Sennheiser HD800S Unveiled!
Feb 3, 2016 at 2:41 AM Post #3,121 of 6,504
I'm happy to agree to disagree here and I'm in agreement that the differences we're talking about are small. But like you, I'm sticking with my impressions too.

The one thing I am starting to consider is upstream gear and it's affect on both versions.

 
Ha! In the days when Hi-Fi was Hi-Fi and not Head-Fi, everyone knew that it was ALL about the source, and to a lesser extent, the amp. The speakers were always considered to be the least important pert of the chain.
 
'Garbage in, garbage out'!
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 3:10 AM Post #3,124 of 6,504
Confused...the Amazon video does say that HD800S is coloured vs HD800 being referential


Both headphones are reference. Some studio engineers use the HD 650 even or the AKG 240 which are way more coloured.
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 3:53 AM Post #3,125 of 6,504
  Not just looking at the lines but I'd guesstimate your top graph puts your 6 kHz spike around 3.5dB and your lower graph's spike at about 2.5dB (a little softer). I'd guesstimate my spike to be about even with your top graph at 3.5dB. I know lots of people think cable differences are snake oil, but I have a Violectric XLR balanced cable that helps tame the spike of my HD 800 some and increases clarity and timbre accurateness. The same cable makes my LCD-X sound even warmer (not good by my standard). My former cable puts some sparkle back in my LCD-X. It's troublesome but if I want the best out of each of these cans I have to switch cables to suit them and my taste.     

 
I assume you are comparing this with another balanced cable? Otherwise you are hearing the difference that Balanced vs SE makes, as well as the effect (if any) of the actual cable.
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 5:26 AM Post #3,127 of 6,504
Both headphones are reference. Some studio engineers use the HD 650 even or the AKG 240 which are way more coloured.

 
There are many different hp's which names first part is starting with AKG K240
all depends, when it is made and what is written at the 'end'
 
some swear that most neutral of all of hp's is 'radio-stations golden reference' AKG K240 DF (discontinued)
http://www.akg.com/pro/p/k240-df
http://www.head-fi.org/t/647292/which-come-closer-to-akg-k-240-df
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/740919-would-you-mix-akg-k240-dfs.html
 
and HD600 is still used in some studios for 'monitoring'
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 6:03 AM Post #3,128 of 6,504
   
Ha! In the days when Hi-Fi was Hi-Fi and not Head-Fi, everyone knew that it was ALL about the source, and to a lesser extent, the amp. The speakers were always considered to be the least important pert of the chain.
 
'Garbage in, garbage out'!

 
Times have moved on! Back in the 'good old days' of relatively poor analogue sources, that may have been the case but things are different now - at least for those with a digital audio chain. We're at a point now where digital technology has enabled everyone to have a source good enough to be audibly transparent. In terms of THD, speakers + headphones are the weakest (and therefore most important) link in the chain. Typical THD of speakers is higher than that of SS amps and DACs.
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 7:31 AM Post #3,129 of 6,504
Ha! In the days when Hi-Fi was Hi-Fi and not Head-Fi, everyone knew that it was ALL about the source, and to a lesser extent, the amp. The speakers were always considered to be the least important pert of the chain.

'Garbage in, garbage out'!


well that's news to me. i always thought that the general rule for buying a hi fi system was a cost outlay of roughly 50 percent for the loudspeakers and the other half on everything else. i've found that just like loudspeakers, changing headphones makes the most noticeable difference in the audio chain.
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 8:30 AM Post #3,130 of 6,504
ok ill bite into the debate just for gaggles. I agree anyone can get good source now with apple lossless 320 files. so I agree build from speakers or hp back. But now i can see that great dac amps, you has got to convert those digital files and scale these speakers or cans right, are also  most important. otherwise you got this mazeratti, vroom vroom, on your ears, but you could have some plces to go that you are just not going. 
tongue.gif

 
Feb 3, 2016 at 9:02 AM Post #3,131 of 6,504
well that's news to me. i always thought that the general rule for buying a hi fi system was a cost outlay of roughly 50 percent for the loudspeakers and the other half on everything else. i've found that just like loudspeakers, changing headphones makes the most noticeable difference in the audio chain.

 
You are both right. If the source is crap, the output will by definition also be crap. However, the cost of a good speaker is more than the cost of a good CD player or amplifier. So generally that 50% rule holds true to quite a lot of set-ups even today.
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 10:54 AM Post #3,132 of 6,504
   
I assume you are comparing this with another balanced cable? Otherwise you are hearing the difference that Balanced vs SE makes, as well as the effect (if any) of the actual cable.

Yes, I have another balanced cable.  I don't use SE (not even for my headphones).  Balanced was the whole reason I bought the stereo amp, DAC and HP amp I did, to have a totally balanced system.
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 11:41 AM Post #3,133 of 6,504
i always thought that the general rule for buying a hi fi system was a cost outlay of roughly 50 percent for the loudspeakers and the other half on everything else. i've found that just like loudspeakers, changing headphones makes the most noticeable difference in the audio chain.

 
I agree with arguing against the 'source is the most important' mantra, AFAIK started by Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn, in a time when there was a marketed quality jump in sources (the Linn Sondek LP12). Today it's not really the case anymore. "Good enough" sources are at hand for relatively cheap price, there are also reasonably priced "good enough" amps, but divergence in speakers is still huge. Differences in headphones are also huge.
 
