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

[WraithApe]

  Here is a just posted review that was less than stunning
 
by @kendetamas   http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-800-s/reviews/15120

 
Not to take issue with anyone having a negative response per se, but that's a very perfunctory review; must have taken all of 15 minutes to knock that up (probably about the same amount of time they listened to it for, judging by the impressions, which don't ring true at all.) Also, anyone talking about a headphone's soundstage being 'way bigger' than another is onto a loser - especially in comparing the S to the original HD 800: I didn't detect any huge discrepancy in that aspect. Incidentally, excepting binaural recordings, I'd argue the whole concept of 'soundstage' in headphones is rather suspect anyway.

 

[sheldaze]

  Here is a just posted review that was less than stunning
 
 
by @kendetamas   http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-800-s/reviews/15120

Thanks for keeping track of the reviews and posting the link! And at least the person was honest.
 
Soundstage of my current HD800 is a critical aspect of my enjoyment of the headphone. I will be listening closely for that in the HD800S (currently just a few miles from my house).

 

[shabta]

   
Not to take issue with anyone having a negative response per se, but that's a very perfunctory review; must have taken all of 15 minutes to knock that up (probably about the same amount of time they listened to it for, judging by the impressions, which don't ring true at all.) Also, anyone talking about a headphone's soundstage being 'way bigger' than another is onto a loser - especially in comparing the S to the original HD 800: I didn't detect any huge discrepancy in that aspect. Incidentally, excepting binaural recordings, I'd argue the whole concept of 'soundstage' in headphones is rather suspect anyway.

I agree with your points, at the same time I am inclined to cut the author some slack, since not everyone is a good review writer (and some people english isn't their 1st language). Some of what he is hearing I am hearing too, but I like it. The imaging does seem to be a little better on the classic, but I also found the soundstage of S and classsic to be identical. I was a little intrigued about the comparison with the L700 since that is a brand new headphone and I would love to hear it. The few reports I have read about it make it sound pretty musical but I would expect it to be less detail oriented than the HD800 or S. Maybe the reviewer would like to come here and explain a little bit more, like what else was in the chain and what they were driving the stax with, what music etc.

 

[WraithApe]

  I agree with your points, at the same time I am inclined to cut the author some slack, since not everyone is a good review writer (and some people english isn't their 1st language). Some of what he is hearing I am hearing too, but I like it. The imaging does seem to be a little better on the classic, but I also found the soundstage of S and classsic to be identical. I was a little intrigued about the comparison with the L700 since that is a brand new headphone and I would love to hear it. The few reports I have read about it make it sound pretty musical but I would expect it to be less detail oriented than the HD800 or S. Maybe the reviewer would like to come here and explain a little bit more, like what else was in the chain and what they were driving the stax with, what music etc.

 
Yep OK, fair enough - I do agree with a couple of points as well. My main gripes with it are a/ brevity and b/ hyperbole. The key aspects of the headphones's SQ are each dealt with in a couple of sentences. I think that's acceptable for impressions, but not reviews, where the reader expects much more detailed analysis - at the very least, listing the equipment used, such as DAC + amp. Then there's the hyperbolic language: "hd800s completely lost this feature", "way less powerful" etc. The reality is that differences between these things are usually subtle, and this kind of exaggeration for the sake of rhetorical clout gets on my nerves.

 

[Kyle 491]

I understand your viewpoint on the brevity of the review and the language used, but I disagree with your suggestion that the changes are subtle. To HD800 owners who have listened to them religiously for years, they are anything but subtle. My enjoyment of songs that I found superlative on the HD800 has been significantly reduced on the HD800S, those being live performances in general, instrumental orchestral music both synthesized and using real instruments, mass female choirs/vocals, progressive rock, ambient electronica. The tradeoff - better performance for Hip hop, bassier electronic music, Jazz (arguably), solo pianos, cellos are not worth it for me, especially since the TH900 easily smokes the HD800S for bassier electronic genres anyway.
 
