[TMRaven]

You're talking two different things here.  Sure they can be mid tier in terms of dollar amount or technical prowess, but a once 'hi-fi' headphone doesn't magically become 'mid-fi' just because something technically superior replaces it as a price gouged flagship.  We're talking hi-fi vs technically superior hi-fi.

 

[LCfiner]

I had an HD600 for a while and I would classify it as mid tier. There's a graininess to the sound that you don't get with the higher end dynamic headphones (or the midrange stax offerings)

Plus it wasn't as fast as some of the newer headphones and I could notice some small segments of very complex passages is songs getting very slightly blurred. And their soundstage isn't that great either for an over ear headphone.

It has a nice, even frequency response but there are enough headphones out there that are clearly better that I would call it midrange and not "high end".

 

[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

 
No way.

 
Quote:

How'd they magically become mid-fi tier over the years when they were once the best of what Sennheiser had to offer?  Does their sound degrade over time?

Thank you, both of you, Ive baan ranting about that inthreads for a while!

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Ok, if HD600 is top-tier then the DT880 and AKG K701 are also top-tier.
 
What does that make the T1 and HD800? Super mega top-tier?

 
HD600 and DT880 are top-tier, the HD800 and T1 are (at least in my opinion) expensive sidesteps. 

 

[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

I had an HD600 for a while and I would classify it as mid tier. There's a graininess to the sound that you don't get with the higher end dynamic headphones (or the midrange stax offerings)
Plus it wasn't as fast as some of the newer headphones and I could notice some small segments of very complex passages is songs getting very slightly blurred. And their soundstage isn't that great either for an over ear headphone.
It has a nice, even frequency response but there are enough headphones out there that are clearly better that I would call it midrange and not "high end".

mid range hi-fi, yes.  Mid-fi, no.
 
FWIW, i notice no grain on HD650 on tubes, nor on my planars.

 

[Katun]

Quote:

 
...the HD800 and T1 are (at least in my opinion) expensive sidesteps. 

 
Ahh, didn't see that one coming! Perhaps truth in it's rawest form?

 

[ProjectDenz]

Nope, my JH13 and MS Pro have better extension on both ends and clarity than both the HD600 and DT880.
 
Diminishing returns cuts down that difference, but I would never call it a sidegrade. The MS Pro is closer than JH13 Pro to the HD600 and DT880.

 

[ProjectDenz]

Actually I think the MS Pro is a bit more of a sidegrade to the HD600/DT880, just listening in on the DT880's now.

 

[nikp]

Funny thread! But anyway, the HD600 is probably lower hi-end. Saying it's mid-fi sounds like it is similar to the M50, SRH840 which the HD6x0/DT880 clearly isn't.
 
@OP Go for the HD800 if you don't mind the $$$. It's a good upgrade in terms of soundstage, clarity and resolution but don't expect unicorns to sing. 

 

[ProjectDenz]

Maybe my own definition of 'mid-tier' and 'top-tier' is different to others. The SRH840 are entry level to me (although probably at the height on entry level for closed cans).

 

[Katun]

Quote:

The SRH840 are entry level to me (although probably at the height on entry level for closed cans).

 
Curious, what does that make the M50 then? Guessing smack in the middle or lower end for entry level cans.
 
I find the SRH840 higher end than the M50 personally.

 

[LCfiner]

mid range hi-fi, yes.  Mid-fi, no.

FWIW, i notice no grain on HD650 on tubes, nor on my planars.

Ok, fair enough. I don't want to get too caught up in terminology. All I'm saying is that there are several steps up now from the 600. And some of them are under a grand! :O

As for grain, I heard it on the 600 but never owned the 650. I was using a benchmark dac1 at the time. I tried them balanced out the xlr outputs and it made the bass a bit boomer than on the regular headphone output. I think that was just due to the higher output impedence of the xlr.

 

[ProjectDenz]

Never heard the M50, but general consensus puts the SRH840 above the M50. This is all imo, I see the SRH840 as towards the top end of entry level.

 

[KG Jag]

Quote:

mid range hi-fi, yes.  Mid-fi, no.
 
FWIW, i notice no grain on HD650 on tubes, nor on my planars.

 
I think we argue too much over terms.
 
At one time these cans were at the top of the heap.  They aren't any more.  I have heard that there are two versions of the the HD 650, but in any case they sound great.  But they are no longer the greatest and we can hear the difference of cans that are better.  A reasonable person could call them "mid-fi" based either (or both) on the bases that they are no longer among the top tier cans on the market and those that are have superior sound (at least to most) than the HD 650/600.
 
This argument will continue unless and until we come up with an objective way to define what qualifies as "hi-fi" and will so qualify for many years to come.  Ah--there's the rub.  The 50's and early 60's definition of "hi-fi" now includes many cans priced below $50 street.  So why are the best cans of 200x forever to be rated as "hi-fi"?  Therefore it is logical that cans below the current best generally available to the public are not in the top tier.  If that top tier is called "hi-fi" then those below it might be called "near hi-fi", "hi-fi lite" or (God forbid!) "mid-fi".  I guess that we can call the new leaders "higher-fi" and more folks will be happy.  Cans like the HD 600 & 650 are still very good, but they are no longer the best.  Someday they may not even be very good.  I've seen (and heard) that happen over my decades of listening to cans beginning in the mid-60's.  Cans that were very good or excellent decades back are entry level or worse when compared with todays cans.
 
And so it goes with cans, cars, TV's and many other products.

 

[ProjectDenz]

Quote:

 
I think we argue too much over terms.
 
At one time these cans were at the top of the heap.  They aren't any more.  I have heard that there are two versions of the the HD 650, but in any case they sound great.  But they are no longer the greatest and we can hear the difference of cans that are better.  A reasonable person could call them "mid-fi" based either (or both) on the bases that they are no longer among the top tier cans on the market and those that are have superior sound (at least to most) than the HD 650/600.
 
This argument will continue unless and until we come up with an objective way to define what qualifies as "hi-fi" and will so qualify for many years to come.  Ah--there's the rub.  The 50's and early 60's definition of "hi-fi" now includes many cans priced below $50 street.  So why are the best cans of 200x forever to be rated as "hi-fi"?  Therefore it is logical that cans below the current best generally available to the public are not in the top tier.  If that top tier is called "hi-fi" then those below it might be called "near hi-fi", "hi-fi lite" or (God forbid!) "mid-fi".  I guess that we can call the new leaders "higher-fi" and more folks will be happy.  Cans like the HD 600 & 650 are still very good, but they are no longer the best.  Someday they may not even be very good.  I've seen (and heard) that happen over my decades of listening to cans beginning in the mid-60's.  Cans that were very good or excellent decades back are entry level or worse when compared with todays cans.
 
And so it goes with cans, cars, TV's and many other products.

 
Thank you for providing a very coherent argument. This is also the view I take.