xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Feb 25, 2012 15:03:18 GMT
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Feb 25, 2012 15:08:06 GMT
Yeah, quite many reports said that it's as good or even better than the HD800.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Feb 25, 2012 15:09:25 GMT
Obviously, it wouldn't be better than the LCD 2 or 3.
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Feb 25, 2012 15:26:55 GMT
Reading Mike's review, it seems that it's not "technically" better than the HD800, but more enjoyable and easier to get the best from. He mentions that they sound pretty good even when connected directly to an iPod. Looking at the pictures, it looks like they use standard 2.5mm or 3.5mm mono jacks for the headhone cable connection to the earpieces, which would make it a doddle to make up your own headphone cable should you want one shorter or longer than the one supplied, or of you want to try some fancy cables or make up a balanced cable etc. Why don't all headphones with replaceable cables use a standard connectors?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 17:46:01 GMT
I had a 30min listen to them today, they are very good, not as comfortable as the 800`s but i would find them easy to live with. They lack the presence of the 800`s, with less bass extension and less detail in the highs.
Almost the same conclusion as comparing the HiFiMAN 500`s to the HE6`s to my ear.
Mick.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 25, 2012 22:04:12 GMT
It sounds like they took the same direction as the Shure 1840.
Edit: BTW - Mike's first paragraph is dead wrong about "public acceptance". Public acceptance of a $1500 headphone is a non-sequitur. Other than that, the serious headphone users pretty much worship the HD-800. And no, Mike, they didn't "voice" it wrong, they made it near perfect.
Edit #2: Sure, I would voice "A headphone" for the "guys at headfi". Whatever they like, as long as they buy it. But that sure wouldn't be my flagship. I've got way more pride than that.
Edit_3: I don't think they did anything wrong with the HD-700. My SRH1840 is a bit dark, and I like it. But if the 800 was voiced accurately (I think so), then the 700 can't be.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Feb 26, 2012 1:18:51 GMT
Edit #2: But that sure wouldn't be my flagship. I've got way more pride than that. Yup, me too. It's more plastic than metal and I expect more a HD800 material structure (not the look) at that type of price to make it more worth it. But reviewers like it as they were mostly saying it's like a HD800 in sound at a reduced price. That's what most people with not the moola to the HD800 will be happier about. The LCD 2 or 3 are not in the same material construction wise as the HD800 but there are many owners of them just becuase of the sound. Edit_3: I don't think they did anything wrong with the HD-700. My SRH1840 is a bit dark, and I like it. But if the 800 was voiced accurately (I think so), then the 700 can't be. Yeah, it's more meant to compete with the likes of the Shure and others in the price range. But I don't think HD700 will usurp the LCD 2 or 3 when amp properly. Do report what you think against the Shure when you have the chance to compare them side by side.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 26, 2012 2:02:12 GMT
The comments in the review about the 700 being "grain free" are very interesting. If the 700 is free of grainy sound and the 800 is not, that seems like a really important thing - more important than some moderate difference in soundstage.
Edit: "The HD700 is in no way going to replace the HD800 as the flagship model. Early in this article I’ve talked about how the HD800 is currently the king of the headphone technology. The HD800 driver just oozes with resolution, micro detail,...."
"The HD700's dark sound simply exudes with clarity, to the extent that the sound coming out of it is clearer than the HD800...."
"The HD700 tremendously improves on the bass impact of the HD800...."
Sorry for the multiple edits - they lied about the iPad's multi-tasking - you switch windows and your current edit just disappears, so I have to save each copy and paste.
Anyway, in the article, I see that not only does the 700 improve on the 800's bass impact "tremendously" (?), but the sound is clearer than the 800 and free of the 800's grain, yet the 800's resolution and micro detail can't be matched by the 700. Do people read this stuff because it sounds exciting to them? I sure wonder.
|
|
funk1969
250+
Some things are so easily overlooked...
Posts: 481
|
Post by funk1969 on Feb 26, 2012 10:33:34 GMT
I couldn't care less about the HD700.
Even worse the English in the first paragraph of Mike's "Journal" is even worse considering that guy needs an English lesson and a writing lesson. Just that terrible paragraph is enough to put me off...
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Feb 26, 2012 16:20:42 GMT
To be fair I don't think English is Mike's first language and his English is better than my [insert name of any other language here].
