• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sennheiser HD800S Review (Headphone)

bobbooo

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,479
Likes
2,079
20201215_114802.png
 

threni

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
1,277
Likes
1,519
Location
/dev/null
Absolutely NOT.
This is a common but wrong point of view based on an illogical train of thought.
As long as we use the same ears to listen to things in everyday life changing the hifi to make a sound different to real life would obviously sound completely unnatural and wrong to anybody, whatever the state of their hearing.
I see this sort of comment over and over again and it does not make the tiniest bit of scientific sense.
It is far more likely that younger people haven't heard much, if any, live music in their lives and turning up the bass is what we do when we are young (I did), particularly if we are only used to only listening to music over little speakers.

Deliberately altering the frequency response may sound "nice", it may be "preferred" by a majority of people.
That does not make it more accurate, it makes it more euphonic.
It is not high fidelity IMO or IME.

If your hearing is damaged you wear a hearing aid. It corrects hearing in one or both ears. It makes "real life" sound better - more natural; that is, you have a better shot at not missing the perception of sounds which are actually there.

If the damage is to one ear, as in a friend's case, one could eq the recordings themselves (fix the problem in the flac files permanently via Audacity, for example) or perform simple eq whilst listening by altering the balance on the headphones. Clearly this creates a difference between "real life" (ie non-headphone use) and music listening. It manifestly does not make the sound "completely unnatural and wrong" - at least, not to the hearing-damaged person. It would to you and I - it would make one channel sound too loud - but obviously this discussion is limited to the single subject performing and experiencing the alterations. For them, it's correcting a problem. Like wearing a pair of glasses.

And again, obviously most eq is not of the form of massively increasing the volume in one ear; it's boosting this frequency, attenuating that. The principle is exactly the same, though.
 

bidn

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
195
Likes
821
Location
Kingdom of the Netherlands
I tried with lound level on a pair of HE-500 hifiman and the HD800, I can't hear bass below 40hz, and that with the default setting both the HE500 (which is similar to HE6 in tyll's measurement in bass) and the HD800 sounds already bassy to me, any higher would sound like extra bass boost to make it bass heavy, similar to the balance on the 8030C without EQ or using switches and placed very close to rear wall getting the 6db boost.

and from what I read from the Harman curve it's more or less a preference curve by individuals and the default curve are mostly young guys, which from experience tend to prefer some very bass heavy pub music? in that sense it seems to me the curve is actually deviates from bass neutral in a well treated studio setup.

Thus my question to the measurement is that the harman curve while makes the preference for most ppl, is not what we target for a perceivable neutral tuning?

Hi YSC,

there are actually different Harman target curves, as they updated it over the years, increasing the bass level.

There are two things which I see as important :

- vocal communication is essential to humans, and in the presence area there is indeed the less variability, i.e. deviation from neutrality in this area is certainly more wrong than in other areas

- studies were made several decades ago (I think they were described in AES papers), they showed differences re. different places in the world. These studies were made in the USA, several Western European countries and Japan, re. what they perceived as right, neutral.
People in the USA would go for an elevated bass, while those in Japan for elevation in the treble. People in Western Europe were in between, expecting the bass levels similar to those of the Japanese, but treble levels similar to those of the North-Americans.

In any case, while any scientifically-based target curve may not be represent an absolute neutrality, it will always be infinitely better than the praises of those numerous "audiophile" reviewers who rely entirely on their hearing without any measurements and get paid in money, or in the form of advertisements (to their site or to their magazine) or in the form of receiving expensive devices for free (selling them afterwards) , and never being clearly negative about these devices they get to review for financial interest.
 
Last edited:

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
Hi YSC,

there are actually different Harman target curves, as they updated it over the years, increasing the bass level.

There are two things which I see as important :

- vocal communication is essential to humans, and in the presence there is indeed the less variability, i.e. deviation from neutrality in this area is certainly more wrong than in other areas

- studies were made several decades ago (I think they were described in AES papers), they showed differences re. different places in the world. These studies were made in the USA, several Western European countries and Japan, re. what they perceived as right, neutral.
People in the USA would go for an elevated bass, while those in Japan for elevation in the treble. People in Western Europe were in between, expecting the bass levels similar to those of the Japanese, but treble levels similar to those of the North-Americans.

In any case, while any scientifically-based target curve may not be represent an absolute neutrality, it will always be infinitely better than the praises of those numerous "audiophile" reviewers who rely entirely on their hearing without any measurements and get paid in money, or in the form of advertisements (to their site or to their magazine) or in the form of receiving expensive devices for free (selling them afterwards) , and never being clearly negative about these devices they get to review for financial interest.
I do agree that measurements are important but the Harman target never seems right to me, once tried using that and ended up my phones sounds like XBS series from Sony with advertised massive bass boost.. and for bass level when I found Hifiman, UERR with capitol studio tuning it and the sennheiser hd800 are all at similar levels I tend to believe that’s what perceived neutral is and the harman is what makes it sounds nice maybe with some head shaking feel from massive bass boost
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
If your hearing is damaged you wear a hearing aid. It corrects hearing in one or both ears. It makes "real life" sound better - more natural; that is, you have a better shot at not missing the perception of sounds which are actually there.