The HD800S is ideal for those who like a laid-back, jack-of-all trades flagship much like the HE-1000. In my humble opinion, its the least overtly flawed flagship and would have saved me a lot of money if I had bought this as my first flagship instead of the HD800. Unfortunately, I am too spoiled by highly dynamic, engaging sound even at the cost of discomfort to regard the HD800S as a master-of-all headphone.

 

[yates7592]

Very interesting, thank you. As a second time around HD800 owner trying to justify not pulling the trigger on the youngster, and not in any way questioning your impressions, how much time have you spent comparing the two?

 

[Kyle 491]

Granted, its been only a few days of comparisons, and I'm not ruling out changes  due to burn-in, better gear matches, in fact I'm really hoping the HD800S surpasses the HD800 in every way but I just don't see that happening. Intellectually, I know that the HD800 exaggerates certain aspects of the sound for dramatic effect, the boosted treble and 6k spike applies a sharpening filter to virtually all music, spotlighting details that you would seldom notice in real life, but that is somewhat countermanded by the fact that headphone listening just isn't a natural way to experience music, and consequently some music really is enhanced by this kind of presentation. Despite the spike, the HD800 treble is exceptionally clean, extended and nuanced, it displays massive contrasts in this region alone and enhances the imaging and scale of a performance.
 
Simply put, it sounds grand/epic in a way that no other headphone does to my ears.

 

[WraithApe]

  I understand your viewpoint on the brevity of the review and the language used, but I disagree with your suggestion that the changes are subtle. To HD800 owners who have listened to them religiously for years, they are anything but subtle. My enjoyment of songs that I found superlative on the HD800 has been significantly reduced on the HD800S, those being live performances in general, instrumental orchestral music both synthesized and using real instruments, mass female choirs/vocals, progressive rock, ambient electronica. The tradeoff - better performance for Hip hop, bassier electronic music, Jazz (arguably), solo pianos, cellos are not worth it for me, especially since the TH900 easily smokes the HD800S for bassier electronic genres anyway.

 
I'm not going to the argue the point over HD 800 vs S - I accept that I'm not well acquainted enough with the original to do so - but I don't agree with the last assertion in this paragraph. I would much rather listen to electronic through the S than the TH900 (actually there are other closed HPs I'd take over the Fostex) - and it's the genre of music I listen to the most by far; maybe the one genre where I'd say I have something approaching expertise. The level of detail and reproduction of sonic texture of the S is simply better. I'm talking about well-produced electronic music here as well, not mainstream bass-heavy stuff (modern dumbstep, for example; borderline pop, which tends to be brick walled to oblivion and is little more than a bass drop with some female vox slung over the top), but certainly bass-heavy: techno is probably my most listened to electronic sub-genre and the S does great with that.

 

[Kyle 491]

Oh I agree the detail and reproduction of texture is superior on the HD800S to the TH900 for electronic music, even in the bass regions I'd argue, however the HD800S cannot even hope to compare to the visceral impact of the TH900 in sub-bass regions, and its v-shaped signature only enhances the contrasts between the lowest notes and the highest in electronic music. Maybe its too much for some, I guess it depends on the volume you listen at?
 
Check the TH900 sub-bass impact vs the HD800S on this song for example:
 

 
Then again I'd easily take the HD800S on something like this, the TH900 sub-bass is downright oppressive from minute 3:26 onwards, to the point of discomfort on this song.
 
 

 

[dharma]

  I agree with your points, at the same time I am inclined to cut the author some slack, since not everyone is a good review writer (and some people english isn't their 1st language). Some of what he is hearing I am hearing too, but I like it. The imaging does seem to be a little better on the classic, but I also found the soundstage of S and classsic to be identical. I was a little intrigued about the comparison with the L700 since that is a brand new headphone and I would love to hear it. The few reports I have read about it make it sound pretty musical but I would expect it to be less detail oriented than the HD800 or S. Maybe the reviewer would like to come here and explain a little bit more, like what else was in the chain and what they were driving the stax with, what music etc.

