Sennheiser HD 650/HD 6XX

[Grave]

I have approximated it as best as I can. I will spend some more time listening to it, but that's all. Personally, I think trying to prove something objectively based on other people's subjective preferences is pretty nuts, so I question the entire premise.

The HD 660 S's bass does not sound distorted to me, and the HD 650's bass did not sound distorted to me compared to the LCD2's bass when I compared them to each other, even though the LCD2's have much lower distortion.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I have approximated it as best as I can. I will spend some more time listening to it, but that's all. Personally, I think trying to prove something objectively based on people's subjective preferences is pretty nuts, so I question the entire premise.

Haha, if you're trying to prove something about how something sounds rather than how it measures, you don't have any option other than controlled subjective studies.

 

[andreasmaaan]

The HD 660 S's bass does not sound distorted to me, and the HD 650's bass did not sound distorted to me compared to the LCD2's bass when I compared them even though the LCD2's have much lower distortion in the bass.

This strikes me as an odd comment given you effectively said in the same post that relying on subjective impressions is nuts

 

[Grave]

This strikes me as an odd comment given you effectively said in the same post that relying on subjective impressions is nuts

*sorry, other people's

I think that the deep bass is giving me a headache. I cannot listen to this Harman target headphone FR approximation any more.

 

[andreasmaaan]

*other people's

I think that the deep bass is giving me headache. I cannot listen to this Harman target headphone FR approximation any more.

FWIW, I recall having far less success subjectively using the foobar GEQ than that of my DAC. I know you're already saying you don't have the patience to experiment more which is fine, but if you decide to come back to this at some point, perhaps consider installing a reputable VST EQ and trying with that...

 

[Grave]

If I can get another EQ to work easily with foobar2000 then I might try it. I really like this EQ compared to the standard foobar200 one though.

 

[andreasmaaan]

If I can get another EQ to work easily with foobar2000 then I might try it. I really like this EQ compared to the standard foobar200 one though.

I've never tried it actually. What do you like about it?

Apart from having fixed bands which is annoying, the standard foobar EQ never sounded to me anything like how I would expect it to sound compared to graphic EQs I've used in Cubase and Ableton Live with similar settings - very hard to know why that is but at some point I stopped trying to do anything with it and stuck to tried and tested VST plugins (e.g. Waves EQ) and the stock EQ Eight in Ableton, which I like a lot.

 

[Grave]

I've never tried it actually. What do you like about it?

Apart from having fixed bands which is annoying, the standard foobar EQ never sounded to me anything like how I would expect it to sound compared to graphic EQs I've used in Cubase and Ableton Live with similar settings - very hard to know why that is but at some point I stopped trying to do anything with it and stuck to tried and tested VST plugins (e.g. Waves EQ) and the stock EQ Eight in Ableton, which I like a lot.

It has so many bands. Also the guy who made it said that it changes the frequency response smoothly instead of in steps like the standard one.

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_xgeq

 

[andreasmaaan]

It has so many bands. Also the guy who made it said that it changes the frequency response smoothly instead of in steps like the standard one.

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_xgeq

Ok yeh, I suspected the step thing might have been the problem with the sound quality of the standard one.

Hey if you wanna send me a couple of tracks in WAV format or tell me a preferred demo track of yours I can try to EQ it for you using one of my preferred EQs and then you can use that to compare?

...just to rule out that EQ as the thing that is killing the dynamics etc.

 

[solderdude]

Olive-Welti curve and Golden ears curve

The O.W. curve shown on previous pages cannot be evaluated related to sound as it corrects for percieved 'flatness'+ the correction needed to compensate for the Pinna + fake ear canal which is unique to the specific brand and type dummy head O.W. used.
Above the plot as laid out to 'flat' as in measurements.

Other well known 'room compensation' plots compared:

My 'bass compensation' is closer to Golden ears but slightly different.
Have written quite a bit about this topic

Sam Vafei also did research to develop a compensation curve for his dummy head.
Here is an interesting video that touches on the subject of compensation for bass.

 

[Grave]

OK, so this explains the few dB difference between the deep bass and the mid bass in the Harman target headphone frequency response, right? This is interesting, but this sounds bad to me. This has poor dynamics and the really loud deep bass gives me a headache. Most headphones tend to do the opposite and boost the mid bass.

 

[andreasmaaan]

OK, so this explains the few dB difference between the deep bass and the mid bass in the Harman target headphone frequency response, right? This is interesting, but this sounds bad to me. This has poor dynamics and the really loud deep bass gives me a headache. Most headphones tend to do the opposite and boost the mid bass.

