[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Yes, of course there is! There are many ways to artificially add «detail» in audio, one of them is by electronics (Aphex Exciter...), another one is by adding reflections, such as with headphones with attached acoustic lenses (Sony style) specially designed for this purpose, and besides all headphones do it more or less by causing multiple reflections between driver and ear. Sennheiser has tried (with success!) to minimize this effect by using the foam cover, which has the above-mentioned downside to cause a mat coloration instead of a wet coloration resulting from reflections. It's up to personal preference which coloration you prefer, but there's no right or wrong. Of course the added «detail» we're discussing actually doesn't have to do with increased resolution nor with high fidelity.

No there isn't, if the details are not there, they are not there, you can excite, or EQ all what you want, if the driver is not able to reproduce those details, you will never get them, they have to be in the recording in the first place, and in the second the driver has to be able to reproduce them....you could add colorations, grain etc...but never details....

BTW Sony has also foam over the drivers, and they are not veiled at all, and OTOH many members had removed that foam on the Senns, trying to get BETTER AND CLEANER SOUND, and the veil still remains there, the veil is inherent of the sound of those drivers...period....what development are you talking about????

This was probably one of the cheapest way they found to cover a driver (as many other manufacturers do) and use it period....

BTW I don't know if this is a success or a failure from Sennheiser, but IMO they develop the 650 based on the 600, and IMO, well at least I was expecting them to correct the flaws of its predecessor, right? And what we get? Same veil, same laid-backness, same sound, with even more quantity of bass, they don't even replaced the cable, after seeing that anybody uses theirs....

 

[markl]

Quote:

Yes, of course there is! There are many ways to artificially add «detail» in audio, one of them is by electronics (Aphex Exciter...), another one is by adding reflections, such as with headphones with attached acoustic lenses (Sony style) specially designed for this purpose, and besides all headphones do it more or less by causing multiple reflections between driver and ear.

I don't have time to repeat arguments I've made before on the "fake detail" thing. In short: boosting treble response is NOT "adding detail" it's a frequency coloration/anomaly. Compressing the sound to boost low-volume sounds up to the level of high-volume sounds is not "adding detail" either, it's *compression*.

Quote:

Given the notorious veil is identified as a matting coloration caused by fabric or foam the sound waves have to travel through: yes: every speaker with a protective cover made of fabric produces «the veil» to a certain degree. But that's not just a design flaw, some of them are designed with this effect in mind. Because normal speakers have baffles, and those have the property to reflect sound waves. Doing so, they add parasitic sound to the direct sound -- with a very short time shift, so that it can't be identified as reflections, other than room reflections with their beneficial potential, but it appears as a smearing, wetting effect instead. A fabric cover (as well as an anti-reflective baffle coating) can minimize these parasitic reflections, but this comes at a price.

What's this got to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote:

Of course the added «detail» we're discussing actually doesn't have to do with increased resolution nor with high fidelity.

At least we agree on this.

You can take away resolution, but you can't add it, you are always limited by what was on the recording.

 

[hentai]

the veil , some people like some don't . simple as that , i like grado , my brother prefer senn . some music are very bright in nature so the veil can be good.

however i wonder why i always feel that i am not listening to a high end headphone when i listen to hd600

 

[markl]

Quote:

Current pop / rock music are known to have limited dynamic range - which is not similar to loudness.

Well, of course, but that isn't related to the discussion of the veil. Quote:

AC/DC etc may sound loud but they rarely go beyond 40db range as there is no real quiet part. Compare that to slow violin passage and cannon blasting on same song, now that's a real dynamic range.

I think we are drifting far afield now from the original context of the discussion. You can listen to compressed or uncompressed music, but the "veiling effect" described by so many Members is apparent on both kinds of recordings. The veil is pervasive, it doesn't hide in the shadows only to spring out unanounced on random recordings just to trick you. It's an overall characteristic that colors the sound no matter what you are listening to. I simply hypothesized that the effect may be less objectionable to people who listen to classical, for the reasons I cited, but really I agree that was a tangential discussion as I don't believe that only pop/rock listeners can hear the veil in the first place!

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller No there isn't, if the details are not there, they are not there, you can excite, or EQ all what you want, if the driver is not able to reproduce those details, you will never get them, they have to be in the recording in the first place, and in the second the driver has to be able to reproduce them....you could add colorations, grain etc...but never details....

I was explicitely stating that detail isn't the same as resolution. Of course you can add detail! Mixing the same recording to the actual recording with a little time shift will give you increased detail. Some electronic phase shifting will do the trick too.

Quote:

BTW Sony has also foam over the drivers, and they are not veiled at all, and OTOH many members had removed that foam on the Senns, trying to get BETTER AND CLEANER SOUND, and the veil still remains there, the veil is inherent of the sound of those drivers...period....what development are you talking about???? This was probably one of the cheapest way they found to cover a driver (as many other manufacturers do) and use it period....

