[Rizumu]

Quote:

Originally posted by kcits yeah that's exactly what popped into my mind when i first heard the 580s a couple of weeks ago -- there's a lot of detail, but there was a recessed quality about the midrange/upper midrage which seem to be dominated by mid-upper bass. the treble on the other hand, is very smooth and airy.

High five man, you know what I'm talking about

 

[fiddler]

To me, "veiling" means hiding something from me. I don't hear my Senns doing that. I find them to be very detailed, and I would say that there's more treble information coming out of these than my Etymotic ER-4S. What the Etys do differently is putting details in the forefront, making every little bit painfully obvious. But you know what? I don't care to hear the grinding of violin strings, nor do I care to hear the spit flying out of a trumpet player's mouth. You can't experience that in real life unless you actually stand so close to the performer that you risk ear damage! So, for me, I find the HD600 sound to be more natural sounding in the end.

 

[MacDEF]

I'm definitely in the same camp as Hirsch on this one. The HD 600 can definitely sound laid back (or "veiled" if that's your preferred term.) However, the fact that when paired with great amps it doesn't sound that way means that it's not an inherent characteristic.

Should you "have to" spend a lot of money on upgrades to get the optimal sound out of the HD 600? That's a matter of opinion. However, my personal reference setup is still HD 600/Cardas cable/Max -- no "haze," "fog," or "muffle" at all. I have yet to find a combination that I personally like better (besides the BlockHead, of course

), no matter how much I might have spent. So in the end, I have no problem with the "upgrades" I've "had" to get -- I've still got my ideal system for cheaper than getting there with other headphones

And Solude, I don't listen at loud volumes at all. In fact, one of the things I love about the Max/HD 600 combo is that I can listen at extremely low volumes and still get the same clarity and punch that I get at loud volumes. So I think your assumption that the responses to this thread are based on listening levels is incorrect.

But, like markl said, everyone has different hearing, preferences, and impressions. I find the CD3000 to be bright, markl find the HD 600 to be veiled. We're both happy

 

[sacd lover]

Regardless of what the term veil means to whomever, the sennheisers are very distant sounding headphone to me. I will even go so far as to say for me, unnatural sounding. Why?
In a live event I seem to choose my seat by the loudness level. I dont like it very loud or it makes me uncomfortable. I seem to prefer the mid-hall seat. You would think this would make me a candidate for the senns more laid back sound. However, the senns at a comfortable level dont have the intelligibility and sense of dynamics you get live at this position in a concert hall, from my experience. At a comfortable level they sound like your in the lobby. The only solution is to turn up the volume; which in turn makes the overall level to high. You can never, or I cant, get a natural balance where the(example) vocalist is positioned properly in relation to the rest of the band. The sound field is like a horseshoe, with the vocalist way back in the middle while everyone else is up close on the sides. I think this is what solude is expressing with his comments on listening level, and if so, I agree with him.
Think about this, at a concert the volume is fixed and you choose the distance that gives you the perspective you want. When you find the correct distance, according to your preferance, the band sounds balanced with volume level, presence, dynamics, soundstage etc all balanced together naturally to your liking. Unfortunately, with phones the perspective is predetermined and we can only adjust volume/ listening level. I think the senns sense of perspective is flawed according to my preferances, because to get a natural intelligibility and any sense of true dynamics, I have to turn the volume to loud, and it then makes everything else go out of balance.
Please dont interpret this as my prefering a certain perspective, say upfront vs laid back; the issue I have with the senns is a lack of balance.
Many here dont like grados because they are to forward, like sitting in the first row. But, the grados sound is consistent from that perspective in the hall they portray. They trumpeter may be spitting in your face and the cymbals jumping out at you, but this is consistent with standing or sitting right next to them. When you adjust the volume with a grado you get just a change in volume, the balance remains consistent with the chosen upfront perspective, only the listening level has changed. I personally like grados better despite my generally prefering a more distant perspective, because they are consistently forward across the board, and thus sound more natural, even though its not my favorite view of the event.
In summary, I dont think there is a veil. I believe the senns have a midrange that is not in balance with the bass and treble, except possibly at volume levels I cant personally tolerate. I believe this is what sennheiser will change when a new hd700 or whatever finally arrives. They will make the midrange consistent with the tonal balance of the bass and treble.
I am not bashing the senns, this is just my opinion, and if people love their senns and prefer them thats great. I have not heard the senns with tubes or with the cable upgrades; and I very much want to. I am currently looking at the sony cd3000s, beyer dt 880s and the senns with a cable upgrade as my next phone. However, from the 580s I owned, I just cant see me ever accepting the senns portrayal of music as realistic.

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF I'm definitely in the same camp as Hirsch on this one. The HD 600 can definitely sound laid back (or "veiled" if that's your preferred term.) However, the fact that when paired with great amps it doesn't sound that way means that it's not an inherent characteristic.

I don't know if this is necessarily true, and it's certainly hard to believe. Might it be that certain amps compensate in a way that frees the HD600 of this quality?

Considering that many many people have remarked on this quality, it seems reasonable that it has something to do with the headphones. At any rate, because the quality is absent with certain amps, it does not necessarily mean that the quality is not present in the headphone.

 

[elnero]

Quote:

Originally posted by acs236 I don't know if this is necessarily true, and it's certainly hard to believe. Might it be that certain amps compensate in a way that frees the HD600 of this quality?