I like the Headphonia site and often read the articles there and I've bought a few things on Mike's recommendation and not been dissapointed. It's difficult talking about sound, but for the most part I think he does a pretty good job and I get what he's driving at.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 26, 2012 21:44:34 GMT
I am encouraged to hear that there may indeed be a justification for the $1000 USD price of the HD700. But when Mike begins by saying that Senn got it wrong with the 800, that does not inspire confidence in his judgement. Further along, saying the 700 is clearer and cleaner/less grainy, yet has less micro detail - also reduces confidence.
|
|
funk1969
250+
Some things are so easily overlooked...
Posts: 481
|
Post by funk1969 on Feb 27, 2012 11:51:49 GMT
To be fair I don't think English is Mike's first language and his English is better than my [insert name of any other language here]. I like the Headphonia site and often read the articles there and I've bought a few things on Mike's recommendation and not been dissapointed. It's difficult talking about sound, but for the most part I think he does a pretty good job and I get what he's driving at. I you are going to write for a larger audience at least get your writing up to a certain standard. I gave up 'quality' newspapers because of their unacceptable spelling mistakes. Headfonia is a nice website but that article regarding the HD700 is a disgrace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:45:20 GMT
I am encouraged to hear that there may indeed be a justification for the $1000 USD price of the HD700. But when Mike begins by saying that Senn got it wrong with the 800, that does not inspire confidence in his judgement. Further along, saying the 700 is clearer and cleaner/less grainy, yet has less micro detail - also reduces confidence. This guy Mike!! Is he the GOD of HP`s, does his opinion encompass everyones hearing spectrum!!. For every review stating how good or bad a particular set of Headphones are, at what ever price level, i will find a review that disagrees on the SQ aspect of that particular HP, build quality and comfort usually finds general agreement. Surely with any HP costing over £250 it would be very unwise to part with the cash, until you have auditioned them yourself. Mick.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 27, 2012 19:34:15 GMT
This guy Mike!! Is he the GOD of HP`s, does his opinion encompass everyones hearing spectrum!!. For every review stating how good or bad a particular set of Headphones are, at what ever price level, i will find a review that disagrees on the SQ aspect of that particular HP, build quality and comfort usually finds general agreement. Surely with any HP costing over £250 it would be very unwise to part with the cash, until you have auditioned them yourself. Mick. I'm finding after doing reviews in different forums that a lot of people don't get the chance to audition in advance. I'm one of those who are hundreds of miles away from a decent selection of headphones. So even when a user gets a 100-percent money-back guarantee, there is still a cost of time and effort and shipping fees to get it back to the vendor. And we should also consider that 95 percent of the places you can test out headphones, you can't do a proper evaluation because of the noise and other factors. But I find Mike's review very intriguing. I'm hopeful that the 700 will be the ultimate dynamic headphone. My Shure 1840 is proving to be the best thing I have, since it has a better-voiced presence than anything else. The HD700 could be the best yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 20:21:55 GMT
I agree with Mick about having to audition before buying, certainly above a certain price point (which can differ individually) Making assumptions on how something sounds based on other peoples descriptions may give disappointing results. I have bought (cheap fortunately) HP's in the past based on raving reviews later finding they sound crap to me when listening to them for a while while to them they are the best. Also auditioned headphones based on Tyll's or headfonia's reviews only finding they are not what I expected to hear based on their findings. Some reviewers preference/bias/hearing/taste/music preference may differ greatly from the one that must listen to it in the end (yourself).Look at the K701 and HD650 and how both HP's are described. Descriptions of either headphones couldn't be further apart. Indeed many do not have the opportunity to hear/audition certain headphones. One option is to buy (postal order) and return if possible (inform beforehand) and the money 'lost' (shipping fee) I consider as 'learning money'. Mick actually listened to one himself (and maybe also the T50p ?) and owning the HD800 and other 'better' HP's I tend to trust his unbiased views knowing which headphones he prefers and above all why. I can find myself in sonic descriptions of some other members as well. Some members have completely different ears/preferences than mine. That's the beauty of forums where you get to 'know' people and learn who to 'trust' and who's findings to discard as they do not listen/hear the way you do. Mostly I agree with Mike's (headfonia Mike in this particular case) and most of Tyll's findings, but sometimes find almost opposing conclusions with some of their reviews. There is no BEST headphone... but there IS a 'best headphone' for everyone. They just aren't the same headphones for everyone, hence the great diversity even in top quality headphones. Just my personal findings/views of course. Someday I will audition the HD700 and will know how it sounds to ME. Posting these findings may help some and to others they will be meaningless or the opposite of what they think. Can't say anything about it till I do. Expectations I do have.. they will probably not sound as good to me as ortho's do. But these expectations are based on Mick's ears at this point in time
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 28, 2012 2:18:49 GMT
