Sennheiser HD 650/HD 6XX

[Grave]

.

 

[Hemicrusher]

Funny how peoples hearing is different. I own LCD2's and find them brighter, more detailed than the HD650's. HD650's are like flat soda to me. I am thinking of getting some HD598C's only because of the construction next to my home office and the noise of the AC and 100F+ temps. Using my M50X's that I have a para EQ curve for right now....Only pair of closed I own.

 

[March Audio]

It's not funny you are absolutely correct. Individual anatomy affects the resonant frequency location and strength.

As does volume

Above 10kHz the lcd are brighter. Although I would possibly expect the 5 to 10kHz range to have more impact on the perception of balance. So at first glance I would expect the 650 to be brighter.

 

[Grave]

The LCD-XC is not the LCD2, so that graph is misleading. Also, Audeze keeps changing the LCD2's so maybe that's why they sound different to you. I had the LCD2F and not the latest LCD2C. Maybe I will try the LCD2C at some point, but they are rather expensive. Also, >$1000 headphones are insane IMO because cheap hi-fi headphones sound so amazing to me. The HD 650's are only really worth $200 now and they sound as good as the $800 LCD2's to me.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf

Here is a FR comparison. The HD 650's FR looks brighter to me because of the louder upper mid range.

 

[March Audio]

Sorry, uploaded the wrong graph. It's now updated.

See my post above for the differences caused by individuals anatomy. People really will not hear the same things as each other.

 

[DuxServit]

I hope this is not going to be a “headphones listening impressions thread” because I’m seeing words like “smooth”, “most transparent”, “brighter”, “duller”.

Don’t we have HF already to endlessly discuss headphone emotions, feelings, and hold hands singing Kumbaya.

 

[solderdude]

To demonstrate BE718's point my impression and based on measurements as well but there is

Sennheiser HD 650/HD 6XX

Have a midbass hump. Not neutral but close to it. Are lacking subbass, EQ does wonders. Fuller sounding version of HD600

Sennheiser HD 580/600

Similar to HD650 but less midbass hump and because of this sound brighter. A bit leaner in the subbass then HD650, EQ does wonders

Sennheiser HD 660S

A fresher and 'tighter' and at the same time more 'laid back' sounding HD600 with better subbass extension.

Beyerdynamic DT 880

Close to neutral tonal response but lack subbass and the treble peak needs to be addressed for those sensitive to this.
DT880, HD600, HD650

Audeze LCD2

Excellent bass to midrange quality, too laid back, lacking 'presence' and treble is somewhat subdued to neutral depending on version and spread. can be EQ'ed, LCD2C and LCD2F. The 'clarity/presence dip' around 4kHz is not as deep as shown because the LCD2 drivers are slightly angled and make use of concha gain.

Sennheiser HD 558/598

Sound quality overall is 'less' than higher priced models. Not bad, easier to drive from portable sources.

Sennheiser HD 58X

Similar tonal balance to HD650 but slightly less clarity and a bit 'tighter' in the lows and 'fresher' in the treble.
Can easily be modified to act like the HD660S or HD600 but a bit less 'bright' and with more subbas.

HD58X vs HD650

HD58X vs HD660S

modified HD58X vs HD660S

To me personally (my ears/brain) the measurements have a high correlation to its tonal balance/sound.
FR can only say so much about the actual performance. There is much more to the performance of a headphone than just FR and tonal balance which is hard/impossible to deduce from FR alone.
My personal favorite ? HD800 but with EQ, otherwise too thin and sharp sounding.

 

[Grave]

I hope this is not going to be a “headphones listening impressions thread” because I’m seeing words like “smooth”, “most transparent”, “brighter”, “duller”.

Don’t we have HF already to endlessly discuss headphone emotions, feelings, and hold hands singing Kumbaya.

These are very basic terms for describing audio. Although there are many nonsense terms, these terms are certainly useful.

"There is much more to the performance of a headphone than just FR and tonal balance which is hard/impossible to deduce from FR alone."

Like what? FR is pretty much everything in a headphone, since it is so hard to get right.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I have loads of headphones but rarely use them now I have retired and don't travel. The ones that have the most accurate instrumental timbre and cleanest bass (but need a lot of power) are AKG Q701 for not a huge price. I have more expensive ones, including electrostatic from Stax and Kingsound, which have strong points, but for acoustical music listening I prefer the AKGs as they have less colouration over a wider bandwidth than the others I tried.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Stupid question:

Why aren’t headphone frequency curves ruler flat?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Stupid question:

Why aren’t headphone frequency curves ruler flat?

Complex reasons Here is an oversimplification:

In real-life use, a headphone is sealed(ish) to the listener's head. Therefor, a free field response would not take into account the significant effect of the head to which the headphone is pressed. So, to measure the headphones, a dummy head is used. However, while sealing the headphone with a dummy head solves one problem, it creates further problems, because now we need to put the mic somewhere, and this somewhere should resemble where the eardrum is placed inside the ear on the listener's head too. This means that we now need an artificial ear on the head, with a mic placed inside the artificial ear, at roughly the point a real listener's eardrum would be.

