[granodemostasa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, I don't think that the HD650 is the end all be all for everyone. I do think that we seem to say everyone should aspire to the k1000, R10, HE90, or O2 on here...when I'm not sure it's a given that there's an ultimate. I just know that I completely am at peace with the HD650 with my setup and music tastes. I really do believe that for the person first joining this site, looking for their first can, they should look at a begining Grado, AKG, Beyer, and Sennheiser to make sure that it gels with their music preferences. I always recommend the HD595 for a better begining Sennheiser house sound. If that person is a metal or hard rock fan, then I know they'll more then likely like a Grado. If a person likes electronica and rap: then a begining Beyer. I've just been on a high horse about the HD650 when I hear that it completely lacks detail But I think I'm gonna wheen myself off this site after this thread!!!

then it is my duty to keep you here.
now let me me clearer... there are things on the tape that are more noticable with the K1000/HE90 than with the HD650. the best example is those can's ability to project every movement and character of the insturmentalist's presentation to the audience. with the HD650, you do hear it, but it is blended or it is there but lacking in it's relation to the whole. go listen to a good orchestra and you'll know what i'm talking about. with the K1000 and the HE90, the images and musicians are as clear as an ansel adams picture (or even a sculpture). with the HD650, they are an impressionist painting.
Now i've heard just about every possible amp (balenced, high end SP, Eddie current, Headroom, head amp, dynamight) with the HD650, and these characteristics just don't go away.
I'm used to the Frequency response, and that's not what i deem to be a veil.. but it is this inability to focus that i think is a more veil like quality.

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually I'm satisfied with all my choices and evolution of the sounds I now experience, after ridding myself of the Sennheiser VEIL.... veil evil ... veil evil ;-}

I understand now... the veil is CRAP! Crap crap crap!

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif go listen to a good orchestra and you'll know what i'm talking about.

I do go to concerts....I know what a symphony sounds like: I recently was at a performance of the Vienna Philharmonic with Placido Domingo conducting. I now have the CD of that concert. It takes me right back to it: I'm not missing any of the tonality of the orginal live event.

I haven't listened to the HE90, but I have listened to the k1000. Now it's not a bad headphone....some really like it's larger/ improved soundstage. But tonally it didn't seem as right as being an audience member with a full orchastra. A symphony needs resolution: something that to my ears the k1000 didn't have as much as my HD650 does with me. That's my preference. For whatever reason, you don't like the HD650: it doesn't mean it's lacking of detail.

My betime now, so I won't be back to this thread for awhile!!

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have you read Darth Nut's STAX Omega 2 review?: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41442 This is the single best post I have read on any message board. It's not really even a review of the Omega 2. More for what to listen for in music.

Hey, thanx for the linky J-Pac, excellent read of headphonespeak ;-}

/I do love trying to understand these concepts better for my own digestion. I will return to that link for many rereads also, I'm sure; Having only first given it a cursory overlook, it is indeed a useful link.

 

[J-Pak]

No more arguing.

 

[granodemostasa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif For whatever reason, you don't like the HD650: it doesn't mean it's lacking of detail.

No. look at my sig, i'm an HD650 fanboy myself. but i know this can's limitations when i hear them. the reason why i keep rebutting you is because i think you are making the HD650 look bad. and yes, my problem with the HD650 is precisely beacuase of what they do to detail.

and i urge you to listen to the K1000 on a very good set up.. it's right up there. i thought they were complete crap when i first heard them on the RSA raptor, they are highly amp sensitive.

also
this isn't to be critical of the HD650, but the can really does speak for itself. i don't think that there is anything approaching it in it's own price range. but it is good to hear things like the HE90, K1000, R10, L3k to get a good sense of the limitations of the HD650. in fact, i didn't think it had any limits until i heard these other cans.. not this isn't to say that the other headphones also don't have problems, they all have major weaknesses (except king orpheus) ; one headphone doesn't own a monopoly on all good traits.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Personally, I found the K-1000s to be very resolving and technically excellent in all aspects. I just don't like the soundstage, really, and I preferred the FR of the HD650s. Perhaps long-term ownership will change my view. Only time will tell. I just need to get my hands on one...

