[Hifihedgehog]

   
I'm amazed to read this.  I would have considered myself part of the "general population" until I started researching headphones.  Surely most people who are interested enough to spend more than £50-100 on a bog standard pair of headphones from somewhere like Argos (UK) or Walmart (USA), will also do a certain amount of research ?  Would that new found knowledge not upgrade them to enthusiast at least, if not audiophile ?  Thus making them aware of the phenomenon mentioned above and making their choice more informed ?

​If they listen to less than ideal recordings and poor quality file formats, surely they would not even consider headphones such as the HD800 or T1's as these would just make poor recordings sound worse ?

​Why do non audiophiles listen to music louder ?  DO they ?  Where does this come from; is it assumption ?  And your bass boost comment... where on earth does that come from ?  Do you mean to say that most of the general population all stand in front of their living room loudspeakers or go to live gigs all the time with the stereo blasting at them full on ?  That's a little odd to be honest.

I agree, CBonUK. The line of reasoning that Me x3 just shared is the old flawed headphone designer line of thought from the 90s and early 00s when the HD6xx was in its heyday. As a matter of fact, what he shared is almost exactly word for word from HeadRoom's late written explanation on how to interpret their graphing system. I was expecting him to share some experiences he had with real people but it appears he does not have any on-the-ground experience with these headphones.
 
Maybe those who are not musically trained or musically inclined would fall under his category of the "general" population. From what I have seen, I listened to the HD 650 with family members who are not audiophiles and the conclusion they came to (as was mine) was they did see the appeal in the HD 650. Perhaps one of the reasons the HD 800 exists is Sennheiser fundamentally misunderstood how most people interpret music in the general population when they created the HD 650 and HD 600. Tyll's comments on InnerFidelity are very enlightening on the subject of bass in headphones:

If you read the Harman papers carefully you'll find they thought this might be the case, but in further experiments they found that people were selecting about 2dB LESS bass in headphones than on speakers. Totally counterintuitive, but there you have it. None the less, I do agree that a +2 or 3dB bass boost below 120Hz is likely proper for pleasing listening.

Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-test-estimated-harman-target-response-curve-various-headphones#FVi0F2YDPTa9jt1i.99

Studies have found people actually prefer less bass in headphone listening than speakers, not more as Me x3's is stating below. I was simply wondering if someone has ever shared a T1 and HD 800 with their friends and colleagues who are not audiophiles and seen one of those two headphones preferred over the other and why exactly they preferred them. Maybe I should move my question to its own thread and see if I can get a more adequate answer than what I am getting here.

 

[Me x3]

  I'm amazed to read this.  I would have considered myself part of the "general population" until I started researching headphones.  Surely most people who are interested enough to spend more than £50-100 on a bog standard pair of headphones from somewhere like Argos (UK) or Walmart (USA), will also do a certain amount of research ?  Would that new found knowledge not upgrade them to enthusiast at least, if not audiophile ?  Thus making them aware of the phenomenon mentioned above and making their choice more informed ?

​If they listen to less than ideal recordings and poor quality file formats, surely they would not even consider headphones such as the HD800 or T1's as these would just make poor recordings sound worse ?

​Why do non audiophiles listen to music louder ?  DO they ?  Where does this come from; is it assumption ?  And your bass boost comment... where on earth does that come from ?  Do you mean to say that most of the general population all stand in front of their living room loudspeakers or go to live gigs all the time with the stereo blasting at them full on ?  That's a little odd to be honest.

First of all, I've started my post with the expression "In my experience"
 
I'm not completely sure I get the point of your post, but I'll try to reply to your questions anyway.
 
Not everyone who spend £50-100 is obliged to dig deep into audiophile territory (soundstage/imaging/sound signatures/harmonic distortion/audiophile labels/dedicated DACs, etc.), more often than not people just want a good set of headphones and that's it, and it's perfectly fine.
 
Poor quality recordings/formats/bad transcodes normally sound relatively bad on the T1 and bad/very bad on the HD800.
On the other hand, they can sound quite pleasing on HD650 for instance. That's why many of us keep a darkish headphone around, despite owning more capable headphones.
HD800 with a poor quality recording is like using a Ferrari on a broken road, not a great idea. The suspension is too stiff and will reveal the state of the road in an unwanted manner.
 
