headphone's curve is weighted to it), a speculation, or an approximation at least. I thought it was even created by listening tests, so there is some subjectivity involved probably. As I understand it, speakers are easier to measure, they should just produce every frequency equally loud in their sweet spot, create a real flat sound signature. (That's given that microphones also record the reality without any coloration or boosting of certain frequencies, so we get a 1:1 reproduction).
Headphones have nowhere near flat frequency curves. Check out Tyll's unweighted graphs... Some frequencies don't travel through air the same way as others, nor does our ear work the same way from this closeby, as if the frequency response of your ear changes by changing the distance to your eardrum. Try moving a tiny speaker closer or farther away, you'll hear tonality change... or pushing the headphones closer to the ears generally enhances bass...

This is nowhere funded theory, rather nothing but a concept that formed in my head by reading around in this great forum, and on Innerfidelity of course.

It's me trying to understand why a "flat and neutral headphone" has a nowhere flat frequency curve when not weighted. Maybe someone with more brains and better knowledge might chime in and verify or correct this concept I created for myself?

 
 
Good post! I agree with much of this. I think that, at the present time at least, it's true to say that nobody has a full understanding of these things and that very few even have a good understanding. 
 
I actually used that headphone graph as a way of trying to explain what I meant by neutral vs natural. However, I've come to think that FR graphs tell you VERY little about how a headphone is actually going to sound. In addition to all the points you made about why headphones are difficult to measure and the factors influencing those measurements, I would add that I think there is a fundamental difference in how the ear perceives sound from open and closed headphones, especially in regard to bass response. These perceived differences (or at least the differences which I perceive) don't seem to be reflected by what dummy heads measure. I have closed headphones which have (in practice) far more bass and sub bass than the HD800, but the FR graph shows that they have far less.
 
I think that measuring headphones and trying to understand how they couple acoustically with the ear is fascinating and important work, but for the moment I prefer to judge with my ears.