[joshk4]

  Amazon video from CES on the HD800s:
 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01AF9IZP2/ref=sr_acs_va_item_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1454283287&sr=8-7-acs

 
Nice.
 
So it seems like from what he is saying, the HD 800 is still reference and HD 800 S is coloured and warmer sounding, thus not being reference.That would also mean the HD 800 would be more accurate than HD 800 S.

 

[Youth]

   
Nice.
 
So it seems like from what he is saying, the HD 800 is still reference and HD 800 S is coloured and warmer sounding, thus not being reference.That would also mean the HD 800 would be more accurate than HD 800 S.

 
Quite the opposite.

 

[WraithApe]

@joshk4 I think he may be overstating that particular difference - bass colouration - for marketing purposes and relative positioning of the headphones in the marketplace. If you look at the FR graphs provided by Senn, there is a much greater discrepancy in treble response than bass between the two models, and my ears bear this out.
 

 
To my mind, Sennheiser did something similar when the Amperior came out, in terms of differentiating its position relative to the HD 25-1 II. The former was marketed as "inspired by DJs but made for the street", in other words, the general consumer version of the HD 25, which was always targeted primarily at the pro DJ market. I was intimately acquainted with the original HD 25 when I got the Amperior, and felt that in actuality the the differences were not so great. They were there for sure, but IMO exaggerated for the purpose of marketplace differentiation.

 

[joshk4]

  @joshk4 I think he may be overstating that particular difference - bass colouration - for marketing purposes and relative positioning of the headphones in the marketplace. If you look at the FR graphs provided by Senn, there is a much greater discrepancy in treble response than bass between the two models, and my ears bear this out.
 

 
Can't wait for the HD800S to show up near me so I can give it a try.
 
This is my HD800 (not too bad I guess):
 

 

[MattTCG]

The wait for the 800 S has become an exercise in patience. 

 

[dharma]

  The wait for the 800 S has become an exercise in patience. 

Yes... it was same with HD800, but then even little 'worse'... release was postponed for several times

 

[Whazzzup]

Canada still waiting hope by my b day on the 13.:redface:

 

[ubs28]

So how does more ringing at 6kHz and a bigger peak give one "better imaging"? Sorry, but this does not compute for me as I've heard someone else say this too, nor with my experiences. I've done 2 side by sides in my home over two different weekends with 2 different HD800 headphones and my HD800S (I did own the HD800 since 2010 and only very recently sold them) but the imaging is virtually identical with my Hugo TT/GS-X Mk2. They are quite similar sounding except for the troublesome peak at 6kHz and a tad more bass. But that troublesome peak (which has been identified as their biggest issue since they were released) on the original HD800's made them a bit of a pariah for me over the past few years as I found myself avoiding them with certain recordings that would cause fatigue over time. Don't get me wrong, both are fantastic headphones and I hold both in very high regard! 

+1

They are the same headphone except those small differences.

 

[ubs28]

Quite the opposite.

I agree. The HD 800 is a little bit brighter than the Shure SRH 1840 which is the most neutral headphone around if you ignore the sub bass. I did frequency sweeps a while ago and the Shure SRH 1840 is truely flat as a board unlike the HD 800 which starts to wiggle in the treble.

So the warmer HD 800 S would be more closer to the Shure SRH 1840 and thus be more neutral.

 

[DWbirdseye]

Mine is shipping tomorrow from Germany!!!! ( Meier)  

 

[shabta]

   
So how does more ringing at 6kHz and a bigger peak give one "better imaging"? Sorry, but this does not compute for me as I've heard someone else say this too, nor with my experiences. I've done 2 side by sides in my home over two different weekends with 2 different HD800 headphones and my HD800S (I did own the HD800 since 2010 and only very recently sold them) but the imaging is virtually identical with my Hugo TT/GS-X Mk2. They are quite similar sounding except for the troublesome peak at 6kHz and a tad more bass. But that troublesome peak (which has been identified as their biggest issue since they were released) on the original HD800's made them a bit of a pariah for me over the past few years as I found myself avoiding them with certain recordings that would cause fatigue over time. Don't get me wrong, both are fantastic headphones and I hold both in very high regard! 

While you probably don't mean it this way it comes across as a low blow. Or something like "how can something that measures so crappy possibly sound so good?" I bet you don't like tubes very much. Imagine I went on one of the Leben or DNA thread and started saying things like how can you say that all that distortion is music? So anyway, instead of asking any number of longtime head-fiers who have already come out and commented on the slightly softer imaging of the S, you pick on a guy who just managed post #3. 
 