We then end up with the FR of the headphone measured inside an artificial ear, on an aritificial head. The various resonances and other effects this causes result in a FR that is truly weird. So we then introduce a way to compensate for this, and the graphs posted above by @solderdude show the compensated FR, not the raw response. These graphs should show a flat FR if the headphone is "flat" (quotation marks because this is obviously a slippery concept when it comes to headphones) and the compensation is "correct".

But it should be clear from all this that thus far, no-one has really come up with the perfect way to measure headphones (and I've actually glossed over a lot of the problems here).

There a great thread started by @ztatic here on thinking about how to solve some of these problems.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Complex reasons Here is an oversimplification:

In real-life use, a headphone is sealed(ish) to the listener's head. Therefor, a free field response would not take into account the significant effect of the head to which the headphone is pressed. So, to measure the headphones, a dummy head is used. However, while sealing the headphone with a dummy head solves one problem, it creates further problems, because now we need to put the mic somewhere, and this somewhere should resemble where the eardrum is placed inside the ear on the listener's head too. This means that we now need an artificial ear on the head, with a mic placed inside the artificial ear, at roughly the point a real listener's eardrum would be.

We then end up with the FR of the headphone measured inside an artificial ear, on an aritificial head. The various resonances and other effects this causes result in a FR that is truly weird. So we then introduce a way to compensate for this, and the graphs posted above by @solderdude show the compensated FR, not the raw response. These graphs should show a flat FR if the headphone is "flat" (quotation marks because this is obviously a slippery concept when it comes to headphones) and the compensation is "correct".

But it should be clear from all this that thus far, no-one has really come up with the perfect way to measure headphones (and I've actually glossed over a lot of the problems here).

There a great thread started by @ztatic here on thinking about how to solve some of these problems.

I get it that good headphone maybe should mimic the frequency response of good speakers in a good room.

However, if this theory is correct, then why don’t all headphones have the SAME frequency response?

Speakers are made based on theory. Are headphones made based on hunch?

 

[solderdude]

"There is much more to the performance of a headphone than just FR and tonal balance which is hard/impossible to deduce from FR alone."

Like what? FR is pretty much everything in a headphone, since it is so hard to get right.

Like impulse response for instance ? This can easily be made visible with squarewaves, step and impulse response and even with waterfall (CSD) response not to mention non linearities (distortion) which differs with SPL levels as well .

FR says the most about tonal balance though.

Measurements are a bit like ears... both can give quite different results on different measurement rigs and heads.

 

[solderdude]

I get it that good headphone maybe should mimic the frequency response of good speakers in a good room.
However, if this theory is correct, then why don’t all headphones have the SAME frequency response?
Speakers are made based on theory. Are headphones made based on hunch?

Drivers, angles, baffles, port(s), back and front damping, pads, leakage of sound, closed back or open, position on the head, driving issues, listening levels, preferences, resonances, recordings, driver cone materials, thickness of used materials, the way the motor (voicecoil: weight, diameter, fixing, air gap, voicecoil length) all have a substantial influence on the sound.
That's why not 2 headphones are alike. Even within a brand with a similar 'house-sound' and very similar constructions.
a bunch of Audeze's under similar conditions.

Expensive to relatively cheap. Variances in tonal balance but also impulse response. Variances of over 10dB (around a doubling of halving of 'volume') at specific frequencies differs a LOT.
Just pull one slider at various frequencies + or - 5dB to understand what a difference that makes.
Even just a small difference can be quite audible. Below the (modified) HD58X with a small passive inline filter that lowers around 5kHz by about 2dB ?
Seems trivial, quite audible non the less. Try with an equalizer to raise the 5kHz slider by 2 dB.

When looking at all the different plots (have measured over 150) all differ and sometimes even well over 20dB.

Speakers are relatively easy to test and to standards.
For headphones there are no real standards.

There is a LOT of science behind headphones even though some people would like you to think they just slap something together and hope to get sales based on looks. May be true for cheap (< $ 30) headphones though.

And no.. I haven't measured (on my rig with my 'compensations') one single flat ideal headphone nor will there ever be one.
For most individuals there will be a 'best' headphone suited best for their taste and budget.

There are some that come close in tonal balance, some measure 'better' some 'worse' in aspects that may or may not be audible enough for some.
Audition and buy what you like.
You can read internet reviews all day long and get ten or more different opinions.

A tip how to weed ?

Listen to a headphone you are familiar to. Find a reviewer who has the same 'preference' or describes it similar with same-ish shortcomings or strenghts and see what that reviewer thinks of headphones you may want to audition.

There is no substitute for your own listening experience, nothing is more personal than a headphone as only YOU have to listen to them.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I get it that good headphone maybe should mimic the frequency response of good speakers in a good room.

However, if this theory is correct, then why don’t all headphones have the SAME frequency response?

Speakers are made based on theory. Are headphones made based on hunch?