If the damage is to one ear, as in a friend's case, one could eq the recordings themselves (fix the problem in the flac files permanently via Audacity, for example) or perform simple eq whilst listening by altering the balance on the headphones. Clearly this creates a difference between "real life" (ie non-headphone use) and music listening. It manifestly does not make the sound "completely unnatural and wrong" - at least, not to the hearing-damaged person. It would to you and I - it would make one channel sound too loud - but obviously this discussion is limited to the single subject performing and experiencing the alterations. For them, it's correcting a problem. Like wearing a pair of glasses.

And again, obviously most eq is not of the form of massively increasing the volume in one ear; it's boosting this frequency, attenuating that. The principle is exactly the same, though.
:facepalm:
Listening whilst wearing a hearing aid, if one needs one, is the same since YOU USE THE HEARING AID TO LISTEN TO REAL LIFE AS WELL
 

threni

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
1,277
Likes
1,519
Location
/dev/null
:facepalm:
Listening whilst wearing a hearing aid, if one needs one, is the same since YOU USE THE HEARING AID TO LISTEN TO REAL LIFE AS WELL

So you're saying that if technology existed such that everyone could wear a hearing aid which compensated for the natural damage caused by ageing and experience a flat response (countering the slowly worsening high frequency response which reduces the ability to perceive and enjoy certain instruments) that would be acceptable to you, but that until then older/hearing damaged people should just put up with inferior sound when listening to music because at least that is consistent with their inferior non-music listening?
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Once there, this headphone is doing something I don't hear with any speaker system and not yet on any headphone. It manages to provide a spooky layering and I guess I should say clarity that is not only surprisingly but delightful. I don't know if the effect will be too much if it comes across a lot of music but so far, I can't help but liking it and liking it a lot.

On a comfort side the HD800S is a delight. I find a lot of other headphone confining but not the 800S. Combine this with the post Equalization and you have a headphone I don't want to part with!

Yep, even when EQ'ed properly in tonal balance the HD800(S) is simply a step above most other headphones. The imaging and detail retrieval have a sense of realism that the vast majority of headphones simply doesn't reach. I like to call this 'effortless' sound. One of the very few headphones that is even better is the HE-1.
Some TOTL headphones come close (Utopia for instance and some stats) but are pricier than HD800(S).
Perhaps, strange as it seems, the HD800 (no S) with EQ is a budget T.O.T.L. headphone :)
 

whazzup

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
575
Likes
486
Here is a great track to use to test the above effect:


This track just sounds stunning with the HD800S and above equalization. There is deep bass, wonderfully clean highs and that great instrument separation.

For those not in the States (Spotify link)
 

bluefuzz

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
1,043
Likes
1,774
It's unclear whether equalising two different headphones to the exact same target on the exact same test rig will produce the exact same frequency response at your own eardrum.

I've never been much of a headphone person but I have recently acquired a little Topping E30/D30 stack and a few pairs of headphones to see what all the fuss is about. I have thus acquired some Sennheiser (Drop) HD58X, AKG K701, Philips Fidelio X2HR and Beyerdynamic DT990 Editions. As far as I can tell these are all generally well-regarded mid-range 'phones.

Out of the box all these 'phones sounded more or less OK but by no means 'good' to my ear. All of them rather bright and bass shy in different ways. I'd say the Fidelios have the best bass and midrange while HD58X the best upper mids and treble. But I wouldn't want to listen to any of them for any length of time to be honest.

So I got myself a MiniDSP EARS rig (I don't have Amir's apparently infinitely deep pockets to spring for a Gras) and a copy of REW and went to work. To cut a long story short I can EQ all these four pairs of 'phones to sound a) virtually indestinguishable from each other and b) subjectively very pleasing to my taste. I base my EQ on the EARS default 'HEQ' curve which I believe is more or less based on the Harman curve. I seem to prefer a bit more bass below ~40 Hz and a slight downward slope from 8 kHz and up.

With regard to bass, I certainly don't consider myself a 'basshead', but if it's there I want to hear it. To my thinking, if testtones from 20 Hz to the limit of my hearing (around 15 kHz on a good day) sound equally loud then the EQ is reasonably accurate. It is surprisingly difficult to judge such things but I have tried comparing a series of testtones, with and without my EQ, and all the 'phones are certainly much more even with the EQ than without – especially in the bass – although below ~30 Hz they are all less loud than other frequencies to my ear.

Obviously, this is all anecdotal and unscientific, but I'd say yes you can equalise two (or four) headphones to the same target and make them sound, if not identical, then as close as it doesn't matter. After EQ I would be happy to live with any of these phones. Without EQ I wouldn't want to live with any of them ...
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
I dislike reviewing of headphones just about as I expected to on ASR. That field isn't on firm ground scientifically the way loudspeaker design is.

