[megabigeye]

Sooo... There are a lot of, uh, opinions in this thread. I excused myself from the conversation earlier because there was somebody that was saying that s/he and I agreed and I just didn't feel like getting into how I don't think that we do. But, well, now I'm back, so I'm going to explain myself.

But first, I'll start by contradicting what I said in an earlier post: if it's still what you want, I think you should get the HD 660 S so long as you can return it if you don't like it. I wasn't basing what I said on personal experience or knowledge; I was basing what I said on the opinion of one person who has since admitted to starting to lose his hearing and who has recently retired from the headphone community. I'll let you do the math on who that might be. I apologize for opining about things I don't know about. Anyway, my point is that-- at least based on the first ten or so pages of the HD 660 thread-- it is a significant upgrade to the HD 650 and as such it may be a good complement to your DT 1990.

I take what zazex and der_Asiate are saying to be: you shouldn't bother getting another "mid-fi" can because it'll basically sound the same as any other "mid-fi" can, other than minor nuances, and listening to those nuances only has limited appeal.
This makes it seem like the only reason to get a headphone is to listen critically to that headphone (as opposed to the music), to pick it apart and look for the things it does right and the things it does wrong and to compare it to other headphones. I agree with this only insofar as that a headphone can be listened to critically, but not that it's the sole function of a headphone. And I agree that splitting hairs between headphones only has limited appeal. I guess this comes down to personal philosophies, but I say get something you're gong to enjoy, not something you're going to be looking for faults in.

Further, they seem to be saying that you should only buy something on a higher tier than what you're planning. I disagree with this on many levels.
First of all, don't let somebody online dictate to you whether or not what you have or want is good enough. I figure that you don't feel like you're doing this, but from here it appears that you are (you're already talking about saving up for a $1200 headphone, nearly double what you were previously planning). Please, I implore you, don't let somebody you don't know talk you into something that you don't need or want and can't really afford.*

Second, it's headphone enthusiast's willingness to continually upgrade their gear-- and therefore spend more and more money-- that is allowing headphone companies to continue increasing prices. I don't want to imply that one person not buying $1200 headphones is going to make a damn bit of difference, but I think when making these sorts of decisions we should stay aware of the repercussions and try to make more informed, considered decisions.

Third, if you're not planning on getting rid of the DT 1990 (which is what you claimed in your first post), then I don't think you should get an upgrade for the same reason that you shouldn't get a downgrade, either. Think of it this way: if you were to get a headphone that is significantly worse than the DT 1990, would you ever use it? My guess is no. Because it's not as good as what you have. Similarly, if you buy a headphone that's much better than the Beyers, then the Beyers are just going to languish. You won't have any reason to use them. Are the DT 1990 good enough for you? Going by the fact that you said you don't want to get rid of them, I'm going to guess that they are. Again, please don't let other people tell you what is or isn't good enough for you.

Fourth, I think the best reason for getting different headphones is that they fill different roles. Open-back, closed-back, and IEMs all do different things well, so, as long as you have a reason to fill those needs, it's not out of the question to own one of each. Likewise, I think headphones with significantly different sound signatures also fill different roles. The DT 1990 is a headphone that's designed for professional work; it's meant for being able to hear every detail with laser-like precision. The HD 660 S (if it's even remotely similar to the HD 650) is designed for home use; it's meant to hear the music as a cohesive whole and to be enjoyable. They fill different roles, so it's not unreasonable to want both.**

So, again, get the HD 660 S if it's what you still want. I think there's a chance you might be very satisfied with them. If not, just return them.

Anyway, I hope what I'm saying makes some sense to you.

*Yes, I realize that I don't know you, either. I don't know what you want and I don't know what you can afford. I hope that I'm not coming off as condescending, or holier-than-thou, or whatever-- I'm certainly not meaning to. Mostly I'm reacting to what I perceive as a pervasive and pernicious trend on Head-Fi, of people playing "one-up:" "well, if you can afford just $X more, you should get headphone-Y instead because it's Z% better than what you were planning;" or, "headphones aren't really worth it until you spend $X."