Most experienced audiophiles I know listen to music for hours a day, so they can not listen to music at loud levels, otherwise they would compromise their hearing health. Most non audiophile people I know is more used to live shows and disco/party music levels which is not that healthy, so they tend to crank the volume to get more wow factor, more so with headphones which lack the body feel. More often than not, they don't keep listening to music for continuous (2,3,4) hours like some of us do. You'll find tons of exceptions, that's granted, this is no general rule, just something I've noted through the years with friends and customers.
 
The bass boost thing is a well known phenomena. Even on latest studies made by headphone target response specialist Dr. Sean Olive you'll find a boost in the bass as preferred by a majority of listeners. If you're listening to top class recordings like those from Chesky Records for example, best chances are you'll like them more with neutralish headphones, but if you're listening to mainstream ultracompressed music then headphones like HD800 might sound lifeless / harsh or simply unengaging.

 

[Me x3]

  I agree, CBonUK. The line of reasoning that Me x3 just shared is the old flawed headphone designer line of thought from the 90s and early 00s when the HD6xx was in its heyday. As a matter of fact, what he shared is almost exactly word for word from HeadRoom's late written explanation on how to interpret their graphing system. I was expecting him to share some experiences he had with real people but it appears he does not have any on-the-ground experience with these headphones. Maybe those who are not musically trained or musically inclined would fall under his category of the "general" population. From what I have seen, I listened to the HD 650 with family members who are not audiophiles and the conclusion they came to (as was mine) was they did see the appeal in the HD 650. Perhaps one of the reasons the HD 800 exists is Sennheiser fundamentally misunderstood how most people interpret music in the general population when they created the HD 650 and HD 600. Tyll's comments on InnerFidelity are very enlightening on the subject of bass in headphones:
Studies have found people actually prefer less bass in headphone listening than speakers, not more as Me x3's is stating below. I was simply wondering if someone has ever shared a T1 and HD 800 with their friends and colleagues who are not audiophiles and seen one of those two headphones preferred over the other and why exactly they preferred them. Maybe I should move my question to its own thread and see if I can get a more adequate answer than what I am getting here.

Are you joking?
 
HD6x0 sells like candy since two decades ago, for a reason.
Look around and you'll find plenty of people saying HD800 is bass light / HD800 is too bright.
That's why there is an HD800S
 
Beyer had to tweak the T1 because people wanted more bass.
AKG had to tweak the K702 because people wanted more bass.
 
Dynamic range has gone lower and lower through the years so less dynamic contrast is present on modern recordings, and more need for a slight boost to get the desired punch.
 
I own both T1 and HD800 along with other headphones, I've tried many of them and shared most of them with plenty of customers and friends. I'm in here and on different forums since quite a lot of years ago. I've been at audio shows as exhibitor receiving customers for listening test. If that's not enough on ground experience for you, not sure what you're expecting.

 

[Me x3]

 

 
Here's Harman response:
 
Black (2013) and blue (2015)

 

[Hifihedgehog]

 
Are you joking?

Are you joking?
 
See the link. It might break some of the long-repeated pieces of advice that you are sharing that are not necessarily true. There is some truth to what you are saying about people owning multiple headphones in their headphone "stable" for certain uses, such as less treble, more bass and so on. But many have their older pair for the simple reason because it was the very first serious pair they bought in the hobby and they are holding onto it for sentimental reasons. The HD 6xx line has sold again and again because, similar to Beats in consumer products, Sennheiser has been a longstanding name in the audiophile business. I also hardly feel a loud floor of an audio show constitutes an accurate listening experience compared to listening in quiet listening room.

People have also complained about the increase in bass in the HD 800S, in the T1 2nd Gen and, to a lesser degree, in the K712. I just read two reviews which went through explaining the difference and how the user ultimately preferred the original T1 or original HD 800 because it was more natural and real. I think the problem is companies in general have a serious issue listening to what they want to hear from people rather than what people have been trying to tell them all along. Just look in the software industry with Microsoft. Under Steve Ballmer, they were having major customer satisfaction issues; Ballmer also was one of the worst rated CEOs in Fortune 500 because he didn't listen to his employees. Now, with Satya Nadella, they actually listen. 
 
The Harman white paper is quite clear. Most people in their ongoing polling preferred less bass rather than more bass when given the choice in their headphone testing. Yet Harman chose to go against what their user data was telling them and arbitrarily added more bass to create we have now as the final result in the Estimated Harman Target Response Curve. I personally think they should go back to the drawing board and rethink their assumptions rather than trying to assert conclusions contrary to their research data. That is what would be natural and the scientific process actually teaches. But that is just me. Here are Tyll's own words again if you don't believe me:
 

If you read the Harman papers carefully you'll find they thought this might be the case, but in further experiments they found that people were selecting about 2dB LESS bass in headphones than on speakers. Totally counterintuitive, but there you have it. None the less, I do agree that a +2 or 3dB bass boost below 120Hz is likely proper for pleasing listening.

Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-test-estimated-harman-target-response-curve-various-headphones#FVi0F2YDPTa9jt1i.99
 

 

[Me x3]

  Are you joking?
 
See the link. It might break some of the long-repeated pieces of advice that you are sharing that are not necessarily true. There is some truth to what you are saying about people owning multiple headphones in their headphone "stable" for certain uses, such as less treble, more bass and so on. But many have their older pair for the simple reason because it was the very first serious pair they bought in the hobby and they are holding onto it for sentimental reasons. 
 
The Harman white paper is quite clear. Most people in their ongoing polling preferred less bass rather than more bass when given the choice in their headphone testing. Yet Harman chose to go against what their user data was telling them and arbitrarily add more bass to what we have as the final result in the Estimated Harman Target Response Curve. I personally think they should go back to the drawing board and rethink their assumptions rather than trying to assert conclusions contrary to their research data. That is what the natural scientific choice would be. But that is just me.

 

 
I'm not sure how that experiment was implemented, it can be flawed. The experiments restrict many variables, so the results might or might not be representative of actual preference. Finding an ideal headphone target response is a very tricky and not entirely possible task.
 
Last month I've borrowed an HD650 and a DT880 to a friend of mine, he's a guitarist but not used to headphones.
He preferred HD650 and didn't liked DT880.
 
Some weeks ago, I've told my girlfriend to pick one of my headphones.
She compared K712, HD800, DT880 and HD650, she picked HD650.
 
Three days ago she compared HD650 with K812, she kept HD650.
 
There are many variables involved so you can not oversimplify them.
Listening to Keane and listening to Arne Domnerus is not the same.
Listening critically and listening for relaxing is not the same.
Listening loud and listening at shy levels is not the same.
 
As I've said before, it's not arbitrary that HD580/600/650 sold like candy for decades and K701/DT880/T1/HD800 had to move to warmer versions.
 
And I don't like the HD650 much. I've always preferred more neutral headphones.
But I've had the chance to ask hundreds of listeners about their preference and the music they normally play, and paid attention to their preferred listening levels.
 
If you want someone with experience in the matter to tell you what you want to hear, then keep searching.
In my experience, non audiophiles who like music tend to find headphones like HD650 easier on the ears and more versatile for a wider range of genres.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

 
There are many variables involved so you can not oversimplify them.
Listening to Keane and listening to Arne Domnerus is not the same.
Listening critically and listening for relaxing is not the same.
Listening loud and listening at shy levels is not the same.

A clear window to the sound will produce the appropriate, precise rendering to the sound.
As a result, listening to Keane and listening to Arne Domnerus will not be the same.
Listening critically and listening for relaxing will not be the same.
Listening loudly and listening at low levels will not be the same.
Why? A precise audio system will vary accordingly to match the source.
 
Here is an example from my own observations with headphones that summarizes what I have found regular people have liked and not liked in audiophile headphones Two summers ago, my family had a chance to listen to various headphones at Sweetwater, a prestigious pro audio store. They listened to the AKG K 812, K 701, Shure SRH-1540, Sennheiser HD 600, HD 650, and HD 800. Unsurprisingly, the bassiest models, the Sennheiser HD 650 and SRH-1540, were the least liked of the group. The AKG K 812 came last not because of less bass but because it had an unnatural peakiness in the treble.
 
The HD 600 and K 701 were a close call with the K 701 coming out ahead since it was clearer though the midrange seemed a little "plasticky." (Funny enough, a metaphor from them is what others have said here about these headphones. I no longer owned the Q 701 at the time because I did not like their tonality.) The HD 800 was, by and large, the most liked by all. Everyone loved how they could see the individual sounds sort of like they were individual transparencies on a projector. They thought the bass actually was quite good. They also loved how crystal clear everything sounded.
 
So there you have it. In general, this has also what I have found in sharing my headphones with dates, roommates, work buddies, friends from church groups, and classmates for the last five or so years. These are average Joe non-audiophiles who came to the same conclusions without me telling them which headphone to like. Maybe people in general are quite terrible in their analytical listening. Then again, maybe there are people who actually have the attention span to listen critically. Hope for humanity? Maybe I associate with too many music nerds and golden-eared people compared to society in general. All I know is the people I hang around consistently just don't like that classic warm Sennheiser sound. Chock up my life experience as an outlier in the grand scheme of things, I suppose.