Not only has this been observed consistently on head-fi, but on other forums and reviews as well. Heck, even sennheiser is saying that the classic is more analytical and the S more musical... or in the video linked  a few posts back: the classic is for pros and the S for consumers. This jibes with my own experience: Audiophiles and the audiophile press especially, prefer a warmer and often more relaxed sound. That why so many audiophile reviews have drooled over the HEK, even while admitting that it is a bit less resolving than some other TOTL. Whereas my pro friends and musicians tend to want something more  like the HD800. I let a few friends who do audio engineering listen to my HD800 years ago, some even bought it after hearing mine for their work. I will concede that my musician friends will probably bifurcate towards the S because I think the tonality is more accurate, and they care about that more than imaging. But not many of the pro audio folks...
 
So it is ok that you don't hear the softer imaging, it is subtle (but try listening to complex symphonic music and it hard to understand why someone won't notice the sharpening effect* of the classic, go figure), I am not surprised having read some of your reviews. Some of the things that don't seem to bother you, on the other hand, to the point where you don't even bother to comment on them, I hear. So as you like to say, different ears, different gears. If imaging was something you were especially sensitive to, you might not have sold off your HD800 when you did. Again there is nothing wrong with the fact that we value different things, for the most part that is one reason humanity is so vibrantly rich, each of has slightly different talents, abilities and things that get us off. 
 
Lastly, it is pretty obvious to me, who  prefers the S over classic, that lots of people will see it the other way. I don't have any trouble at all understanding it, and don't need to imply that there is something wrong with them because they do. 
 
Seemed like a good spot to offer another POV, as always YMMV
 
*sharpening effect = instrument separation is rendered more distinct.

 

[TonyNewman]

My A/B testing between the HD800C (modded) and HD800S (stock), gave me the impression that the HD800C has more precise positioning of the point sources and more air around each of them. The HD800S gave a slightly 'fuzzy' source location in comparison. For me and my tastes, this was a very small trade off for very much improved bass response and better treble rendition as well. The HD800C, even with the mod, was much more prone to treble harshness / sibilance than the HD800S in my testing (both driven from a V281).
 
As always, YMMV.

 

[MacedonianHero]

  While you probably don't mean it this way it comes across as a low blow. Or something like "how can something that measures so crappy possibly sound so good?" I bet you don't like tubes very much. Imagine I went on one of the Leben or DNA thread and started saying things like how can you say that all that distortion is music? So anyway, instead of asking any number of longtime head-fiers who have already come out and commented on the slightly softer imaging of the S, you pick on a guy who just managed post #3. 
 
Not only has this been observed consistently on head-fi, but on other forums and reviews as well. Heck, even sennheiser is saying that the classic is more analytical and the S more musical... or in the video linked  a few posts back: the classic is for pros and the S for consumers. This jibes with my own experience: Audiophiles and the audiophile press especially, prefer a warmer and often more relaxed sound. That why so many audiophile reviews have drooled over the HEK, even while admitting that it is a bit less resolving than some other TOTL. Whereas my pro friends and musicians tend to want something more  like the HD800. I let a few friends who do audio engineering listen to my HD800 years ago, some even bought it after hearing mine for their work. I will concede that my musician friends will probably bifurcate towards the S because I think the tonality is more accurate, and they care about that more than imaging. But not many of the pro audio folks...
 
So it is ok that you don't hear the softer imaging, it is subtle (but try listening to complex symphonic music and it hard to understand why someone won't notice the sharpening effect* of the classic, go figure), I am not surprised having read some of your reviews. Some of the things that don't seem to bother you, on the other hand, to the point where you don't even bother to comment on them, I hear. So as you like to say, different ears, different gears. If imaging was something you were especially sensitive to, you might not have sold off your HD800 when you did. Again there is nothing wrong with the fact that we value different things, for the most part that is one reason humanity is so vibrantly rich, each of has slightly different talents, abilities and things that get us off. 
 
Lastly, it is pretty obvious to me, who  prefers the S over classic, that lots of people will see it the other way. I don't have any trouble at all understanding it, and don't need to imply that there is something wrong with them because they do. 
 
Seemed like a good spot to offer another POV, as always YMMV
 
*sharpening effect = instrument separation is rendered more distinct.

 
I certainly didn't mean it as a "low blow" (as it was directed to the HD800 and HD800S and their measurements exclusively) but a circle I just can not square based on my post (along with my own first hand experiences). The HE1000s are just as resolving (and likely more so than most TOTL headphones I've come across when they are powered with a transparent amp with enough power). The HD800's have always been accused of a more "fake" approach to sharpness due to the treble spike and I happen to agree generally with this statement. What you're hearing isn't there on the recording in the upper mids/lower treble...we know that from the measurements. So along come the HD800S and "fix" this and I think some may be talking this "synthetic" sharpness (i.e. stuff outside the recording and imposed by the HD800 headphones) as being "softer"....I take it as truer to what's in the recording because I didn't entirely accept the original HD800's presentation. I think this is what Axel Grell from Sennheiser was referring to as the improvements on the "S" version as well.
 
