[alpeggio]

I have bought my first pair of high end phones just recently (Grado 325i) and I do agree on them being harsh in the lower-upper registers. I have to use a equalizer when listing, just drop the 2 khz frequency because I can't stand it otherwise. But the sound is freaking detailed. You do notice everything even at really low volumes. The upper treble however is not harsh, my old pair of SR80's were worse.

I never really heard any high end Sennheisers but I have a MX550 inear's and they have a very comfortable sound. My ears are very sensitive so maybe this "veil" wouldn't be so bad for me. I probably would have like the less forward HD650 too.

 

[mirumu]

Davesrose, it looks to me like you and humanflyz are arguing from entirely different perspectives, neither of which is wrong. In fact I'm not even sure you're really in disagreement. I agree with you that if you like what you have then why look elsewhere or pay more? There's a lot to be said for finding a headphone that does it right for you. Just because something is expensive doesn't make it better. I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. We all have our likes, dislikes and favorites for various reasons. I think it's just good to be open, maybe some new headphone we've never heard will be better.

Humanflyz appears to be saying that without hearing some of the highly regarded cans it's hard to determine a point of reference to compare with the HD650 and I think this is true also. As an example people often say that the HD595 lacks bass. Personally I never found that to be the case but when compared to the Omega 2 the HD595 does lack bass (or does the O2 just have more bass?). At the very least though after the comparison I can understand why someone would say the HD595 lacks bass. Even having said that it still doesn't bother me and doesn't make me think any less of the HD595. To some people it will matter, to each their own. Having the O2 as a reference point does make the understanding more clear though. I'm sure that listening to more well respected cans would provide even more insight when judging a quality headphone.

I don't consider the Omega 2 perfect either but it's good enough for my tastes and the few complaints I might have about it are small on the scale of things. Other people may have big issues with it for some reason or another and they may well be right but it's not going to put me off them. If someone who owned a HE90 told me the O2s were veiled, maybe they are right, I really don't know and it probably wouldn't bother me. It's not going to make me feel like spending $6000+ to buy a pair. If I hear them and they do sound much better, well then maybe I'd start saving.

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I hear them and they do sound much better, well then maybe I'd start saving.

Tempting fate there, are you?

 

[cotdt]

this thread will soon surpass the "Mod your Zhaolu" thread

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tempting fate there, are you?

Nah, I already know I'd like them. From the impressions I've read it seems exactly my kind of thing. It would seem to be in the category of diminishing returns vs the Omega 2 though.

 

[rsaavedra]

Original: Das Sennheiser engineerish resertchzen "wieal" unt der hedphonenm subjectash. Fur analytz das deep unt now, but whatz hells people unt talk aboutz genau unt figureouten. Anyjoo, das documentz leakish est unt news subjectzen

Translation: Creditable sources say that Sennheiser engineers have been quietly researching for some time now this subject of the so called "veal" associated to their headphones. They have analyzed the matter in depth by now, and they are still quite puzzled trying to figure out what those people are talking about. In any case, some documents in their investigations have leaked, which is the actual subject of this news:

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Humanflyz appears to be saying that without hearing some of the highly regarded cans it's hard to determine a point of reference to compare with the HD650 and I think this is true also. As an example people often say that the HD595 lacks bass. Personally I never found that to be the case but when compared to the Omega 2 the HD595 does lack bass (or does the O2 just have more bass?). At the very least though after the comparison I can understand why someone would say the HD595 lacks bass. Even having said that it still doesn't bother me and doesn't make me think any less of the HD595. To some people it will matter, to each their own. Having the O2 as a reference point does make the understanding more clear though. I'm sure that listening to more well respected cans would provide even more insight when judging a quality headphone.