**If you'll excuse a kind of ridiculous simile, the DT 1990 is like an amphetamine, while the HD 650 is like alcohol. Both are great in their own ways, but if you're taking Adderall to relax, then you're in for a rude surprise. Or if you're drinking some nice chianti to really focus on that term paper, then you're just going to fail, fail, FAIL! The DT 1990 is great for focusing, the HD 650 is great for relaxing.***

***In no way do I condone use of amphetamines, other than as prescribed by a registered doctor.

PS-- wow, I just previewed this and realized what a wall of text I've typed. Sorry!

 

[zazex]

Sooo... There are a lot of, uh, opinions in this thread. I excused myself from the conversation earlier because there was somebody that was saying that s/he and I agreed and I just didn't feel like getting into how I don't think that we do. But, well, now I'm back, so I'm going to explain myself.

But first, I'll start by contradicting what I said in an earlier post: if it's still what you want, I think you should get the HD 660 S so long as you can return it if you don't like it. I wasn't basing what I said on personal experience or knowledge; I was basing what I said on the opinion of one person who has since admitted to starting to lose his hearing and who has recently retired from the headphone community. I'll let you do the math on who that might be. I apologize for opining about things I don't know about. Anyway, my point is that-- at least based on the first ten or so pages of the HD 660 thread-- it is a significant upgrade to the HD 650 and as such it may be a good complement to your DT 1990.

I take what zazex and der_Asiate are saying to be: you shouldn't bother getting another "mid-fi" can because it'll basically sound the same as any other "mid-fi" can, other than minor nuances, and listening to those nuances only has limited appeal.
This makes it seem like the only reason to get a headphone is to listen critically to that headphone (as opposed to the music), to pick it apart and look for the things it does right and the things it does wrong and to compare it to other headphones. I agree with this only insofar as that a headphone can be listened to critically, but not that it's the sole function of a headphone. And I agree that splitting hairs between headphones only has limited appeal. I guess this comes down to personal philosophies, but I say get something you're gong to enjoy, not something you're going to be looking for faults in.

Further, they seem to be saying that you should only buy something on a higher tier than what you're planning. I disagree with this on many levels.
First of all, don't let somebody online dictate to you whether or not what you have or want is good enough. I figure that you don't feel like you're doing this, but from here it appears that you are (you're already talking about saving up for a $1200 headphone, nearly double what you were previously planning). Please, I implore you, don't let somebody you don't know talk you into something that you don't need or want and can't really afford.*

Second, it's headphone enthusiast's willingness to continually upgrade their gear-- and therefore spend more and more money-- that is allowing headphone companies to continue increasing prices. I don't want to imply that one person not buying $1200 headphones is going to make a damn bit of difference, but I think when making these sorts of decisions we should stay aware of the repercussions and try to make more informed, considered decisions.

Third, if you're not planning on getting rid of the DT 1990 (which is what you claimed in your first post), then I don't think you should get an upgrade for the same reason that you shouldn't get a downgrade, either. Think of it this way: if you were to get a headphone that is significantly worse than the DT 1990, would you ever use it? My guess is no. Because it's not as good as what you have. Similarly, if you buy a headphone that's much better than the Beyers, then the Beyers are just going to languish. You won't have any reason to use them. Are the DT 1990 good enough for you? Going by the fact that you said you don't want to get rid of them, I'm going to guess that they are. Again, please don't let other people tell you what is or isn't good enough for you.

Fourth, I think the best reason for getting different headphones is that they fill different roles. Open-back, closed-back, and IEMs all do different things well, so, as long as you have a reason to fill those needs, it's not out of the question to own one of each. Likewise, I think headphones with significantly different sound signatures also fill different roles. The DT 1990 is a headphone that's designed for professional work; it's meant for being able to hear every detail with laser-like precision. The HD 660 S (if it's even remotely similar to the HD 650) is designed for home use; it's meant to hear the music as a cohesive whole and to be enjoyable. They fill different roles, so it's not unreasonable to want both.**

So, again, get the HD 660 S if it's what you still want. I think there's a chance you might be very satisfied with them. If not, just return them.