I still believe it's important to try to help people, and to try to be objective as much as possible in doing so, and not offer excuses for not doing that. If I fail to inform, at least I tried. That's my goal. And if there's a perfect headphone for my taste? I dunno. The Beyer DT-1350 and Shure 1840 sound as different as night and day. But I really like both. Maybe that's because I also like both night and day.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Feb 28, 2012 3:38:07 GMT
I still believe it's important to try to help people, and to try to be objective as much as possible in doing so, and not offer excuses for not doing that. If I fail to inform, at least I tried. That's my goal. And if there's a perfect headphone for my taste? I dunno. The Beyer DT-1350 and Shure 1840 sound as different as night and day. But I really like both. Maybe that's because I also like both night and day. Hi Dale, You are right on track there by describing as best as possible how the HPs sound to help people. It's the prerogative of the people to decipher what's best for them as sytem matching, environment, bias, philosophy, time of the day, health, etc all affect in some ways how things sound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 4:47:23 GMT
It seems more likely to me that the 800s weren't being driven by either suitable amplification, or perhaps using too low an output impedance in the amplifier, thus creating the effect of exaggerated upper HF in comparison with the rest of the audible range.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 7:00:41 GMT
I still believe it's important to try to help people, and to try to be objective as much as possible in doing so, and not offer excuses for not doing that. If I fail to inform, at least I tried. That's my goal. And if there's a perfect headphone for my taste? I dunno. The Beyer DT-1350 and Shure 1840 sound as different as night and day. But I really like both. Maybe that's because I also like both night and day. I believe this also (to help people by describing best). Making assumptions based on hear say or findings of others without actually having listened to it may not be accurate. Tyll auditioned YOUR DT48 and yet has different opinions even about the EXACT same (your) headphone which you like. I can call you BOTH experienced listeners and describers/reviewers. The P5 is a nice example. Reviews range from lovely, best I ever heard to dark and muddy. I heard it on several occasions under different circumstances and to my ears they are muddy and very dark sounding lacking detail (highs extension). Graphs seem to say the same. Very possible if I would own one (too expensive) and would listen to it exclusively for days I would revise my view and find all other headphones bass shy and overly bright. One gets used to the sound, the brain adjusts and will make it more convincing IF it has at least some good qualities, which it seems to have on paper and acc. to owners. So saying the HD700 may well be the best HP based on knowing the SRH1840 without an actual comparison might be something I personally wouldn't have stated. Your sonic descriptions are helpful and am not debating that. I have different HP's I like for different reasons and under different circumstances and all perform best under different (output resistance) drive conditions. What I was trying to convey was not to rely on expectations based on reviews by others. One would think experienced people like Jude, Tyll, Mike and yourself would be more in agreement about certain headphones. One would have to know HOW the 'famous' reviewers listen to be able to 'extract' the info you seek and can make a blind buy based on their findings. Reading reviews out there about the HD650 and K701 (most talked about) and other HP's I am familiar with by 'unknown' people can give completely different opinions. Which inexperienced person that is looking for a headphone to buy and searches the web should that individual trust not knowing them ? Do they even known what influence amplifiers (output resistance) has or what an amplifier actually is for ? How can these people, not knowing anything about the matter, pick the reviewer with the right ears ? Listen to headphones yourself with your own music is my advice. Reading reviews and looking for common factors and basing a decision on that may still give unexpected surprises (can be negative or positive). Still reviews are needed and DO give insight. This is something I do not debate.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 28, 2012 10:26:24 GMT
Tyll's measurement of the DT-48E was accurate insofar as producing the freq. response deviations - where they occur, but for some reason the amount of deviation at 20 db in the bass and 35 db in the presence region was way beyond the actual values you can hear with test tones. Tyll's specific comments about the sound of the DT-48E were also generally accurate, and Tyll fails only when offering non-informative opinions such as "wretched" for the DT-48E or "poor" for the Shure 940. No big deal then. As to the B&W P5, listened to on their own they sound "good" for hifi purposes, particularly as a portable, but when compared to a top quality desktop headphone they suffer greatly, and it's not subtle at all. I think the consensus is they provide good value for $300 USD if you give extra points for a generally smooth and fairly neutral freq. response, and also for the design and build. But in any case, if I'm thinking of buying a new headphone in a significant investment, I read every review and opinion I can find, but of course I learn to read between the lines too. So far that has worked very well for me with the Grado 500, the Shure 940, the VModa M80 and maybe a couple others. The Shure 1840 for me was a shot in the dark - no prior info - and that has proven satisfactory. The Senn 800 was another shot in the dark in 2009, also a satisfactory purchase. I think it helps to be flexible too - if I couldn't accept a pretty good range of different sounds I would have to be much more careful and not take such chances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 12:33:09 GMT
Tyll's measurements are not always correct. His DT48E measurements are one of those I don't trust. There aren't many other good third party graphs from this HP other than those from Beyer which tell another story.