 
It seems that at least HD800 is well received even in 'STAX society'. It seems that new L700 (depending from amp) is very 'strong' contender within STAX top and its hard to prefer L700 or HD800(S?), because they have different 'strong points'...
just example here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/785949/the-stax-sr-l500-and-sr-l700-impressions-thread/90

 

[Whazzzup]

Iam still waiting for my hd800s but have had my th900 for over 1.5 years and even before I got my TT that now drives a great bass slam to th900 and fortunate fantastic pushed Mids for detail, I got level 1 DIY tune up from Lawton. Not for any high end sibilance but the low end. I listen to some genres with heavy grooved sub bass and bass. Even heavy slap bass in some jazz, the low end can be downright scary at times ( I like this) but the tune up tightened the low end and has not restricted it's marvellous low end extension that th900 owners love. Just my opinion to a solution to low end dominance in certain situations.
Sorry didn't listen to your tunes.

 

[Mr G]

I recently heard the HD800S in Singapore. I prefer it to the stock HD800. I did not hear the infamous treble peak and the bass on HD800S was more apparent as compared to HD800. I've been using the LCD 2.1 for about 3+ years. I've recently had some time with LCD3C, LCD3F, LCD4 and HE1K. To me, if I had to choose another HP to complement my LCD 2.1, I would choose the HD800S. Give it a listen. 

 

[WraithApe]

  Oh I agree the detail and reproduction of texture is superior on the HD800S to the TH900 for electronic music, even in the bass regions I'd argue, however the HD800S cannot even hope to compare to the visceral impact of the TH900 in sub-bass regions, and its v-shaped signature only enhances the contrasts between the lowest notes and the highest in electronic music. Maybe its too much for some, I guess it depends on the volume you listen at?

 
I can't deny the bass slam and visceral impact of the TH-900 over the HD 800 S - I made exactly the same point when comparing the MHP1000 to the S, and I'd say the same about the LCD-XC too. Hell, even my HD-25s have more slam! It's pretty much a function of the closed-cup design - but as you say, there are trade-offs and I feel that bass slam can come at the expense of detail in the mid + high frequency ranges, which if you're listening to more intricate electronic music, is important.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Slightly OT: I know the Com Truise track by the way - excellent album. 

 This is still one of my favourite tracks for a sub-bass test:
 

 
I think the S enables you to hear this track as it was meant to be (i.e. not rolled-off), but with a different presentation to more V-shaped 'phones, where the sub bass on offer here literally rattles your head! So some would call it a lack of bass slam and see that as a negative point, but I think that although thrilling, it can get tiresome. For a long listening session, I would take the more accurate (less fun?) route.

 

[dharma]

   
I can't deny the bass slam and visceral impact of the TH-900 over the HD 800 S -
[...]
Slightly OT: I know the Com Truise track by the way - excellent album. :bigsmile_face: This is still one of my favourite tracks for a sub-bass test:
[...]

I think the S enables you to hear this track as it was meant to be (i.e. not rolled-off), but with a different presentation to more V-shaped 'phones, where the sub bass on offer here literally rattles your head! So some would call it a lack of bass slam and see that as a negative point, but I think that although thrilling, it can get tiresome. For a long listening session, I would take the more accurate (less fun?) route.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Slightly OT: I know the Com Truise track by the way - excellent album. 

 This is still one of my favourite tracks for a sub-bass test:
...
I think the S enables you to hear this track as it was meant to be (i.e. not rolled-off), but with a different presentation to more V-shaped 'phones, where the sub bass on offer here literally rattles your head! So some would call it a lack of bass slam and see that as a negative point, but I think that although thrilling, it can get tiresome. For a long listening session, I would take the more accurate (less fun?) route.

 
strongest/peak signal was always 40 Hz or even above, sure bass signal is 'strong' but not so 'deep' [yes, there are some sub-harmonics below 40Hz too, but about at 30dB lower volume than 40Hz signal]

 

[WraithApe]

   
strongest/peak signal was always 40 Hz or even above, sure bass signal is 'strong' but not so 'deep' [yes, there are some sub-harmonics below 40Hz too, but about at 30dB lower volume than 40Hz signal]

 
Technically, sub-bass frequencies are categorized as anything below 60Hz, so I think it fits the bill. There may be tracks that go deeper though yeah.