Sennheiser HD800S Review (Headphone)

[pozz]

I don't give a damn what people "choose to buy." Buying shit is completely out of the scope of my point. My point is that a recommendation should be based on the performance of the actual product, optimized using its included capabilities, not some doctored version of it. The issue is more acute in headphones, because in the real world audio companies have thus far failed to market useful headphone amps. So as a practical matter the doctored version is not available.

What's the problem with saying the inverse, i.e., that the none-EQed version is not recommended? @amirm is pretty clear both ways in his reviews.

EQ also isn't "doctoring". It's accessible to anyone and is done at the source, not to the product. If you happen to be a listener that doesn't like EQ or doesn't include it the signal chain then you know to skip the product.

 

[RayDunzl]

The science tells us that older listeners prefer less bass.

Maybe.

Did this study of preference follow individual people for 40 years or more finding they preferred more bass in their youth and less in their pre-elder years?

 

[Doodski]

View attachment 99391

I have a 800s. curious that how is improved
by your eq setting. is there anyway I can just download and load your eq? what is your eq software? I tried parametric eq as a software name, but get nothing similar....

The parametric EQ used in the ASR review is included in ROON.
Here's a free parametric>
https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/

 

[pozz]

Excellent post @pozz, thanks

Do you happen to have links to these studies?

Categorical loudness scaling and equal-loudness contours in listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss

The image below shows graphs for hearing loss of 0dB, 20dB, 40dB and 60dB HL.

I'm fairly certain I have read similar things related to the change (widening in older listeners) of critical band width in the psychoacoustics books I have, but I haven't looked into the specifics enough to really comment.

 

[vkvedam]

I would need more time to analyze what is going on. As I noted though, my current hypothesis is exaggeration of certain frequencies above 5 kHz combined with the larger caps and maybe even driver design. If it is the latter aspects then measuring their effect is beyond our reach right now.

It certainly questions our current capability to objectively measure the nuances which can easily be perceived subjectively. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Nango]

People can get used to anything. That's what "burn-in" is all about. Mental burn-in. By all accounts these headphones sound great. Objectively, they're not flat and you can fix that to some extent with EQ. Flat response is ideal because then your hifi has no "opinion" and you don't have to balance a "bright" amp with "dark" headphones... supposing you did but then you got a new "normal" amp; you'd notice the drop in treble and "have" to fix with eq. But once you have a totally flat system (to the extent that's possible, and/or you can afford/justify the cost) you might like a touch more bass. Different people like different guitars, pianos. Given these headphones, and another pair which are flatter but with, for example, less effective separation of instruments, who's to say which are "better". Depends what you're into, right? I have the objectively (according to amirm) well measuring Topping E30 and Schiit Asgard 3 with my HD 660 S and I still went for the Schiit Loki eq because personally I think the headphones sound better with a touch more high and low end. Couldn't tell you if that makes them more flat, couldn't really care less either. Zappa's Fillmore East sounds like the mics were under a few inches of mud so that's a good example of a recording where some treble boost improves things; do that on Autechre's Sign and you'll just get a headache.

Ok, my favorite question here is: Why is "burn-in" always beneficial, rarely heard after the "burn-in" the device (whatever it is) turned out to be worse than before ??

 

[jhaider]

What's the problem with saying the inverse, i.e., that the none-EQed version is not recommended? @amirm is pretty clear both ways in his reviews.

In the real world, people read the bold text and ignore the caveats.

It's [eq] accessible to anyone and is done at the source, not to the product.

Please explain how someone is going to EQ headphones while listening to Tidal (or local files) on a locked down work computer, or their work or personal iDevice, connected to a headphone amp (ie how real people actually use expensive open headphones in the real world). Unfortunately, largely because current headphone amps are specs rich but thought poor, that is not possible.

 

[Frank Dernie]

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?

No.
I enjoy music with the ears I have and always have.
If somebody can't hear properly they should get a hearing aid.
If they want high fidelity they should play back music with an accurate system.
If they prefer a euphonic tailored frequency response they are welcome to use it, it would seem a lot of people do.
Claiming that is high fidelity is bonkers.

 

[A Surfer]

In the real world, people read the bold text and ignore the caveats.



Please explain how someone is going to EQ headphones while listening to Tidal (or local files) on a locked down work computer or iDevice connected to a headphone amp (ie how real people actually use expensive open headphones in the real world). Unfortunately, largely because current headphone amps are specs rich but thought poor, that is not possible.

Where are you getting all of this information about all the headphone amps out there? And how are you able to hold all that information in your memory allowing you to have such certainty in your claims? I use very effective equalization through Onkyo HF Player on my phone when doing any portable listening and when at home I use JRiver with good equalization. I use headphones both portably and at home without any barrier to accessing equalization when desired.

 

[Frank Dernie]

When they do, it is actually nice.

Tailoring the FR to make it "nice" fits into exactly the same pidgeonhole as preferring LPs or any other euphonic mod. Lots of people may prefer it but it isn't high fidelity.
I don't like excess bass at all.