As you stated...YMMV.

 

[JaZZ]

While you probably don't mean it this way it comes across as a low blow. Or something like "how can something that measures so crappy possibly sound so good?" I bet you don't like tubes very much. Imagine I went on one of the Leben or DNA thread and started saying things like how can you say that all that distortion is music? So anyway, instead of asking any number of longtime head-fiers who have already come out and commented on the slightly softer imaging of the S, you pick on a guy who just managed post #3.   
Not only has this been observed consistently on head-fi, but on other forums and reviews as well. Heck, even sennheiser is saying that the classic is more analytical and the S more musical... or in the video linked  a few posts back: the classic is for pros and the S for consumers. This jibes with my own experience: Audiophiles and the audiophile press especially, prefer a warmer and often more relaxed sound. That why so many audiophile reviews have drooled over the HEK, even while admitting that it is a bit less resolving than some other TOTL. Whereas my pro friends and musicians tend to want something more  like the HD800. I let a few friends who do audio engineering listen to my HD800 years ago, some even bought it after hearing mine for their work. I will concede that my musician friends will probably bifurcate towards the S because I think the tonality is more accurate, and they care about that more than imaging. But not many of the pro audio folks...
 
So it is ok that you don't hear the softer imaging, it is subtle (but try listening to complex symphonic music and it hard to understand why someone won't notice the sharpening effect* of the classic, go figure), I am not surprised having read some of your reviews. Some of the things that don't seem to bother you, on the other hand, to the point where you don't even bother to comment on them, I hear. So as you like to say, different ears, different gears. If imaging was something you were especially sensitive to, you might not have sold off your HD800 when you did. Again there is nothing wrong with the fact that we value different things, for the most part that is one reason humanity is so vibrantly rich, each of has slightly different talents, abilities and things that get us off. 
 
Lastly, it is pretty obvious to me, who  prefers the S over classic, that lots of people will see it the other way. I don't have any trouble at all understanding it, and don't need to imply that there is something wrong with them because they do. 
 
Seemed like a good spot to offer another POV, as always YMMV
 
*sharpening effect = instrument separation is rendered more distinct.

 
The last line is a good indication of how sharper doesn't equate to more true to the original – think of oversharpened photographs! It sure may be more spectacular and interesting to look at, but not better to everyone's eyes.
 
The same goes for audio. It's clear that an excessive treble will go hand in hand with analyticalness and detail enhancement, provided that resolution is really good, otherwise it could also just sound sharp.
 
Yes, the Sennheiser rep in the video is trying to display the HD 800 as a «Studio» version to justify its coexistence – claiming exemplary «flatness» (= linearity) for it. Sounds good on paper. But why does Sennheiser warm the «S» version by reducing treble energy by means of a helmholtz resonator (!) just there where the often measured and criticized peak is? Note that a helmholtz resonator works as a resonance killer! So relying on marketing speach is a bit blue-eyed.
 
I still do like my HD 800 classic – a lot! –, but why do you think I had to develop a modification for it? And since I have the corresponding hardware I use the built-in equalizer to further reduce the ~6 kHz peak, which (otherwise) is very audible to me.
 
I haven't heard the HD 800 S yet. Would like to, though. But just like the recording pros mentioned in a link in an earlier post I probably would stay with my HD 800 classic nonetheless – since I equalize anyway (that was the clue of said statement by a Sennheiser rep).

 

[MacedonianHero]

   
The last line is a good indication of how sharper doesn't equate to more true to the original – think of oversharpened photographs! It sure may be more spectacular and interesting to look at, but not better to everyone's eyes.
 
The same goes for audio. It's clear that an excessive treble will go hand in hand with analyticalness and detail enhancement, provided that resolution is really good, otherwise it could also just sound sharp.
 
Yes, the Sennheiser rep in the video is trying to display the HD 800 as a «Studio» version to justify its coexistence – claiming exemplary «flatness» (= linearity) for it. Sounds good on paper. But why does Sennheiser warm the «S» version by reducing treble energy by means of a helmholtz resonator (!) just there where the often measured and critizized peak is? Note that a helmholtz resonator works as a resonance killer! So relying on marketing speach is a bit blue-eyed.
 
I still do like my HD 800 classic – a lot! –, but why do you think I had to develop a modification for it? And since I have the corresponding hardware I use the built-in equalizer to further reduce the ~6 kHz peak, which (otherwise) is very audible to me.
 
I haven't heard the HD 800 S yet. Would like to, though. But just like the recording pros mentioned in a link in an earlier post I probably would stay with my HD 800 classic nonetheless – since I equalize anyway (that was the clue of said statement by a Sennheiser rep).

 
Thanks JaZZ...I think this is what I was getting at...though not as well stated as yours.