I wasn't talking of «development», just of the (cheap) foam pads, which have their effect.

Yes, many manufactureres use them, but some have designs that (additionally and even purposely) create more reflections than others. Count all closed-back headphones to this category. BTW, removing the foam pads has the effect of completely removing the matness tendency and the «veil», as has been reported. Have you actually tried it yourself to be so sure?

Quote:

BTW I don't know if this is a success or a failure from Sennheiser, but IMO they develop the 650 based on the 600, and IMO, well at least I was expecting them to correct the flaws of its predecessor, right? And what we get? Same veil, same laid-backness, same sound, with even more quantity of bass, they don't even replaced the cable, after seeing that anybody uses theirs....

There's a diminishing minority pretending to hear a veil with the HD 650. Others don't and find virtually all flaws of the predecessor corrected. The HD 650 doesn't sound veiled at all. Its high detail and resolution even outshines the foam pads' effect...

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl I don't have time to repeat arguments I've made before on the "fake detail" thing. In short: boosting treble response is NOT "adding detail" it's a frequency coloration/anomaly. Compressing the sound to boost low-volume sounds up to the level of high-volume sounds is not "adding detail" either, it's *compression*.

I wasn't speaking of anything you're stating, but of reflections as an example. I've made my points clear in my response to Sovkiller. Detail doesn't have to be «true» detail to be perceived as detail.


Quote:

What's this got to do with the price of tea in China? At least we agree on this. You can take away resolution, but you can't add it, you are always limited by what was on the recording.

See above! We weren't speaking of resolution, were we? And what do you mean with the price of tea?

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Well, of course, but that isn't related to the discussion of the veil.

Um, you didn't comment on the first part of my post that was clearly related to senn discussion. To get a more accurate idea of whether there is 'veil' or not, you should compare them to real music, not to other phones. Otherwise you'll drift toward the nice coloration that suits your preference. It's not wrong - but it's definitely not accurate.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ There's a diminishing minority pretending to hear a veil with the HD 650. Others don't and find virtually all flaws of the predecessor corrected. The HD 650 doesn't sound veiled at all. Its high detail and resolution even outshines the foam pads' effect...

What???? What details and high resolutiion is that????

I heard it in the NYC mini-meet out of very good setups, and honestly count me in that minority, the HD650 IMO is a more bassy HD600 period, there no other change to talk about them from that brief audition, enough to conclude the case for me, they insisted in the same sound....BTW Zu mobious were used for that audition, and it sounded pretty dull in comparison to the R-10, Qualia, CD3000 and K-1000....Sorry, but IMO, Sennheiser still needs to do the homework right, for that headphone to be the cup of tea for many people....BTW one of the flaws people find in the HD600 is the cable, not the drivers, and they did not replace the cable, and replace the drivers, OTOH, who liked them never complained about the bass quantity ....

About the rest, I will not argue, anymore, I doubt that you will convince me of those "artificially increased details", as we all now what details are, and it seems that you are pretty convinced yourself, so this argument will go to noplace....

As I did not liked them, and it is not a topic I'm interested in prove, as I have heard it, and I'm convinced of what I'm saying.....end of the case here.....

Again please, do not confuse laid backness (the way in which they present the sound), with the veil (that is indeed, a flaw in the sound IMO) These are two different things, laid backness means that the presentation of the sound is a little retired from the stage, like if you were seated far from the stage, that could be a good or a bad thing depending on the preference of the person, but the veil has nothing to do with the physical or geometric position, it is an effect (or a deffect) it is like a veil that covers the whole sound, like if you were listening through a filter....

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller ...end of the case here.....

«Period!»

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller Again please, do not confuse laid backness (the way in which they present the sound), with the veil (that is indeed, a flaw in the sound IMO) These are two different things, laid backness means that the presentation of the sound is a little retired from the stage, like if you were seated far from the stage, that could be a good or a bad thing depending on the preference of the person, but the veil has nothing to do with the physical or geometric position, it is an effect (or a deffect) it is like a veil that covers the whole sound, like if you were listening through a filter....

I don't confuse laidbackness (a term I never really get anyway) with veil, but your veil is not my veil.

And it's definitely not a defect, other than the artificial CD 3000 reverberativeness -- errrmm... soundstage...

 

[Mastergill]

There's no veil with Sennheiser HD600 or 650. There's a clarity, transparency, that can match or surpass some of the best monitor speakers. Maybe you guys are used to a very forward presentation like you have with the only closed phone i know very well, the HD25. Closed phones like HD25 are 'pushing' the sound into the auditory canal giving that feeling of punchy and more alive sound with more details. The same details are there with HD600 but not throwed in your face like with closed design. Also most of the phone you're comparing with the Senn are low impedance (40 to 100 ohm)
and these low impedance phone like HD25 (70 ohm) are fairly easy to drive, i mean you got PRaT out of almost everything you plug them in.

