Schopenhauer
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Posts
- 567
- Likes
- 164
Thanks to @Todd for putting together the loaner tour and for including me. @Todd’s contributions to the community are considerable. I bought one of my first higher-end headphones from him – a Grado PS500 – when I got into the hobby.
For a while now I’ve been looking for a headphone that strikes a balance between the LCD-2.2’s bass resolution and the HD800’s treble resolution. Given that the natural, realistic bass timbre of the LCD-2.2 can be attributed – I take it – to the planar driver, it’s possible that a dynamic headphone may not be able to recreate that timbre. That’s reason enough to think there might not be a perfect headphone for me. Although the HD800S does seem to improve on the HD800 as far as bass is concerned, while taming in some measure the lower-treble glare, it’s not my perfect headphone. That said, it’s nonetheless a truly remarkable headphone.
Primarily, I used my UHA-6S.MKII and a friend’s Benchmark DAC1 to drive the HD800S. Occasionally I switched to my EF-6 to experiment with the balanced cable. I want to put the cable question to one side. Still, I preferred the HD800S out of the Leck. If I need to adduce a reason for this preference, I’ll say that the EF-6 seemed to impart a bit too much upper-mid/lower-treble energy, or that the transients became a bit too etchy. It’s something like that – whatever it is that explains my preference. I should also note that I used Spotify as my source and a GO450 as my DAC, and that I tend to listen in the 70dB to 85dB range.
Bass
My understanding is that Sennheiser has worked to increase the amount of perceived bass in the HD800S by boosting harmonic distortion. From what I can tell, they were successful. A friend of mine – who happens to own the HD800 – and I directly A/B-ed the HD800S and the HD800. In this case, we used his Benchmark DAC1 as amp and DAC. We both thought there was an increased perception of bass presence. The increase was marginal, however, and did not create the impression of listening to a pointedly different signature. To me – and perhaps to my friend – the impression was that of listening to refined signature. Because I generally prefer a forward bass presence, I lean toward the HD800S here (although I wouldn’t describe the HD800S as “bass forward”).
6k spike
The HD800S’s putative drop in lower-treble energy wasn’t immediately obvious in direct A/B testing against the HD800. Neither I nor my friend had much to comment on this point. The decrease in energy was perceptible across longer, non-A/B listening sessions. This is shown, I think, in the fact that I’m actually able to listen without fatigue to the HD800S for longer periods of time than the HD800. This conclusion is, of course, subjective as it’s grounded in my personal tolerances. But I tend to be a bit sensitive to a hot treble; the fact that I’m not particularly sensitive to the HD800S makes me think the treble has been successfully moderated. And because I generally prefer a relaxed treble presence, I lean toward the HD800S here (although, again, I wouldn’t describe the HD800S as having a “relaxed treble”).
HD800S vs HD800
I think the supposed improvements of the HD800S over the HD800 make for a marginally better headphone. I say “marginally” so as not to overstate the difference between these two headphones. The HD800S is still obviously the HD800. If you like the HD800, I would find it surprising that you don’t like the HD800S. On the other hand, if you don’t like the HD800, I wouldn’t find it surprising that you like HD800S – provided that your problems with the HD800’s signature aren’t profound.
HD800S vs. LCD-2.2
While there are dynamic headphones that can recreate the tonality of planar bass, I have yet to find a dynamic headphone that can successfully recreates its timbre. At the same time, I’m not sure I’ve heard a planar headphone that successfully recreates the HD800S’s (or the HD800’s) treble timbre. It’s entirely possible that choosing between the two will engage one’s personal preferences. In my case, I prefer planar bass timbre to dynamic treble timbre. It seems in my experience that one might not be able to enjoy both in a single headphone. If this is the case, I will naturally tend to prefer planar to dynamic headphones. If this isn’t the case, one day I will perhaps find a headphone that is, ceteris paribus, perfectly suited to my taste.
As it happens, the HD800S isn’t perfectly suited to my taste. By that I mean it isn’t the perfect headphone for all of the music I like. (Of course, what headphone is?) It doesn’t excel with EDM-leaning electronic music, although it does excel with IDM-leaning electronic music. It’s possible that I could come to prefer the HD800S to the LCD-2.2 with respect to IDM. In that event, I would have a use for both headphones. It’s probable, however, that I would come to see the HD800S as simply an alternative to the LCD-2.2 with respect to IDM. The HD800S would allow me a better view, as it were, of the upper register of music I already enjoy with the LCD-2.2, albeit with a worse view of the lower register.
I would be remiss not to mention something about the respective comfort of these headphones. While I don’t find the LCD-2.2 to be an uncomfortable headphone, the HD800S is far and away more comfortable. My ears touch no part of the headphone; it weighs noticeably less; it better retains its position through calm head-bobbing.
Conclusion
I can say that I prefer the signature of the HD800S to the HD800. This is on account of the marginal increase in perceived bass and the marginal decrease in energy in the 6k region. If I were to pick one, I would certainly pick the HD800S. The HD800 has been, and remains, a headphone that is to me just barely bright and barely thin. I’ve been able to enjoy it in small doses, short listenings. The HD800S allowed me to listen for 2+ hour sessions without fatigue.
Considering the unparalleled imaging and the resolution of detail of the HD800S (and, for that matter, the HD800), the headphone strikes me as a very solid choice. Of course one should first listen to other potential endgame headphones. If one is an orthohead (like myself), it’s possible that the HD800S’s sound – like practically all other dynamic headphones – will not be finally satisfying. I couldn’t own the HD800S by itself; the LCD-2.2 would be a necessary accompaniment. At the same time, I could own the LCD-2.2 by itself.