Nor his HD681 measurements... for instance. Of this HP there are more third party graphs and they certainly don't look like Tyll's version.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 28, 2012 14:19:13 GMT
Tyll's measurements are not always correct. His DT48E measurements are one of those I don't trust. There aren't many other good third party graphs from this HP other than those from Beyer which tell another story. Nor his HD681 measurements... for instance. Of this HP there are more third party graphs and they certainly don't look like Tyll's version. I don't remember now how much testing I did with the DT-48E after Tyll sent it back, since I sent it off to Manila afterward. But I got a new DT-48A with the same earpads, and I did several long test sessions with it, and I can confirm at least part of the difference between 60 hz and 80 hz. To hear the dramatic difference play U2's With Or Without You. When the deep bass tones come in after about 10 seconds, when the tones drop in pitch the impact also drops quite a bit. That doesn't happen with either Shure, with the Senn 800, with the Grado 500, or any other headphone I have. The low bass below 60 hz is also down a few db from the midrange, but is extended and not rolled off. There is a peak and dip in the presence region as Tyll's graph indicated, but it's far, far less than a 35 db difference - at most 10 db difference. Tyll's comment about "missing bits" may have some relevance somewhere, but it's vague enough to dismiss and forget. The DT-48E and DT-48A both are unusual in that I can clearly hear up to 16 khz with those, even on an iPod, but I don't clearly hear above about 13 khz with the Senn 800 or the Shures etc. If you watch Tyll's video carefully, you see that he is describing it only in terms of competing as a 'pro monitor' headphone, not as a music listening headphone for the most part. It's easy to miss that. So the big problem with his review is he simply ignores most of what the DT-48 can do in picking a few minor faults or imperfections. In terms of overall sound quality, I think it's a good value even at $700 USD (MSRP or street price == $400), but since it's so different from other headphones in that range it's really hard for people to relate to. Tyll even has a new review of the Sennheiser HD-800 (Note: It's below the 'mod' review), where he extolls its virtues, but says it's not a "fun" headphone because it doesn't forgive bad recordings. All that really says is that in spite of Tyll's technical expertise, which he really does have, he is still not an audiophile in the normal sense of the term. An audiophile leans more toward higher fidelity with good recordings than toward forgiveness with bad recordings.
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Feb 28, 2012 15:27:57 GMT
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. As a recording engineer you might want equipment that allows you to hear right into the recording, warts and all. As and audiophile you want something that lets you enjoy the music, gets your toe tapping, puts a smile on your face etc. and perhaps has the ability to make the best of a bad job.