 

[A Surfer]

Tailoring the FR to make it "nice" fits into exactly the same pidgeonhole as preferring LPs or any other euphonic mod. Lots of people may prefer it but it isn't high fidelity.
I don't like excess bass at all.

No to be argumentative, but genuinely asking, what is the accepted definition of high fidelity?

 

[pozz]

In the real world, people read the bold text and ignore the caveats.

Please explain how someone is going to EQ headphones while listening to Tidal (or local files) on a locked down work computer or iDevice connected to a headphone amp (ie how real people actually use expensive open headphones in the real world). Unfortunately, largely because current headphone amps are specs rich but thought poor, that is not possible.

Well, like I said above, I think it's time to stop arguing on behalf on an imaginary person who will misunderstand the review because they don't look at the details or do their own research. In that specific use case (work, portable use) it's very unlikely that someone would knowingly buy the open-backed HD800S either, so your comment is somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Blumlein 88]

See this article about the Harman curves by @Ilkless: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-limits-of-harman-headphone-iem-curves.12836/ Also goes into the angled drivers of the HD800 and provides good evidence for why they are the reason for the apparent spaciousness.

That is a good 3 part article. It still sounds too me that we have not a circle of confusion with phones, but multiple circles of confusion creating a fog of confusion. Some of it is being unravelled, but there is a long way to go. So now we will have Amir's compromised version with it's own idiosyncrasies along with several others in the headphones arena.

Some good may come out of it over time. So far it looks like everyone makes a little progress and understandably stops short of solving an admittedly difficult problem.

 

[Frank Dernie]

No to be argumentative, but genuinely asking, what is the accepted definition of high fidelity?

For me it is high fidelity to the recording.
Preference, which may be any frequency response mod one likes, is not increasing the fidelity of reproduction, it is changing it to match a preference.

 

[oldsweatyman]

The part that I don't understand from this review is why these are exclusively recommended with EQ, but this doesn't apply to the LCD-X, which wasn't recommended, despite also being "transformed" by EQ.

 

[threni]

Ok, my favorite question here is: Why is "burn-in" always beneficial, rarely heard after the "burn-in" the device (whatever it is) turned out to be worse than before ??

If the question was for me I'd politely point out I was talking about mental/psychological burn-in; something which happens to neurons, not electrons/speaker diaphragms etc.

 

[pozz]

That is a good 3 part article. It still sounds too me that we have not a circle of confusion with phones, but multiple circles of confusion creating a fog of confusion. Some of it is being unravelled, but there is a long way to go. So now we will have Amir's compromised version with it's own idiosyncrasies along with several others in the headphones arena.

Some good may come out of it over time. So far it looks like everyone makes a little progress and understandably stops short of solving an admittedly difficult problem.

Going in circles until you hit the tripwire of clarity and faceplant in new facts is science

 

[solderdude]

Please explain how someone is going to EQ headphones while listening to Tidal (or local files) on a locked down work computer, or their work or personal iDevice, connected to a headphone amp (ie how real people actually use expensive open headphones in the real world). Unfortunately, largely because current headphone amps are specs rich but thought poor, that is not possible.

There is a (portable and desktop) amp solution for this. Just not commercially available.
Another and simpler solution is to use the phone as a source. EQ is easy on such a device.

 

[jhaider]

In that specific use case (work, portable use) it's very unlikely that someone would knowingly buy the open-backed HD800S either, so your comment is somewhat irrelevant.

In the before times I could have walked you into at offices of multiple people in my firm who use expensive open backed headphones, including a couple Sennheiser 800 models.

Where are you getting all of this information about all the headphone amps out there?

Please point me to a review of a current headphone amps here that discuss the PEQ functionality or crossfeed/HRTF/room virtualization that will work on an iDevice or locked down Windows 10 laptop (no proprietary driver req’d). The old HeadRoom one doesn’t count!

OK, I think RME may have crossfeed and limited PEQ. Post the link to one more.

Bottom line is if someone made an actually useful headphone amp I would likely know about it.

 

[andreasmaaan]

No to be argumentative, but genuinely asking, what is the accepted definition of high fidelity?

Accurate to the recording is the standard definition.

It's easier to specify with regard to electronics, since the signal remains in the same domain (i.e. electrical).

It gets more complicated once the electrical signal is converted into acoustical energy by speakers. The main reason (in theoretical terms) is that we've gone from the two dimensions present in the recording (time and amplitude) and added the dimensions of space.

To illustrate this, most would agree that a speaker with flat direct sound is higher-fidelity than one with non-flat direct sound. But what is the most "high-fidelity" polar radiation pattern for a loudspeaker? Moreover, is the goal of sound reproduction for the speakers alone to reproduce an output that is accurate to the source? Or are the speakers and room best viewed as a unified sound-reproducing system? Or, is it some combination of the two, and if so, how and where should the line be drawn? Etc...

Ultimately in my view these questions need to be informed by psychoacoustics and, at least with regard to some aspects of the matter, it's not necessarily possible to reach categorical conclusions.

The circle of confusion and its effects are another major confounding factor.