 

[Asr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif And so we're starved for choice. We end up with either the toilet bowl-look, anorexic AKG sound, the little-boyish Grado hot poker, or the somnambulant Sennheiser snore.

I take offense to this!

Not all AKGs have toilet bowl looks! (i.e., the K1xx and K2xx series) And there are plenty of Senn headphones that aren't in the HD line! And you completely sidelined Audio-Technica! Beyerdynamic! And Sony! And gosh darnit Koss too, with all that mass-market stock!

Indeed, there are a lot more brands out there I think you forgot about!

Now as for the HD650, I don't know what you guys are still ranting about. The veil believers aren't going to convince the veil haters (or vice versa) so why do you keep bothering? As for if it has a veil or not, I can't answer that, but in the 4 times I've heard it, I can say it's not a headphone for me, as I found it a bit dark - that doesn't mean it is dark, just that I thought it was. I do have to say though, it was the second-closest headphone I've ever heard to accurately portray tonal realism (the first is the HD600), hands down. The HD650 has a couple huge flaws to me, but that doesn't take away from my ranking it as the top second when it comes to giving a realistic sound. (Not that I mean to imply my current favorite cans give a realistic sound either though - because they don't, I own them for other reasons.)

 

[Enverxis]

Sennheisers require alot of juice to come into their own. They will sound "veiled" on a lesser amp, but when combined with something like a Dynahi (or something of similar power, driving capability) this is not the case, and you only have marvellous sound.

 

[Emon]

Er, the HD650s, for example, have a sensitivity of 103 dB/mW, there is no way they need something like a Dynahi.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif first of all, for full-sized cans the HTRF is already mostly built-in, so adding artificial "ear cues" would be redundant. none of the other headphone manufacters do this, so according to you Senn engineers must be so much smarter than all the other headphone engineers.

HRTF already built in? What are you talking about? Someone earlier on asked why some speaker makers didn't get into the biz, and it was answered that headphones were more like mics. That's true. They basically use the same machines to make mic and headphones diaphagms and coils. But building headphones is harder (in terms of making them accurate) than building mics. Here's why:

The normal pinna and torso reflections and acoustic effects occur in the far field. What that means is normal listening happens farther than 1/2 wavelength away from the sound source. (Not quite true because most rooms aren't big enough to get farther than 25 feet from the speakers at 20 Hz, but at 100 Hz once your 5 feet away you're not in the near field any more.) But with headphones, your ears are only maybe in inch from the driver, so you're in the nead field up to maybe 7 kHz. Worse yet, you're not only very close to the driver, but you're also in a chamber (the ear cup around your ear) which will give the sound a place to resonate in. To recap, with speaker listening, you are in the far field, with headphones you hear the sound through an "acoustic coupler". (If you were in the far field but acoustically coupled it would be called an "acoutic transmission line".) One of the characteristics of acoustic coupling and near field listening is the the directional characteristic of far field listening is largely lost because the sound isn't really travelling from A to B anymore so much as it is adding energy to the coupling chamber around your ear. The result is that pinna reflections mostly don't happen any more. Not only that but now you have this resonant chamber aroung your ear the has resonant characteristics that will amplify some frequencies and damp others. Add to that the fact that every one has a different outer ear shape and volume that will effect the resonant characteristic differently person-to-person. Add to that that things like glasses and long hair will spoil the Q (resonant efficiency) of the chamber at a different rate, and you end up with a might terrible problem getting headphones to sound neutral and the same on everybodies head. It's rather like trying to make a michrophone that will always sound good when you drop it into a tin can of indetermanent size. Bottom line, it is a VERY difficult task to make headphones sound like far field listening and the pinna cues are FAR, FAR from built in.

