[Whitigir]

I heard it on the jazz they had on at the Sennheiser booth and asked for EDM to hear the bass. Not only did I detect no major roll off found in every other open Sennheiser, when I put my hands onto the outside of the headphone cups, I could really feel the bass make them vibrate. You won't get than on any HD800/S. Remember, this is also the cleanest bass you'll hear in closed cans. Should money ever be no object for me, and these were still at the top of the closed headphone category, I would definitely want them for mixing & mastering. I'd trust everything I hear on them.

Now that is awesome !

 

[Mark Up]

How's HD820 bass compare to TH900 ?

I've tried the TH600, owned the EMU Teak, I know the TH900 has more bass and treble than those already trebly, bassy cans. V2 seems to be even worse. That Foster series (Fostex, Denon, EMU) are voiced for those who don't mind recessed mids, extra high end, and boomy bass, without mods. I wouldn't trust a mix done through them. The HD820 were lighter, more comfortable, high end detail is all there, with less distortion so it's more accurate and less harsh. No fatigue from it, as I get from the entire Foster series, the HD800/S and most of Audio Technica. Very flat, accurate mids. Sub bass is properly presented, not boomy or boosted like the Fosters. No bleed into mids or audible distortion. It's like $100,000 race car vs a $100,000 luxury car. Some want the extra hype. A good luxury car can fly when you step on it, don't worry. Comfort, practicality, durability, with every feature you need. The Sennheiser are those. Brutal honesty that's easy on the ears. You have to understand how rare it is I hear anything like that. In studio monitors we struggle to find that as well. If you can do both accurate and smooth, you've worked some magic.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

I've tried the TH600, owned the EMU Teak, I know the TH900 has more bass and treble than those already trebly, bassy cans. V2 seems to be even worse. That Foster series (Fostex, Denon, EMU) are voiced for those who don't mind recessed mids, extra high end, and boomy bass, without mods. I wouldn't trust a mix done through them. The HD820 were lighter, more comfortable, high end detail is all there, with less distortion so it's more accurate and less harsh. No fatigue from it, as I get from the entire Foster series, the HD800/S and most of Audio Technica. Very flat, accurate mids. Sub bass is properly presented, not boomy or boosted like the Fosters. No bleed into mids or audible distortion. It's like $100,000 race car vs a $100,000 luxury car. Some want the extra hype. A good luxury car can fly when you step on it, don't worry. Comfort, practicality, durability, with every feature you need. The Sennheiser are those. Brutal honesty that's easy on the ears.

So you make it sound like the 820 treble is even smoother and less peaky than the 800S. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Mark Up]

So you make it sound like the 820 treble is even smoother and less leaky than the 800S. Is that a fair statement?

Less leaky? For sure, since they are closed. Smoother? Yes, to my ears. The H800S isn't really harsh. The high end is tamed a bit from their HD800 which again, wasn't that bad. The HD700 seems more incisive at a particular frequency, un-modded, as we know. They are really just very honest, and dry headphones (the HD800 and HD800s). The treble level is probably slightly less. I mean maybe less than one db less. I could be wrong, it may be the same. It seems less peaky. In tuning the closed cans and dealing with the main issue of the resonance closed cans present, they probably went overboard, making sure the acoustic chamber they create adds as little as possible sonically to the likely near perfect Harmon Response Curve the diaphragm produces. More than the open HD800S, since being open it reduces those resonances naturally. It's also the evolution, having had the HD800 out for years, they learned a lot about how to get the better results in headphone housings. Especially closed cans which is a newer thing for them. These cans are the definition of what I'd consider the latest and greatest tech, with cost as no option. They could have done it for less R & D cost, but you won't get this quality.

 

[Canadian411]

I've tried the TH600, owned the EMU Teak, I know the TH900 has more bass and treble than those already trebly, bassy cans. V2 seems to be even worse. That Foster series (Fostex, Denon, EMU) are voiced for those who don't mind recessed mids, extra high end, and boomy bass, without mods. I wouldn't trust a mix done through them. The HD820 were lighter, more comfortable, high end detail is all there, with less distortion so it's more accurate and less harsh. No fatigue from it, as I get from the entire Foster series, the HD800/S and most of Audio Technica. Very flat, accurate mids. Sub bass is properly presented, not boomy or boosted like the Fosters. No bleed into mids or audible distortion. It's like $100,000 race car vs a $100,000 luxury car. Some want the extra hype. A good luxury car can fly when you step on it, don't worry. Comfort, practicality, durability, with every feature you need. The Sennheiser are those. Brutal honesty that's easy on the ears. You have to understand how rare it is I hear anything like that. In studio monitors we struggle to find that as well. If you can do both accurate and smooth, you've worked some magic.

V2 are you referring to TH900 MK2 ? I never heard that, if it has more bass and spiky trebles than Mk1 then I should not upgrade my TH900.
HD820 sounds so good so far.,, time to travel to US !

