[dharma]

 
So I tried a few samples and compared them with the JH13. It did sound better which is weird because my whole collection is in AIFF but I have to admit it sounded better with the JH13 using the same Amp/Dac, I guess I'll just have to get used to it.
 
I then tried this to see if I could hear the same thing with both : http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/
And I must say that site always makes me sad. Will I miss more and more from a cd as time goes by? I can't hear anything above 14kHz now... I just hope one day I won't start to applause just because I can't hear anything while the concert is not even finished...

JH13 is good if compared to many IEMs for sure.
About hearing, seems to be time to 'save what is there' (it's always actual, starting from childhood...)
online hearing test is good for starting, but needs very good soundcard or output to DAC
here are some other links http://www.audiocheck.net , http://myhearingtest.net

 

[shabta]

   
Hey Shabta, thank you so much for your kind reply
 
I will do that and just listen to it for the coming days, I guess I should also get used to the weight of it.
 
This may be a newbish question but does that mean the upgraded HDVD800 will have the same Dac as the current HDVD800? I read so many times that the DAC was not on par with the Amp.
Or can I hope that with the DSD they will add a new chip for the Dac there ?

It may be a new chip, but it is still a Sabre chip, and I doubt they changed much about how they have implemented it, other than take advantage of DSD decoding. Which apparently means they get to raise the price (boo, hiss). It is adequate as a DAC, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. There are probably much better DACs but that will only improve the sound a few percent for most people. The amp section pairs very well with HD800 and most likely the S.

 

[Mike F]

  It may be a new chip, but it is still a Sabre chip, and I doubt they changed much about how they have implemented it, other than take advantage of DSD decoding. Which apparently means they get to raise the price (boo, hiss). It is adequate as a DAC, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. There are probably much better DACs but that will only improve the sound a few percent for most people. The amp section pairs very well with HD800 and most likely the S.

I think the common consensus is that the amp section is excellent and that the DAC is, as you say, adequate. I think that, balanced, the HDVD800 has some real synergy with the HD800, which is not surprising as that's the headphone that it was designed for. There's some very good posts somewhere in the HDVD800 thread that explain how the output impedance is so well suited to the difficult variable impedance of the HD800 (presumably the main reason why it's so 'amp picky'). 
 
I have the HDVD800, but I managed to buy it for the price of a HDVA600 so I basically got the DAC for free. If I was buying new again now I think I would go for the HDVA600 and a separate DAC instead of the HDVD820 (unless the convenience of an all in one unit that is DSD compatible is very important).

 

[dharma]

Japanese page google translation, some words about new version of HDVD
EDITED link

 

[dharma]

little more here

 

[up late]

@shuren21 - if you've been listening to iems almost exclusively then i would think that the hd800s would sound comparatively distant

 

[porridgecup]

Due to the flatter response, could the HD800 S be considered good studio reference headphones? Or would a better choice be something specifically intended to be "reference"?

 

[DukeOfYork]

Joining now....looking for more impressions.

 

[dharma]

  Due to the flatter response, could the HD800 S be considered good studio reference headphones? Or would a better choice be something specifically intended to be "reference"?

 
It stays unknown until 'pro-s' adapting or not adapting it into commercial studio workflow, if they adapt quickly, then it shows these are good (for them too). Not sure, that 'flatter' is something miracle/superusable for pro's. Many very important studiomonitors are not 'flat' in any way and different studios have different setup, including speakers and headphones...
It's more of question, how to use particular monitors/hp-s, which strong and weak 'points' must be well known for studio audio-engineer. And some engineers prefer 'this' and 'other 'that'.. but everybody of them are controlling mix, in different work stages, with different speakers (even with car audio, etc)

 

[Shuren21]

  Japanese page google translation, some words about new version of HDVD
EDITED link

Thank you for the links Dharma. I secretly hope they make it all great so that I don't have to buy an extra Dac and I can then focus on a turntable
 
 

@shuren21 - if you've been listening to iems almost exclusively then i would think that the hd800s would sound comparatively distant

 
Well, I had the cans on my head without music for a while and when I loaded a track for the first second I thought: Oh the sound is coming from my laptop, the headphones must be unplugged. that's how far the sound seems to me... It will be fine, I just need to adapt.

 

[CoLdAsSauLt]

Due to the flatter response, could the HD800 S be considered good studio reference headphones? Or would a better choice be something specifically intended to be "reference"?

I think my answer above still applies:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/795365/sennheiser-hd800-s-impressions-thread-read-first-post-for-summary/135#post_12307437

It stays unknown until 'pro-s' adapting or not adapting it into commercial studio workflow, if they adapt quickly, then it shows these are good (for them too). Not sure, that 'flatter' is something miracle/superusable for pro's. Many very important studiomonitors are not 'flat' in any way and different studios have different setup, including speakers and headphones...
It's more of question, how to use particularmonitors/hp-s, which strong and weak 'points' must be well known for studio audio-engineer. And some engineers prefer 'this' and 'other 'that'.. but everybody of them are controlling mix, in different work stages, with different speakers (even with car audio, etc)

^ This. If the music engineer likes to light up all the micro details by using a brighter headphone with slightly boosted highs, it can be a wonderful tool for deep level editing. But for finishing the tonal balance, he needs to know his gear. If he doesn't the least bit take the HD800 frequency curve into account, he'll probably tone down the highs for them to sound not too harsh/sibilant on his HD800, or severely boost the bass looking for an Audeze like impact on his HD800.
Then people listening to it with all kinds of crappy gear, which often do both taming of the highs and boosting the bass, in this case doubling the effect, won't have a very good tonal balance left, won't hear the high pitched detail any more, or will experience distortion of the overly boosted bass tones. Each HP adds its own coloration, and it should ideally do so starting from an as uncoloured as possible music file. This is what reference means to me.

