Sennheiser HD800S Review (Headphone)

[IAtaman]

FR (at the eardrum) is though, and it must be, because that's how our hearing works physiologically.

Well, as far as opinions goes, it is a sensible one. It is still an opinion though and should not be presented as a fact.

My knowledge on the topic is not very deep, but I do understand why you and others say that - frequency is the unit of perception of our hearing, so sound stage and other spatial effects must be related to it, be contained within it. I think it is more complicated than that though and I don't think the magnitude vs frequency graph is ever going to be able to explain spatial capabilities of a headphone on its own, in the same way a histogram of an image can not explain our ability to detect edges and objects in the image.

If image analogy holds, one can argue that changing the color grading of an image would not affect our ability to recognize human faces in that image for example, and in a similar fashion, I think it is feasible to imagine that changing tuning of a headphone might not affect our ability to extract spatial ques from its output either as it was claimed previously in this thread.

 

[MayaTlab]

The acoustic interaction of your specific pinnae and the HD800, which completely encircles them unimpeded and so maximises this interaction, is likely what contributes to a frequency response at your eardrum that maximises perceived spatial effects, so the two are not independent of each other.

The hypothesis that some headphone designs are more prone to interact with the users' ears in a way that follows what their individual anatomy dictates would be most desirable for them (not considering here preferential tilts or shelves) is something that I'm dying to actually see tested.

Ie, is the inter-individual variation for A (HD800) below tracking better the desirable variation between individuals than B (Stax λ pro) or C (HD650), or just as random / undesirable ?

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

www.aes.org

 

[Spyart]

The hypothesis that some headphone designs are more prone to interact with the users' ears in a way that follows what their individual anatomy dictates would be most desirable for them (not considering here preferential tilts or shelves) is something that I'm dying to actually see tested.

Ie, is the inter-individual variation for A (HD800) below tracking better the desirable variation between individuals than B (Stax λ pro) or C (HD650), or just as random / undesirable ?

View attachment 290386

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

www.aes.org

because hd800 allows better placing of in ear mic due to big "room" between ear and cone

 

[Robbo99999]

Unless you've actually tested this (blind), no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

He's talking about frequency response at your eardrum. The acoustic interaction of your specific pinnae and the HD800, which completely encircles them unimpeded and so maximises this interaction, is likely what contributes to a frequency response at your eardrum that maximises perceived spatial effects, so the two are not independent of each other.

I agree with @DualTriode if he was referencing frequency response at your eardrum, there's nothing else really! (I thought he was mainly talking about measured frequency response at eardrum of dummy head, which is not the same thing.)

 

[Robbo99999]

I am not into gaming, just listening to music, so will it work for this aim?

I wouldn't use the Virtual Surround Sound option for music listening as I think it will introduce too many inaccuracies. About the only time you'd even ever consider Virtual Surround Sound for music listening was if you were listening to multichannel music, but the generic HRTF used by Virtual Surround Sound doesn't sit well with me from a theoretical perspective when listening to music, I think it would pollute it too much.......but for Surround Sound gaming then I think it's great to the use Virtual Surround Sound as the main focus is in being able to distinguish front & back even if it does "pollute" the sound to some degree. I would use Virtual Surround Sound for movie watching if the movie you were watching is being played back in 5.1 or 7.1 for instance, as I feel the same way about that as gaming. But in terms of music listening only, Virtual Surround Sound pollutes the music signal too much though for proper music listening in my opinion. The personalised "HRTF measuring options" of Smyth Realizer could be the exception to that rule though, but I've not tried it.

 

[GaryH]

If image analogy holds

It doesn't. There is no physiological mechanism in the ear for anything more than spatially one-dimensional detection of sound arriving at the eardrum. Each eye however has ~91 million rod cells (intensity detection) and ~4.5 million cone cells (color detection) distributed over a two-dimensional area on the retina which is what facilitates shape detection. The correct analogy would be each eye only having one rod/cone. Try recognizing a face with that!

 

[IAtaman]

It doesn't. There is no physiological mechanism in the ear for anything more than spatially one-dimensional detection of sound arriving at the eardrum. Each eye however has ~91 million rod cells (intensity detection) and ~4.5 million cone cells (color detection) distributed over a two-dimensional area on the retina which is what facilitates shape detection. The correct analogy would be each eye only having one rod/cone. Try recognizing a face with that!

Either you are missing something or I am, because what you said makes no sense whatsoever to me. You are not saying our ability to detect sound is one dimensional are you?

 

[DualTriode]

There is no physiological mechanism in the ear for anything more than spatially one-dimensional detection of sound arriving at the eardrum.

Hello,

What you say here is completely untrue.

We often hear of the ear-brain. Our ears both of them function with a complex signal processor, our brain.

Open any physiological-psychology text and read the chapter on hearing.

Thanks DT

I wouldn't use the Virtual Surround Sound option for music listening as I think it will introduce too many inaccuracies. About the only time you'd even ever consider Virtual Surround Sound for music listening was if you were listening to multichannel music, but the generic HRTF used by Virtual Surround Sound doesn't sit well with me from a theoretical perspective when listening to music, I think it would pollute it too much.......but for Surround Sound gaming then I think it's great to the use Virtual Surround Sound as the main focus is in being able to distinguish front & back even if it does "pollute" the sound to some degree. I would use Virtual Surround Sound for movie watching if the movie you were watching is being played back in 5.1 or 7.1 for instance, as I feel the same way about that as gaming. But in terms of music listening only, Virtual Surround Sound pollutes the music signal too much though for proper music listening in my opinion. The personalised "HRTF measuring options" of Smyth Realizer could be the exception to that rule though, but I've not tried it.

