Human Bass
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2018
- Messages
- 653
- Likes
- 660
Looks like it is just the hd560 marketed for studio use.
Yeah, I initially thought the earcups looked bigger on the HD400 Pro, but changed my mind in the following post when I found out the two headphones weigh identically, amoungst other similarities in the specs: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...es-for-mixing-and-mastering.28633/post-997746I don't think so, it's the same frame they used since the HD555/595.
Wich is both a good and a bad thing. It's reasonably comfortable and more solid than it looks and feels, but the plastic and glue eventually crack and fail, it doesn't last as long as the more expensive HD 600 family.*
Wich is fine for the cheaper entries in that series, but elaborating on my first post, 250$ is way too much for the 400 Pro. It's a 150$ headphone at best, the 560S can be had for 100€ refurbished (most appear basically new) in Sennheisers own outlet store. The HD 6XX is 220$ (175$ or so on sale) in the US and that is just a much superior headphone.
*I had a HD 555 that I suspected to be one of the earlier ones and it just started to fail despite not being used much, still had the original pads in good condition and all.
I also have an early HD 600 probably made between 1998 and 2000, and that thing has almost no wear, it will easily last another 20 years. And it's much easier to fix if something does break since it's all just clipped together.
I have the HD560s and it's very good for gaming. Ties 1st place with my K702 as a gaming headphone - EQ'd to the Harman Curve when I compared their gaming proficiencies in the past. Very good for Virtual 7.1 Surround, which I've found is related to the soundstage property of a headphone - my K702 & HD560s have the best soundstage for music and also they're best for gaming. I've found EQ'ing my headphones to a Diffuse Field Target myself (using Oratory measurements) offers the best Virtual 7.1 Surround gaming experience in terms of sound location - might be because it removes the "room simulation aspect" which is what the Harman Target does to some extent ("room simulation") - and if you think about it a virtual gaming world does not take place in a room, that's what all the DSP is for in your virtual 7.1 surround solution. But yeah, basically HD560s & HD400 look like the same headphone, and HD560s is great for gaming, so ergo the HD400 I would have thought.Wonder how it fares in gaming and if it's going to take EQ well, which could be nice for gamers, as in OTT treble for steps and shots in competitive vs more bass for games with explosions vs a consumer V for fun or mids for speech, etc. Having a neutral but EQ-able set of cans isn't bad for gaming when you play a lot of different genres or settings, sometimes for intellectual stimulation or adventures and sometimes for relaxation, and sometimes for competition and ranked play. Versatility could be a good selling point for people who don't want to or can't own several different sets for different purposes. Probably the same would appeal to people who listen to a lot of different genres of music and watch different types of movies, and probably sometimes also game. In short, could be great all-rounders especially for use with software that knows how to control its sounds and music.
We won't go too far off topic of the HD400 Pro, but I will quickly say that's gonna come down to the technical prowess of the game design / sound design within the game. For instance in the game BF1 with Virtual 7.1 Surround Sound implemented through Soundblaster then I for sure notice massive differences in how gun shots sound if you shoot in long large corridors vs small rooms vs being outside (for example), and even outside there's differences - like in this one town square on the Amiens map you hear the gun shots reverberate around all the walls in the square if you fire when in this one particular area within the square, it feels sophisticated how they've done it & modelled everything. The sound of other people's gunshots & footsteps sounds different too depending on where they are and the environment they are within. Totally awesome sound design in that game, and really great when combined with a good virtual 7.1 surround system, of which I think Soundblaster is the best (for me at least). In fact, if you want to join the discussion on Virtual 7.1 Surround, and rather than polluting this thread, then take a look here, you might find some good advice & pointers in there too: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...urround-sound-processing-in-headphones.25613/I wish they came up with some kind of dynamic stage so that it feels properly claustrophobic when you're in a dungeon cell, constrained when in a small room, larger when in something like a castle hall and totally open when outdoor, with relatively narrow but endlessly long sewers somewhere in between. Those would be great RPG headphones. Or a great piece of virtualization software, one that could handle dynamic, variable room/space sizes and types competently, always with pinpoint imaging unless it's actually supposed to be blurred due to some realistic acoustic constraints. (Realistic experience trumps advantage in singleplayer RPGs.)