But whether it's 50% of total budget depends on case by case, and in which upgraditis stage the buyer is. And seems to work differently with headphones than with speakers.
 
The remark works when it's about a jump in quality of the speakers (or headphones). When it's about diminishing returns (most of hi-fi enthusiasts' case), the situation may become different, as people already know which speakers or headphones work best for them, and invest more into "matching" amps and sources, chasing the diminishing returns in their chosen niche, generally becoming comfortable with the added costs. Case by case the 50% may still hold true, but not in general - not based on what I read on these forums.
 
It also depends a bit on the price range, since IMHO the price limit below which it is not worth going with electronics (for a given speaker or headphone) influences the ratio. It also depends on the synergy: relative resolutions (remember Wadia's argument about matching digital vs analog resolution), compensating or amplifying problems, etc.
 
Take some personal examples for good sound for the bucks:
HD650 + good-enough amp + DAC: headphones cost less than 50% (electronics hitting the limit)
Stax 207 + amp + DAC: headphones cost less than 50% (electronics hitting the limit)
TH900 + good-enough amp + DAC: headphones cost about 50% or much more (easy to drive)
Grado RS1 or GS1000 + amp + DAC: headphones cost more than 50% (easy to drive)
HD800(S) + [needs good amp] + [needs matching DAC]: headphones cost less than 50%, needs good matching
Stax L700 + amp + DAC: headphones cost less than 50% (electronics hitting the limit)
007 Mk1 + [needs good amp] + DAC: headphones cost less than 50% (need for good amp and source)
009 + good amp + DAC: headphones typically cost much less than 50%, or around 50%, and rarely more than 50%.
(But there are examples to the opposite as well, for instance I really recommend the 009 + this amp combo.)
Orpheus 2: although you can't buy them separate, the bulk of the price seems to go into the electronics.
 
Turning to speakers, taking isolated examples of good sound,
Linn Isobarik DMS, Infinity Renaissance 90, Yamaha NS-1000M etc + amp + DAC + new crossover parts: used speakers cost less than 50% (electronics hitting the limit)
Sonus Faber Electa Amator, Extrema: used speakers cost about 50% (sweet spot)
Harbeth M30.1 or C7ES3 or SHL5 + amp + DAC: speakers cost about 50% (sweet spot)
Dunlavy IV + amp + DAC: used speakers cost about 50% or less (bloody cheap speaker for this sound quality, and scales well)
Quad ESL 2905 or Magnepan 3.7 + amp + DAC: speakers cost more than 50%
Harbeth M40 or SF Guarneri + amp + DAC: speakers cost more than 50%
Audio Physic Caldera or Virgo 25 or Avanti 25 + amp + DAC: speakers cost more than 50%.
Sonus Faber Amati + amp + DAC, used speakers cost more than 50%
Dunlavy VI + amp + DAC: used speakers cost more than 50%. I'd name this speaker the absolute bargain of the century, and the biggest headphones ever :).
 
I could have gone and mention more (Wilson, Magico, Acapella, B&W Diamond etc) but the rule seems to hold: the higher you move, the speaker is taking more part of the budget.
I am aware that people like Jonathan Valin may disagree about scaling speakers with amps (consider Soulution amps for instance), but I hold to my opinion. It pays off to put the money into scaling the speakers rather than the electronics.
 
When you build the speakers and amps yourself, then it's again different: high end speakers are relatively cheaper than high end electronics. See Lynn Olson's Ariel and amp) projects.
 
In conclusion, the tendency with speakers goes opposite of what is going on with headphones, except in DIY.
 
Sorry for the off-topic, but it felt good to remember all those systems above :).
Corrections and disagreements are welcome :).
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 12:35 PM Post #3,134 of 6,504
   
Times have moved on! Back in the 'good old days' of relatively poor analogue sources, that may have been the case but things are different now - at least for those with a digital audio chain. We're at a point now where digital technology has enabled everyone to have a source good enough to be audibly transparent. In terms of THD, speakers + headphones are the weakest (and therefore most important) link in the chain. Typical THD of speakers is higher than that of SS amps and DACs.

 
Oh, I agree, and you hopefully wouldn't be surprised if I said that I already knew that! But, although it was said slightly 'tongue in cheek', and the idea that the source was the most important part of the system was always somewhat exaggerated, the fact is that playing files directly out of a computer (which is what I suspect many people do) will not sound as good as a dedicated digital source which will generally present far less jitter to the DAC, some of which are better at dealing with it than others, but it's still better if it's largely absent from the source signal. 
 
Feb 3, 2016 at 12:52 PM Post #3,135 of 6,504
   
Oh, I agree, and you hopefully wouldn't be surprised if I said that I already knew that! But, although it was said slightly 'tongue in cheek', and the idea that the source was the most important part of the system was always somewhat exaggerated, the fact is that playing files directly out of a computer (which is what I suspect many people do) will not sound as good as a dedicated digital source which will generally present far less jitter to the DAC, some of which are better at dealing with it than others, but it's still better if it's largely absent from the source signal. 

 
I'm actually one of those people who play files straight out of my laptop to DAC and you're right; many people do these days. The effect of jitter though, and other digital domain gremlins is (and has been, many times before) the subject for another discussion, elsewhere, I think.
wink_face.gif
 Not to say jitter doesn't exist, just that I don't believe it to be an issue in terms of audible signal degradation, for a number of reasons. No doubt you take the opposite view!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top