[shawnbowski]

Quote:

Originally posted by FrostyMMB People still use tubes from the WWII era. Quality audio components aren't always the most cutting edge in technology.

I agree

 

[temhem]

Quote:

Actually it's the first electrostat to equal dynamic headphones in terms of impact and dynamics.

The other way around?

Are the HD650 a lot better than the 600's? I haven't heard them yet. I have the 600's. If I buy something new, I will probably go for another sound all together. Not that I don't like the 600's, but life is short, you have to try a little of everything.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Quote:

Sennheiser has done a fine job with the HD 650. It may not have the exact same airiness and treble highlights as the Orpheus and not exactly the same smoothness and resolution as the Omega II, but in fact it leaves barely any wishes open and does everything right. Actually it's the first electrostat to equal dynamic headphones in terms of impact and dynamics.

I thought the HD 650's were dynamic. Your post suggests here that they are electrostat. Maybe you mistyped?

 

[grinch]

orpheus is great unless you like a little thing i like to call "bass response."


it amazes me that people still say that the orpheus is the best, despite numerous people who have heard both the omega 2 and the orpheus saying differently. the he90 and omega 2 headphones seem to be on the same level, however i've heard them both and for $7k (he90), they certainly aren't worth the extra money considering omega 2 can be had from under $2k from eifl.

also there is that whole bright vs. bass response deal.

 

[JaZZ]

The «mistyping» was pure intention.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Audio evolution is continuing apace in some areas (such as deployment of improved digital signal processing, digital amplifiers, etc) but moves rather slowly in other areas (such as loudspeakers.) While I think that groups are still improving headphone technology, quite a few of the favorite headphones discussed on this group are a decade old. And in other cases, I wonder if the changes are motivated more by marketing purposes than real advances in headphone technology.

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally posted by FrostyMMB People still use tubes from the WWII era. Quality audio components aren't always the most cutting edge in technology.

Mostly because hype sells at least as many units as cutting edge does.

 

[ph0rk]

Quote:

Originally posted by temhem What are these things called "speakers", and where can I get them? Also if you could help me with the 80000 I need to reach the same quality, that would be helpful.

If that is USD you seriously need to have your head examined.


Unless you listen to your speakers (and have always listened to speakers and/or performances) in an anechoic chamber, you are missing the reverb. Try adding a small amount along with some crossfeed to your headphones and listen to the "soundstage" open up.

 

[temhem]

Quote:

Originally posted by ph0rk If that is USD you seriously need to have your head examined. Unless you listen to your speakers (and have always listened to speakers and/or performances) in an anechoic chamber, you are missing the reverb. Try adding a small amount along with some crossfeed to your headphones and listen to the "soundstage" open up.

You are right. No amount of money is going to buy you a set of speakers (system) that sound as detailed as a very good headphone system.

If you listen to your speakers in an anechoic chamber, you would be missing the reverb. I don't know what you mean. Adding reverb would take away the detail, the strong point of the headphones.

 

[TravelLite]

Quote:

Originally posted by ph0rk Unless you listen to your speakers (and have always listened to speakers and/or performances) in an anechoic chamber, you are missing the reverb. Try adding a small amount along with some crossfeed to your headphones and listen to the "soundstage" open up.

Yes, I heartily agree!

A little high-quality (and tweakable) reverb can really excite and sweeten the headphone experience.

No free lunches here though, outstanding quality definitely does come at a price.

There's any number of really excellent (outboard) digital units. Simply amazing sound.

And some pretty decent software plugs too, so I'm given to understand.

TravelLite

 

[sacd lover]

Temhem, where do you get it would cost 80000 to equal those headphones? I have modest $700 JMLab speakers and I dont see where my $400 hd650's are superior to them, with basically the same $2000 usd worth of equipment driving them. Using the same sacd player, cables and gilmore headamp/preamp, plus a monarchy amp to power the speakers, the speakers are clearly superior to the hd650's in a number of ways. The 650's have their advantages too, but in the end I would listen to the speaker setup more if I could; and its not a comfort issue. I greatly enjoy headphones, but I enjoy speakers even more. I have owned and heard many electrostatic headphones and I have never been bowled over by them either. I doubt a great headphone can equal a great speaker personally. Give me the cost of an orpheus and I have little doubt I can find a speaker I would like better.