This is not something Sennheiser does, their QC is much better than Hifiman and Audeze, for all the years in the hobby i have yet to get a Senn with channel imbalance or bad QCYeah, it reminds me of yields of gpu-s - where the top ones get into a Ti version (speaking of NVIDIA here) which can be pushed more in clock speeds etc. while lower quality ones end up being limited a bit and sold as a non-Ti or a lower tier of gpu.
Something similar here, basically the same headphone, but the top tier ones end up being the HD400 Pro, the less perfect ones the 560s.
In the end it depends on whether you want to roll the dice with a 560s (mine are fine, no imbalance, no return, enjoying using them very much) - and potentially returning them once or more - or just coughing up more money to get the 400 Pro - or better said, a proper 506s
We've seen quite a bit of QC issues on the 560s thread - obviously, small sample sizes so no way to generalize to the 560s in general.This is not something Sennheiser does, their QC is much better than Hifiman and Audeze, for all the years in the hobby i have yet to get a Senn with channel imbalance or bad QC
This maybe something even more insidious..
Ah, so, a 30% price premium (here in the UK) for a ****** cable... Nice... I bet QC is a bit better as well but that would mean admitting the 560s has issues.It's identical to the HD560S apart from the paint job and cable, direct from Sennheiser themselves:
We don't really know what Sennheiser are doing, we can't jump to conclusions, we don't even know if the HD400 will have better consistency (unit to unit variation & channel matching) than the HD560s - and we may never know unless someone like Oratory measures a number of them vs the HD560s (of which he's measured only 3) - you really need the same person with the same measuring methodology to do the testing on all of them in order to compare them reliably....so this data & conclusion will likely be a long time coming, even if it does come! It does look like they're mostly just remarketing the HD560s, but we don't know if it will be more consistent.We've seen quite a bit of QC issues on the 560s thread - obviously, small sample sizes so no way to generalize to the 560s in general.
It seems to be a combination of them being aware of the issue and then making the decisions to turn it into a cash grab.
That is a bit crazy, surprised to see them admit that....but it would have been found out in the end (just more units would have had to have been measured in order to work it out with confidence).It's identical to the HD560S apart from the paint job and cable, direct from Sennheiser themselves:
I wish they were as neutral as they say - those HF peaks really are noticeable and need EQ.Our engineering team validated the HD 560S as a perfect fit for pro customers as it features a very flat frequency response curve, and has a very detailed, neutral reproduction. There was no reason to change the excellent acoustics of this model.
Yup. Can't quite get why it deserves the pro name. It's not awful, but it certainly is not neutral either.I wish they were as neutral as they say - those HF peaks really are noticeable and need EQ.
I wish they were as neutral as they say - those HF peaks really are noticeable and need EQ.
There are other well-known headphones targeting mixing/mastering use cases with deliberately bright treble.
The HD 560S is not nearly as bad as others in that regard.
I'm not quite sure why. Everyone seems to like and praise proven HPs like the 600 and 650, yet, pre-EQ the 560s is closer to Harman than either of those out of the box.Sure, I guess I mainly object to them using the term "neutral" in their marketing material when they clearly aren't neutral. I took them at their word and was disappointed.
I hear what you are saying, and maybe there's a valid argument that I'm being too harsh. I guess we just have different expectations around truth in marketing materials from someone like SennheiserI'm not quite sure why. Everyone seems to like and praise proven HPs like the 600 and 650, yet, pre-EQ the 560s is closer to Harman than either of those out of the box.
For that price, with that FR, I'm completely fine for Senn to market them as neutral (and I usually nit-pick a lot). A ton of other HPs are marketed as "reference" and neutral, and all that come to mind deviate way more than the 560s.
Sure, I guess I mainly object to them using the term "neutral" in their marketing material when they clearly aren't neutral. I took them at their word and was disappointed.