Would still love to try to EQ a track or two for you with an EQ I know works well if you'd care to nominate one?

 

[Grave]

Suggest another EQ which is free and easy to set up or no.

 

[pkane]

My 'bass compensation' is closer to Golden ears but slightly different.
Have written quite a bit about this topic

Good article, @solderdude!

So, is it your recommendation not to worry about HRTF and compensating for personal physical differences? Olive, aside from a bump in bass, also found that additional headphone corrections were preferred by the majority of his test subjects (black line):

It would seem that at least some headphone manufacturers are using this or other average curves in the design of their headphones. Flattening it out to some other curve would appear to defeat the goal of the original design, no? I'm fully on-board with EQ'ing headphones, just trying to figure out an approach that can be supported by a defensible theory.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Suggest another EQ which is free and easy to set up or no.

I haven't experimented with any free EQ that I've found to perform well, so I'm reluctant to recommend any. This is why I offered to do it for you using an EQ that I know works correctly and does not adversely affect the signal.

Looking at the info site for the EQ you're currently using, it's a piece of freeware designed by an amateur with scant info available about his/her technical background or the functioning of the EQ itself, so it's hard to be confident it is correctly doing what it says it is, and I'd be very hesitant to draw any conclusions from it.

I'm trying to offer to help you rule that out as a possible reason your experiment isn't yielding results. Of course, the EQ you're using may be great. I'm just not confident that it is.

If you don't want to explore further, that's ok. If you do, it would make sense as I see it to take up my offer to EQ something for you using an EQ that can be trusted. If that results in an improvement vs. what you're doing at the moment, then you might want to invest in a quality EQ or start experimenting with some other free EQs to see if you can find one that does a good job.

 

[hvbias]

I have no idea. Did not test this. Sennheiser kind of knows what they are doing so fixed the (IMO) shortcomings with EQ.
The HD650 already has a substantial amount of damping crammed behind the hole. 2 or 3 layers of quite dense foam has about the same effect.
How much more damping is needed would have to be confirmed by measurements. Bass extension will suffer slightly as well.

And do remember.. the HD58X is the cheapest one in that 'line' and not a replacement or improvement per se.
Some like it more, others may like it less.
Good for the money though (between 150 and 200).

Scalability is something subjective.
The HD650 measures exactly the same on an O2 or high-end amp with similar specs.
It is not coupled to impedance at all despite several guru's saying it is.
When one finds the headphone to sound better from amp X or Y or needs more expensive amps then they should do so if it improves on their experience.
I for one am glad I don't have to spend silly amounts of cash on an amp.
Have I heard expensive amps ?
I measured and listened to most high-end stuff around.
For me... I am glad I can spend my funds on other stuff.

I ended buying the HD58x. I don't think they sound as good as the HD6xx or HD650. I am hearing a distinct mid-bass bump and lack of clarity in the vocal region, as if vocals are more recessed than the other two headphones. I am guessing this midbass bump and slight dip (what I am hearing and for some reason doesn't correlate with measurements?) in the presence area is what is making them sound closed in as well.

And just so it's not a difference with pad age, my HD6xx pads are also basically brand new as I only used them to test they worked fine when I received them then put them away... thinking it was a one time drop on really cheap HD650.

To give another example I was watching the latest episode of Better Call Saul and in the diner scene with Jimmy and Mike where it's entirely dialog you can easily tell the HD58x lack the vocal clarity and emphasize the bassier qualities of the male voice. I was directly going back and forth between HD58x and HD6xx several times both with music and some TV shows.

 

[solderdude]

The HD58X has the same midbass hump as the HD650. And yes, the clarity 'dip' opposite the HD6XX is also visible in the plots.
So yes, your findings correlate well with measurements.
Some complained about the 2-3kHz area to be too present in the HD600 and HD650 and wanted less midbass hump and lower treble.
Hence the HD660S was born. It has less midbass hump. Is tighter in the lows, has less presence in the 2-3kHz area and is a bit 'fresher' sounding because of the 5kHz peak. Guess what, some don't like it and prefer the HD650.

The HD58X is intended as an homage to the first HD580, Axel's first design. It is cheaper than the HD6XX so it is not reasonable to think it is 'better'.
Mine is modded and feel it is almost HD660S territory now which means crap for person A and wonderful for person B.
It's not the dogs boll... but it is the cheapest offering in that line-up from Sennheiser. All has to be seen in perspective.
Some prefer this, others prefer something else.
In any case one won't know for sure unless one tried it.
Sometimes one needs a little 'brain in' and headphones can 'grow' on you.

