[Steve999]

AWESOME.

Never thought about it before, but that's an incredibly interesting insight.

Quote:

Originally posted by fiddler Over-emphasis of details at the expense of natural tonality is to the "audiophile" what bassboost is to the average bass-head.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by lini Actually, I'd have less problems with that ever so slight veil than with the sheer ugliness of that silly speckled carbon frame.

LOL! I actually like the frame on mine, but that was a good one

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Originally posted by fiddler Over-emphasis of details at the expense of natural tonality is to the "audiophile" what bassboost is to the average bass-head. Both are gimmicks; neither are representative of the way the music is truly meant to be heard.

That's right, it's called the Hi-Fi sound. Give me musicality any day!

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

Anyone who have ever listen to the HD600 with the Blockhead would and could never, ever call them veiled.

I dunno, I've heard the HD600 on a Blockhead and I would still say it's a touch veiled compared to some of the other top headphones out there. Don't get me wrong, the HD600/Blockhead is an excellent sound, but I still think it's a little polite, and slightly dark, but of course only compared to other excellent headphones.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle I often think that the 'veiling' is simply a lack of resonances and hi-fi 'etching' of the sound. So the HD600 and HD580 may indeed be right.

This is indeed worth considering. I wouldn't call the HD 600 an absolutely neutral headphone, but I wouldn't call it veiled. Whereas its treble is somewhat too conservative (the area around 8 kHz), it also lacks the typical hi-fi thrill provided by an emphasized brilliance. If you look at its design, you notice that there's not much reflective surface to produce such brilliance accentuation which is often confused with detail (not necessarily a hump in the frequency response, rather just sort of glossiness). The foam pads additionally reduce reflections inside the earpads, and there's no baffle the sound waves could build up standing waves with.

This is also the reason why the current trendy accusation to produce a fake soundstage isn't justified, IMO. With circumaural headphones a credible (or let's say not artificial) soundstage is provided by the absence of near (short-time) reflections inside in the acoustically active area, between the driver and the outer ear, which would otherwise derange the decoding of the spatial information by creating artificial spatial data. The HD 580's/600's open design actually is not too different from a Sony MDR-F1 and even an AKG K 1000 in this regard.

 

[Solude]

"Both are gimmicks; neither are representative of the way the music is truly meant to be heard."

Now you're getting it. Welcome to team Beyer

As for your classical reference... the group maybe in a concert hall but the mics are point blank, not out in the crowd except for the crowd applause mic. So despite everything being recorded at the same time, awful way of doing it because of leakage from people near you, there is no distance introduced into the recording. No the best classical is recorded in a studio one instrument at a time.

 

[Masz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Solude No the best classical is recorded in a studio one instrument at a time.

You can't be serious right? Remind me never to attend THAT concert anytime soon. I think it would be devoid of any musicality or emotion. Accuracy, hifi, maybe. But who wants to listen to that?

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

Originally posted by Masz You can't be serious right? Remind me never to attend THAT concert anytime soon. I think it would be devoid of any musicality or emotion. Accuracy, hifi, maybe. But who wants to listen to that?

Unfortunately, that's the direction classical recordings are headed... How many splices do you think they made in any given recording of a really big solo concerto, for example? With each splice they're murdering the continuity and coherence of the performance. The quest to achieve "perfect" sound has in many ways killed musicality.

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

Originally posted by Solude Now you're getting it. Welcome to team Beyer

From your description of your Beyers, they make me wanna stay the hell away from them since you seem to feel they're closer to the SR325 than the HD600.

 

[fiddler]

By the way! People who voted "no"... how many of you have upgraded cables? I have the Equinox, and felt they brought the midrange forward just enough for my taste. This could very well render the poll results completely worthless...

 

[tanfenton]

Cable replacements don't change my opinion.

NGF

 

[JaZZ]

I use my own replacement cable and have removed the foam pads. I voted «no» because I never perceived the recessed treble of the stock phone as veil. The detail is there, it's just not in the fore.

Btw, the DT 880 is nowhere near the SR-325... in some way it's even the opposite of it. It has a warmer and much better resolving midrange as well a less impactful, but more musical and fucussed bass. Nevertheless it has some of its liveliness in the treble, but presented in a different, more natural way. Not to speak of the different soundstage. I didn't like the SR-325, but I like the DT 880. This from a great (former) HD 600 fan.

 

[arnett]

I’ve always found the HD580s to have a certain ‘cloudiness’ in the midrange – particularly on louder passages. Although I wouldn’t describe the HD580s as ‘muffled,’ the word ‘unclear’ comes to mind. Keep in mind, this lack of clarity has nothing to do with the *tone* of the HD580s. Listening to music on my HD580s for more than a few minutes makes my ears feel ‘puffy[size=medium]*[/size].’ I never thought I’d dislike the Sennheiser sound, but after owning the Beyer DT-770s, the Beyer sound is for me. At the Detroit meet, I thought the Beyer DT-880s absolutely crushed the HD600s.

[size=xx-small]*description invented by nick dangerous. [/size]

 

[JaZZ]

Arnett...

...Ilike your avatar.

One of the greatest rock albums ever produced!

 

[PeterR]

Quote:

No the best classical is recorded in a studio one instrument at a time.

Almost choked to death on this one. Note to self: Don't eat while browsing Head-Fi...
No, this is absolutely not the way it is done, and if anybody attempted to pull such a stunt I promise you the result wouldn't be the 'best classical' but a disaster.

But you're right, most modern classic recordings are excessively multi-miked (and that's why most of the best recordings are still from the 50s and 60s). But even then they'll go for a balance closer to an audience's perspective in the mix.

Quote:

How many splices do you think they made in any given recording of a really big solo concerto, for example?

In excessive cases (but fortunately not all), there'll be one every few seconds. Wondered why performances on live recordings often are so much better? There you have it.