Someone doesn't have to listen to an expensive headphone to notice if a headphone is veiled or not. That's my point. It seems like Humanflyz was saying that you can't form an opinion on your phone's tonality untill you've listened to the stated "best". I have enough background in music to understand what is being presented to me: even if I don't know all about the physioacoustic principles that go on with headphone and pinna. One shouldn't form an opinion of how music should be reproduced by whatever headphone is the most expensive or "the best" on this site was my assertion. I judge by the music that I play on my classical guitar and what I hear at concerts. When presented logically, I know what those that don't like Sennheiser's don't like about them. While I think it has enough detail and resolution for my needs, others like more detail or a different soundstage. Why can't we leave it at that??? In this thread, I have said repeated times how I can see how a headphone would be perceived as veil by someone who's looking for a different presentation. It's partly their ears,temperament, and preferences.

Now those that still want to keep at the horse: keep the flame up....I for one am tired that there isn't much intellectual reference to musicality. This thread is evident

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Original: Das Sennheiser engineerish resertchzen "wieal" unt der hedphonenm subjectash. Fur analytz das deep unt now, but whatz hells people unt talk aboutz genau unt figureouten. Anyjoo, das documentz leakish est unt news subjectzen Translation: Creditable sources say that Sennheiser engineers have been quietly researching for some time now this subject of the so called "veal" associated to their headphones. They have analyzed it in depth by now, and they are still quite puzzled trying to figure out what people is talking about. In any case, some documents in their investigations have leaked, which is the actual subject of this news:

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Someone doesn't have to listen to an expensive headphone to notice if a headphone is veiled or not. That's my point.

Being a relative thing, you need something to compare it to. Live music works the best.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Being a relative thing, you need something to compare it to. Live music works the best.

Exactly! Buried in this thread in here, I stated the tonality of the Vienna Philharmornic I heard in person= the tonality of my headphones on my setup (the CD of the exact performance concurs). Now others have different ears and they'll find another headphone more reference for their point of reference. So why do we need so much deja vu

*yawn*

no more posts for me today

 

[Carl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif So why do we need so much deja vu

People like to think that their hearing is some absolute quality. Humans are like that.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Someone doesn't have to listen to an expensive headphone to notice if a headphone is veiled or not. That's my point. It seems like Humanflyz was saying that you can't form an opinion on your phone's tonality untill you've listened to the stated "best". I have enough background in music to understand what is being presented to me: even if I don't know all about the physioacoustic principles that go on with headphone and pinna. One shouldn't form an opinion of how music should be reproduced by whatever headphone is the most expensive or "the best" on this site was my assertion. I judge by the music that I play on my classical guitar and what I hear at concerts. When presented logically, I know what those that don't like Sennheiser's don't like about them. While I think it has enough detail and resolution for my needs, others like more detail or a different soundstage. Why can't we leave it at that??? In this thread, I have said repeated times how I can see how a headphone would be perceived as veil by someone who's looking for a different presentation. It's partly their ears,temperament, and preferences. Now those that still want to keep at the horse: keep the flame up....I for one am tired that there isn't much intellectual reference to musicality. This thread is evident

No need to talk of flaming, it seems like a reasonable discussion to me. I think you're right in a lot of what you say there. Having said that, people do make purchasing decisions based on what is said on these forums. If we cannot compare a headphone against others and even criticise them then people will not get as accurate a view of the strengths and weaknesses of any particular headphone. If you are right and everyone is looking for a different presentation then any impressions we give on any headphone wouldn't be of much use. A quick look around these forums makes it clear this is not really the case, there's a lot of agreement on headphones in general. When it comes to the HD650 veil, it seems some say it is there and others say there isn't. Makes me think there's something like a 50/50 chance someone will hear something they think is a veil when trying out the HD650. Up to them I guess. Nothing to get bothered about.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif No need to talk of flaming, it seems like a reasonable discussion to me. I think you're right in a lot of what you say there. Having said that, people do make purchasing decisions based on what is said on these forums. If we cannot compare a headphone against others and even criticise them then people will not get as accurate a view of the strengths and weaknesses of any particular headphone. If you are right and everyone is looking for a different presentation then any impressions we give on any headphone wouldn't be of much use. A quick look around these forums makes it clear this is not really the case, there's a lot of agreement on headphones in general. When it comes to the HD650 veil, it seems some say it is there and others say there isn't. Makes me think there's something like a 50/50 chance someone will hear something they think is a veil when trying out the HD650. Up to them I guess. Nothing to get bothered about.

