Headphones

Started by Bonehelm, June 10, 2007, 02:50:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Peregrine

Anyone own the Sennheiser 650's? I've long wondered about buying them and they can be picked up for under £200 these days:

Yes, we have no bananas

Daverz

Quote from: Peregrine on January 26, 2009, 01:34:12 PM
Anyone own the Sennheiser 650's? I've long wondered about buying them and they can be picked up for under £200 these days:



I have a pair.  You really need good amplification for them to sound good.  I find them a little dark sounding, and prefer the AKG 501, though the 650 has much better bass.  You can find the successor of the AKGs, the 701, for $250 on the web.

DavidRoss

The only time I've heard the 650s they were not in my own system and were driven by the Musical Fidelity X-Can (v8, IIRC) and one of the Moon integrated CD players--quality stuff that probably did not alter the character of the sound much.  They sounded great to me but a bit lush and bottom-heavy, consistent with Daverz's report, above.  I prefer my AKG 701s, which seem more neutral with detailed and grain-free (but not coldly analytic) highs, accurately authoritative lows, and a sweet and natural midrange...but I have no doubt that I could live very happily with the 650s, had I purchased them instead!
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

George

#123
Quote from: Peregrine on January 26, 2009, 01:34:12 PM
Anyone own the Sennheiser 650's? I've long wondered about buying them and they can be picked up for under £200 these days:



I have the 580s and like the other two gentlemen who posted, I find the overall sound to be dark, with nice bass. Sennehesier is great for Rock and not so great for solo piano. There's a clear drop in frequency response in the upper frequencies that I don't like. Some of this can be compensated for by boosting the treble, but the sound still remains veiled IMO. 

I was told by many people that Sennehesier was great for classical.  ??? I suspect these people were not big piano fans.

George

Quote from: DavidRoss on January 27, 2009, 04:53:49 AM
I prefer my AKG 701s, which seem more neutral with detailed and grain-free (but not coldly analytic) highs, accurately authoritative lows, and a sweet and natural midrange...but I have no doubt that I could live very happily with the 650s, had I purchased them instead!

How are these for solo piano? Do you get a nice sparkle in the tone through them?

DavidRoss

Quote from: George on January 27, 2009, 06:50:16 AM
How are these for solo piano? Do you get a nice sparkle in the tone through them?
Well, George, they sound about as accurate as any transducer I've heard.  Except for the acoustical presence--the imaging in space--of the sound, their character otherwise is nearly indistinguishable from my Gallo Reference 3.1s.  In my experience, one would have to spend a few thousand dollars more for loudspeakers and amp to get sound quality equivalent to good cans and a modest headphone amp--and the latter also avoids all the issues with speaker setup and room acoustics!
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

George

Quote from: DavidRoss on January 27, 2009, 08:24:07 AM
Well, George, they sound about as accurate as any transducer I've heard.  Except for the acoustical presence--the imaging in space--of the sound, their character otherwise is nearly indistinguishable from my Gallo Reference 3.1s.  In my experience, one would have to spend a few thousand dollars more for loudspeakers and amp to get sound quality equivalent to good cans and a modest headphone amp--and the latter also avoids all the issues with speaker setup and room acoustics!

Thanks. I'll be sure to audition them when I have the time/money.

Peregrine

Quote from: Daverz on January 26, 2009, 11:24:26 PM
I have a pair.  You really need good amplification for them to sound good.  I find them a little dark sounding, and prefer the AKG 501, though the 650 has much better bass.  You can find the successor of the AKGs, the 701, for $250 on the web.

Quote from: DavidRoss on January 27, 2009, 04:53:49 AM
The only time I've heard the 650s they were not in my own system and were driven by the Musical Fidelity X-Can (v8, IIRC) and one of the Moon integrated CD players--quality stuff that probably did not alter the character of the sound much.  They sounded great to me but a bit lush and bottom-heavy, consistent with Daverz's report, above.  I prefer my AKG 701s, which seem more neutral with detailed and grain-free (but not coldly analytic) highs, accurately authoritative lows, and a sweet and natural midrange...but I have no doubt that I could live very happily with the 650s, had I purchased them instead!

Thanks chaps. I'll have a look around for the AKG's and perhaps get to test a pair, but looks like headphone amplification s the way forward...
Yes, we have no bananas

Peregrine

Quote from: George on January 27, 2009, 06:41:29 AM
I have the 580s and like the other two gentlemen who posted, I find the overall sound to be dark, with nice bass. Sennehesier is great for Rock and not so great for solo piano. There's a clear drop in frequency response in the upper frequencies that I don't like. Some of this can be compensated for by boosting the treble, but the sound still remains veiled IMO. 

I was told by many people that Sennehesier was great for classical.  ??? I suspect these people were not big piano fans.