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Less leaky? For sure, since they are closed. Smoother? Yes, to my ears. The H800S isn't really harsh. The high end is tamed a bit from their HD800 which again, wasn't that bad. The HD700 seems more incisive at a particular frequency, un-modded, as we know. They are really just very honest, and dry headphones (the HD800 and HD800s). The treble level is probably slightly less. I mean maybe less than one db less. I could be wrong, it may be the same. It seems less peaky. In tuning the closed cans and dealing with the main issue of the resonance closed cans present, they probably went overboard, making sure the acoustic chamber they create adds as little as possible sonically to the likely near perfect Harmon Response Curve the diaphragm produces. More than the open HD800S, since being open it reduces those resonances naturally. It's also the evolution, having had the HD800 out for years, they learned a lot about how to get the better results in headphone housings. Especially closed cans which is a newer thing for them. These cans are the definition of what I'd consider the latest and greatest tech, with cost as no option. They could have done it for less R & D cost, but you won't get this quality.

Sorry typo. Less peaky

 

[SeanS]

The bass ports are actually a separate structure than the glass “lens,” and just to state for the group the HD 820 is a true closed headphone rather than semi-open... it does have about 26 dB of isolation.

How does 26dB of isolation compare with other closed headphones in similar price range?

I prefer closed headphones, the isolation is a necessity for me (both ways). The best I've found are Audeze LCD-XC's, but, man, they're head-crushers.

Sean

 

[Arniesb]

Sorry typo. Less peaky

Cmon now... HD800S is not peaky at all...
Its 1 of the most accurate headphones ever! Only part could be more accurate is presence region, but other than that its all spot on.

 

[TonyNewman]

+1. HD800 was peaky, until modded. HD800S - not peaky at all IMHO.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Cmon now... HD800S is not peaky at all...
Its 1 of the most accurate headphones ever! Only part could be more accurate is presence region, but other than that its all spot on.

First of all, the 800S still has an 8K peak it’s just less than the 800, but many people still find them too bright. Secondly, I wasn’t even calling the 800S treble peaky, I was asking for clarification about the 820 treble sounding smoother as a comparison. Mark Up made a distinction between the 800S treble and the 820 treble.

 

[joseph69]

Cmon now... HD800S is not peaky at all...

I Definitely agree.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Look what you started by quote mining and not actually keeping comments in context. Smooth, peaky, or rolled off, none of these descriptions mean anything without comparison. I asked for clarification. Go back and read please before this thread gets derailed further.

 

[zolkis]

I've tried the TH600, owned the EMU Teak, I know the TH900 has more bass and treble than those already trebly, bassy cans. V2 seems to be even worse. That Foster series (Fostex, Denon, EMU) are voiced for those who don't mind recessed mids, extra high end, and boomy bass, without mods. I wouldn't trust a mix done through them. The HD820 were lighter, more comfortable, high end detail is all there, with less distortion so it's more accurate and less harsh. No fatigue from it, as I get from the entire Foster series, the HD800/S and most of Audio Technica. Very flat, accurate mids. Sub bass is properly presented, not boomy or boosted like the Fosters. No bleed into mids or audible distortion. It's like $100,000 race car vs a $100,000 luxury car. Some want the extra hype. A good luxury car can fly when you step on it, don't worry. Comfort, practicality, durability, with every feature you need. The Sennheiser are those. Brutal honesty that's easy on the ears. You have to understand how rare it is I hear anything like that. In studio monitors we struggle to find that as well. If you can do both accurate and smooth, you've worked some magic.

The TH900 and Denon D7200 have rather low bass distortion (I've been modding/measuring them for long time). It is the bass volume that is high. For EDM, there is nothing like a [modded] TH900 or D7200 in bass impact/rumble. I had the Massdrop versions too, but they were not nearly as good as the modded TH900. The modded D7200 (no cups filling, Stax 009 pads with carbon foam insert) have even more bass impact and similar extension as the modded TH900, but they are more linear in the mids. They don't distort in the bass more than the HD650. With mods they both are also more revealing (especially noticeable with background instruments and vocals) than their stock versions. I agree I would not mix with these (only with certain e-stats), but I like them enough to keep both of them. Perhaps I will try a Stax SRX Mk3 (Gamma Pro) drivers in the TH900 enclosure this summer, for the ultimate closed can .

This is what the HD820 has to beat - but based on your description it has chance. If that happens, some lucky head-fiers will have a chance to get my insanely improved closed cans for cheap .

 

[zolkis]

I did find the HD800 peaky, but the HD800S sounded quite fine for me. They were also the least metallic sounding headphones with metallic drivers that I've heard. Actually they sound even less metallic to my ears than certain Hifiman headphones.
The HD800S is not so analog sounding as the best e-stats, but good enough if that creeps in a closed headphone (with better bass and isolation) it would be enough for me. I have had Sennheiser headphones for long time and they will likely outlast me. Money seems to be well spent on Sennheiser.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

I did find the HD800 peaky, but the HD800S sounded quite fine for me. They were also the least metallic sounding headphones with metallic drivers that I've heard. Actually they sound even less metallic to my ears than certain Hifiman headphones.
The HD800S is not so analog sounding as the best e-stats, but good enough if that creeps in a closed headphone (with better bass and isolation) it would be enough for me. I have had Sennheiser headphones for long time and they will likely outlast me. Money seems to be well spent on Sennheiser.

I’m pretty sure the 800S doesn’t have a metallic driver.