I think of 3D Computer Aided Audio Design, even if it is complete fiction as a goal. You know the kind cognitive space where you close your eyes and imagine being there as if it were real.

I am talking artificial (complete fiction) or augmented reality headphones and implants for the hearing impaired.

Thanks DT

 

[Pearljam5000]

Best headphones ever made
Yes I said it

 

[Robbo99999]

Best headphones ever made
Yes I said it

Ha, you've got a new pic, have you got those Genelecs now - please say yes!!

 

[GaryH]

Either you are missing something or I am, because what you said makes no sense whatsoever to me. You are not saying our ability to detect sound is one dimensional are you?

What you say here is completely untrue.

It doesn't. There is no physiological mechanism in the ear for anything more than spatially one-dimensional detection of sound arriving at the eardrum.

I'm talking about the physical mechanism inside the (i.e. one) ear, how that mechanism works only in one spatial dimension (in and out movement of the eardrum, which is then transmitted on to the ossicles one dimensionally, as shown in the video I linked), and contrasting this with the (i.e. one) eye, whose physical mechanism of detection is categorically different spatially in that it is inherently two-dimensional, and so a bad analogy for how hearing generates spatial perception, which is via ITD, ILD between two ears, head movements etc. and frequency cues, only the latter of which is really functionally operational during headphone listening (acoustic crosstalk being minimal and mangled even for open headphones). Therefore 'changing the color grading of an image would not affect our ability to recognize human faces' doesn't make sense as an analogy for spatial effects during headphone listening as frequency cues are all we have to go on in this case.

 

[MacClintock]

I agree with @DualTriode if he was referencing frequency response at your eardrum, there's nothing else really! (I thought he was mainly talking about measured frequency response at eardrum of dummy head, which is not the same thing.)

Yes, but the statement that the frequency response at your eardrum entails everything is trivial. It also entails all phase information, soundstage whatever. But how did it get there and how exactly it was caused is not elucidated. So it is basically saying nothing.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yes, but the statement that the frequency response at your eardrum entails everything is trivial. It also entails all phase information, soundstage whatever. But how did it get there and how exactly it was caused is not elucidated. So it is basically saying nothing.

I agree that some headphones have different/bigger soundstages than others, and we don't quite know why. Ultimately though it will relate to the actual frequency response you receive at your own eardrum, but that doesn't mean we know what determines the soundstage mechanism in headphone design. (I think we're saying the same thing).

 

[dontpokethebear]

Any news of this research in a finished product? I tried spatial audio from Apple (but on a non-Apple IEM) with no positive effect. I also bought a 5.1 and a 7.1 dongle from Aliexpress which just sound wonky. I would be very interested in anything that works. There is also this SX-Fi dongle from Creative, but I haven't heard anything enthusiastic either. So is there anything to recommand (except the over expensive Smyth realizer) ?

​

I am also looking for a recommendation lol. Seems like the only two options on the market are Apple Airpods Pro/Max with an Apple device or the jvc xp-ext1 (which requires HDMI input like the A16).

Ironically Apple seems like the better deal here as you can eventually upgrade when better headphones eventually release and it's possible to play UHD discs with Make MKV on MacOS, plus players like Infuse can play any local file you have. The JVC is like a perfect insert into a home theater situation but who knows if the headphones sound any good or if you'll ever be able to replace or upgrade them, plus they won't be portable at all. I'm really considering getting Airpods Max and selling my laptop for a Macbook Pro to use as a personal UHD cinema station. If the A16 were currently available I'd go for that (even though it's wired only) but currently Apple is the only one offering something worth buying.

 

[DualTriode]

Ever notice how most everything here at Audio Science Review is focused on maximizing the performance of individual components, even when evaluating speakers it is one audiophile speaker at a time.

If you look at the automobile in-cabin audio research or AR research it is about maximizing the experience rather than maximizing the price that the consumer will pay for the most perfect DAC.

After a optimized/minimized level of performance is determined Ford or BMW is not going to put more cost into a in-cabin audio system. How many bands of equalization is enough? Do we expect to see Purifi Ultra Low Distortion drivers or drivers that cost 20% of the price that deliver 90% of the performance?

Apple does pretty descent with 3D audio effects in their AR headsets without $4000 Clark audiophile headphones. Just sayin.

Confessions of a driveway audiophile:
I some times pull up into the driveway and sit there to enjoy music played blue-tooth through my LG cell phone into my Harman in-cabin sound system in my car. Meanwhile the Purify ULD drivers + Satori Be tweeters sit silent upstairs in the house.

Thanks DT

 

[solderdude]

In what is this related to the HD800S ?

 

[DualTriode]

In what is this related to the HD800S ?

Hello All,

With all this talk about DSP being added to provide space or soundstage or whatever you want to call it I can assure you that Apple does not use Sennheiser HD800S' to get there.

Some lesser headphones will do the job nicely.

Thanks DT

 

[Theoldfella]

First headphones at 12 years of age, now nearly 83 years old. Ive had £5 to £3500 head/earphones, including HD800/HiFimanHE1000 etc., now sold all my expensive stuff, and thought that's it, BUT Temped by RME ADI2FS Mk2 with Senn HD 800S. Will I, WontI?. For once, I haven't jumped immediately. Does it never end?.

 

[MacClintock]

First headphones at 12 years of age, now nearly 83 years old. Ive had £5 to £3500 head/earphones, including HD800/HiFimanHE1000 etc., now sold all my expensive stuff, and thought that's it, BUT Temped by RME ADI2FS Mk2 with Senn HD 800S. Will I, WontI?. For once, I haven't jumped immediately. Does it never end?.

The HD 800 (S) is great and worth it. But you don't need the RME for it, if you have a laptop, a balanced cable and a good dongle will do to drive it.

 

[Theoldfella]

Many thanks for your quick reply.