 

[Guss2]

I could'nt agree more. Gary.

 

[temhem]

Quote:

Originally posted by sacd lover Temhem, where do you get it would cost 80000 to equal those headphones? I have modest $700 JMLab speakers and I dont see where my $400 hd650's are superior to them, with basically the same $2000 usd worth of equipment driving them. Using the same sacd player, cables and gilmore headamp/preamp, plus a monarchy amp to power the speakers, the speakers are clearly superior to the hd650's in a number of ways. The 650's have their advantages too, but in the end I would listen to the speaker setup more if I could; and its not a comfort issue. I greatly enjoy headphones, but I enjoy speakers even more. I have owned and heard many electrostatic headphones and I have never been bowled over by them either. I doubt a great headphone can equal a great speaker personally. Give me the cost of an orpheus and I have little doubt I can find a speaker I would like better.

Choice between a headphone and speakers depends obviously depends on the taste. But if you are after detail and texture in music I don't see how you can come close to a headphone system with speakers. How much money do you have to spend to get the same detail as a prehead/hd600 combo (1050 dollars). If you have excellent ears to absorb all that is offered by a headphone system, I don't see how you can get that with a speaker setup. Maybe I am wrong. Anybody else has any opinions on the subject?

ps. I pulled 80000 out of my ass. If I had said "no amount of money...", I don't know if it still would have been as objectionable.

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally posted by sacd lover I have modest $700 JMLab speakers and I dont see where my $400 hd650's are superior to them, with basically the same $2000 usd worth of equipment driving them.

On your set up $700 JMLab can be/feel superior to HD-650.

The thing is if you feed your JMLab with very high end stuff like a least $25k (you need good power amp

) worth of gears, you gonna hear very soon the limitation of the speaker. OTOH feed your HD-650 with at least $10k worth of source and amp and you will think : OMG i may never find speakers with that natural sound!.

 

[sacd lover]

I best have is an sacdmods 555es sacd player and a gilmore v2-se and all this is hooked up to a PS Audio p300 power regenerator fed by a dedicated line. What sources or headphone amps are appeciably better than what I have? I have heard more expensive headamps that sound different; no better. I have not heard a better digital source than what I have although I know there may likely be better ones. There are some vinyl setups I have heard that can top the 555es, but the same improvements any source (and headamp/preamp) offers to the headphone is also offered to the speaker.

I can hear resolution of space and the placement of the performers on my speakers thats absent from any headphone I have tried.There is no comparison the visceral feeing speakers offer against headphones. Furthermore, my sacdmods 555es is not appreciably better sounding than my sacdmods 222es through my headphones; while the 555es superiority over the 222es is clearly obvious through the speakers. The hd650 cant resolve all the spacial information present in the 222es let alone the 555es. Yes the detail is more obvious through headphones; sometimes unnaturally so. I think the 650 is my favorite headphone because it renders detail more gently(less prominent) and naturally.

When you listen to live music does it sound more like headphones or speakers? Well its hands down speakers for me? I have manipulated my system about as much as I can; and yet I know I can get much more out of another speaker system with the front end components I currently own. With headphones, I dont know that I can truely better the satisfaction I currently get with what I have; no matter how much money I throw at. I am sure there would be something I may prefer over my present headphone setup, but will it remove the fundamental limitations of headphones imaging and the lack of body sensation of a speaker moving air in a room?

As for the prehead question, the gilmore v2-se is no doubt its equal and the 650 is consistently considered better than the 600 by most of those who have heard them. Add an amp, in my case a monarchy sm-70 pro($675 new), and the sound of the Jmlab's still exceeds the sennheisers. So the answer is not much more.