The main confounder is the interaction between the phones and the listener's specific head and ear geometry.

And yes, they are made based on what I'd call an "educated hunch"

 

[hvbias]

@solderdude good to see you here, really enjoyed your write up on the HD58x which Massdrop have conveniently quote you on their product page

I am seriously tempted by the drop going on right now for the HD58x Jubilee even though I have HD6xx and the later HD650 with silver screens/different FR from older ones.

With regard to the HD58x Jubilee:
" Similar tonal balance to HD650 but slightly less clarity and a bit 'tighter' in the lows and 'fresher' in the treble. "

Can you expand on what you mean by this? The measurements of the HD650 would have me think it has the more present treble.

 

[solderdude]

Difficult to explain without a proper set of 'words'.

In stock form (mine is modified and filtered) it sounds quite close to the HD6XX in tonal balance. They measure very similar too.
Still, even though the FR is closely (but far from exactly) the same there are differences.

Some find the HD650(HD6XX) a bit too warm and not well defined in the bass.
The HD58X improves on that aspect but not everyone may appreciate the difference.
Around 4kHz there is less 'presence'/'clarity' in the HD58X. Those that find the HD650/HD6XX too 'forward' and upper mids a bit too much may appreciate the small dip the HD58X has. Those that find the upper mids bang on with the HD650 will find the HD58X a bit too 'tame' with some instruments.
Treble wise (lower treble) the stock HD58X (and HD660S) have a few dB 'peak' around 5kHz. This makes the sound a bit 'fresher' and 'faster' sounding.
The peak is low enough NOT to be perceived as 'sibilance' at all just a bit more 'fresh'.

Where the HD6XX/HD650 is a bit 'smooth' and 'warm' in its presentation and with a hint of 'softness' in the bass with good presence and clarity and having soft present treble then the HD58x may not be a good companion.
When you really like the HD650/HD6XX but wish for more perceived bass extension, 'tighter' bass and slightly more 'laid back' = slightly less 'forward' or having a bit less clarity and seeking for a bit less 'softness' in the treble... a bit more 'feisty' and only want this in a small amount then the HD58X is a good choice. No need to keep the HD6XX around then.

A small modification changes the HD58X enough to keep both and maybe switch between them depending on mood/music.

When you hear the HD6xx different than me all the above doesn't apply. The hearing works too different in that case.

 

[maverickronin]

These are very basic terms for describing audio. Although there are many nonsense terms, these terms are certainly useful.

"There is much more to the performance of a headphone than just FR and tonal balance which is hard/impossible to deduce from FR alone."

Like what? FR is pretty much everything in a headphone, since it is so hard to get right.

Most of the time I find distortion and decay characteristics more important than FR since many differences in FR can be fixed with EQ.

The size and positioning of the driver can also have a large effect on how one perceive soundstage as well.

 

[hvbias]

Difficult to explain without a proper set of 'words'.

In stock form (mine is modified and filtered) it sounds quite close to the HD6XX in tonal balance. They measure very similar too.
Still, even though the FR is closely (but far from exactly) the same there are differences.

Some find the HD650(HD6XX) a bit too warm and not well defined in the bass.
The HD58X improves on that aspect but not everyone may appreciate the difference.
Around 4kHz there is less 'presence'/'clarity' in the HD58X. Those that find the HD650/HD6XX too 'forward' and upper mids a bit too much may appreciate the small dip the HD58X has. Those that find the upper mids bang on with the HD650 will find the HD58X a bit too 'tame' with some instruments.
Treble wise (lower treble) the stock HD58X (and HD660S) have a few dB 'peak' around 5kHz. This makes the sound a bit 'fresher' and 'faster' sounding.
The peak is low enough NOT to be perceived as 'sibilance' at all just a bit more 'fresh'.

Where the HD6XX/HD650 is a bit 'smooth' and 'warm' in its presentation and with a hint of 'softness' in the bass with good presence and clarity and having soft present treble then the HD58x may not be a good companion.
When you really like the HD650/HD6XX but wish for more perceived bass extension, 'tighter' bass and slightly more 'laid back' = slightly less 'forward' or having a bit less clarity and seeking for a bit less 'softness' in the treble... a bit more 'feisty' and only want this in a small amount then the HD58X is a good choice. No need to keep the HD6XX around then.

A small modification changes the HD58X enough to keep both and maybe switch between them depending on mood/music.

When you hear the HD6xx different than me all the above doesn't apply. The hearing works too different in that case.

Thanks. Does the Creatology felt have the same effect on HD650 in making the response more neutral?

I have an older Headamp Gilmore Reference balanced headphone amp, and I was wondering if the scalability of the HD650 is real given the 300 ohm impedance which case I would just stick with them.

 

[March Audio]

I hope this is not going to be a “headphones listening impressions thread” because I’m seeing words like “smooth”, “most transparent”, “brighter”, “duller”.

Don’t we have HF already to endlessly discuss headphone emotions, feelings, and hold hands singing Kumbaya.

No we can correlate those impressions to the FR graphs.