Anyway, I hope what I'm saying makes some sense to you.

*Yes, I realize that I don't know you, either. I don't know what you want and I don't know what you can afford. I hope that I'm not coming off as condescending, or holier-than-thou, or whatever-- I'm certainly not meaning to. Mostly I'm reacting to what I perceive as a pervasive and pernicious trend on Head-Fi, of people playing "one-up:" "well, if you can afford just $X more, you should get headphone-Y instead because it's Z% better than what you were planning;" or, "headphones aren't really worth it until you spend $X."

**If you'll excuse a kind of ridiculous simile, the DT 1990 is like an amphetamine, while the HD 650 is like alcohol. Both are great in their own ways, but if you're taking Adderall to relax, then you're in for a rude surprise. Or if you're drinking some nice chianti to really focus on that term paper, then you're just going to fail, fail, FAIL! The DT 1990 is great for focusing, the HD 650 is great for relaxing.***

***In no way do I condone use of amphetamines, other than as prescribed by a registered doctor.

PS-- wow, I just previewed this and realized what a wall of text I've typed. Sorry!

Very thoughtful and well written. I wish only to touch on some of your well-considered points
in this reply.

Speaking for myself only, I have no incentive or interest in having another Head-Fier upgrade to
a more expensive headphone. Moreover, I shrink from your use of the word "dictate". I work
hard at being open minded and even handed, and believe I would be a Fool if I were to attempt
to "dictate".

It seemed to me, and still does, that the OP is exploring options.
Naming a couple of them doesn't mean that other members are prevented from making other suggestions.
I think that once one steps into an internet forum with a question, that person has at least some idea
what to expect in the way of replies - and won't hustle off with an open wallet to buy equipment which may
have been recommended, even highly.

We're not drug dealers here, surrounding innocent youngsters (or otherwise) who are walking by,
urging that person to try our wares...and it bears repeating, I think > our wares.

In distinction to that, when we recommend items, hopefully supported by solid reasons,
it's done more to give an OP new and different ideas. S/he is free, entirely free, to
take them or leave them. The internet, of course, will provide deeper and more thorough
information to sift through after leaving the forum.

So, yes - I will, at times, suggest ideas and strategies that were not part of an original post.
Often I won't. And, like many of us, most often I won't post about it at all.

But my recommendations, references, and suggestions are always based on my personal
experience(s) - and I attempt to always support them with some solid reasoning.

And finally, I certainly don't consider this part of this thread to be at an end - just did
want to clarify some points.

 

[ScareDe2]

I won't disagree to that, I'm not particularly aiming for anything super high end. Curious about stuff, but meh. I went trough a lot of mid tier headphones to find my sound signature. I was happy with how the DT 1990 sounded like. Being a guy who likes tech I always aim to improve my setup. Which is why I made a list of things required for an upgrade. Couple of things that 660 checked was Gaming, 660 is epicly good for positional audio. Lighter than 1990 and the weight to be less on the outside of the cup, because 1990 kinda wobbles a bit. dual entry. And if possible "Open Back" instead of "Open Back Design". The reason I said mysterious reasons is because I normaly swap headphones back and forth before I decide, but with these I was like, "They are fine". Like I told my friend, I can't describe things I like, If I were to describe my speakers I would describe them as "Cheap" however when I listen to them "Oh yeah". Opposed to headphones I have had, I could describe them in detail as best as I can. Now cue the 660, how would I describe them? "Cheap".

That reminds me, I was happy with DT 990 Until I got Game One and I couldn't pick so I went with 1990.

Also I got Oppo HA 1 because it has Spectrum analyzer. It just happens to be good as well. ^^

There are no super high end mega summit headphones that sound alike. That fact alone pretty much tells the whole story.