Or, to take this train of thought a step further, could it be that the amps are designed using the HD600's as a reference?

Just a thought.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by acs236 I don't know if this is necessarily true, and it's certainly hard to believe. Might it be that certain amps compensate in a way that frees the HD600 of this quality?

If the amps in question didn't measure flat, I might agree. But if an amp's output measures flat, even when driving hard-to-drive headphones like the HD 600, how are they "compensating" for "flaws" in the HD 600? Perhaps they are just better equipped for driving difficult-to-drive headphones.

A number of users on Head-Fi have (in other threads) explained how the load required by headphones changes depending on the volume, the signal being reproduced, etc., etc. This load also varies according to the particular frequencies being reproduced. It says something to me that those amps that sound the best with the HD 600, and are frequently said to have the least "veil," are also those that have the beefiest power supplies, buffers, etc. -- i.e., those best equipped to deal with complex loads.

Again, I'm not arguing that the HD 600 don't have a distinct laid-back sound in many situations. However, the better the amp, the better they sound, and I think it's illogical to contend that the reason for this is that "better" amps are specifically compensating for the frequency response of the HD 600, or are "designed around" the HD 600. There are far too many other high-end headphones out there for a manufacturer to "voice" their amps for the HD 600 -- that would be a stupid business decision. (If an amp like the Max or BlockHead was specifically designed to compensate for "frequency response faults" in the HD 600 -- as some Head-Fi'ers keep insisting they are -- these amps would sound pretty bad with headphones that don't have the same sonic signature as the HD 600. But they don't. They sound great even with headphones that have a completely different "sound.")

 

[13DoW]

Well, I don't have much headphone experience to compare it to. I heard a few set-ups during last year's Headroom tour but I was new to quality headphones back then. I found Grado's way too bright for my taste (not harsh though).
In my set up HD-600s sound just right - not vieled, not laid back and not forward. I rolled my own cable and that made a huge difference and I drive them directly from the balanced outputs of a Wadia CDP.

Actually, the only reference I do have is my speakers, Quad ESL-57s, and it's a good match.

Regards
13th Duke of Wymbourne

 

[sacd lover]

Mac Def, intrestingly the hd 580 sounded best with the moh I had then, because the moh had a more pronounced upper midrange/ lower treble. Unfortunately, it still didnt compensate enough for me to like them. Also, the comments on the dt770 pro always remark about the excess bass; I notice the recessed midrange much more. I guess I am most sensitive to midrange anomolies, so it makes sense the senns dont do it for me.

 

[PeterR]

Quote:

Originally posted by Solude Actually it will. Regardless of your ear or hearing loss what you recognise as a guitar for example will be a certain sound. If the headphone reproduces that sound perfectly then it will match what you recognise as a guitar. I.e. your definition was made based on 'your' ear. If a transducer reproduces the true sound of a guitar then your ear will hear the same thing since it goes through the same imperfect ear. Think your eye works the same way as the guy beside you? No, but you both have a reference for what colours are what and levels of light. All different but all able to interpret the same thing the same way.

That's right, but you're missing the point. When listening through headphones (unlike listening to loudspeakers), a large part of your hearing system is bypassed, and the headphones need to make up for what's missing. And this *will* be slightly different for every person.

Quote:

Listening live does not count, since it is also a reproduction made through less than stellar products in less than adequate venues. Well thats not true, if you ever went to an acoustic show where people stood quietly and you sat on stage then you might have a decent idea

Well, there are types of music that are performed live and unamplified, and where it's customary to sit still and listen

I think this is what all this is really about - Every headphone has its strenghts and weaknesses, and different kinds of music will emphasize different characteristics...

Quote:

you enjoyed it while I found it to be not faithful to the original.

Right. To each his own...

 

[Solude]

sacd lover, think you nailed what I'm hearing. Like going to a concert where one instrument is way out of whack, either too loud or low. In this case the vocal among others is too quiet compared to the rest.

 

[sacd lover]

Solude, yes exactly.

 

[sacd lover]

You know, these people who are using equalizers to adjust for the senns flaw are probably the wisest. Cables, amps etc are probably never going to do enough to completely fix the problem. If you could balance the senns properly though, that would be one fine phone.

 

[acs236]

Macdef,

I can only speak from my own experience, and I have never heard what I would consider a top-shelf amp. I love my META42, but honestly, that's the best amp I've heard. Compared to the AKG 501, my 580s seem a bit muffled in the midrange. The AKGs absolutely do not. So, it would seem perhaps that the 580s are a more difficult to drive in the midrange. Are we agreed on this? I'm not sure. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that on different (and better) equipment, you don't think that the HD 600 is laid back, veiled, whatever. Do you think a better amplifier would be able to provide more power to the 580/600s to compensate for harder-to-drive midrange? On the other hand, are you saying that the HD600 isn't harder to drive in the midrange, it is just that the META42 I am using is defficient in that frequency range?

My ultimate point is, whether it is just that the 580/600 are harder to drive in the midrange (or take a better amp to drive in the midrange), there is still some difference attributable to the headphone that explains this.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Until I compared the 600 to something else, no. The Senns were my first delve into high-end stuff, so I had no reference with which to compare them. Now, after owning several other cans I can tell that they are more laid-back than I like or am now used to. The Grado HP-1, Sony CD3K, and AT W1000 are all a bit more forward sounding in comparison, and I liked those each better than the Senns. I still don't "hate" the Senns, but they're not my cup-o-tea anymore.