I think that's what Mike at Headphonia is alluding to when he talks of the HD700 being better than the HD800, perhaps not technically better, but more enjoyable with a wider range of music and less demanding of both the recording quality and partnering equipment.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Feb 28, 2012 16:22:36 GMT
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. As a recording engineer you might want equipment that allows you to hear right into the recording, warts and all. As and audiophile you want something that lets you enjoy the music, gets your toe tapping, puts a smile on your face etc. and perhaps has the ability to make the best of a bad job. I think that's what Mike at Headphonia is alluding to when he talks of the HD700 being better than the HD800, perhaps not technically better, but more enjoyable with a wider range of music and less demanding of both the recording quality and partnering equipment. The problem with this description is it doesn't aim at high fidelity reproduction - it suggests that while our amplifiers have to be perfectly clean and clear and our recordings have to have the highest resolution we can possibly get, i.e. uncompressed etc., that somehow it's the responsibility of the headphone or speaker to then smear the sound to cover up the distortions in the recording. This just does not compute at all. I am certain that the most truly accurate (emphasis on 'truly') headphone would also be the most enjoyable, because I would hear the best reproduction with my best music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 17:23:02 GMT
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. As a recording engineer you might want equipment that allows you to hear right into the recording, warts and all. As and audiophile you want something that lets you enjoy the music, gets your toe tapping, puts a smile on your face etc. and perhaps has the ability to make the best of a bad job. I think that's what Mike at Headphonia is alluding to when he talks of the HD700 being better than the HD800, perhaps not technically better, but more enjoyable with a wider range of music and less demanding of both the recording quality and partnering equipment. The problem with this description is it doesn't aim at high fidelity reproduction - it suggests that while our amplifiers have to be perfectly clean and clear and our recordings have to have the highest resolution we can possibly get, i.e. uncompressed etc., that somehow it's the responsibility of the headphone or speaker to then smear the sound to cover up the distortions in the recording. This just does not compute at all. I am certain that the most truly accurate (emphasis on 'truly') headphone would also be the most enjoyable, because I would hear the best reproduction with my best music. Amps don't have to be perfectly clean and clear at all. In fact most audiophiles like tube amps and these excel in changing the original signal. Easily proven by the way with a differential amp. In the end it is the headphone/speaker that has by far the most influence on the sound. headphones/speakers have resonances, amps do not. headphones/speakers can color the sound amps should not. headphones have frequency plots going up and down MANY dB's (20dB is NO exception). amps do not and are ruler flat (unless the output resistance is above 0 Ohm). It is the headphone's task to convert the electrical voltage into movement of air. MANY things go wrong at THIS stage and so it's the headphone's task to do this as good as possible. Having very flat/accurate reproduction can be extremely boring to listen to for most people. For sound engineers it is welcome as they can exactly compare the recording (and needed corrections) to the original sound. a linear headphone that exactly transforms electrical energy to sound pressure (they don't exist and never will) will only sound accurate at a small range of SPL. The SRH940, DT1350 (and expect the DT48) will sound better at moderate to higher SPL's. At lower SPL they start to sound anemic and boring. HiFi headphones (DT990-SP1000 e.t.c.) sound better at lower volumes. Even when a headphone is perfectly flat (for example after a very accurate EQ) there are still certain areas in the frequency range that do not come at a dead stop after a signal tells it to. This can be seen in waterfalls and cannot be EQ'd away. caused by mechanical effects. a headphone that has a steep waterfall and is flat will have lots of microdetails. One that has lots of resonances might not be very resolving but may sound very pleasant. So flat is just ONE aspect that determines how it sounds, a big one indeed but certainly not the only one. Sound engineers must hear things pretty loud and not for many hours in a row. HiFi enthusiast can listen for hours and prefer lower SPL (otherwise you can't listen for hours) Perfect headphones therefore may sound very well but may not be very musical or engaging. Some not so well measuring headphones (Qualia for instance) which is one lump of resonances and bumpy ride in the treble area is still considered very musical and very hifi. Wouldn't use that one for a final mix or to determine if something is recorded accurately or to test someones hearing though. This and some other traits set hifi and engineering headphones apart. The DT48A being yet different again as it needs to be flat and repeatable so corrections in the test gear (they are intended for testing hearing) can be uniform and installing another headphone doesn't mean it would have to be re-calibrated. The spread between all 48A's is very small and part of it's price point... medical/engineering. Not so for hi-fi, even L and R can be quite different and you wouldn't know it. Some will like it though... very much so. To certain people (mostly those in it for a long time) 'flat' headphones sound optimal. For others bathtubby headphones sound optimal. How loud one plays is much determining which headphone is preferred. I happen to like both analytical and HiFi headphones, each for their own reasons.
|
|