 

[Argyris]

I came to the conclusion a while ago to stop making excuses for gear that didn't please me. The ultimate goal is to enjoy the music coming out of the headphone, no matter what anybody claims is the "correct" way for it to sound. I've enjoyed my DT880 for many years, though I, too, fell into the trap of making excuses for its shortcomings. I blamed the recordings and genres when things sounded less engaging or more fatiguing than I would have liked (at least before applying parametric EQ). Years of experience and nearly a year now owning an HD 600 have taught me that this is a silly line of thinking. The thing that was causing the problem for me--the lower treble spike in the DT880--was the culprit, not everything else in the world.
 
The DT880 still has a place in my listening rotation--it's a master at classical, particularly massed strings and vocals. But I have to admit, to myself and to the DT880 thread in which I've been quite effusive in my praise of said headphone in the past, that the HD 600 just works better for me overall. It's not an issue of the rest of the music world being flawed and the HD 600 just happening to compensate--the DT880 is just bright up top. It's a coloration I find pleasing in certain contexts (see: classical), but it's nonetheless a coloration. The HD 600 isn't immune to this sort of thing--it has extra energy in the presence region that some listeners find objectionable. It just so happens that I don't; I can live with this or even enjoy it in a way that, if I'm being honest with myself, was never quite the case with the DT880's lower treble. Where I am with the HD 600 is where many DT880 listeners find themselves--the extra brightness of the latter isn't perceived by them as bothersome.
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the idea of pinning down what sounds objectively "correct", especially if that involves the mental gymnastics of accusing the vast amount of production of being "wrong", is missing the point, particularly if it involves slogging through a presentation of the music that one doesn't enjoy (e.g. putting up with sibilance and fatigue), or, worse yet, avoiding music one enjoys just because one's ostensibly "correct" headphone doesn't render it to one's satisfaction. At the end of the day the thing that needs to sound "correct" is the music, not the headphone.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

  I came to the conclusion a while ago to stop making excuses for gear that didn't please me. The ultimate goal is to enjoy the music coming out of the headphone, no matter what anybody claims is the "correct" way for it to sound. 

I totally agree with the idea of avoiding the pitfall of denial and not giving excuses for a piece of equipment if it does not meet certain expectations. For this reason, the HD 600 was the one headphone that had the shortest term of ownership versus all others that I ever had which I promptly sold within two weeks. It was also the one that got the most negative responses from the people I shared it with, the most common response being it was boring and sounded muffled from my friends and family when they gave them a try. Fast forward to today, I am the most pleased with my Beyerdynamic DT 880-600's out of the headphones I have owned to date, but I have been in the process of creating a review site and have had the idea of buying a TOTL headphone in the cards for some time. In my original plans, the DT 880-600 was both an experiment and an interim headphone I had in mind until late this year after graduation when I would then buy either the T1 1st Gen or HD 800. However, I am thinking more and more of bumping up the review site project and also getting the TOTL earlier than originally planned. So it is not a case at all with being dissatisfied with the DT 880-600's. Quite the contrary, I am enjoying them very much so at this very moment while I am typing up this response. Thank you for your concern and willingness to share your thoughts so I could avoid a very common pitfall of buyer's denial but that is not the case here at all, actually.

 

[Me x3]

  A clear window to the sound will produce the appropriate, precise rendering to the sound.
As a result, listening to Keane and listening to Arne Domnerus will not be the same.
Listening critically and listening for relaxing will not be the same.
Listening loudly and listening at low levels will not be the same.
Why? A precise audio system will vary accordingly to match the source.
 
Here is an example from my own observations with headphones that summarizes what I have found regular people have liked and not liked in audiophile headphones Two summers ago, my family had a chance to listen to various headphones at Sweetwater, a prestigious pro audio store. They listened to the AKG K 812, K 701, Shure SRH-1540, Sennheiser HD 600, HD 650, and HD 800. Unsurprisingly, the bassiest models, the Sennheiser HD 650 and SRH-1540, were the least liked of the group. The AKG K 812 came last not because of less bass but because it had an unnatural peakiness in the treble.
 
The HD 600 and K 701 were a close call with the K 701 coming out ahead since it was clearer though the midrange seemed a little "plasticky." (Funny enough, a metaphor from them is what others have said here about these headphones. I no longer owned the Q 701 at the time because I did not like their tonality.) The HD 800 was, by and large, the most liked by all. Everyone loved how they could see the individual sounds sort of like they were individual transparencies on a projector. They thought the bass actually was quite good. They also loved how crystal clear everything sounded.
 