Also, I've visited Sennheiser and seen there engineering dept, and also AKG. I would say they both have similar world class engineering facilities and personal. I'm not a Sennheiser fan boy so much as a great admirer of technological prowess and both those organisations have that in spades. So, Sennheiser engineers aren't "smarter" than others so much as they have more technological tools and knowledge base for headphone development than most.

 

[R300]

I have not read all of this thread, however I am listening to Pendulum, Hold Your Colour on HD-580Js with the volume cranked up on my (fairly juicy) amp.

There is no hint of a veil.

My scientific opinion is that there is enough treble energy to power the South of England for the next decade. The senns just need a good amp.

Also, do not mistake lack of sibilance for a lack of treble energy.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. look at my sig, i'm an HD650 fanboy myself. but i know this can's limitations when i hear them. the reason why i keep rebutting you is because i think you are making the HD650 look bad. and yes, my problem with the HD650 is precisely beacuase of what they do to detail. and i urge you to listen to the K1000 on a very good set up.. it's right up there. i thought they were complete crap when i first heard them on the RSA raptor, they are highly amp sensitive. also this isn't to be critical of the HD650, but the can really does speak for itself. i don't think that there is anything approaching it in it's own price range. but it is good to hear things like the HE90, K1000, R10, L3k to get a good sense of the limitations of the HD650. in fact, i didn't think it had any limits until i heard these other cans.. not this isn't to say that the other headphones also don't have problems, they all have major weaknesses (except king orpheus) ; one headphone doesn't own a monopoly on all good traits.

I'm sorry granodemostasa that I'm making your 650s look bad by saying they're not veiled and really well balanced for classical music. You're the only HD650 fanboy on here that's saying they're veiled

Seems like k1000 fanboyism to me? You know the k1000 was priced a lot less then it is now a few years ago: so I think it can be compared with the 650 for sonic attributes.

Frankly, while you might have more experience listening to headphone gear, I don't think you have as much experience in classical music to be making these arguments. If you read through this thread, actual violinists on here have said that Sennheisers are the only headphone they've listened to that carries natural timbre

Now let me elaborate on my points about tonality for classical music. Contrary to what you feel about my music preferences, I am pretty versed in symphonic and chamber music. I've played a string instrument of one form or another for 22 years: I've actually been in a symphony. I also have been going to symphonies on a regular basis for 22 years.

Now let me elaborate by what I mean with resolution....as I don't think you're getting what is needed with a large symphony. Bare in mind that this is a generalization, so to do a real comparison of the k1000 vs HD650 I'm sure they can get close. What I like about the HD650 is its extension. The k1000 is always considered bass light as a main criticism. Well I found this to be really true of symphonic music. Resolution is not just detail: but it's also extension of treble and bass. What you're responding too is the extra upper mid level detail that AKGs exhibit. Yes, you're hearing more tape hiss because of that extra detail. While, the k1000 might sound crisper, it can also have less body for woodwinds and strings. This gets to refinement, and why I believe the HD650, when properly sourced/amped is very good at being a reference classical headphone. Much like you k1000 fanboy's assertion that the k1000 is good when properly sourced/amped.

I tried to be as critical as I could with the k1000 I demoed. It was at a headphone meet, and was with a Rega Saturn paired with a Pass Labs Aleph 30. The two CDs I used for demo were Rhapsody in Blue, Living Stereo:Boston Pops Orchestra (1959 and 1961). And Beethoven Violin Concerto in D, Heifetz and Munch conducting(1955). Picked Rhapsody because it's a very dynamic piece with lots of solos and full utilization of instruments. While the k1000 did seem a lot more refined then my k501, it still seemed to have emphasis in the upper mids. So for movements that used high pitched percussions, there was excitement. But when it switched to a clarinet or piano, well the timbre just wasn't what a symphony hall is like IMO. With soundstage, you also need weight and decay. The HD650s on my setup and ears seem better at it. Also, since the headphone is better isolated, it's easier to really get moved by crescendos. It was even more apparent when I switched over to Heifetz's Violin Concerto. Well it just seems like there's more body with Heifetz on the 650: I was able to immediately go from the k1000 to my HD650 on my setup....and it did seem that the old master was more alive with my 650.