Now how can you measure "uncoloured"? The best "reference" I think is orchestras, dynamically rich music with lots of different timbres, that don't go through some colouring amplification system first as pop music on concerts mostly do. Some unplugged stuff could work well too, a capella voices,... Live at the concert, you hear these in the most natural way. So there you have your reference; we try to reproduce the real world experience as faithfully as possible after all, don't we?

In the HD800 S unveiled thread, someone stated that HD800 classic is more reference, HD800 S is more coloured. I would think it otherwise...

Marketing has skewed the word reference. The more details are thrown in your face, the more you can look into the recording, so the more reference it is...
I think it's indeed helpful if not desirable to have this kind of presentation for studio work, as well as the most technically capable monitors/headphones so no details get lost. But does this still sound the same to me like when I attended that same concert? No...

The HD800 S sounds more like the real concert, the real instruments to me than the classic. It gets timbres just a tad more right. I don't hear this sibilance, details,... as pronounced in real life. I don't look through a magnifying glass all the time in real life.

So wrapping this all up: in my opinion:
HD800 S: closest to the real thing, hence most reference (or "flat" or "neutral" if you wish)
HD800 classic: MORE coloured, brighter than the real thing. Better as a studio work magnifying glass for that reason.

It's another perspective. Most people say Sennheiser added some colour, some warmth to the HD800 S. I say they took away some of the brightness of the HD800 classic

 

[dharma]

Question was about 'studio' (professional) use, where everybody knows, that every equipment is somehow 'not ideal and flawed'... I stay in my position.
read this how professionals use their equipment here https://tektondesign.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/unlocking-the-mystery-of-the-greatest-loudspeaker-in-history-the-yamaha-ns10/

 

[Quinto]

I think my answer above still applies:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/795365/sennheiser-hd800-s-impressions-thread-read-first-post-for-summary/135#post_12307437
^ This. If the music engineer likes to light up all the micro details by using a brighter headphone with slightly boosted highs, it can be a wonderful tool for deep level editing. But for finishing the tonal balance, he needs to know his gear. If he doesn't the least bit take the HD800 frequency curve into account, he'll probably tone down the highs for them to sound not too harsh/sibilant on his HD800, or severely boost the bass looking for an Audeze like impact on his HD800.
Then people listening to it with all kinds of crappy gear, which often do both taming of the highs and boosting the bass, in this case doubling the effect, won't have a very good tonal balance left, won't hear the high pitched detail any more, or will experience distortion of the overly boosted bass tones. Each HP adds its own coloration, and it should ideally do so starting from an as uncoloured as possible music file. This is what reference means to me.

Now how can you measure "uncoloured"? The best "reference" I think is orchestras, dynamically rich music with lots of different timbres, that don't go through some colouring amplification system first as pop music on concerts mostly do. Some unplugged stuff could work well too, a capella voices,... Live at the concert, you hear these in the most natural way. So there you have your reference; we try to reproduce the real world experience as faithfully as possible after all, don't we?

In the HD800 S unveiled thread, someone stated that HD800 classic is more reference, HD800 S is more coloured. I would think it otherwise...

Marketing has skewed the word reference. The more details are thrown in your face, the more you can look into the recording, so the more reference it is...
I think it's indeed helpful if not desirable to have this kind of presentation for studio work, as well as the most technically capable monitors/headphones so no details get lost. But does this still sound the same to me like when I attended that same concert? No...

The HD800 S sounds more like the real concert, the real instruments to me than the classic. It gets timbres just a tad more right. I don't hear this sibilance, details,... as pronounced in real life. I don't look through a magnifying glass all the time in real life.

So wrapping this all up: in my opinion:
HD800 S: closest to the real thing, hence most reference (or "flat" or "neutral" if you wish)
HD800 classic: MORE coloured, brighter than the real thing. Better as a studio work magnifying glass for that reason.

It's another perspective. Most people say Sennheiser added some colour, some warmth to the HD800 S. I say they took away some of the brightness of the HD800 classic

good points! so, HD800S is more natural..
 
..now I want one

 
I'm pretty satisfied with my HD650 though, only wish it had wider soundstage and tad more detail..

 

[Mike F]

  good points! so, HD800S is more natural..
 
..now I want one

 
I'm pretty satisfied with my HD650 though, only wish it had wider soundstage and tad more detail..

Just a word of warning though - if 'natural' is what you really want you might well be better off getting the HD600! Sure, the HD800/S has a wider soundstage, but it isn't more 'natural' in that aspect, or indeed any other, compared to the HD600. 'Better', yes; more 'natural', no.
 
I think that the HD600 has, superficially at least (meaning that it's more audible), a slightly wider soundstage than the HD650 by virtue of having a less subdued amount of detail in the treble.

 

[dharma]

 
Just a word of warning though - if 'natural' is what you really want you might well be better off getting the HD600! Sure, the HD800/S has a wider soundstage, but it isn't more 'natural' in that aspect, or indeed any other, compared to the HD600. 'Better', yes; more 'natural', no.
 
I think that the HD600 has, superficially at least (meaning that it's more audible), a slightly wider soundstage than the HD650 by virtue of having a less subdued amount of detail in the treble.

 
Years ago preferred HD600 over HD650 too.
About 'naturalness', there are some who still say that most 'natural' sound from hp-s, was coming from 'middle'-weighted AKG K400(1) and 500(1)