[pp312]

Quote:

What do you consider to be sibilance?  I think you're using a different concept of sibilance than what I consider sibilance to be.  How does treble harshness in orchestra violins define sibilance?  Sibilance is a vocal thing, esssey s's, spitty t's, thushy th's, spitty j's, artificial artifacts created by blowing on a microphone diaphragm.

I don't listen to vocal material at all. If therefore my phones are prone to sibilance, will it have no effect whatsoever on my (orchestral) listening pleasure if it's only "a vocal thing"? Of course it will, and one of the ways it will is to make strings sound harsh, or at least wrong.  As for where sibilance actually lies in the frequency range, I suggest it has a broader (and lower) range than you imagine and that the peak in the 600s response can certainly contribute to sibilance and harshness. Despite being a "Sennheiser Man" I found the 600 unacceptably bright and harsh the moment I listened to it, and despite coming back to it several times (thanks to the frequent recommendations in this forum)  I could never come to terms with it. But it wasn't until I saw the Headroom FR graph that I understood why.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

I don't listen to vocal material at all. If therefore my phones are prone to sibilance, will it have no effect whatsoever on my (orchestral) listening pleasure if it's only "a vocal thing"? Of course it will, and one of the ways it will is to make strings sound harsh, or at least wrong.  As for where sibilance actually lies in the frequency range, I suggest it has a broader (and lower) range than you imagine and that the peak in the 600s response can certainly contribute to sibilance and harshness. Despite being a "Sennheiser Man" I found the 600 unacceptably bright and harsh the moment I listened to it, and despite coming back to it several times (thanks to the frequent recommendations in this forum)  I could never come to terms with it. But it wasn't until I saw the Headroom FR graph that I understood why.

Sibilance is a vocal thing.  Violins don't have sibilance.  There is no way for a violin to create an esssy sound or a "p" pop on a microphone.  What you are describing would be better described as possibly a strident, harsh, or edgy sound.  There may be a positive correlation between headphones that accentuate sibilance also being strident, harsh, or edgy, but that correlation is not guaranteed.  It is possible to have a headphone that has an edgy or harsh sound yet manages to tame sibilance.  It is also possible to have a headphone that is sibilant yet not edgy or harsh.
 
rhythmdevils described the way the HD600 treats vocal sibilance very well:
 
Quote:

The HD600 strikes a very nice balance between being able to show an edge to notes, but never exhibiting harshness or sibilance.  I am very sensitive to sibilance and harshness and there are few headphones that manage this balance like the HD600.

 
That's the way I hear the HD600 handle vocal sibilance.  In my collection of full size headphones I consider the HD600 to be the one that least emphasizes vocal sibilance.
 

 

[apatN]

Never experienced sibilance with the HD600 when I had them...

 

[the limp man]

Is that on a project headbox/?
 
Quote:

Sibilance is a vocal thing.  Violins don't have sibilance.  There is no way for a violin to create an esssy sound or a "p" pop on a microphone.  What you are describing would be better described as possibly a strident, harsh, or edgy sound.  There may be a positive correlation between headphones that accentuate sibilance also being strident, harsh, or edgy, but that correlation is not guaranteed.  It is possible to have a headphone that has an edgy or harsh sound yet manages to tame sibilance.  It is also possible to have a headphone that is sibilant yet not edgy or harsh.
 
rhythmdevils described the way the HD600 treats vocal sibilance very well:
 
 
That's the way I hear the HD600 handle vocal sibilance.  In my collection of full size headphones I consider the HD600 to be the one that least emphasizes vocal sibilance.
 

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Is that on a project headbox/?
 

I use an AV123 x-head amp, it's a solid state amp.  Source is the computer (FLAC and MP3) with an M-Audio FireWire 410.
 
I haven't heard a ProJect Head Box to be able to compare.

 

[the limp man]

I do and icm the Headbox the HD600 is to bright. The hd595 is somewhat warmer.

 

[rhythmdevils]

yes I would agree that what you're hearing would be more accurately described as harshness or overly bright. 
 
I could see how the HD600 could be tipped that direction, because it finds such a delicate balance.  But I still think it's the amp, not the phones.  Whether that means you should get rid of the amp or the phones is up to you.  If you're happy with the headbox and hd595, then stick with it.  But the HD600 surely has more potential than the HD595

 

[pp312]

Ham Sandwich, we're clearly talking about two different things which is yet the same thing. I'm talking about the irregularity in the frequency response that causes the sibilance; you're talking about the sibilance itself. Cure the first, of course, and you cure the second. But whatever causes sibilance will be heard in non vocal material as well, as will any FR aberration.
 
For my part I still find the 600 unacceptably harsh and I still attribute it to the peak between 3 & 5khz.

 

[maingarden]

wow, now i'm confused.  ive been reading the 600 is more "laid-back" than the 595, but here I see some calling the 600 brighter due to this 3-5 kHz spike.  
i have the 595 and find for rock heavy on sounds in the mids that this 595 remains too bright for me.  i find the klipsch S4 non-fatiguing and note the frequency response looks much more like the HD 650 from range 1-10KHz whereas the HD600 is more elevated in this range.
 
does this frequency response explain really the difference in perception?  
 
if this is the case, then it seems like to me the HD600 sound being more "laid back" may not apply to me if I find the HD 595 harsh in midrange for rock.  
 
help point me in the right direction, please.

 

[pp312]

The 3-5khz range is where the ear is particularly sensitive, some ears more than others. I never cared for the 600 and I suspect that extra energy in that range over the 650 is the cause. I find the 650 just the right porridge for me and I suspect given your comments that you might too. As for the 595, it's bright in a different area, more in the upper trebles. I have a pair and I've always enjoyed them, but yes, they're not as well balanced nor as smooth as the 650. Without being able to audition, there's no doubt the 650 is the sensible and relatively foolproof recommendation for you.  

 

[mcnoiserdc]

The hd600 is not sibilant in any way. I have had two versions of hd600, one had a bit more bass but sibilance NEVER!!!
HD600 kind of make everything listenable. not harsh at all