 

[megabigeye]

Very thoughtful and well written. I wish only to touch on some of your well-considered points
in this reply.

Thanks, zazex. I spent a kind of stupid (in retrospect) amount of time writing and thinking about that post, so I'm glad you appreciated it and that it made sense. There's nothing worse than spending time thinking and writing something only to realize I've left some gaping hole in my logic or that I'm just wrong. Lord knows my natural inclination is to disagree with people and be otherwise irritable (a bad habit I've never been able to break), which sets me up for being disagreed with myself. So I appreciate your appreciation!

Speaking for myself only, I have no incentive or interest in having another Head-Fier upgrade to
a more expensive headphone. Moreover, I shrink from your use of the word "dictate". I work
hard at being open minded and even handed, and believe I would be a Fool if I were to attempt
to "dictate".

Sigh. Yeah. "Dictate" wasn't the right word and I kind of knew whoever responded to my post would latch onto it. I'm still having trouble thinking of what word I may have meant. Really I meant something stronger than "suggest," but not as strong as "dictate," but I went with the latter because it was a bit closer to what I was after. I apologize for saying something I didn't quite mean.

It seemed to me, and still does, that the OP is exploring options.
Naming a couple of them doesn't mean that other members are prevented from making other suggestions.
I think that once one steps into an internet forum with a question, that person has at least some idea
what to expect in the way of replies - and won't hustle off with an open wallet to buy equipment which may
have been recommended, even highly.

We're not drug dealers here, surrounding innocent youngsters (or otherwise) who are walking by,
urging that person to try our wares...and it bears repeating, I think > our wares.

In distinction to that, when we recommend items, hopefully supported by solid reasons,
it's done more to give an OP new and different ideas. S/he is free, entirely free, to
take them or leave them. The internet, of course, will provide deeper and more thorough
information to sift through after leaving the forum.

So, yes - I will, at times, suggest ideas and strategies that were not part of an original post.
Often I won't. And, like many of us, most often I won't post about it at all.

But my recommendations, references, and suggestions are always based on my personal
experience(s) - and I attempt to always support them with some solid reasoning.

Good points, and, honestly, ones I didn't really think of.
I'm finding this hard to explain without getting all philosophical and weird, so bear with me for a moment... I think there's an inherent relationship that's formed when an OP poses an advice question and another person responds. The OP presents him/herself as needing advice, and the responder presents themselves as having advice to give. Which is to say, they're now advisee and advisor; somebody seeking authority, and somebody with authority. Of course, this relationship is more subtle than, say, Padawan and Jedi, but it's along the same lines. If the advisor seems like a bumbling idiot, they're easy to ignore as a non-authority; if they seem reasonably smart, it's easier to take their advice as being true. That is, there's a weighting scale based on the reasonableness of the advice. You seem like you're reasonably intelligent, so your advice has some amount of weight to it.
Now, I hope and assume that Tsukuyomi here is not going to run out with open wallet at every piece of advice, but I also assume that your advice didn't leave no mark at all. S/He might not be running off getting whichever headphone you recommended, but is probably thinking, "maybe I should get better, more expensive headphones," at least on some small level. And you, as a voice of authority, either introduced that thought or reinforced it.
This also gets at why I used the word "dictate" above. Maybe I should have used "recommend," like a doctor recommends having triple bypass surgery. Oh, sure, you can ignore the advice if you like, but don't expect things to go smoothly if you do!

Also, it's funny that you referred to drug dealers because I was thinking of them as well. Except I wasn't thinking of headphones as the drugs, but the general attitude of "more, more, more and better, better, better!" But that's probably not wholly appropriate to talk about here.

Oof. That was a lot of thinking for not having had breakfast yet.

And finally, I certainly don't consider this part of this thread to be at an end - just did
want to clarify some points.

Agreed! I hope I didn't derail this thread too much! Let the advising resume!