megabigeye
Headphoneus Supremus
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!
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!