So there you have it. In general, this has also what I have found in sharing my headphones with dates, roommates, work buddies, friends from church groups, and classmates for the last five or so years. These are average Joe non-audiophiles who came to the same conclusions without me telling them which headphone to like. Maybe people in general are quite terrible in their analytical listening. Then again, maybe there are people who actually have the attention span to listen critically. Hope for humanity? Maybe I associate with too many music nerds and golden-eared people compared to society in general. All I know is the people I hang around consistently just don't like that classic warm Sennheiser sound. Chock up my life experience as an outlier in the grand scheme of things, I suppose.

Matching the source is not the target for the vast majority of people buying headphones. Making music believable/enjoyable is.
I can not say if your experience is an outlier or not. I can only share my experience which goes in line with sell rates, most impressions I've seen around, and recent years industry decisions.
 
HD800 is a relatively coloured headphone in my book, I always know I'm listening through HD800 when listening through HD800.
More so than DT880. It's a powerful tool though and I enjoy it very much with some recordings when I'm on an HD800 mood.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

  Matching the source is not the target for the vast majority of people buying headphones. Making music believable/enjoyable is.
I can not say if your experience is an outlier or not. I can only share my experience which goes in line with sell rates, most impressions I've seen around, and recent years industry decisions.
 
HD800 is a relatively coloured headphone in my book, I always know I'm listening through HD800 when listening through HD800.
More so than DT880. It's a powerful tool though and I enjoy it very much with some recordings when I'm on an HD800 mood.

So to get back to the crux and main reason for this whole conversation, would you say the HD 800 is more colored than the T1, given the T1 is more organic in your own words?

 

[Me x3]

  So to get back to the crux and main reason for this whole conversation, would you say the HD 800 is more colored than the T1, given the T1 is more organic in your own words?

 
 
T1 sounds more natural but sacrifices some clarity in the midrange.
The clarity is there on HD800, you can hear what's missing on the T1, but it doesn't sound necessarily realistic.
 
Different kind of coloration, I would say.
 
T1 has too much presence in the lower mids and it's sharp and sparkly like most Beyers.
HD800 is too dry, bass light for many recordings and has boosted 6kHz (more than DT880) so it has a tendency to sound steely.
 
Beyer T1 colouration messes with ultimate clarity to my ears, but not much with naturalness.
HD800 colouration boost clarity but messes with naturalness.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

   
 
T1 sounds more natural but sacrifices some clarity in the midrange.
The clarity is there on HD800, you can hear what's missing on the T1, but it doesn't sound necessarily realistic.
 
Different kind of coloration, I would say.
 
T1 has too much presence in the lower mids and it's sharp and sparkly like most Beyers.
HD800 is too dry, bass light for many recordings and has boosted 6kHz (more than DT880) so it has a tendency to sound steely.
 
Beyer T1 colouration messes with clarity to my ears, but not much with naturalness.
HD800 colouration boost clarity but messes with naturalness.

One last follow up. Is there a greater or lesser sense of treble air above 10 KHz with the T1 1st Gen versus the HD 800? One common complaint I have about Sennheisers in general is the lack of uppermost treble or air. My DT 880-600 does great in this regard, which I can hardly say of the HD 600. It has been two long years since I listened to the HD 800 and I am trying hard to aurally remember them as the responses I wrote in the previous posts have faded mostly into textual memories of what my family and I liked about them. I clearly do remember them having a good deal of treble air, though, when I listened to orchestral pieces.

 

[Me x3]

My HD800 has just a tad more air than my DT880 Pro. My T1.1 slightly less air than DT880 Pro

 

[Hifihedgehog]

My HD800 has just a tad more air than my DT880 Pro. My T1.1 slightly less air than DT880 Pro

That leads me to believe I could likely prefer the HD 800, notwithstanding its treble peak and slight tonality issues. Is there anyone else with experience with a T1 1st Gen and an HD 800 who can comment on the amount of uppermost treble air each have? One thing I actually do not like skimping on is uppermost treble air. As a flutist for many years prior to college, I am quite partial to uppermost treble air. If there is extra or more of uppermost treble air, I err towards that extreme and enjoy it shameless and wholeheartedly. Light tinkly nuances like the fading ring of cymbal work and the metallic airiness of flutes are those little details I really like hearing.