OTOH the Senns with a 300 ohm load are incredibly power hungry, they should sell with a warning! Lot of people here talk about HD6XX not good for rock or pop, that's because with those music genre you've got lot of bass signal between 200hz and 400hz and there's only a few amps which can deliver good clean power at these frequencies for this load (300 ohm). You can have life like drums and bass slam but that will cost you a lot, you need a beefy amp, that's the only 'problem' with the Senns.

A last comment about HD6XX sonic presentation, yes they are not forward like other competitor. Because of the very open design, they build a nice, convicing sounstage in and AROUND the head which feel more like speakers. If you want the SPL you need to turn up the volume knob. I understand they may sound distant at low listening level, like the famous "I feel i'm in the 10th row". Hey if you wanna feel onstage turn up the volume, then you will be closer to the sound like in reality when you move closer to the stage.

All that IMFO (In My screwing Opinion) of course.

 

[markl]

Quote:

The same details are there with HD600 but not throwed in your face like with closed design. Also most of the phone you're comparing with the Senn are low impedance (40 to 100 ohm) and these low impedance phone like HD25 (70 ohm) are fairly easy to drive, i mean you got PRaT out of almost everything you plug them in. OTHO the Senns with a 300 ohm load are incredibly power angry, they should sell with a warning! Lot of people here talk about HD6XX not good for rock or pop, that's because with those music genre you've got lot of bass signal between 200hz and 400hz and there's only a few amps which can deliver good clean power at these frequencies for this load (300 ohm). You can have life like drums and bass slam but that will cost you a lot, you need a beefy amp, that's the only 'problem' with the Senns.

Mastergill, I'll remind you of the obvious, the Sony CD3000, Sony R10, Audio Technica ATHW2002 (my points of reference for my comments anyway) are not the Senn HD25. You're making comparisons and suppositions against phones you haven't heard.

I used the following amplification (along with the Clou replacement cable) with the HD600, and the veil was there every time:

1. Headroom Home
2. Headroom MOH
3. Earmax
4. Earmax Pro (with NOS tubes)
5. Melos SHA-Gold (with NOS tubes)
6. Melos Maestro (with NOS tubes)
7. Jack on my Denon AVR5800 (surprisingly good!)
8. Jack on my Marantz AV9000 pre/pro (also quite good)

That's quite a collection of amps, and no one can say "well you didn't try an aftermarket cable," I was one of the very first.

In the end, it's all subjective, but I think it's safe to say that opinion is clearly divided on the subject, and that anyone reading and contemplating a purchase can know that there is some chance that they too will encounter the veil with the Senns.

No substitute to your own ears, though! Cheers.

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Mastergill, I'll remind you of the obvious, the Sony CD3000, Sony R10, Audio Technica ATHW2002 (my points of reference for my comments anyway) are not the Senn HD25. You're making comparisons and suppositions against phones you haven't heard.

Of course markl, this is just to say that closed phone have different sonic presentation than open. I think you don't need to listen to every closed phones to feel that. You get more SPL easily with closed design, all sounds are directed to the ear, this can give a forward presentation. The trade-off is a narrow soundstage but obviously you can cheat with angled driver and have something decent.

 

[acs236]

Sovkiller, I'm surprised to read that you thought the 650s were more bassy than the 600s. At the very least, the midbass hump of the 600 was smoothed out.

As to the veil --

I owned the 580s for a while before getting the 650s, but I never owned them at the same time. The flaws I heard in the 580s I think have been eliminated in the 650s. While they are definitely more laid back than the RS-2s and CD3000 (which I currently own), the slighly hazy (listening-through-wool-effect) is gone to my ears.

I have trouble finding any objective criticism of the 650s. If you really don't like the Sennheiser sound, I don't the 650s will convert you. But if you like the Sennheiser sound, they're the best instantiation of it that I've heard, by far.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I think you don't need to listen to every closed phones to feel that.

Do you know the sound of *every* electrostatic headphone just by listening to one? The sound of *every* silver cable just by listening to one, the sound of *every* CD player by listening to one, etc. etc. Nope!

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Do you know the sound of *every* electrostatic headphone just by listening to one? The sound of *every* silver cable just by listening to one, the sound of *every* CD player by listening to one, etc. etc. Nope!

Oh boy, i know my English is bad but this is not what i meant. No i don't know the sound of ALL electrostatic phones just listening to one, but there's a distinctive electrostat 'flavor' due to this particular technology. About closed and open phones there's some acoustic rules that we can't change.