I'm sure under the right circumstances, that the k1000 wouldn't have these problems of weight. But frankly, I'm finding the HD650 on my setup to be the most reference of classical music with any headphone I've listened to. I haven't listened to the uber expensive headphones yet, and maybe there is one that's better with classical. But you know what, I'm not chasing any dreams, I'm at a point where I'm enjoying my music!

So lets put away the AKG vs Sennheiser flames, and get to real discussions. Maybe we can agree to disagree about the finer points of these fine cans: it is a matter of perception as to how much detail or resolution a headphone might have.....so everyone's points may be valid (because of ears/setups).

OK, I'm done with my soap box.....actually will be good and am going to step away from this site for once

 

[augustwest]

And what designates 'properly?' Spending $5000 on an amp? I have an amp built by a former amp designer of Cary Audio, and I still hear a veil. I've heard a veil on every amp I've tried Sennheisers on. Even with very expensive source and amp equipment it's no different to me. A headphone's signature is a headphone's signature. Achieving proper synergy in a system will help lessen faults in any headphone.

The fact that you spent a lot of money on an amp that doesn't get the job done isn't the point. Nowhere did I equate "properly" with expensive as you have. I have found the Sennheiser 580/600/650's to perform without a hint of veil using very modest amplification. . . . . If you hear the veil on every amp you have tried then perhaps that not the problem, it may be something else, possibly cleaning out your ears, or maybe something else may help?

Achieving proper synergy in a system will help lessen faults in any headphone.

This is exactly what I am suggesting.

Can I just point out that it's really tiring to hear that the HD 600/650 requires some sort of mystic and magical audio signal that can only be derived through the use of extremely expensive source and amplifier technology? Unfortunately it's all too common of a practice around here to tell those not satisfied with the sound of their HD 650 that they need to upgrade to something more expensive and 'better.'

The only person here equating better and expensive is you, mystic, or magical is not required. Just comon sense and some basic equipment senergy. . . . . However, it would not be appropriate equip your new Porsche with re-treads either.

The HD 650 is no different from any other headphone-- they all have faults. Maximum enjoyment is achieved when the rest of the system is balanced to lessen those faults.

This seems to be the only point you & I agree on. All of this is a matter of personal subject taste and yours obviously does not run to the Sennheiser line of phones. Fair enough.

- augustwest

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa /img/forum/go_quote.gif then it is my duty to keep you here. now let me me clearer... there are things on the tape that are more noticable with the K1000/HE90 than with the HD650. the best example is those can's ability to project every movement and character of the insturmentalist's presentation to the audience. with the HD650, you do hear it, but it is blended or it is there but lacking in it's relation to the whole. go listen to a good orchestra and you'll know what i'm talking about. with the K1000 and the HE90, the images and musicians are as clear as an ansel adams picture (or even a sculpture). with the HD650, they are an impressionist painting. Now i've heard just about every possible amp (balenced, high end SP, Eddie current, Headroom, head amp, dynamight) with the HD650, and these characteristics just don't go away. I'm used to the Frequency response, and that's not what i deem to be a veil.. but it is this inability to focus that i think is a more veil like quality.

This is the best explanation so far.

Daverose,

You really need more time with the K-1000. Saying that is lacks resolution compared to the HD650 simply makes me wonder if you really got a good listen.

The HD650 is a wonderful headphone, and I think granodemostasa was just describing its characteristics which shouldn't be mistaken for a fault.

BTW, stick around here - don't let a few flames chase you away. Its nice to have you around