Supplemental: Sample music
boerd, Dwaal
Reso, Ricochet
Scuba, Update
Sieren, Transients of Light
Submerse, Awake
Tsaik, Lemon
For a while now I’ve been looking for a headphone that strikes a balance between the LCD-2.2’s bass resolution and the HD800’s treble resolution. Given that the natural, realistic bass timbre of the LCD-2.2 can be attributed – I take it – to the planar driver, it’s possible that a dynamic headphone may not be able to recreate that timbre. That’s reason enough to think there might not be a perfect headphone for me. Although the HD800S does seem to improve on the HD800 as far as bass is concerned, while taming in some measure the lower-treble glare, it’s not my perfect headphone. That said, it’s nonetheless a truly remarkable headphone.
Primarily, I used my UHA-6S.MKII and a friend’s Benchmark DAC1 to drive the HD800S. Occasionally I switched to my EF-6 to experiment with the balanced cable. I want to put the cable question to one side. Still, I preferred the HD800S out of the Leck. If I need to adduce a reason for this preference, I’ll say that the EF-6 seemed to impart a bit too much upper-mid/lower-treble energy, or that the transients became a bit too etchy. It’s something like that – whatever it is that explains my preference. I should also note that I used Spotify as my source and a GO450 as my DAC, and that I tend to listen in the 70dB to 85dB range.
Bass
My understanding is that Sennheiser has worked to increase the amount of perceived bass in the HD800S by boosting harmonic distortion. From what I can tell, they were successful. A friend of mine – who happens to own the HD800 – and I directly A/B-ed the HD800S and the HD800. In this case, we used his Benchmark DAC1 as amp and DAC. We both thought there was an increased perception of bass presence. The increase was marginal, however, and did not create the impression of listening to a pointedly different signature. To me – and perhaps to my friend – the impression was that of listening to refined signature. Because I generally prefer a forward bass presence, I lean toward the HD800S here (although I wouldn’t describe the HD800S as “bass forward”).
6k spike
The HD800S’s putative drop in lower-treble energy wasn’t immediately obvious in direct A/B testing against the HD800. Neither I nor my friend had much to comment on this point. The decrease in energy was perceptible across longer, non-A/B listening sessions. This is shown, I think, in the fact that I’m actually able to listen without fatigue to the HD800S for longer periods of time than the HD800. This conclusion is, of course, subjective as it’s grounded in my personal tolerances. But I tend to be a bit sensitive to a hot treble; the fact that I’m not particularly sensitive to the HD800S makes me think the treble has been successfully moderated. And because I generally prefer a relaxed treble presence, I lean toward the HD800S here (although, again, I wouldn’t describe the HD800S as having a “relaxed treble”).
HD800S vs HD800
I think the supposed improvements of the HD800S over the HD800 make for a marginally better headphone. I say “marginally” so as not to overstate the difference between these two headphones. The HD800S is still obviously the HD800. If you like the HD800, I would find it surprising that you don’t like the HD800S. On the other hand, if you don’t like the HD800, I wouldn’t find it surprising that you like HD800S – provided that your problems with the HD800’s signature aren’t profound.
HD800S vs. LCD-2.2
While there are dynamic headphones that can recreate the tonality of planar bass, I have yet to find a dynamic headphone that can successfully recreates its timbre. At the same time, I’m not sure I’ve heard a planar headphone that successfully recreates the HD800S’s (or the HD800’s) treble timbre. It’s entirely possible that choosing between the two will engage one’s personal preferences. In my case, I prefer planar bass timbre to dynamic treble timbre. It seems in my experience that one might not be able to enjoy both in a single headphone. If this is the case, I will naturally tend to prefer planar to dynamic headphones. If this isn’t the case, one day I will perhaps find a headphone that is, ceteris paribus, perfectly suited to my taste.
As it happens, the HD800S isn’t perfectly suited to my taste. By that I mean it isn’t the perfect headphone for all of the music I like. (Of course, what headphone is?) It doesn’t excel with EDM-leaning electronic music, although it does excel with IDM-leaning electronic music. It’s possible that I could come to prefer the HD800S to the LCD-2.2 with respect to IDM. In that event, I would have a use for both headphones. It’s probable, however, that I would come to see the HD800S as simply an alternative to the LCD-2.2 with respect to IDM. The HD800S would allow me a better view, as it were, of the upper register of music I already enjoy with the LCD-2.2, albeit with a worse view of the lower register.
I would be remiss not to mention something about the respective comfort of these headphones. While I don’t find the LCD-2.2 to be an uncomfortable headphone, the HD800S is far and away more comfortable. My ears touch no part of the headphone; it weighs noticeably less; it better retains its position through calm head-bobbing.
Conclusion
I can say that I prefer the signature of the HD800S to the HD800. This is on account of the marginal increase in perceived bass and the marginal decrease in energy in the 6k region. If I were to pick one, I would certainly pick the HD800S. The HD800 has been, and remains, a headphone that is to me just barely bright and barely thin. I’ve been able to enjoy it in small doses, short listenings. The HD800S allowed me to listen for 2+ hour sessions without fatigue.
Considering the unparalleled imaging and the resolution of detail of the HD800S (and, for that matter, the HD800), the headphone strikes me as a very solid choice. Of course one should first listen to other potential endgame headphones. If one is an orthohead (like myself), it’s possible that the HD800S’s sound – like practically all other dynamic headphones – will not be finally satisfying. I couldn’t own the HD800S by itself; the LCD-2.2 would be a necessary accompaniment. At the same time, I could own the LCD-2.2 by itself.
Supplemental: Sample music
boerd, Dwaal
Reso, Ricochet
Scuba, Update
Sieren, Transients of Light
Submerse, Awake
Tsaik, Lemon