The only thing I got bothered about on this flamed dead horse was that my perception of the HD650 being a good reference classical headphone was questioned many a time. As if I didn't know music because I haven't listened to the HE90. Now maybe when it gets to be an instance of trying to say what headphone you think is best to your ears for a particular genre: we should give specific examples. Not get in rediculous arguements of questioning the other person's appraisal skills because, as in the case of the HD650 and k1000, what tonality really is. If people want to question me about my choice in the HD650 as a headphone for symphonies, then don't tell me just what the other headphone is better at: tell me what movement you listened to and how the instruments sounded. Not this arguement that the HD650 can never be a reference headphone because of a percieved veil. I have never argued that it has a softer midrange: but I like it for my music genres because of extension. Other people like more detail in that range: so odds are they'll like AKG. As listed before on this site, people's ears are shaped differently as well: So it could be that we're hearing slight differences in detail, extension, and soundstage. But our perception of what gives a particular song impact isn't so different. This is just a suggestion.....so that we don't get into these endless loops of argueing just what quantitatively a reference headphone is. Now this is a suggestion. I'm really going to bed now!

 

[granodemostasa]

there is something about sennheiser that makes it special. it crosses all of their high end cans, from the HD580 to the mighty orpheus... it actually has to do with how the strings of an orchestra sound. i believe that this is the "tonality" that daverose speaks about and i can completely agree with.

nevertheless i agree with Humanflyz that there are limitations that are unkown until they are compared to higher end gear. the first recording was said to be a perfect rendition of live sound... yet if anyone ever heard it today, it would be called low-fi. why? because there have been changes that have raised our expectations for what sound reproduction can be like. when i go out and start listening to big K1000 rigs, the e-stats and those high end sony and ATH headphones the limitations of the HD650 become clear. it is one of those limitations, the inability to project full resolution and detail (although the HD650 does have alot of detail, just not as much) that i like to call the Sennheiser veil. this doesn't make me hate my headphone, it just lets me know that there are other things out there. (really,i'm talking in absolute terms, the HD650 is not actually lacking in detail, it just doesn't have the full 100 percent).

no, i'm not a real fan of the K1000, i think it lacks weight, sounds edgy and doesn't always play notes with authority.. nevertheless it does do some wonderful things with the soundstage and it's detail that are noteworthy when comparing them to other cans.

also i dont' always buy these "different ears" or "what is neutral/natural to you" arguements. if it is there, it is there if it's not then it's not. why... it's simple, dada, Humanflyz, yellafella321 all have different music preferences, different amps, sources and headphone likes. nevertheless, when we start comparing the same amp or source the preceptions are always the same. it's only when we get to things like "does the K1000 have enougth bass" that people start to disagree (which is explained by the fact that we all have different reference headphones).

btw, i dont' get why sennheiser has to have all these dips.. the HE90 is flat and by far it is considered to be the best can in the world.

also in my not so humble opinion: the DT990 is a piece of crap, so dont even get me started on it...

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lmilhan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ditto, except for the part where I will be trying for the 100th time, I gave up after 3 attempts.

I had a similar experience. I really liked them the first time around since they were my first real good pair of cans. The second time, after I had more experience, was that I still liked them but not as much as before, I had heard headphones that were better suited for my tastes. The third time I put them on for five minutes then ripped them off because I couldn't stand them any longer. Maybe that whole third times the charm thing also works opposite.

P.S.-I'm not ripping into the Senn 650 lovers, just couldn't listen to them anymore personally.