 

[Grave]

The HD 660 S's do not sound noticeably different from the HD 650's frequency response wise to me. They are very similar.

The HD 58X sounds like ass to me.

 

[hvbias]

The HD58X has the same midbass hump as the HD650. And yes, the clarity 'dip' opposite the HD6XX is also visible in the plots.
So yes, your findings correlate well with measurements.
Some complained about the 2-3kHz area to be too present in the HD600 and HD650 and wanted less midbass hump and lower treble.
Hence the HD660S was born. It has less midbass hump. Is tighter in the lows, has less presence in the 2-3kHz area and is a bit 'fresher' sounding because of the 5kHz peak. Guess what, some don't like it and prefer the HD650.

The HD58X is intended as an homage to the first HD580, Axel's first design. It is cheaper than the HD6XX so it is not reasonable to think it is 'better'.
Mine is modded and feel it is almost HD660S territory now which means crap for person A and wonderful for person B.
It's not the dogs boll... but it is the cheapest offering in that line-up from Sennheiser. All has to be seen in perspective.
Some prefer this, others prefer something else.
In any case one won't know for sure unless one tried it.
Sometimes one needs a little 'brain in' and headphones can 'grow' on you.

I have HD580 as well, they sound much closer to the HD6xx/HD650 than the HD58x Jubilee. I understand the need to get adjusted to headphones, but I would simply rather listen to what sound more neutral/natural to me and that is HD6xx/HD650 and not HD58x or HD660s.

That 2k-4k dip on your measurements on HD58x stock vs HD650- I would not have thought that degree of "subtly" would have made such a large difference in what I am hearing. And for what it's worth it had been well over a month since I heard HD58x and couldn't remember a thing about your measurements, so my opinion was not colored by them.

Do you have measurements of your modified HD58x overlayed with the HD650? I also find it interesting that though the midbass on both measure the same it is the lack of the presence region on the HD58x that give the illusion of them having more midbass. I have always suspected when listening to speakers that are bright, it might (not always) just be they are lacking in bass and the treble response probably did measure decent.

I am not saying they are a poor value or over priced, there are many more poor performing headphones that cost much, much more than them. However I do think Sennheiser/Massdrops marketing spiel that they are easier to drive is overblown. I have no issue driving HD6xx/HD650 with basic setups.

The HD 660 S's do not sound noticeably different from the HD 650's frequency response wise to me. They are very similar.

The HD 58X sounds like ass to me.

Have you heard the HD58x or are you just going by the measurements? It seems like you and me are two of the few dissenting opinions on the HD58x, though I would use far from the juvenile Headfi-esque term of "sounds like ass".

I do intend to try some of these mods as long as they are reversible.

 

[solderdude]

That 2k-4k dip on your measurements on HD58x stock vs HD650- I would not have thought that degree of "subtly" would have made such a large difference in what I am hearing.

The 2k-4k dip is almost 4dB which is quite audible. Pull down the 3kHz slider on an EQ 4dB on a HD650, or reversely add 4dB in the HD58X just for fun.
On top of that the same is going on around 18kHz so you could play with a 16kHz or 20kHz slider as well.

I also use a passive filter that shaves of the 5kHz peak by just a few dB and is audible. That difference is much smaller than the 2-4kHz dip.

Sadly the 2-4kHz dip cannot be 'undone' using mods or passive filtering so selling or returning it seems the only way for you.
You are definitely not the only one not liking the HD58X though most complaints are about comfort.

Do you have measurements of your modified HD58x overlayed with the HD650? I also find it interesting that though the midbass on both measure the same it is the lack of the presence region on the HD58x that give the illusion of them having more midbass. I have always suspected when listening to speakers that are bright, it might (not always) just be they are lacking in bass and the treble response probably did measure decent.

When I do not forget the next time I amp playing with the measurement program I could overlay them.
I do have overlays with HD660S and HD600 (=HD580)
With speakers one also has to consider polar patterns and reflections/room thingies.

I do think Sennheiser/Massdrops marketing spiel that they are easier to drive is overblown.

Yes ! I read it in almost every review that it plays much louder... I measured the difference being just over 3dB which is not much but audible.

I do intend to try some of these mods as long as they are reversible.

Yes reversible. Getting the right materials and playing with materials to suit your taste is paramount.
The dip won't go away but may get relatively smaller.

I only like my HD58X modified and with the passive filter in line. I don't mind and even welcome a slight 'BBC dip' in the 2-4kHz range.