I currently own some Sennheiser 570's and whilst they sound fine, I've never been that enamoured by listening on headphones. Thought that maybe an upgrade might change my opinion.
Yes, we have no bananas

George

Quote from: Peregrine on January 27, 2009, 09:30:58 AM
I currently own some Sennheiser 570's and whilst they sound fine, I've never been that enamoured by listening on headphones. Thought that maybe an upgrade might change my opinion.

I hear you. I just don't like HP. I much prefer to play music on speakers, even if that means playing the music quieter.

DavidRoss

Quote from: Peregrine on January 27, 2009, 09:30:58 AM
I currently own some Sennheiser 570's and whilst they sound fine, I've never been that enamoured by listening on headphones. Thought that maybe an upgrade might change my opinion.
IIRC, the 570s were substantially better than average but still fell a bit short of audiophile quality, even several years ago.  Though I enjoy good cans better than crappy ones or not listening at all, I much prefer loudspeakers and never chose cans if some kind of noise interference is not an issue.
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

DavidW

Quote from: George on January 27, 2009, 06:41:29 AM
I have the 580s and like the other two gentlemen who posted, I find the overall sound to be dark, with nice bass. Sennehesier is great for Rock and not so great for solo piano. There's a clear drop in frequency response in the upper frequencies that I don't like. Some of this can be compensated for by boosting the treble, but the sound still remains veiled IMO. 

I was told by many people that Sennehesier was great for classical.  ??? I suspect these people were not big piano fans.

Ah the Sennheiser veil.  The 555 and 595s don't have that veil, but the 580s for sure do.  AKGs don't have that veil, and I had the 501s but they were a bit dry.  Audio-Technica a900s don't have that veil and have a superb transparency across the whole range, and sound deep despite being closed headphones.  You might want to give them try, they also don't really need serious amping to sound good either. :)

drogulus



     Last night I threw away my old Senns and brought my old Grado SR-60s out of retirement. They have a cracked wire so I have to bend the cord a certain way to get both channels, but it's good to hear them again. I tortured them with some organ music and they sounded terrific. Unfortunately in addition to being crippled they offer no isolation, which I need, so I'll be happy to get the 280s, which should be good at reducing outside noise. If money wasn't a consideration I might be tempted by something from Denon.

     

     Here's a nice list of "bests" from Headroom:

     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Daverz

Oh, that's why the AKG 701 is relatively cheap now, there's now a 702.

DavidRoss

Quote from: Daverz on January 28, 2009, 12:29:29 PM
Oh, that's why the AKG 701 is relatively cheap now, there's now a 702.
Rats!  Guess my 701s are just junk now.
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

drogulus

#135

    My 280s have been shipped (from Nashua, N.H. it says). They should arrive in the next couple of days, meaning Sat. or Mon. Amazon really is wonderful.  :)

    Wednesday 2/4/09:

    I got my HD 280s yesterday and at the moment I don't like them. I made the mistake of spending the last week with my Grado SR 60s which no doubt prejudiced me against anything new. In time I'll adjust, but for now I'm disappointed.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Renfield

#136
Gentlemen,

Grado SR-60 vs. Grado SR-80.


Opinions? Own experiences? :)

(Amped, mind you.)


Edit: I left out the ladies are there have been none in the discussion so far, from what I've seen, not out of any deeply-ingrained sexism. :P

drogulus



    I think the 80s are harder to drive, and so you need that amp. I've never heard the 80s. The drivers are different, larger in the 80s and they are supposed to be cleaner sounding with more detail. The 60s are are not detail champions, though they sound glorious at what they do and are very easy to drive from a portable. The greater detail may make the 80s more suitable for classical music. As you see below there's not much difference in their FR.

     SR 60

     

     SR 80

     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Renfield

#138
Quote from: drogulus on February 05, 2009, 12:21:04 PM
As you see below there's not much difference in their FR.

     SR 60

     

     SR 80

     

Indeed, that's part of why I thought I'd ask.

I will be testing both before I make my call, of course. But thank you; seems like it's going to be an interesting comparison to make. :)

DavidW

Quote from: drogulus on January 30, 2009, 04:19:20 PM
    My 280s have been shipped (from Nashua, N.H. it says). They should arrive in the next couple of days, meaning Sat. or Mon. Amazon really is wonderful.  :)

    Wednesday 2/4/09:

    I got my HD 280s yesterday and at the moment I don't like them. I made the mistake of spending the last week with my Grado SR 60s which no doubt prejudiced me against anything new. In time I'll adjust, but for now I'm disappointed.

I am surprised that you liked the 60s better than the 280s! :o  The 280s are not my favorite, but they are far closer to neutral than the 60s are.