So much extra money for less accurate response needing EQ, but better subjective layering so recommended. Sounds more like something on SBAF than what belongs here. I think such continued reviewing will undermine what is otherwise the strong basis for so much reviewing of other gear on ASR. You'll end up having to use the same iffy practices to get a practical headphone review as is done elsewhere, but they don't limit it to headphones, rather having iffy practices for all gear. And people will be inclined to disbelief the best part of ASR when it suits them, because the site's owner does so himself on headphones.
I think you're wrong for two reasons:
  1. The members here like them and there is plenty of good, informed discussion. We are likely to get more, not less, discussion of this kind because of the community and the ideas supported here. That Amir's headphone reviews are less firm and require more introspection on his part is not a sign that he or we are lapsing from the established approach. It's just new territory.
  2. Related, just like the SINAD and preference score debates, we can't keep arguing on the part of imaginary masses who will, apparently, see no difference in the approach here and elsewhere, and will further jump to conclusions without understanding or looking further at the data. If we do see evidence of that, I would think our goal is to clarify, set the proper context, provide references and so forth. In other words, we should not conclude that the overall approach is inherently wrong because there is a possibility of misinterpretation.
Personally, I'd get into headphone testing out of curiosity, no matter the state of the field, for the very reason because that is somewhat of an unknown. It means there are still things to discover.

On top of that it's possible that someone might offer up gear like the Smyth Realizer, and Amir could test both the electronics and headphones. Maybe even extending this to plug-ins. In headphone listening these spatializers are as thoroughly part of the discourse and market as EQ.
 

pavuol

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
1,562
Likes
3,950
Location
EU next to warzone :.(
One of the very few headphones that is even better is the HE-1.
Well they better be at their price :D I'm pretty sure if some kind member send them for testing Amir would be able to prioritize it so the owner wouldn't have to wait months for them being returned.. :D:p

Some TOTL headphones come close (Utopia for instance and some stats) but are pricier than HD800(S).
I hear some french gentlemen gnashing their teeth.. :)
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Yep, even when EQ'ed properly in tonal balance the HD800(S) is simply a step above most other headphones. The imaging and detail retrieval have a sense of realism that the vast majority of headphones simply doesn't reach. I like to call this 'effortless' sound. One of the very few headphones that is even better is the HE-1.
Some TOTL headphones come close (Utopia for instance and some stats) but are pricier than HD800(S).
Perhaps, strange as it seems, the HD800 (no S) with EQ is a budget T.O.T.L. headphone :)
I'm consistently surprised how accurate your measurement rig is compared to other, more expensive setups. Well done.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
The imaging and detail retrieval have a sense of realism that the vast majority of headphones simply doesn't reach.

If it isn't FR and/or distortion, what is it? How does one explain or quantify imaging and detail retrieval? Just a rhetorical question I guess as my subjective experience matches yours and, worse (at least in the ASR/Harman preference score context), I get a similar feeling about loudspeakers...

As @Blumlein 88 stated above, it seems headphone reviews may lead us into the dangerous "measures worse but sounds better" territory.
Let's give it some time, but if that mantra applies to headphones, it will become harder to argue it doesn't potentially apply to everything else...
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
It's probably due to your age (no offense intended :D ). You don't hear the higher frequencies as well as you used to and more bass drowns them out even more. If you still hear the treble loud and clearly you need some extra bass to compensate.

I'm not so sure about this. I absolutely prefer an Harman-curve like in-room bass shelf when listening to loudspeakers in a room, but prefer a significantly milder bass boost when listening on headphones.

I realise this is just a single data point but, as I understand it, the broader science regarding your statement remains ambiguous.
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,292
Likes
3,880
This is ridiculous.
I still listen to real life with the same ears I use to listen to my hifi.
I have seen this sort of comment before about compensating for age related hearing loss and there is not even a tiny glimmer of logic to it.
My reference is the outside world and the many, many more concerts I have been to since I was young and, hence, a much keener knowledge of what real acoustic music, as opposed to music from speakers, actually sounds like.
Any relationship with my age is more knowledge and experience. When I was young and had pretty well only heard music over speakers, and almost exclusively pop music at that, I am sure I would have liked the preference curve Harman have assembled from a lot of listeners.
Now I am very much more knowledgeable and experienced I definitely do not.
Talking preference back in the day nearly everybody I knew had the "loudness" contour on and/or the bass turned up. "Preference" IME has little to do with accurate reproduction.
While age has no impact on headphone preference as a whole, it does have an effect on bass and treble preferences.

Edit; somebody else already posted this image I see.

1608040430299.png
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
If it isn't FR and/or distortion, what is it? How does one explain or quantify imaging and detail retrieval? Just a rhetorical question I guess as my subjective experience matches yours and, worse (at least in the ASR/Harman preference score context), I get a similar feeling about loudspeakers...

As @Blumlein 88 stated above, it seems headphone reviews may lead us into the dangerous "measures worse but sounds better" territory.
Let's give it some time, but if that mantra applies to headphones, it will become harder to argue it doesn't potentially apply to everything else...
It's likely the large angled drivers and the greater distance between them and the concha.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
It's likely the large angled drivers and the greater distance between them and the concha.

Ah, yes, thx. That would be the speaker+room issue, except that we wear the room on our heads in this case.
 
Top Bottom